Loading...
08-17-2016 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 17, 2016 INDEX Sign Variance PZ-0119-2016 Cumberland Farms, Inc. 1. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 309.14-1-80 Sign Variance PZ-0111-2016 Cumberland Farms, Inc. 1. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 303.5-1-24 Sign Variance PZ-0114-2016 Cumberland Farms, Inc. 1. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 296.13-1-69 Area Variance PZ-0161-2016 John Dennett 2. Tax Map No. 289.10-1-23 Area Variance No. 11-2015 Maurice Combs 6. Tax Map No. 308.18-1-1 Area Variance PZ-0067-2016 Frank & Kathi Miller 12. Tax Map No. 289.6-1-35 Area Variance PZ-0199-2016 Cleverdale Ventures, LLC; Meghan Cesari 15. Tax Map No. 240.9-1-8 Area Variance PZ-0205-2016 Chris Boyd 18. Tax Map No. 240.6-1-17 Area Variance PZ-0208-2016 Annie & Kevin Dineen 22. Tax Map No. 289.17-1-46 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 17, 2016 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY MICHAEL MC CABE HARRISON FREER RONALD KUHL JAMES UNDERWOOD JOHN HENKEL LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Hello, everyone. Welcome to tonight's meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. For those of you who haven't been here before, there's some instructions in the back. It's actually quite simple here. We'll call each application up to the small table here. The applicants will sit at the table. Roy will read the application into the record or any pertinent information that needs to be read into the record. We'll ask the applicant to provide us with additional information. We'll ask the applicant some questions. We'll then have the Board ask questions. I'll do a poling of the Board after we do the public hearings and each of the applications this evening do, in fact, have public hearings scheduled for this evening. We do have some housekeeping to deal with. We'll do that as well. We'll hopefully take motions and actions on each of the applications this evening, and move forward accordingly. So the first thing we need to do is approval of meeting minutes of June 22nd APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 22, 2016 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2016, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 17th day of August, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Next is a motion to approve the meeting minutes of June 29th June 29, 2016 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 29, 2016, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 17th day of August, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-I need a motion to approve the meeting minutes of July 20th July 20, 2016 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 20, 2016, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 17th day of August, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-I need a motion to approve the last set of meeting minutes, July 27tH July 27, 2016 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2016, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 17th day of August, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: REQUEST TO FURTHER TABLE: SIGN VARIANCE PZ-0119-2016 CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC. 110 MAIN STREET SIGN VARIANCE PZ-0111-2016 CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC. 410 QUAKER ROAD SIGN VARIANCE PZ-0114-2016 CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC. 966 STATE ROUTE9 MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Staff, we have three Sign Variance further tabling motion requests. Can we do them all at once, or do you need each one done individually? MRS. MOORE-You can do them all at once, and you're going to table it to the first meeting in November, which is November 16th, and the background is that it's still going through the review process at the Town Board level. So once they get all their public hearings scheduled, then it will be going forward. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. So Mike's going to make a motion with that submission deadline in October. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE PZ-119-2016; PZ-111-2016 and PZ-114-2016, CUMBERLAND FARMS, LLC AT 110 MAIN STREET, 410 QUAKER ROAD, AND 966 STATE ROUTE 9, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Tabled to the November 16, 2016 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with the appropriate information to be submitted by the October deadline. Duly adopted this 17th day of August, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Old Business. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ-0161-2016 SEQRA TYPE II JOHN DENNETT OWNER(S) JOHN DENNETT ZONING WR LOCATION 20 JAY ROAD WEST GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE A 240 SQ. FT. +/- SINGLE STAKE DOCK AND CONSTRUCT A 349 SQ. FT. U-SHAPED DOCK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM ALLOWABLE PROPERTY LINE SETBACKS. THE TOWN REGULATION ON THIS MATTER STATES THAT THE DOCK MUST MEET A 20-FOOT SETBACK FROM AN EXTENSION OF THE PROPERTY LINE INTO THE LAKE. CROSS REF BP 90-765 RES. ALT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.88 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 289.10-1-23 SECTION 179-5-060 JASON TOMMEL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. PZ-0161-2016, John Dennett, Meeting Date: August 17, 2016 "Project Location: 20 Jay Road West Glen Lake Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove a 240 sq. ft. +/- single stake dock and construct a 349 sq. ft. (revised) U-shaped dock. Relief request from minimum allowable property line setbacks. The Town regulation on this matter states that the dock must meet a 20-foot setback from an extension of the property line into the lake. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief request from minimum allowable property line setbacks. The Town regulation on this matter states that the dock must meet a 20-foot setback from an extension of the property line into the lake. Section 179-5-060 Docks, boathouses, moorings—Waterfront Residential Zone, WR The applicant proposes the new u shaped dock will be located 13.4 ft. from the north and 4.6 ft. from the south projection where a 20 ft. setback 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. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant is replacing a stake dock with a u shaped dock. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the configuration of the parcel along the shoreline where the projected 20 ft. crosses at 12 ft. from the shore. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 15.4 ft. on the south and 6.6 ft. on the north side. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant has provided plans that show the location of the existing and revised proposed dock with the setback projections. The plans also show the dock elevation and crib locations. The applicant has indicated the dock would be similar to neighboring docks. The plans show the neighboring u-shaped dock." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome back. MR. TOMMEL-Thank you. For the record my name is Jason Tommel with Van Dusen and Steves representing the Dennett's, and as you can see we submitted a little bit of a modification from the last meeting which maintains the existing setback on the south 4.6 feet. So we shifted the U-shaped dock north, and then we put a jog in the north or west leg or arm of the dock, make it from six feet to four feet. I think both were points that we discussed at the last meeting. We're hoping that that is acceptable to the Board. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Some Board members were not here for this application the last time it was in front of us. Some are. Does anyone have any questions based on the drawing? It's a pretty straightforward application. MR. KUHL-I have none. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm going to ask Roy. Roy, could you, didn't we have letters from folks on this one? MRS. MOORE-There's a new letter in the file and a previous letter. MR. JACKOSKI-So, if there's nothing else, I'm going to open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? PAULSHAY MR. SHAY-Hi, I'm Paul Shay. I own the property with my wife Deidra to the south of the property, and we were here before you at the last meeting with all of our concerns. The only additional concerns that I have is I'm not sure I'm reading the new plans correctly. If it's my understanding that the new dock is no closer than the previous dock, I would no longer have an objection, but what I would like to ask for is what I spoke to the Board about is to make sure that the dock is built no closer than the current dock. Would it be possible to measure the distance before that dock is removed? I measured it and I believe it's 38 feet. So is it possible, so that, once it's torn out and the new one gets in, there aren't mistakes that make it go further south. MR. JACKOSKI-We understand. Okay. Any other questions? MR. SHAY-One other question for the Planner. Where it says they're leaving 13.4 feet on the north and 4.6 feet on the south, is there a reason that it couldn't go even a little further to the north? MR. JACKOSKI-Correct. Those are things we'll look for. MR. SHAY-Okay. Thank you. MR. URRICO-That was the letter that was submitted. So do you want me to read that in? MR. JACKOSKI-Sir, do we need to read the letter that you submitted? I mean, you've spoken with us. MR. SHAY-Yes, you have it on record. MR. JACKOSKI-It's in the record. All right. Any other folks in the audience who'd like to address this Board? We recognize the one letter that we've received since the last meeting. So, Board members, I'm going to poll the Board as to what your thoughts are on the matter? I'll poll the Board members who were here the last time first. I just don't remember who you all were. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 was here. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Go ahead, Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think last time the neighbor's concerns were the projection of the dock and with the boats entering and exiting the U-shape, you know, that they were going to come over the line, and I think that, you know, we had asked them to either move it to the north or build further to the north to accommodate that ingress and egress. As far as I'm concerned, I think they've met that. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. FREER-I was here. MR. JACKOSKI-Go ahead, Harrison. MR. FREER-And, yes, they have, I believe, accommodated the concerns expressed. It's a tough shape because it points straight out into the property line extension, but I think that they've made the appropriate accommodations and I would support it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Roy, were you here? MR. URRICO-1 would be in favor of the application with the changes that are made. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-Yes, I would support the application also. I'm impressed that the applicant made the changes basically that we recommended and I think that the new dock will be an improvement over the existing old dock. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-No, I have no issue. I agree with everything that's been said. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I can see they've made some adjustments and I think it won't hinder the swimming area of the Shay's next door. I'd be in favor of it, yes. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. To recap here, the southern dock portion is no closer than the projected property lines than the existing dock is at this point in time. So I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-After polling the Board, I'm going to seek a resolution. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from John Dennett. Applicant proposes to remove a 240 sq. ft. +/- single stake dock and construct a 349 sq. ft. (revised) U-shaped dock. Relief request from minimum allowable property line setbacks. The Town regulation on this matter states that the dock must meet a 20-foot setback from an extension of the property line into the lake. The applicant requests the following relief: Relief request from minimum allowable property line setbacks. The Town regulation on this matter states that the dock must meet a 20-foot setback from an extension of the property line into the lake. Section 179-5-060 Docks, boathouses, moorings —Waterfront Residential Zone, WR The applicant proposes the new u shaped dock will be located 13.4 ft. from the north and 4.6 ft. from the south projection where a 20 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 29, 2016 and Wednesday, August 17, 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 because the applicant has adjusted the dock so that it doesn't interfere with his neighbor. 2. Feasible alternatives were considered but they're limited because of small clearances in the area. 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 is, of course, self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) That the applicant will provide an as-built survey demonstrating that the southern section of the docks farthest portion out into the lake is no closer to the projected property line than the current dock is now at that point. b) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ-0161-2016, JOHN DENNETT, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 17th day of August 2016 by the following vote: MR. HENKEL-Now do we want to put a condition that there be an as built measurement taken? MR. JACKOSKI-All right. So the condition should be as follows: That the applicant will provide an as built survey demonstrating that the southern section of the docks, furthest portion out into the lake, is no closer to the projected property line than the current dock is now, at that point. That's the condition. MR. MC CABE-Okay. AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Good luck. We appreciate your time and energy. MR. TOMMEL-Thank you very much. MR. JACKOSKI-The next item, Maurice Combs. AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2015 SEQRA TYPE I — ZBA CONSENTED TO PB 3/18/2015 MAURICE 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 5-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION WITH LOT SIZES RANGING FROM 1.37 ACRES TO 2.02 ACRES. PROJECT INCLUDES A PRIVATE DRIVE WITH EASEMENTS FOR UTILITIES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS AND ROAD FRONTAGE FOR THE MDR DISTRICT. PLANNING BOARD: SUBDIVISION REVIEW REQUIRED FOR SUBDIVISION. CROSS REF SB 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, 179-4-050 MELISSA LESCAULT & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 11-2015, Maurice Combs, Meeting Date: August 17, 2016 "Project Location: 636 Corinth Road "Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes removal of existing single-family dwelling and development of a 9.24 ac parcel for a 5-lot residential subdivision with lot sizes ranging from 1.37 acres to 2.02 acres. Project includes a private drive with easements for utilities. Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements and road frontage for the MDR district. Planning Board: Subdivision review required for subdivision. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements and road frontage for the MDR district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements, The Moderate Density Residential zone requires 2 ac where Lot 1 is proposed to be 1.84 ac and Lot 3 is proposed to be 1.37 ac. Road Frontage where 100 ft. is required and lots 3, 4, and 5 are proposed to be on a private drive or 0 ft. of frontage on public road. Section 179-4-050 Frontage on public roads, Lots 1 -5 will have physical access on the private drive. Subdivision Density-183 The subdivision as proposed with a private drive is to have 8.6 ac of usable density where 10 ac is required for five lots. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The lots border the Bedford Close subdivision with lots ranging from than 1.37 ac and up to 2.02 ac for some lots. 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 applicant has provided a revise subdivision plan from 7 lots to 5 lots. The variance for lot size is for two of the five lots. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The requested relief for lot size for lot 3 where 1.37 ac is proposed and 0.63 relief is requested then for lot 1 1.84 ac is proposed and 0.16 ac relief is requested where lots are to be 2 ac. Density relief where 5 lots is proposed and 1.4 ac of relief is requested and 10 ac is required. Frontage on a public road relief is requested where all five lots are proposed to have access from a private drive. Road frontage relief is requested where lots 3,4,and 5 have 0 lot frontage and 100 ft. is required. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project will have minimal to no adverse effects or impact on the physical or environmental impacts. The show the location of the private drive, driveways, houses, and utilities where one point of access is from Corinth Rd. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created Staff comments: The applicant has revised plans from a proposed 7 lot to a 5 lot subdivision with a private drive onto Corinth Road. The applicant is requesting relief to create lots less than 2 acres. The zoning code requires lots in this zone to be a minimum of 2 acres if not connected to town sewer and water. The parcels are proposed to be connected to the Town water system and will have on-site septic systems. The plans show the proposed arrangement of each parcel in the subdivision. The applicant has received approval for a water district extension associated with the proposed project." MS. LESCAULT-Good evening. My name is Melissa Lescault. I'm here on behalf of Dennis Phillips as the attorney for our applicant. As you know present with us is Mr. Combs as well as Tom Hutchins. Obviously you're aware of the fact that we have reduced the lot size for this project from the original application of seven lots to now five lots as per your recommendation of our last Planning Board meeting. I just wanted to mention, Tom Hutchins is going to go over the engineering that has changed with this development of the project. I just wanted to reference that all the submissions that have already been provided earlier in this application still stand with respect to our argument for the variances as we've requested on this application. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MS. LESCAULT-I didn't think anyone wanted me to go through the whole thing all over again. MR. JACKOSKI-Tom knows. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. Tom Hutchins and I also will be relatively brief and not tell the whole story again. We were here May 18th, and we left with the message that the Board would like to see us reduce the number of lots, which we have done. We've also reduced the infrastructure. We've gone to a private road. This shows a five lot layout. Just for reference, the prior submission we were at this layout. Now we're proposing this layout. So it's pretty clear that the density is reduced considerably. Our submission also included a little less detail. We've submitted it on one sheet, and we haven't developed all of the levels of design details which we had done in the past. If we can get some support from this Board then certainly we'd develop those design details and take that to the Planning Board and the New York State Department of Health as well as the various departments that would be involved. We have reviewed our water supply concept with the Town Water Superintendent and it's acceptable to him. It is a little bit different in that we don't have the Town Highway right of way anymore to run water line in, but we are in the water district at the back of this parcel. So we'd have to get water back there. So we've set up a right of way for the water line and individual right of ways, of course. We're asking for relief for lack of road frontage on a public road for Lots Three, Four and Five. We were not asking for that in the past because we had a public road, and we're asking for relief for not accessing Lots One and Two from their public road frontage as we wish to access them off the private road and we're asking for lot size relief on just two lots, Lot Number Three and Lot Number One, which are on the northerly side of the private right of way, and with that I would turn it over to the Board for questions and Maurice, do you have anything to add? You're good? Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anything that the Board members wanted to add at this time, or can I open up the public hearing? I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? We do have one person. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN RICHARD JONES MR. JONES-Good evening. For the record, my name is Richard Jones. I reside at 33 Honey Hollow Road, which backs up to Lot Number Four on the west side of that. We'd like to thank the applicant for making some major changes to the application and the presentation that he's put together. We do have several questions. He's proposing a private drive now, and I guess my question would be how is the private drive maintained? Is there going to be a homeowners association which is taking care of drainage, utilities, plowing, maintenance, that type of thing, for that? And the second item. At the last meeting we had talked about a no cut buffer along the, what would be the back side of the properties. I see nothing at this point on that plan other than the 30 foot building setback. So I believe that's something that the residents along Brookshire Trace and myself and the Coats on the Honey Hollow side would like to see maintained if possible, and the last question, in looking at the plan, I see nothing indicated for control of stormwater, and I note the last plan was developed a lot further than what we're looking at here tonight, but we have some concerns as you know from the prior meetings because of prior stormwater issues in our development, Bedford Close. So we would like to see something addressed with regard to that. I know the last one had rain gardens on various parcels and they had a catch basin drainage system along the highway which was a public road at that time. So those are the major three items that we see and we would like to get some answers to those questions and hopefully get some of them addressed by the Board tonight as conditions of approval if this is going to be approved. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. MR. JONES-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to address this Board? Any additional written letters, Roy? MR. URRICO-No, not since the last meeting. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. The public hearing is still open. You can join us back at the table please. I'd like to, I mean, I don't know if the applicant wants to address some of those questions, but my thoughts are a lot of that is going to get covered in the Planning Board side of things more than the Zoning Board. So, you know, however the Planning Board decides to utilize our variance approvals, if we do approve it, is up to them, but it's not our purview to decide how you're going to maintain the road. Though I suspect you're going to have a homeowners association. MS. LESCAULT-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-So I'll ask Board members for comment. Jim, I'll start with you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think that they've satisfied what we asked them to do as far as five reduced from seven, and my only other concern is what was reiterated by the neighbor, and that was that the buffer on the back side, and I think you had discussed that last time also, about keeping something, a no cut zone and that 30 foot setback, or something. We could condition that on our approvals also. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, but that's at the Planning Board. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, we'd like to address that with the Planning Board. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I would agree with the Chairman, I think the stormwater issues, I think the Planning Board is going to review the complete subdivision and they'll put in all the standards that normally go on any subdivision which would apply, the stormwater as well as the wastewater. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I think that this is an improved design, and it kind of meets the criteria. I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes, I, too, want to compliment the group for taking to heart the fact that we're trying to minimize variances and that this proposal was far closer to the charge of the comprehensive plan and the zoning in that area. So I support it. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I liked the project before. It was a nicer looking project. I accept this one, but I definitely accepted the other one, too. I think they definitely know our concerns the last time. Go ahead. This is great. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I think the project now meets what we asked them to meet, and I would be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I'm impressed that the applicant made the changes that he did and I feel much more comfortable approving the variances requested this time as opposed to the last time. So I support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-We keep saying yes tonight. We're going to have to save all our noes for the end, here, guys. All right. 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 Maurice H. Combs. Applicant proposes removal of existing single-family dwelling and development of a 9.24 ac parcel for a 5-lot residential subdivision with lot sizes ranging from 1.37 acres to 2.02 acres. Project includes a private drive with easements for utilities. Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements and road frontage for the MDR district. Planning Board: Subdivision review required for subdivision. The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements and road frontage for the MDR district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements, The Moderate Density Residential zone requires 2 ac where Lot 1 is proposed to be 1.84 ac and Lot 3 is proposed to be 1.37 ac. Road Frontage is also required but we're satisfied that the private road will provide reasonable ingress and egress and that the Planning Board will make sure the road is adequate for fire vehicles to also access. Section 179-4-050 Frontage on public roads, Lots 1 -5 will have physical access on the private drive only out to the main road on Corinth Road. Subdivision Density-183 The subdivision as proposed with a private drive is to have 8.6 ac of usable density where 10 ac is required for five lots, but we're satisfied that the size of the lots on the plot keep the two acre zoning in mind. SEQR Type I —ZBA consented to PB on March 18, 2015; A public hearing was advertised and held on: April 22, 2015, August 19, 2015, October 21, 2015, March 16, 2016, May 18, 2016 , and August 17, 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 because it keeps close to the two acre zoning as recommended for this area. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered and it's been reduced from seven lots to five lots. 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. The applicant has also agreed to keep a 30 foot buffer zone on the backside of all the lots which adjoin neighboring properties in Bedford Close. This will satisfy the neighbor's concern about privacy. 5. It is the recommendation of the Zoning Board of Appeals that the Planning Board pay particular attention to whether or not they're going to require a no cut buffer zone of some sort. 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. 11-2015, MAURICE H. COMBS, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 17th day of August 2016 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-I'm sorry, you really need to go through each of the criteria that's outlined in One through Six, if you don't mind. MR. FREER-Per the Staff Notes, each one of those. MR. JACKOSKI-I do have a motion for approval. I want to note that there's been some concern whether or not we're going to enforce the 30 foot buffer on this Board. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I think we can pass it on. It's been noted by this Board, and I think as a condition of approval we can include that and the Planning Board can review, I mean, the Planning Board I think oftentimes wants to keep some kind of a separation between the different neighboring subdivisions. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. So, Jim, you want the condition of a 30 foot buffer? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. FREER-I mean, are you guys okay with that? MAURICE COMBS MR. COMBS-Yes. MS. LESCAULT-You're okay with it? MR. JACKOSKI-All right. The real question becomes the definition of a 30 foot buffer. MS. LESCAULT-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-It's immaterial. MR. HUTCHINS-We didn't show any true buffer on here. We've shown building setback, of course, and structure setbacks which we have to. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I'm not sure there are enough votes right now to get the approval with that condition, but we have a motion. Do I have a second for that motion? MR. KUHL-I'll second that motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Ron's going to second it. Is there any further discussion? That does contain the condition of a 30 foot no cut buffer. MRS. MOORE-I'm just concerned that that's a typical subdivision item, but you're going to define it as 30 feet no cut. You're that specific, you can add that as a condition. I was concerned that there wasn't a definition of a 30 foot buffer. MR. UNDERWOOD-I'll revise it to a 30 foot green space. How's that? MR. JACKOSKI-But what does that mean, Jim? MRS. MOORE-1 guess, I mean, if it was physically no cut, that's defined. That's fine, but I was concerned that there was no definition behind. That's typically handled by the Planning Board. MR. JACKOSKI-So, Jim, I'll go back. Who's definition of green space? I don't know what that means. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I think if we look at most subdivisions as they've been designed and approved by the Planning Board in Town, almost every single one of them has some kind of a community green space that surrounds and separates them from the nearest subdivision. MR. JACKOSKI-In cluster developments I agree, but this is not, there's no community access to the backs of these lots. MR. HENKEL-I don't think it's fair. We've already made these restrictions, so many restrictions on them. Now we're going to make them do that? That's up to the Planning Board, the site plan. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I'll make it, then, that our recommendation is to the Planning Board with our approval that they do some kind of a buffer zone up to 30 feet wide. How's that? MR. HUTCHINS-1 think that would sit better with me if we took it to the Planning Board with the recommendation that it be addressed at that point. MS. LESCAULT-And at that point we can actually discuss how we're going to define it. I mean, they're going to have to do a landscaping plan, so forth, with the Planning Board anyway. MR. UNDERWOOD-And they'll probably come up with something that satisfies the neighbors. MS. LESCAULT-Yes. I just don't want to have to come back here for your opinion on what your approval was. MR. JACKOSKI-I understand. I'm trying to get there. MS. LESCAULT-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-So we have a motion for approval. We are noting in the record that it is our recommendation that the Planning Board pay particular attention to whether or not they're going to require a no cut buffer zone of some sort. Is that fair? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. FREER-I second that. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Combs, thank you very much for your patience. I do greatly appreciate it. MR. COMBS-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE PZ -0067-2016 SEQRA TYPE II FRANK & KATHI MILLER AGENT(S) ETHAN P. HALL — RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) FRANK & KATHI MILLER ZONING WR LOCATION 22 NACY ROAD — WEST SHORE OF GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES AND REVISED PLANS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A (2,967 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT); (3,435 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA) SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. PROJECT INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM AND WELL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SIDELINE AND SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO, AND THE MINIMUM PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. SITE PLAN: PROJECT WITHIN 50 FT., 15% SLOPES. CROSS REF SP PZ 127-2016; BP 2014- 204 DOCK WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.31 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 289.6-1-35 SECTION 179-3-040 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ-0067-2016, Frank & Kathi Miller, Meeting Date: August 17, 2016 "Project Location: 22 Nacy Road — west shore of Glen Lake Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of existing structures and revised plans for the construction of a (2,967 sq. ft. footprint); (3,435 sq. ft. floor area) single-family dwelling. Project includes installation of new septic system and well. Relief requested from minimum sideline and shoreline setback requirements, maximum Floor Area Ratio, and the minimum permeability requirements for the WR zoning district. Site Plan: project within 50 ft., 15% slope. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum sideline and shoreline setback requirements, maximum Floor Area Ratio, and the minimum permeability requirements of the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements, The proposed home is to be located 62 ft. 10 in from the shoreline where 81 ft. is the required setback; 16 ft. 4 in from the north side and 11 ft. where a 20 ft. setback is required, permeability is proposed at 66.7 % where 75% is required; and floor area is proposed at 3,435 sq. ft. (24%) where 3,163 sq. ft. is maximum allowed (22 %). Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant proposes removal of two buildings to construct one building. 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 applicant has revised the project so the new home is located further from the shoreline and less floor area. The revised plan has changed the interior layout to allow for a storage area at the lower level that is less than 5 ft. in height. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested Shoreline 17 ft. 2 in.; North side 3 ft. 8 in., south side 9 ft., Permeability 8.3%, Floor area 2% in excess. 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 impact to the neighborhood. The applicant proposes a new septic system and well. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty is self-created. The difficulty may be considered self created. The applicant is proposing demolishing and a new build. Staff comments: The applicant has revised the plans as discussed from the previous meeting. The applicant proposes to demolish an existing home and other buildings on 0.33 ac parcel to construct a 3,435 sq. ft. —floor area home. The plans show the existing and proposed home location, elevations, and floor plans. The applicants has indicated a new septic and well are to be installed as part of the project -where the new well installation disturbance is near the shoreline." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. MR. HALL-Good evening. For the record, Ethan Hall, principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture. With me tonight are Frank and Kathi Miller, the owners of the property. We were before you back in May with an original proposal. There are two structures on the lot right now. The intent obviously is to tear both structures down and create a year round residence for the Millers to live in. Our big issues at the time when we first proposed this was basically floor area ratio. The feeling of the Board at that point was the building was too large. We went back to the drawing board, made some significant changes to the structure itself, moved around some things on the floor plan, changed the basement plan to reduce the floor area ratio significantly. So we've knocked that down, which was the biggest issue. In doing that, and in the layout of the building, we found that if we flipped the building over it actually worked a little better. So we've now reversed the area where the sewage disposal system is going to go. We have better clearances to the proposed adjoining wells and things of that nature, and we also were able to further reduce the height. We weren't asking for a variance there to begin with, but we were able to knock it down a little more. With that. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Ethan. Any questions from Board members at this time before I open the public hearing again? MR. HENKEL-I've just got one. I notice you have some trenching around the foundation, as far as some stone to take care of some of the stormwater. There's nothing in the front towards the lakeside. Could you put one there, too, or no. MR. HALL-Well, everything sheds off from both sides. There's nothing that sheds towards the lake. MR. HENKEL-Yes, but you've still got a hard surface of patio there and that, I just thought maybe that might help out. MR. HALL-We can take a look at doing that. Sure. Everything from there forward, from the deck underneath, everything from there forward is grass and there is a fairly flat area there before we start to terrace down. It's all terraced. It doesn't really drop straight off. It's not like a slope that goes to the water. It goes out and drops down, goes out and drops down. So there's a fair amount of green space. MR. HENKEL-I just thought that would help maybe a little bit more with permeability a little bit. MR. HALL-Actually we've increased the permeability a significant amount. I mean, the trenches that we have along the side are for the permeability. That's what's grounding all of the roof water. MR. HENKEL-Understandable. MR. HALL-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions? We have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here who'd like to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one, is there any additional comment, Roy? MR. URRICO-There is none. MR. JACKOSKI-Then I'll poll the Board. Mike, I'll start with you. MR. MC CABE-I'm impressed that the applicant made changes to the original design. I was a little uncomfortable with the floor area ratio before, and I feel much better with this number. So I'll support this project. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm impressed by the application's revisions to the project and I would be in favor of the project at this point. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I'm also in favor. Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes. I echo my Board members. They've done a nice job of sort of shrinking the project so that it's not as large as it was when it was originally intended. So I support it. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-I have no issue. I support this project. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think that we've overlooked some important facts here and that is that this is a .31 acre lot, and I think when we look at the size of the footprint, the reason that it's so large is because the applicant has, as they said last time, wants everything on a single floor arrangement, and I think that if we look at the neighbors and the neighboring parcels, almost all the new ones that have been done easily accommodate two story cottages, smaller homes, you know, we still have a massive footprint here for the size of the lot. Just as a comparison, we have another project tonight, the Boyd project up on Hanneford Road which is also a .31 acre lot, and just for example, that house up there requires no variances whatsoever in regards to square footage or being over the top in its FAR or permeability on the property. That house up there has a 1,325 square foot footprint. This one has a 2,967 square foot footprint. So I think we're still looking at a house that's, much, much, much over built for the size of the lot, and I think you guys have ignored that completely, and I don't know why you're ignoring it. So I'm going to vote no on this one. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing after hearing the Board comment 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 & Kathi Miller. Applicant proposes demolition of existing structures and revised plans for the construction of a (2,967 sq. ft. footprint); (3,435 sq. ft. floor area) single- family dwelling. Project includes installation of new septic system and well. Relief requested from minimum sideline and shoreline setback requirements, maximum Floor Area Ratio, and the minimum permeability requirements for the WR zoning district. Site Plan: project within 50 ft., 15% slope. The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum sideline and shoreline setback requirements, maximum Floor Area Ratio, and the minimum permeability requirements of the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements, The proposed home is to be located 62 ft. 10 in from the shoreline where 81 ft. is the required setback; 16 ft. 4 in from the north side and 11 ft. where a 20 ft. setback is required, permeability is proposed at 66.7 % where 75% is required; and floor area is proposed at 3,435 sq. ft. (24%)where 3,163 sq. ft. is maximum allowed (22 %). SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 18, 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 because some pretty old buildings are going to be removed and a much more attractive building is going to be put in their place. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are limited because of the small size of the house. 3. The requested variance is not substantial but it's moderate. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Particularly because what we're gaining here is a much improved waste treatment facility. 5. The alleged difficulty is, of course, self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ-0067-2016 FRANK & KATHI MILLER, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 17th day of August 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Good luck. FRANK MILLER MR. MILLER-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE PZ-0199-2016 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 CLEVERDALE VENTURES, LLC, MEGHAN CESARI AGENT(S) MATT STEVES, VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) CLEVERDALE VENTURES, LLC ZONING NC LOCATION ROUTE 9L & CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 2-LOT SUBDIVISION OF THE 4.148 PARCEL INTO 1.004 ACRES AND 3.144 ACRES WHERE THE STORE AND REAL ESTATE OFFICE ARE LOCATED. THE NEW LOT LINE CAUSES THE EXISTING BUILDINGS ON BOTH LOTS TO NOT MEET THE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NC ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF SB PRELIM PZ-0197-2016; SB FINAL PZ-0198-2016; BOTH 119-2016 C/O MEGS DELI; BP 2009-319 SIGN FOR CLEVERDALE COUNTRY STORE; BP 95-682 ADDITION; BP 6213 MOVE CAMP THEN CONVERT TO OFFICE; BP 1730 SIGN; BP 98-3293 FREESTANDING SIGN WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2016 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 4.148 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.9-1-8 SECTION 179-3-040 JASON TOMMEL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ-0199-2016, Cleverdale Ventures, LLC Meghan Cesari, Meeting Date: August 17, 2016 "Project Location: Route 9L & Cleverdale Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 2-lot subdivision of the 4.148 acre parcel where the store and real-estate office are located. The new lot line causes the existing buildings on both lots to not meet the side setback requirements. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the NC zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the NC zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements, The Neighborhood Commercial zone requires a 20 ft. setback. The existing buildings a real estate office and the rear portion of the store are proposed to have a 13.5 ft. setback. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to the existing parcel configuration and the existing building locations. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 6.5 ft. for each side to the existing buildings—Real estate office and Store along the lot line. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision. The plans show the buildings to remain were parcel 1.004 ac will retain the existing real estate office and the 3.144 ac parcel will retain the store, out buildings and three cabin buildings. In addition the plans show an easement that will remain from the 1.004 ac to the 3.144 ac so the cabins have access. Also shown is the approximate area of the septic and well location." MR. URRICO-The Planning Board also met and based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was adopted on August 16th day by a unanimous vote. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Welcome. MR. TOMMEL-Thank you very much. Again, my name is Jason Tommel with Van Dusen and Steves with Dan Davies. It's a fairly straightforward application. We're just creating two lots. Putting the lot line an equidistant between the buildings is the minimum variance that we can achieve. So I guess without going through everything again, if you have any questions for us. MR. JACKOSKI-Any questions from Board members at this time before we open the public hearing? MR. FREER-Yes. Can you review when the various buildings were constructed? Roughly. DAN DAVIES MR. DAVIES-1 moved the office in 1980. Everything else was constructed in 1939. MR. TOMMEL-The existing garage was 1939 and the office, we did put an addition on the office probably 10, 12 years ago, 15 years ago. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? I'm going to open the public hearing. Is there anyone here this evening that would like to address this Board concerning this application? Come forward. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED FRANK MUNOFF MR. MUNOFF-Frank Munoff. I'm a neighbor. My property abuts the property here. I have no objections. The Cleverdale Store and Davies & Davies Real Estate have always been the best neighbors you could have. The setback doesn't really affect me whatsoever, and hope the Board approves it. That's all I've got to say. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Hopefully they'll give you some free egg sandwiches every morning. MR. MUNOFF-Yes, maybe. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? Okay, and there is no additional written comment? MR. URRICO-There is no additional written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll leave the public hearing open and I'll just ask the applicants to re-join us at the table and I will poll the Board. I will start with Mike. MR. MC CABE-It's a pretty straightforward application and I don't have any criticism against it. So I would support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I agree with Mike. It is a straightforward and I would agree with the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the project. I don't see any reason to object. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Nothing will really change in regards to the creation of the two lots. The commercial use is going to continue. So I'd agree with it. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, they're only asking for two small reliefs there. It exists now so, no, it's a great project. Go for it. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Dan, are you representing Meghan or are you representing? MR. DAVIES-I'm representing myself. I mean, Meghan is not here, but I'm representing myself. MR. FREER-So you guys are splitting the property? MR. DAVIES-Yes. She'll still own the store and we'll own the real estate office. MR. FREER-Okay. No, I support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Having polled the Board, I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion of approval, please. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Cleverdale Ventures, LLC; Meghan Cesari. Applicant proposes a 2-lot subdivision of the 4.148 acre parcel where the store and real-estate office are located. The new lot line causes the existing buildings on both lots to not meet the side setback requirements. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the NC zoning district. The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the NC zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements, The Neighborhood Commercial zone requires a 20 ft. setback. The existing buildings a real estate office and the rear portion of the store are proposed to have a 13.5 ft. setback. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 17, 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 because you're just splitting the existing lot separations on this parcel. 2. Feasible alternatives are limited and the fact that you're going down the middle makes the best sense from an alternative standpoint. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because everything has been there for a long time and there's no reason why any of the neighbors would be affected on this action. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty self-created maybe because some of the structures were probably built before there was a Neighborhood Commercial zone. 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 PZ-0199-2016, CLEVERDALE VENTURES, LLC; MEGHAN CESARI, Introduced by Harrison Freer, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 17th day of August, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations. I know it's been a long time coming. MR. DAVIES-Yes, thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE PZ-0205-2016 SEQRA TYPE II CHRIS BOYD AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY, EDP OWNER(S) BOYD FAMILY LIVING TRUST, CHRISTOPHER BOYD, TRUSTEE; BARBARA GRILE BOYD, TRUSTEE ZONING WR LOCATION 25 HANNEFORD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,325 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) SINGLE-FAMILY HOME WITH A 506 SQ. FT. OPEN DECK AND A 576 SQ. FT. ATTACHED GARAGE. TOTAL FLOOR AREA IS 2,989 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES. CROSS REF SP PZ-203-2016; BOTH 383-2015 SEPTIC ALT.; BP 89-133 REPAIR GARAGE ROOF; BP 988 YR. 1970; BP 98-045 REPAIR DOCK WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2016 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.31 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.6-1-17 SECTION 179-3-040 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ-0205-2016, Chris Boyd, Meeting Date: August 17, 2016 "Project Location: 25 Hanneford Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,325 sq. ft. (footprint) single-family home with a 506 sq. ft. open deck and a 576 sq. ft. attached garage. Total floor area is 2,989 sq. ft. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Planning Board: Site Plan Review is required for new construction within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements, The project is located in the Waterfront Residential zone where a 20 ft. side setback is required. The proposed setback on the north side of 10.7 ft. and on the south side of 17.2 ft. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the size of the home to meet the setbacks. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 9.3 ft. on the north side and 2.8 ft. on the south side. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a tear down of a single family home and detached garage 1,540 sq. ft. total. The new construction places a new home in a central location on the parcel although variances are required for side setbacks. The project is for a new 4-bedroom home 1,257 sq. ft. , deck area 508 sq. ft., attached garage 576 sq. ft., and permeable driveway and walkway of 933 sq. ft. The applicant will maintain the existing wastewater system and well as part of the project. The floor plans show the first floor for the garage, mudroom, living room, dining and kitchen area and deck areas. The second floor shows the 2 bedrooms over the living room are then a loft and bath above the garage area. There is also a mechanical area below the first floor with a note on the plans that it is not to exceed 5 ft. in height. The elevations show the views of each side and roof peak arrangements." MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board passed a recommendation that based on its limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And that project was passed by a six to zero vote. That's it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. Thank you. I'm Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design Partnership. Here with owner and applicant Chris Boyd. This is a variance application for the property at 25 Hanneford Road. Hanneford Road, as you know, parallels Pilot Knob Road. The houses sit up above on the cliff, so to speak in that area. Chris and his wife purchased this property earlier this year with the intent of doing modifications to the original structure. When he got involved in looking at it more closely, he realized that it was probably better to tear it down and re-build. Thus we're back before the, or we're here to the Board for area variances for side yard setbacks. The existing structure was a pre-existing, nonconforming structure as well. Side setback to the north side. Here we have a setback to the north and to the south that are less than the 20 foot standard. We've gone through a bit of design consideration as far as the house and changed it a couple of different times in consideration of actually impact to the neighbors, and the last change was made in an effort to work with the neighbor to the south, and I'm glad to say that I think both neighbors have written comments to support the project. So I think that the applicant worked well with the neighbors to address concerns that they may have had. The existing well and the existing wastewater system are being retained. I think the location of the existing well had a factor in terms of how this was laid out. Chris didn't want to lose that infrastructure. Well are, let's say, not productive in that area, and he's got a well that at least satisfies his needs. So we didn't want to disrupt that or have to go through that effort again to re-drill. So that had an effect on the configuration and the placement of the house, but I think another important factor is that it ends up being less impermeable area on the site with this design than what currently exists. The footprint and the driveway area, the garage area and what not all combined now end up being less square footage than what was there before. Thus there's no real requirement for stormwater management, but I would note that there are devices on the plan that would address those. I know that's not really your area but it's something we felt important to point out. There is still an effort, even though it's not required by regulation. It shows it being addressed as well. One thing I'll correct, I think from what I've heard and what I read in the Staff Notes, on the plan you'll see an outline, a little dashed area within the footprint of the foundation and it's that mechanical space within the basement I think Staff Notes indicated wouldn't be greater than five feet. What it says is that that area won't exceed 225 square feet with headroom greater than five feet. So that we stay within the floor area ratio. Chris wanted to have some mechanical space in the basement. There's going to be ledge, there is ledge there. So blasting at a minimum anyway, and it goes hand in hand with the idea of staying within the floor area ratio standard, too, which is 225 feet. So that's what that note should actually say. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any questions from Board members at this time before I open the public hearing? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I have a few. You do have that space over the garage that could be converted to a fifth bedroom, and I assume that, and you are putting in a brand new wastewater system? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. That was installed, actually, the first thing that Chris did after purchasing the property. MR. UNDERWOOD-But I mean that would accommodate that use? MR. MAC ELROY-1 want to correct you. It's not a fifth. That would be the fourth bedroom. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think that would be the fourth. Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-The house itself seems to satisfy me. It fits within the size of the small lot there and all the other ones that we've re-created on Hanneford Road there, too, and I think that the big issue there is always, you know, people want to over build and you're up on top of the bluff there. So they stick out like a sore thumb if they're over height, but this one seems to satisfy me. The side relief necessary, I mean, you're almost there to 20 feet on the 17.2 side and, you know, you're asking for about 50% relief on the other one, a little less than that. So I don't have a problem. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other questions? I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience this evening who'd like to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DIANE KAMBAR MRS. KAMBAR-Hi. We're Diane and Ken Kambar. We live to the north of this project, and we both approve highly of what he's going to do. It'll improve the house and he's going to improve the grounds around it. He did a wonderful job on his septic system and it was very, before, because I know we live next door. That's all I have to say. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-Yes. "This e-mail is intended for the public hearing phase of the above application. As the neighbor to the south at 21 Hanneford Road, I am writing to state that I have no objection to the construction of the single family home proposed by Chris Boyd on the adjacent lot immediately to the north. John H. Shafer, PE 21 Hanneford Road" You heard from the Kambars. "We, Dave and Jane Hopper, of 35 Hanneford Rd., have no objections to Mr. Boyd's project. Any improvements to our road is gratefully welcome. Sincerely, Dave & Jane Hopper" "Joseph & Jill Barone are welcoming the addition and improvements of 25 Hanneford Rd. We wish Chris Boyd the best of luck with his building endeavors." And it's also signed by, "I am in agreement as well Torren Moore, 69 Hanneford Rd." And "I am also in agreement Ann K. Storandt 63 Hanneford Rd." I don't think there's anything else on that page. "I want to endorse the home improvements Chris Boyd is doing o 25 Hanneford Rd. We look forward to the improvements. Kathleen M. Tateo 87 Hanneford Rd." And "I write in support of the Applicant Chris Boyd; PZ-025-2016. I have known Chris for ten years, and I believe that he is a conscientious and good neighbor. I think that he is honest and sincere, and his application is made with good intent. My understanding is that he has previously altered his plans after consulting with the adjoining landowners and hearing their concerns. This shows his integrity and efforts at being a good neighbor on our road. I encourage you to honor Mr. Boyd's request. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Kenis Sweet 8 Hanneford Rd." That's it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. It sounds like you've been busy with the neighbors. CHRIS BOYD MR. BOYD-1 have. MR. JACKOSKI-So at this point I'll poll the Board, and then we'll decide whether or not we're going to close the public hearing. We'll start with Roy. MR. URRICO-It sounds to me that they're doing everything the right way here. They're only minor impacts to the neighborhood, I think, and he's considered the feasible alternatives. They've taken those into account and reduced the size of the home to meet the setbacks. So the only think we're really thinking about are the side, the north side and the south side, and I think those are minimal in comparison to what it was. So I would be in favor of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I kind of wondered why it wasn't pushed three feet more and only ask one relief. I think it's a good project. I think it's an improvement. I like it. The only thing that continually concerns me is we're doing permeable pavers. Do we know what the ongoing maintenance on those? Is anybody ever going to vacuum those things or are they just going to block up and then they're going to be like asphalt. I mean, permeable pavers is a good thing. There's no doubt about it, but I mean the same way as they did the permeable asphalt on Beach Road, but if maintenance in the future is not performed on it, they'll bond up and, you know, they won't be permeable anymore, but, no, I'm in favor of the project, and you know you don't have to come out and say you have a Shop Vac and you're going to vacuum it every six months, but I think it's a consideration that should be looked at big time. I'm not trying to start a business. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes. I support the project as presented. They have sort of tried to take into account what we were asking for and they came in with minimal requests. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I'm in support of it also. It looks like their neighbors are also in support. What they're asking for, the two setbacks are very minimal. They're not going to be blocking anybody's view with the new house. So it's a good project. Go for it. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think the project achieves what we're hoping for most waterfront residential properties, that it fits the size of the lot and it's a minimum request. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I'm certainly not going to go against the neighborhood, and I support Ron's business. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. KUHL-Can I make that motion, Mr. Chairman? MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Ron, go ahead. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Chris Boyd. Applicant proposes construction of a 1,325 sq. ft. (footprint) single-family home with a 506 sq. ft. open deck and a 576 sq. ft. attached garage. Total floor area is 2,989 sq. ft. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Planning Board: Site Plan Review is required for new construction within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements, The project is located in the Waterfront Residential zone where a 20 ft. side setback is required. The proposed setback on the north side of 10.7 ft. and on the south side of 17.2 ft. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 17, 2016; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties as this project is an improvement over what was there and the neighbors are in favor of it. 2. Feasible alternatives could be limited or shifted but there would be relief required on one side if we shift it towards that. 3. The requested variance is not really substantial based on the size of the lot and the way the house is built. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. As a matter of fact it's an improvement. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-due to created but it's due to the limited size of the lot. 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 PZ-0205-2016, CHRIS BOYD, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 17th day of August, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-So, Chris, it's been 30 something years since I waited on your at the Cleverdale Store. I'm glad to see you're moving forward. MR. BOYD-So are you. Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE PZ-0208-2016 SEQRA TYPE II ANNIE & KEVIN DINEEN AGENT(S) ETHAN P. HALL — RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) ANNIE & KEVIN DINEEN ZONING WR LOCATION 149 BIRDSALL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 68 SQ. FT. MUD ROOM AND A 106 SQ. FT. OPEN PORCH ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 2,011 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME INCLUDING INTERIOR ALTERATIONS. IN ADDITION TWO DORMERS TOTALING 63 SQ. FT. ARE PROPOSED TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE SECOND STORY OF AN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE/LOFT. THE TWO DORMERS INCLUDE BATHROOM EXPANSION AND SITTING ROOM; EXISTING FAR 336 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED 399 SQ. FT. (LOFT AREA ONLY). RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. SITE PLAN: EXPANSION IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING. CROSS REF SP PZ-202-2016; SP 26-2012; AV 24-2012; AV 60-1992; SP 11- 2007; AV 29-1997; SP 37-92; BP 2013-093; BP 97-154; BP 95-295; BP 92-545; BP 92-709 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.62 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-46 SECTION 179-3-040 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ-0208-2016, Annie & Kevin Dineen, Meeting Date: August 17, 2016 "Project Location: 149 Birdsall Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of two dormers to an existing garage for bathroom expansion and sitting room. Project includes a 68 sq. ft. mudroom addition and covered porch addition to the single- family residence. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 Establishments of District Dimensional requirements. Setback relief for the new deck where 20 ft. is required and 11 ft. 8 is proposed. Relief is also requested for the proposed dormer at 14 ft. 8 in where 20 ft. is required. Permeability where 64.8 % is proposed, 65.4% is existing and 75% 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. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The project as proposed increases the deck by 100 sq. ft., allows for interior alterations for an expanded kitchen and mudroom entry, the dormers allow for expanded bathroom and sitting area. The expansion of the home at the shoreline may be considered the most visible to the site. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to minimize the size of the deck and mudroom. The construction of the dormers appears to be limited to the existing building location. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The deck addition setback relief 8.4 ft., dormer addition setback relief 5.4 ft., permeability relief is 10.2%. 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 effect to the neighborhood. The applicant has indicated the existing septic is compliant. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes improvements to the home and to the garage/loft building. The site plan information shows the existing home and a detached garage/loft area. The plans for the home show the deck area as 217.75 sq. ft. to be expanded to 324.03 sq. ft. Then a mudroom addition of 68.40 sq. ft. The mudroom addition area will also include interior alterations of the kitchen. The plans for the garage/loft building show the new dormers and the interior changes. The existing loft area is 355.8 sq. ft. and the proposed is 399.47 sq. ft. The dormer additions are 63 sq. ft. total and the floor area is increased from 366 sq. ft. to 399 sq. ft. for the loft are only. The loft area expansion will include additional room for the bathroom and sitting room area. There are no cooking facilities in the loft area." MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board, based on its limited review, did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And that motion was passed unanimously on August 16, 2016. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. MR. HALL-Good evening. For the record, Ethan Hall, principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture. With me tonight is Kevin Dineen, the owner of the property. As Roy read in, there's a small mudroom addition going on the side of the building where there is a current deck. The deck is going to be expanded out beyond that just to allow access to the front of the building. We are going to put a roof over that. The majority of the reason for that is that Annie is getting sick of Kevin coming in and dumping his shoes and stuff in the middle of the kitchen. So she wants a mudroom right on the front of the building so they can get that done. The dormer additions on the garage, the loft is existing up there. There is a three-quarter bath, but with the pitch of the roof, there's not a lot of room within there. So we were going to open up the, the dormer's going to come out just the width of the bathroom and allow for headroom within that existing three-quarter bath, and then a sitting room which would be immediately opposite the bathroom. The increase in the area up there is simply because the knee walls come down now and that's not part of the counted square footage, but when we add the dormers those will go all the way out to the outside wall and that increases the square footage of usable space within the garage. MR. JACKOSKI-Straightforward. Other questions from Board members at this time before I open the public hearing? MR. HENKEL-There's no way of getting that permeability any better? MR. HALL-We've taken up about as much blacktop as we can take up. There's really not a whole lot of, when we did the master bathroom and then the master bedroom addition, we took out an equivalent amount at that point so that we balance the permeability. The parking area is really just beside the garage. There's not a lot left over to be able to pull out. MR. HENKEL-There's a lot there by the waterfront there. MR. HALL-Most of that is all pavers out in the front. It's all stone type pavers. MR. HENKEL-And they've been vacuumed? MR. HALL-We're going to get Ron to do that. MR. KUHL-But you stated that the addition was because of sneakers? MR. HALL-Well, as you enter into the house right now, you enter directly into the kitchen, and there's nothing, I mean, you open the door and you're standing right in the middle of the kitchen. What they're really looking for is just a space where they come in, hang up coats, hang up clothes, have some cubbies and a place to sit down and take off their shoes. MR. KUHL-If I could go off the record I'd make a comment, but I won't on the record. MR. JACKOSKI-Doesn't Annie know you're supposed to be downsizing, the girls are moving out of the house? KEVIN DINEEN MR. DINEEN-Yes, that's the way it's supposed to work. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-I don't see any. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED KATHLEEN HIRSCH MRS. HIRSCH-I sent a letter in supporting the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. URRICO-I do not see a letter in here. MRS. HIRSCH-I don't have it with me. MR. JACKOSKI-But you're in support? MRS. HIRSCH-I'm in support. MR. JACKOSKI-Let it be recognized that Kathy Hirsch is in support, and I assume her husband Wally is, too? MRS. HIRSCH-Yes. I'll speak for him. MR. JACKOSKI-You always have. MRS. MOORE-It may have shown up in the Planning Board file and it just didn't get transposed to this file. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Well, we've recognized that the public has so noted that they're in support of the project. I'll leave the public hearing open and I'll poll the Board at this point. Anybody want to volunteer to go first? MR. KUHL-It's, again, you have a nice home and you want to make improvements on it. I understand that, limited by the size of the lot. It's all on the positive side. We like to keep things as small as we can, but there's nothing you can do, but be careful because with the room you're creating your mother-in-law could move in. No, I'd be in favor of this project. MR. DINEEN-And it is, actually when we built the house, we did have that in mind. We were respectful of the size of the lot and we didn't have any children at the time. We have four now. There's a lot of traffic coming in and out there. So the mudroom was something that there's just, felt like needed to come along and now, not an addition, just a re-model. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I support the project. Things are tight in there, but that's not uncharacteristic of the neighborhood. I think it'll be an improvement to the house and so therefore I'll support it. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I'm basically in support of it. The mudroom makes perfect sense to me, living on Glen Lake also, and I think the improvements you've made over the years, your house looks like it belongs on the lake. It doesn't stick out like a sore thumb. MR. DINEEN-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 would just say, though, I think that you're kind of maxed out at this point. I wouldn't come back and ask for further requests or additions because I think, you know, you're a little over the top as for the size, what you should have on the lot, but I think it's okay. MR. DINEEN-Great. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-There are other existing garages in the area that have the dormers. So that should look good there, and it's a good project. Go for it. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-I'm concerned that the permeability relief is substantial, and I say that not specifically for this project but for precedence as well. You should have known the zoning requirements when you purchased the property and permeability, especially in the waterfront district, is one that I think we need to honor ,and so when you have a permeability limitation already and then you come back and have a project that increases that issue, I have a problem with that. So I think I'm going to vote no. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the project. I'm not in favor of Ron seeking vacuuming jobs. MR. JACKOSKI-So 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 Annie & Kevin Dineen. Applicant proposes construction of two dormers to an existing garage for bathroom expansion and sitting room. Project includes a 68 sq. ft. mudroom addition and covered porch addition to the single-family residence. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the WR zoning district. The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 Establishments of District Dimensional requirements. Setback relief for the new deck where 20 ft. is required and 11 ft. 8 is proposed. Relief is also requested for the proposed dormer at 14 ft. 8 in where 20 ft. is required. Permeability where 64.8 % is proposed, 65.4% is existing and 75% is required. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 17, 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 because the new construction will enhance the appearance of the property. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not really reasonable because of the size limitations imposed here. 3. The requested variance may seem substantial, but not really when we consider it was nonconforming before this particular application. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is, of course, self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE PZ-0208-2016, ANNIE & KEVIN DINEEN, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 17th day of August, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Freer MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck. Thank you. We have one more item for this evening for the Board, and that is the discussion, whether or not there needs to be any further discussion, regarding the resolution that Staff has kindly put together for us concerning the amendment of the area, use, and sign variances, and that relates to the survey map request. So everybody's got a copy of this, I believe. Is anyone opposed to it as written? MR. MC CABE-Yes. I think they slighted Roy. They removed him as Secretary and put me. MR. JACKOSKI-We'll fix that, Staff. Is that our letterhead? It is, right? We really should have Mike as Vice Chair and Roy as Secretary. MS. HEMINGWAY-It's just an old. MR. JACKOSKI-We'll fix it, right? MS. HEMINGWAY-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Regarding content, is there anyone concerned with the content of the resolution? Seeing no one, I did meet with Craig, I did sit in his office and I went through in detail with him what we discussed, making sure we added some what if scenarios and I think it's covered in here satisfactorily. So if we could, I'd like to have someone put forth this motion for approval. MOTION TO AMEND THE AREA, USE, AND SIGN VARIANCE APPLICATIONS FOR THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AS FOLLOWS, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: 1. Effective 17 August 2016 each Area, Use, or Sign Variance application will include a survey map depicting current site conditions. A survey map shall be defined as referenced in the Code of the Town of Queensbury; Section 179-2-010; Definitions — SURVEY MAP as "a drawing made to scaled based upon survey measurements showing land boundaries, natural and man- made objects, made by or under the direction of a New York State licensed land surveyor". Further, each Area, Use or Sign Variance application will include a proposed conditions map. This map may be prepared by a Licensed Land Surveyor, Professional Engineer (Civil) or a Registered Architect with the State of New York. This proposed conditions map must be based on and make reference to the current survey map noted above. 2. Staff is directed to make changes, as needed, in the applications for an Area, Use and Sign Variance and to make public this revision as appropriate. 3. All Area and Sign variance applications that are granted must provide a final "as built" survey depicting all site conditions and improvements to verify that the granted variance was adhered to. 4. PROVISIONS FOR A WAIVER: The applicant, by way of the Zoning Administrator, may claim unique circumstances and request the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals to waive these requirements. In the event a waiver is requested, the Zoning Administrator will arrange a conference with or provide the application materials to the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Following a review of the information, the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals will render a decision, and inform the Zoning Administrator. Duly adopted this 17th day of August 2016, by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-We'll make the modification that it does note Mike McCabe as Vice Chairman and Roy Urrico as Secretary. AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Good. Thank you everyone. A motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF AUGUST 17, 2016, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 17th day of August, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman