Loading...
02-15-2017 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/15/2017) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 15, 2017 INDEX Area Variance Z-AV-8-2017 Ronald and Cynthia Mackowiak 1. Tax Map No. 289.11-1-33 Use Variance Z-UV-1-2017 New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (AT&T) 5. Tax Map No. 279.00-1-48 Area Variance Z-AV-10-2017 Mary Sotanski 9. Tax Map No. 290.10-1-6 Area Variance Z-AV-9-2017 DKC Holdings, Inc. 19. Tax Map No. 309.9-1-30 and 29 Area Variance Z-AV-11-2017 Stephen & Caryn LaFleche 22. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-29 Area Variance Z-AV-7-2017 Sharlene Morehouse 27. Tax Map No. 308.8-2-12 Area Variance Z-AV-6-2017 Michael Kaidas 29. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-50 Area Variance Z-AV-5-2017 Michael Kaidas 34. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-49 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/15/2017) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 15, 2017 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN MICHAEL MC CABE, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL JAMES UNDERWOOD MICHELLE HAYWARD, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT HARRISON FREER LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE MR. JACKOSKI-Hello, everyone. I'd like to begin this evening's meeting. Welcome. I'll call to order the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for today, Wednesday, February 15th here in the Queensbury Activities Center. For those of you who haven't been here before, it's actually quite an easy process. We do have an agenda established for this evening. We do have some housekeeping to do to begin with. All of the applications this evening are new applications, although some of them have been in front of us before as projects, and for those of you who would like an information sheet, out on the back table they are available, but basically I'll call each applicant to the table. I'll have Roy read the application into the record. We'll listen to comments from the applicants. When there's a public hearing scheduled I'll open the public hearing, take comments from the public, written or otherwise. We will then hold the public hearing open until we do a polling of the Board to see where the Board is going with the application and I move forward accordingly. So we'll start with some housekeeping. I do have a request for a motion to approve the meeting minutes of January 18th APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 18, 2017 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 18, 2017, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 15th day of February, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer MR. JACKOSKI-New Business. Ron and Cynthia Mackowiak. 9 Glen Hall Drive. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-8-2017 SEQRA TYPE II RONALD & CYNTHIA MACKOWIAK AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING - LUCAS DOBIE OWNER(S) RONALD & CYNTHIA MACKOWIAK ZONING WR LOCATION 9 GLEN HALL DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 440 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE. PROJECT IS ALSO A SECOND GARAGE AS EXISTING 290 SQ. FT. CANVAS SHED IS TO REMAIN. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FOR A SECOND GARAGE. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED AS FREESTANDING STRUCTURE IS LOCATED WITHIN 50 FT. OF SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 15 PERCENT. CROSS REF P-SP-9-2017; BOTH 376-2015 SEPTIC ALT.; BP 2015-058 DEMO MOST OF RESIDENCE; BP 2014-392 RES. ADD. & ALT. AND BASEMENT, BP 2014-029 DOCK WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.82 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-33 SECTION 179-5-020 LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RON MACKOWIAK, PRESENT 2 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/15/2017) MR. JACKOSKI-This project has been before us before in a different form. Area Variance No. Z-AV-8-2017. It is a Type II SEAR. I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record, and there is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-8-2017, Ronald & Cynthia Mackowiak, Meeting Date: February 15, 2017 "Project Location: 9 Glen Hall Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 440 sq. ft. detached garage. Project is also a second garage as existing 290 sq. ft. canvas shed is to remain. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements and for a second garage. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required as freestanding structure is located within 50 ft. of slopes that are in excess of 15 percent. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from the minimum setback requirements and for a second garage. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements, —Waterfront Residential Zone -WR Revised The new garage is to be located 5 ft. on the north and the south side and where a 20 ft. setback is required and 12 ft. on the east where a 30 ft. setback is required. Section 179-5-020 accessory structures -garage, A detached second garage is proposed, where only one garage is allowed 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. A few neighboring properties also have garages. 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 configuration of the parcel and the existing home on the site. Possible alternatives could be considered to renovate the garage storing boat items although ease of access to the home would be limited. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Where relief is requested for having two garages and only one is allowed. The setback relief would be considered substantial also where 15 ft. relief for north and south and 18 ft. from the east is requested. 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. The plans include stormwater measures gutter downspout and infiltration; also shown is a boulder wall along the north and east side of the building. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a 440 sq. ft. second garage on a 0.81 acre parcel that has an existing home. The applicant proposes to maintain the portable garage structure on the site for storage of the boat. The applicant intends to remove canvas shed as part of the project as shown on the plans. The project is also subject to site plan review due to the location of steep slopes near the site. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): 3 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/15/2017) P-SP-9-2017; SP 9-2014 garage/addition/septic; 74-2014 garage; PZ 59-2016 garage BOTH 376-2015 Septic Alt.; BP 2015-058 demo most of residence; BP 2014-392 Res. Add. & Alt. and basement; BP 2014-029 dock" MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board passed a resolution where they, 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 on February 14, 2017 by a unanimous vote. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. Welcome again. MR. DOBIE-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, Board. For the record, Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering. With me is Ron Mackowiak the landowner. As Mr. Urrico pointed out, we were here and worked through the project last June. Went through the Planning Board for the garage location as shown in yellow on the blown up map. Subsequent to that there was a right of way issue with the southerly neighbor, and at the advice of legal counsel, Mr. O'Connor, I believe the agreement now is to utilize the access to the parcel shown in red, the two red lines, as it existed in 2002, right before the Mackowiaks bought the property. So we superimposed the previous driveway location onto our map. As you can see if we utilized that 20 feet, it runs right beside the approved garage. So we took a little time, re-grouped, and re- examined the project and said well let's look at moving it east. So we moved it east 50 feet, which is actually a flatter spot, except for the easterly half of the garage will be tucked into the existing slope. So when you measure it out, I'm comfortable we can get in and dig into the slope, pour basically eight foot concrete walls along the back of the garage and half of the sides which will function as retaining walls essentially burying the garage into the side slope. A little bit of slope stabilization work and not that this road gets a lot of traffic, but it will be substantially less visible for anybody coming up Glen Hall Road and I just wanted to re-affirm that we've worked through the second garage issue last June, the canvas shed down near Hall Road, and we were able to get our approvals to maintain that for the boat storage is what it primarily serves for. Just a clarification on the record, I believe when Mr. Urrico was reading in, I believe he said six and a half feet of relief on the south side, and that is actually five feet six and a half on the southwesterly corner, but it's the controlling dimension is the five feet. I just wanted to clarify that so there's no issues in the record, and we're asking for relief of the no road frontage, three setbacks and the second garage and we'll keep it simple at that. I'd ask for your support on the project. I'd entertain any questions. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thanks, Lucas. Any questions from Board members? MR. HENKEL-That's going to stay crushed stone in front of there for the clean outs and that, in front of the garage? MR. DOBIE-Correct. We'll have a little concrete apron right at the doors and then the gravel. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you likely to encounter any difficulties with the Planning Board when they review this again because of the slopes on the back of the garage? MR. DOBIE-Correct. If we're successful tonight, we're on next Tuesday for the Planning Board to review it. MR. HENKEL-That was my suggestion the first time you guys came up and you said it was like impossible to put it there. MR. MACKOWIAK-It wasn't impossible, but it's a lot more expensive for numerous reasons. The second reason is the tanks that we had to re-locate for our septic, going to a much larger expense than before. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no other questions from Board members, I'll open the public hearing. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes, there's a letter. We just received notice that our Northerly neighbor on Glen Lake, Ron and Cindy Mackowiak (9 Glen Hall Dr.) have submitted plans to build a garage to be reviewed in a few days by the Queensbury Planning Board. Looking at the submitted plans, it appears that their property will require excavation deep into our common Easterly "hill" at our common property line. Our concern relates to the impact of their excavation. With only 5 feet between the proposed garage's Southerly wall and our property line, we assume that our 4 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/15/2017) property may be impacted by this excavation. We note plans for a retaining wall bolstering our "hill" to the East of the garage but we don't see anything to prevent dislodging of soil, rocks and growth on the South side of the garage wall (5 feet from our common line). It is hard to interrupt the slopes, but from a layman's perspective, it appears that the Mackowiak's garage requires substantial involvement into our hill. On our common street, Glen Hall Dr., the Mackowiaks are located on the highest point of our common private road. Any excavation disrupting the "top" of the road affects all of the neighbors "below". How can we be assured that there will be no negative impact to our property, especially water runoff? What is planned to stop our side of the "hill" from collapsing (at our common line) and bringing debris down into our parking area? Thanks for your time and attention, Fran and Bill Hannan" I don't have an address here. MR. MACKOWIAK-7 Glen Hall. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Is there any other written comment? MR. URRICO-That's it. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board on this particular application? Seeing no one at this point this is an Unlisted, I'm sorry, this is a Type II SEAR. I'll poll the Board. I'll just start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think the last time I think that the Board had no problems with where the previous request was going to be located, and I don't really anticipate any problems with the Board this evening, either. I think it make sense, you're moving it back further, but my big issue I think will be with the Planning Board, whether they want you to cut into the slope or cut the slope, and I think as long as you can deal with that engineering wise, they're probably going to approve you also. MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I agree with Mr. Underwood. My concern is, of course, with disruption of the hillside and that will be dealt with by the Planning Board. So I would agree with it. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I agree with the project as is. I think the other concerns the Planning Board will address. I'd be okay with the project as is. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-There's not a lot they can do because of the topography of the property. I approved of it before and I approve of it this time. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in agreement with my fellow Board members. I'm in favor of the project at this point. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll close the public hearing at this time. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anything you'd like to add? MR. MACKOWIAK-No, sir. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll seek a motion for approval. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Ronald & Cynthia Mackowiak. Applicant proposes construction of a 440 sq. ft. detached garage. Project is also a second garage as existing 290 sq. ft. canvas shed is to remain. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements and for a second garage. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required as freestanding structure is located within 50 ft. of slopes that are in excess of 15 percent. The applicant requests relief from the minimum setback requirements and for a second garage. 5 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/15/2017) Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements, —Waterfront Residential Zone -WR The new garage is to be located 5 ft. on the north and 5 ft. on the south side and where a 20 ft. setback is required and 12 ft. on the east where a 30 ft. setback is required. Section 179-5-020 accessory structures -garage, A detached second garage is proposed, where only one garage is allowed SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, February 15, 2017; 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. In fact we think some of the changes that will be made here will actually improve runoff conditions. 2. Feasible alternatives are limited. They have been considered but not really reasonable because of the topography of the lot. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. Basically the applicant has tried to provide protection for vehicles which, in the wintertime, is probably necessary in that particular area. 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 NO. Z-AV-8-2017, RONALD & CYNTHIA MACKOWIAK, Introduced by Michal McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 15th day of February 2017 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Just to clarify, the resolution, as pointed out by the applicant, there was revised information, it is five feet on the north and south setback. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you for the clarification, Staff. With that clarification, call the vote. AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer MR. DOBIE-Thank you very much. USE VARIANCE Z-UV-1-2017 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC (AT&T) AGENT(S) PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP; THOMAS F. PUCHNER, ESQ. OWNER(S) KUBRICKY CONSTRUCTION CORP. ZONING MDR LOCATION 1359 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF A 130- FOOT WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AND RELATED EQUIPMENT ON A VACANT PARCEL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM RESTRICTION FOR PLACEMENT OF A TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER IN AN MDR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF P-SP-12- 2017; UV 57-2015 EXPIRED APPROVAL; SP 55-2015 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/15/2017) OCTOBER 2015 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 9.23 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 279.00-1-48 SECTION 179-5-130C THOMAS PUCHNER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-The next item on this evening's agenda is New Cingular Wireless. Kubricky Construction as the owner of 1359 Ridge Road. Use Variance Z-UV-1-2017, an Unlisted SEAR. I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance Z-UV-1-2017, New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, Meeting Date: February 15, 2017 "Project Location: 1359 Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes installation and operation of a 130-foot wireless telecommunications facility and related equipment on a vacant parcel. Relief requested from restriction for placement of a telecommunications tower in a MDR zoning district Relief Required: Parcel will require a use variance as follows: 179-5-130 Telecommunication Towers — designated areas where relief is requested to locate the tower in a MDR zone that is not one of the allowed zones for a new cell tower location. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: The four (4) criteria usually associated with a use variance are different in this case. Verizon Wireless is consider a public utility under New York decisional law (Cellular Telephone Company v. Rosenberg, 82N.Y.2d 364(1993) and a provider of "personal wireless services" under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. As a result of these decisions, the following are to be shown by the public utility in order to gain a use variance: 1.) That the proposed improvement is a public necessity in that it is required to render safe and adequate service. The applicant has provided detail information about the gap in service of this area and the ability to place a structure with minimal impact to the surrounding area. 2.) That there are compelling reasons, economic and otherwise, for permitting the variance. The applicant has provided that service gap will be reduced by the placement of the structure and the height of the structure 3.) Where the intrusion or burden on the community is minimal, the showing required by the utility should be correspondingly reduced. The applicant has provided site evaluation materials as outlined in the code. In addition the applicant has been working with the APA with site and environmental review process. The applicant's project may be considered to be at a minimal and still provide the capacity needed for the area of coverage. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to utilize a 10,000 sq. ft. area to install a 130 ft. monopole cellular tower and associated equipment. The applicant has indicated that the area will be fenced in with a 40 x 60 ft. area and to include an equipment shelter and a generator. The site is a new cell tower and is subject to a use variance for utility usage. The application provides details of reviewing sites that have an existing tower for shared use and locating in areas that allow new towers where neither met the needs of placement of a new tower. The applicant has provided a visual analysis and gap coverage maps. The project is located in the Adirondack Park where the APA has requested the applicant add to the top of the tower a tree limb appearance. The applicant is also completing the necessary materials for NYSDEC as the project site has an existing mining permit that is subject to modification with the DEC." MR. PUCHNER-Thank you very much. Thomas Puchner, Phillips Lytle Law Firm, Albany, NY, on behalf of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC or AT&T. The piece that you read at the beginning mentioned Verizon Wireless. I think it was probably a carryover from a prior version of that. Verizon Wireless is not proposed to be on the tower at this time. It's AT&T. I just want to correct that for the record. 7 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/15/2017) MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Anything else you want to add? I mean, it's pretty much the exact same project that was in front of us before. MR. PUCHNER-Exactly the same project. In fact, visually it's improved because today it's designed to look like a pine tree, a white pine tree, from 96 feet, basically the top 34 feet, and that was requested by APA because during the visual review it can be seen from Dunham's Bay marsh. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members before I open. MR. UNDERWOOD-The only one that's going to locate on there is AT&T? MR. PUCHNER-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-In the past we've always put that as a stipulation, you know, so we don't get redundant towers. MR. PUCHNER-Yes, and I think that's part of your Code. There's probably a letter certifying they'll make it available, to the extent possible, for co-location. There's at least one spot on this tower for another applicant to be. This one is intentionally kept kind of low so that it stays within the tree line but just enough to get the coverage. So there's maybe one, maybe two, but that bottom one, the quality of the coverage that's going to provide is significantly less than where AT&T is going to be. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 don't know if anybody recalls like tower heights previously and, you know, within the Adirondack Park we had higher towers or lower than this or I don't remember myself. MR. JACKOSKI-I don't remember if they were more than 130. MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm just thinking of like sometimes if you add 10 feet on to the 130 feet, it allows you to put four different companies on there as opposed to only two or something, and I was thinking that situation comes back sometimes because if there are only two people that are co-located on the same tower, then the request will come in either for another tower or something like that. So we don't keep building more towers unnecessarily. I don't know if the Town has any kind of policy. MR. PUCHNER-Well, in this case 130 is what we got the approval previously for here. We're thankful to add it. We think it provides the coverage that's needed. One strategy some towns pursue is instead of having vertical co-location they kind of have like little tower farms, you would call them horizontal co-location. This location is not a bad place to do that, if there was a need some time in the future. It's a gravel pit. Visually it's pretty well protected. I hope that answers your question. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. URRICO-Where do you mark the tree line at? MR. PUCHNER-It's at about 96 feet. MR. URRICO-So the camouflage will be 50 feet? MR. PUCHNER-It begins right about there. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. PUCHNER-So the intent of the camouflage is there's nothing you can do to camouflage it from the entrance gate because it's right there. But it's intended to be Route 149, you know, the bay, that type of thing. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. HENKEL-You're not going to be removing any more trees or anything? MR. PUCHNER-No, it's all within the pit. In fact there's a, for 200 feet around the radius, we had to go the country club to get that from them. MR. HENKEL-Yes, because otherwise it should stay pretty hidden otherwise, if you don't cut anymore trees down. 8 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/15/2017) MR. PUCHNER-Yes, all things considered I think it's a fairly good site for a tower. MR. JACKOSKI-We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll open the public hearing. Roy, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No, there's just a Planning Board recommendation that they passed a motion that based on its limited review they did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And that was passed February 14, 2017, also by a unanimous vote. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one, at this point I'll poll the Board. Roy, I'll start at your end. MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the project. I think we've already gone over most of the specifics here. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I was wondering where this was at. I kept telling the people up on Ridge that their cell service was going to improve. So I'll have to back up my boasts and approve the project. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, it's actually a better project now with that new top of that tree looking, yes, it's a good project. Go for it. MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-No problem. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval of the SEAR, Unlisted. MRS. MOORE-It's actually a Type II because its location is within the APA and Tom just reminded me of that. MR. JACKOSKI-Are you sure? MRS. MOORE-I am sure. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. We won't do SEAR. I'll seek a motion for approval of the application. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from New Cingular Wireless, PCS, LLC (AT&T). Applicant proposes installation and operation of a 130- foot wireless telecommunications facility and related equipment on a vacant parcel. Relief requested from restriction for placement of a telecommunications tower in a MDR zoning district Parcel will require a use variances as follows: 179-5-130 Telecommunication Towers — designated areas where relief is requested to locate the tower in a MDR zone that is not one of the allowed zones for a new cell tower location. A meeting was held on February 15, 2017, and Based on the information provided to us, we find that: The four (4) criteria usually associated with a Use Variance are: 9 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/15/2017) 1.) That the proposed improvement is a public necessity in that it is required to render safe and adequate service. It is our finding that: The siting of this cell tower will improve communication in the surrounding areas. 2.) That there are compelling reasons, economic and otherwise, for permitting the variance. It is our finding that: Again, this will be an improvement to communication in our area. 3.) Where the intrusion or burden on the community is minimal, the showing required by the utility should be correspondingly reduced. It is our finding that: The utility has provided the minimum requirements that will meet their needs. Based upon our findings above, we hereby determine that the applicant [ HAS ] demonstrated that the applicable zoning regulations and restrictions have caused unnecessary hardship. [ (Note: use the following only when approving a use variance.) The Board finds that the variance under consideration is the minimum necessary and adequate to address the unnecessary hardship proven by the applicant and at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. ] Based upon all of the above, I move that this Board Approve Use Variance No. Z-UV-1-2017 New Cingular Wireless, PCS, LLC (AT&T), Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward; Duly adopted this 15th day of February, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck. MR. PUCHNER-Thank you very much. MR. JACKOSKI-You're going to do it within a year now. MR. PUCHNER-In 2017. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-10-2017 SEQRA TYPE II MARY SOTANSKI OWNER(S) MARY SOTANSKI ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 21 HILAND DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 4.87 ACRE PARCEL INTO ONE LOT OF 1.87 ACRES AND ONE LOT OF 3 ACRES TO BE RETAINED BY OWNER WITH EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NEWLY CREATED LOTS. PLANNING BOARD: SUBDIVISION REVIEW FOR TWO LOT SUBDIVISION. CROSS REF PREL. 2-2017; P-SB FINAL 3-2017; BP 2004-640 ADDITION & ALTERATIONS; BP 4049 SFD YR. 1976 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 4.87 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.10-1-6 SECTION 179-3-040 KRISTIN DARRAH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MARY SOTANSKI, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-The next item on this evening's agenda is Mary Sotanski, 21 Hiland Drive, Ward 1, Area Variance Z-AV-10-2017, a Type II SEAR, Lot Size 4.87 acres. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-10-2017, Mary Sotanski, Meeting Date: February 15, 2017 "Project Location: 21 Hiland Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a two-lot subdivision of a 4.87 acre parcel into one lot of 1.87 acres and one lot of 3 acres to be retained by owner with existing single-family residence. Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements for the newly created lots. Planning Board: Subdivision Review for two lot subdivision. Relief Required: 10 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/15/2017) The applicant request relief from minimum lot size requirements for the Rural Residential 3 ac zoning. Section 179-3-040 Establishments of District Dimensional requirements. The RR-3a zone requires 3 acres per lot. The applicant proposes to maintain an existing home on lot 1 at 3.00 ac and lot 2 at 1.87 ac. 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 has indicated the lots are similar sizes to the adjoining parcels along the same street. 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 size of the lot and the zoning requirements for development. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Where relief requested for the new lot of 1.87 ac is 1.13 ac. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may have minimal impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): P-SB Prel. 2-2017; P-SB Final 3-2017; BP 2004-640 Addition & Alterations; BP 4049 SFD yr 1976 Staff comments: The applicant proposes to maintain the existing home on the 3 ac parcel and the 1.87 ac of vacant land to be sold. The applicant is requesting from the planning board a waiver for providing information on the location of the home, septic and well for the vacant lot. The applicant has shown the proposed vacant lot has a buildable area of 7,524 sq. ft. and the 100 ft. setback requirements of the zone." MR. URRICO-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 they passed the motion on February 14, 2017 by a unanimous vote. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Welcome. If you could identify yourselves for the record. MS. DARRAH-I'm Kristin Darrah with Darrah Land Surveying. We did the surveying for Mrs. Sotanski. MRS. SOTANSKI-And I'm Mary Jane Sotanski, the owner of the property. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anything more you'd like to add at this time or just have Board members ask questions? MS. DARRAH-If you have any questions for us, we'd be glad to answer them. MR. JACKOSKI-Any Board member questions at this time before I open a public hearing? MR. HENKEL-There seems to be like quite a dip there, pit there on that one piece on that Lot Two. 11 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/15/2017) MS. DARRAH-On Lot Two. MR. HENKEL-There's a dip there. None of that's considered wetlands or? MRS. SOTANSKI-No. There is a stream that borders, if you're at the blue line, the top, there's wetlands that belong to Jon and Diane Swanson, and there's an area in there that does, it's like, they put like a Curly Q on the map to state that that was, I don't know what that is. MS. DARRAH-The subdivision of the property directly to the north identified some small pockets of what they considered wetlands. MR. HENKEL-It's hard to tell this time of year walking the property in the snow you really can't tell. So there's never been any test pits done? MS. DARRAH-No, we haven't done any soils analysis at this point. DEC does not have any indication of wetlands in this area currently. MRS. SOTANSKI-And that was done when Case Prime did his subdivision for that, his whole area lot, and there were no impacts outside of that one particular area of wetlands. MR. HENKEL-And there would be a spot to put a house without any variances? Because you do have a slope of greater than probably 15 degrees there. Right? So would there be a problem with, there'd be no variances if you tried to put a house there? I mean, no variances needed? MRS. SOTANSKI-I don't believe so. MS. DARRAH-You're talking specifically on Lot Two? MR. HENKEL-Well setbacks, because you'd need 100 feet frontage and 75 on the back. MS. DARRAH-And we've identified, there is an area that's 115 feet by about 75 feet in which you could locate a house. MR. HENKEL-To me that looks like where the hole is. No? MRS. SOTANSKI-No. MS. DARRAH-We haven't done a topographic survey. Ours was strictly a boundary survey, but the purchaser of the lot would be. MR. HENKEL-But wouldn't that be, that's kind of our concern, isn't it? To wonder if it's going to be a buildable lot or not. I mean, wouldn't we, to make it two lots, wouldn't it be our concern to say if it's? MRS. MOORE-1 mean that information does show up at the Planning Board level where the applicant has requested a waiver from locating a house, well and septic, and sometimes applicants have come back before the Board through site plan review. So that could be a condition that it come back for site plan review, but. MR. HENKEL-So if we approve this to be divided, it might not be approved, is that what you're saying? MRS. MOORE-At the subdivision level, at the Planning Board level, possibly. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MRS. SOTANSKI-I did offer the property, I did discuss offering the property to Jon Swanson at fair market value, if he just wanted the land to have the land, and I've also considered, there is a possibility, because it's three acre zoning now, possibly, and I believe it was three acre zoning because someone wanted to have a horse on ridge and they needed to have three acres to have a horse, and if they wanted to purchase this 1.87 acres as additional pasture, that would be fine too, but it could be used as a building lot. It is set so that there is the potential for a building lot to be there. So I'm basically trying to open up some options for my property and for my land because I have not been able to sell my property, and I don't want to lower the price so much that it affects my neighbors, it affects the value of their homes as well. MR. HENKEL-So you're trying to sell this house with the whole property? 12 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/15/2017) MRS. SOTANSKI-I'm trying to sell it, yes, if somebody would like to purchase the house and buy it with that extra lot, the whole lot, that would be fine with me. If they just want to purchase the lot and build on the lot, they would have to come to the Planning Board and they would have to provide the information, sketches, and their proposal at that time. MS. DARRAH-It's understood that anyone who purchases this lot and wants to put a house on it is going to have to go through the Town's process. We're simply trying to minimize the amount of land that is going with Mrs. Sotanski's house. Her house has been on the market since 2013. She's been unsuccessful in selling it. So this is an effort to offset how much she's going to need to lower the price of her house by to be able to sell it. MR. UNDERWOOD-How long have you owned the property now? MRS. SOTANSKI-We purchased the house in 1994, and in 2004 we started an addition. My husband had a severe heart attack at that time and the project didn't get finished until 2007. 2012 we discovered that his illness was terminal and we decided, we had children in Virginia, down south, and we wanted to move closer to them so that they could help me take care of my husband and then he passed away in August of 2015, and I have not been able to sell the house. I've had four actual people come to actually view the house itself. They call it an overbuilt house, a Saratoga house. It's a very hard house to sell. I am going to have, the assessment on the house is, I believe it was $459,000. I think it's $457,000, and I now have it listed at $419,000. My insurance on that house is $610,000 and that's for a total replacement of what is there now. So even before I start I'm losing $200,000. So I'm trying to open up options, trying to provide, you know, if somebody did build on that property, and properties in Queensbury, they don't sell, very, very few and far between. It's less than $400,000. So I'll be losing a lot of money. If I have this subdivision and I can sell it and somebody buys the land and puts a house on it, then you'll get the income from that property, even though you get the loss I mean, my property, you'd lose income from the taxes on my property. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members at this time? MRS. SOTANSKI-And I have tried to be a good steward. I know when the Town came through, when National Grid came through and they took down all the trees and the branches off of the wires, the wires are all on that south side of that property, and after they came through, I went through the whole property line myself, and I saw where there were many trees that if the wind blew in a certain direction the trees that were dead would fall on those lines and to be a good neighbor I've paid for myself to have someone come in and take down all the dead or leaning trees that would fall on those wires so that we would not have any loss of power in that area and that was a significant expense for me, but I wanted to be a good neighbor, and I want to be a good steward for the land. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Are there any other questions from Board members? Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll open the public hearing. Is there any written comment, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is a letter. It says, "Dear Board Members, The adjacent property owners listed below object to this subdivision application for the following reasons: 1) The proposed subdivision to create a new building lot is not consistent with the zoning and surrounding lot sizes in this area and changes the rural character of this neighborhood. 2) Restriction 6 on the deed for this property prohibits subdivision. Case Prime put this restriction on deeds in this area when they were separated out of his larger property to protect the character of this neighborhood. The same restriction applies to several of the parties below. 3) The entire Hiland Drive neighborhood including the applicant and others in the surrounding area recently agreed to change their zoning from MDR to RR-3A. We agreed to this change to protect the rural character of this neighborhood. This subdivision application violates that agreement. 4) The applicant opposed the Case Prime Subdivision, which conformed to lot size zoning. Now that the applicant has their house on the market and is planning to leave, the neighborhood is no longer a concern so they are attempting to subdivide their property to sell off a smaller nonconforming lot. 5) The applicant answered no to section E.2.h in the environmental assessment about surface water features. The survey for the Prime Subdivision (see attachment) shows this lot does have a stream and wetlands. 6) There may be more wetlands on this property as Case Prime's wetlands survey only touched the edge of this lot. 7) There are concerns about stormwater runoff to the stream from clearing this wooded lot to build given how close a house and septic would be to the wetlands. 8) The proposed lot will probably require additional variances for all of the RR-3A setbacks, creating a completely nonconforming 13 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/15/2017) island in this zone. It would be difficult to fit a house, well and septic on this lot given the stream and wetlands that are present." And there are 12 signatures on this letter. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Are there 12 signatures representing 12 properties or? AUDIENCE MEMBER-1 have copies for you if you would like a copies. MR. JACKOSKI-You said 12 signatures. Are they representing 12 properties, or? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Twelve separate properties? MR. URRICO-Twelve separate properties. AUDIENCE MEMBER-No. MR. URRICO-Well, some are on the same. So we've got 10 properties I'm counting. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Any other written comment? MR. URRICO-I do not see any other written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone else in the audience who'd like to address the Board concerning the application? I do have some folks. So if you could give up the table for a moment. ROBIN VERNAVA MRS. VERNAVA-The lady in the office told me to hand you this when you opened the hearing. So this is just a copy. MR. JACKOSKI-You can give them all to Roy. MRS. VERNAVA-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-And welcome. If you could identify yourself for the record. You don't have to repeat anything that's already been read into the record. Just so you know. MRS. VERNAVA-Okay. My name's Robin Vernava. My husband and I live at 18 Hiland Drive, created by the triangle of Rockwell, Hiland and Summit Lane, property we purchased in 1999. The proposed subdivision is across Hiland Drive from us. Hiland's neighborhood was designed to care well for its natural environment and protect our rural quality of life. We chose this neighborhood because it was not a suburban traffic, a city street on public water and sewer. It's rural quality offered, and offers still, certain benefits such as abundant trees like birch and maple and pine, wetlands, flowers, such as Queen Anne's lace, wild columbine and yellow pine lily, and various wildlife. Because of less pollution from noise and electrical lights, one can stand outside in the evening after sunset and see the stars and hear nature. How wonderful to enjoy a level of living privacy but not isolation in this neighborhood. We experience feeling safe from the random and usual traffic of persons and automobiles that is commonplace in close by city and suburbia. In as much as we affirm our neighbor, Mary Jane Sotanski receiving a high price for the sale of her house and property as the market will bear, we do not support he subdividing her property to the size proposed. To re-state our objection positively, we wish to advocate for a lot density ratio that cares for the Hiland's neighborhood's eco system and protects a rural quality of life. Mary Jane Sotanski's proposed subdivision violates this objective. It is a smaller than minimum lot size stated in our deed restrictions and smaller than the current minimum zone of three acres. If granted, this smaller than permitted lot size will set a harmful precedent, stressing and degrading the neighborhood's eco system in the following ways. With regards to polluted and degraded neighborhood water supply, there'll be diminished or stressed water supply for usage of any well; degraded or polluted water supply caused by lawn care chemicals and oil and gas from just the regular machinery, lawn mowers, things like that; too easily compromised septics from too close proximity to groundwaters and wetlands. With regards to polluted and degraded neighborhood air and habitat, clear cutting for a building site means fewer trees and fauna and flora that clean our air, displacing wildlife such as seen our on our property, broad wing hawks and pileated woodpeckers and Carolina Wrens and Minks, forcing them to manage on fewer acres and pushing them into already people occupied spaces. Clear cutting or removing trees for cash benefit, as happened this fall, as Ms. Sotanski prepared for the subdivision, causes the same degradation of habitat. All the 14 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/15/2017) stuff, with regarded to polluted neighborhood noise, all the stuff of occupying a home and making a life, including additional traffic and persons, machinery, transportation, entertainment becomes amplified by its close proximity to others. All the stuff of using this undeveloped space for off road recreation and parties and just family living increases our noise pollution as we are so close to the proposed subdivision. To quickly summarize, agreeing to this variance will set a harmful precedent stressing and degrading the rural quality of the neighborhood life in the following ways. Smaller than permitted lot with a house on the corner of Hiland and Rockwell diminishes our Adirondack scenery and shifts the feel away from private but not isolated. A smaller than permitted lot size suggests others may do so likewise, changing this rural feeling neighborhood into a suburban tract. More people in closer proximity will create, in addition to environmental stress, a diminished feeling of safety, security and privacy. The property we and Mary Jane Sotanski enjoy is a result of owning and living in just such a place as this. Expecting more than the market can bear, however much she may need it, does not justify any one of us from receiving relief for purely financial gain. Arlen and I understand our property value will diminish as a result of a smaller than permitted building lot in such close proximity to us. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Could I ask you a quick question? MRS. VERNAVA-Absolutely. MR. JACKOSKI-And I normally don't ask the public questions, but I'm going to. What would be a reasonable lot size in and around the neighborhood of three acres? Would 2.9 acres be consistent, or you hard and set fast on three acres only? MRS. VERNAVA-Well, we all signed the covenant for two acres because we hadn't been subdivided at that time, and we all wanted it to stay the way it was. So I'm not, that's not up to me to decide, but when I signed the petition for the horse farm, it was because I wanted to keep that rural experience, because on both sides of us are horse farms. So if I wanted to be in a suburban tract, I'd move into the Hiland Golf Course, not where I chose to live. So why would I want to put a small house on a tiny acre of land when all of us have to maintain a minimum of two acres? MR. JACKOSKI-Right. So what I was wondering is if the applicant chose a two and a half acre parcel, that wouldn't work? That would change the rural nature? MRS. VERNAVA-Well, when do we draw the line and say, okay, this week we're going to make it three, but if you come and come to the Board it'll be one and a half or maybe if you come again with that person it'll be two. I just think it's fair to say it's three. We've lived there with two for years, and Mary Jane never wanted to subdivide. In fact, when Case Prime wanted to subdivide, Mary Jane was our biggest advocate, and if you look at your report, or your records, she talks about her wetlands and how dare he turn them away and all of this stuff. So she was here all the time that we were here asking Case not to do that. Well, Case was allowed to do it. Now somebody else got it in their mind to do it. When does it stop? I think it's fair that we said three, that's three. It's three for me. I can't subdivide, and if she had six, she could subdivide. She does not own six, and, you know, she can't get $400,000 for her house because she bought it for $250,000. 1 want to get $400,000 for my house. I'm not going to get it. So I am not the one to make that decision, but I'm making it, I'm telling you what it feels like to me when I go out my side door and if you come down on Rockwell you'll see my woods and then a house, and why can't you just see my woods and her woods? Because that's how it was developed. MR. JACKOSKI-No, I understand. Can you tell me how many acres you own? MRS. VERNAVA-I only own 1.9, two, and a lot of us own their own two, and some of us own more. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MRS. VERNAVA-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Would anyone else like to address the Board? JON SWANSON MR. SWANSON-Hello. My name's Jon Swanson. I live with my wife Diane at 150 Rockwell Road. This is the 5.4 acre lot on the north side of the subdivision. Our lot is larger than the lot in this proposal, and like this lot, we also have a deed covenant that prohibits subdivision of any kind. There are wetlands on this property. They're obvious when we walk the border of our 15 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/16/2017) property with this property. There's a very wet area that comes out of it that is shown clearly on the Case Prime subdivision for the little bit that they happen to cover along its border. Sometimes it's running water that goes into the stream. The stream is also noted going on this property slightly on the Case Prime's survey. It's a Class A stream that I believe means it's drinking water, and I think it's a tributary of Halfway Brook. As mentioned, a couple of years ago we agreed, along with our neighbors, to change our zoning to the larger zoning, three acres, hoping that that would help preserve the character of this neighborhood and dropping off the lots like this, and we moved to this neighborhood because we liked it quiet rural nature and we hope it will stay that way. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else who'd like to address the Board? MR. URRICO-1 have one question for Staff. The three acres we're talking about here refers to the Queensbury Town law, right? We're not talking about covenants? MR. JACKOSKI-No. MR. URRICO-What is the legal situation regarding covenants within the neighborhood? MR. JACKOSKI-We have no jurisdiction whatsoever. LORRAINE STEIN MS. STEIN-Hello. My name's Lorraine Stein and I am representing my family who owns the house on 19 Summit Lane. Myself and my family own that property. MR. JACKOSKI-Which one is it on the map? MS. STEIN-It is the one at the very end of Summit. MR. JACKOSKI-Right in the middle? MS. STEIN-I'll show you. It's right here. I believe it's that one. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MS. STEIN-So this is a house I grew up in and I'm very, very familiar with the piece of property that this Sotanski's trying to subdivide. First of all I don't agree with it. I signed the petition also on behalf of my family. Again, it's three acre. It was just rezoned that two three years ago I think. My mother signed a petition to have it re-zoned to the three acres. So I would hate to see the Town just automatically, you know, now, a few years later, give somebody a variance to now, you know, to set precedent in that area to have a smaller sized lot, and being that I grew up there, that property is very wet. I've tramped through those woods all over that neighborhood my entire life growing up, and there is wetlands there. I don't believe there was any wetland delineation done. And I think that if there was, you would see that property is, Mr. Henkel, you were questioning the topography and what not, it definitely is very wet. We used to walk through there and we could barely even put our feet into, you know, like continue to step. We'd have to get on little mounds of grass just in order to walk through the property. So I can't see where that would be totally eliminated over the years. I just don't believe that that would be the case. Again, she has deed restrictions. The deed says that she shouldn't subdivide. So, to me, that should take precedent. I believe our deed says that we can, our deed, because not all the properties are exactly the same, but no property in that neighborhood is supposed to be under two acres, and again, it's now, if you allow this you would be setting precedent for that. Our deed, I believe it I look it up, it will say that we're required to have two acres, and again, it was re-zoned. MR. JACKOSKI-I understand that. How many acres do you folks have? MS. STEIN-Two acres, and we can't, again, in our deed it says that we can't subdivide, we have two acres. MR. JACKOSKI-Regrettably or unfortunately we have no control over that civil matter, but that is a civil matter. MS. STEIN-Understood, but, you know. MR. JACKOSKI-We've got to focus on Town law. 16 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/15/2017) MS. STEIN-And the Town's three acres. MR. JACKOSKI-Right. So the folks understand zoning, that's the reason this Board is here because it doesn't meet the simple requirements of the Town zone. So they have the opportunity to come back to the Board and explain why they don't have to necessarily follow that restriction. MS. STEIN-1 understand. MR. JACKOSKI-It doesn't mean that they're breaking the law. They're not breaking the law. It's just each case is different, obviously each parcel is different. So that's why I was asking the question if the majority of the properties there on Summit are two acres. MS. STEIN-Yes, they are. MR. JACKOSKI-And she had two 2 and a half acre lots, she's actually bigger than all of the lots. MS. STEIN-But the reality is it's now zoned three, and I would think that the Town would at least, before they even make some time consideration would want to know if this was a buildable lot. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Any other questions before I close the public hearing? BETH BIDWELL MRS. BIDWELL-Hi. My name is Beth Bidwell. This is my husband Brad. I would like to start out by saying I really sympathize with Mary Jane's situation. I've talked to her at length. I feel sad for her. Her situation is a sad one, but I do have to agree. We recently moved to the property at 184 Rockwell Road. We did not receive a letter because we're out of the zone, but we wanted to come and talk anyway. We just bought our property a year and a half ago. Our seller was asking beyond market value for years, and it sat and sat and finally he had to move. Mary Jane's property seems to be the same type of thing. I just wanted to say the Town of Queensbury is really, really into quality of life. That's the motto of the Recreation Department. I'm a wildlife biologist and normally I would be approaching this from the biology point of view, the stream, the runoff all this kind of thing, but that's already been covered. I'm approaching it now instead as a resident, someone who loves the area that we just moved into. We moved from an area that didn't have a lot of zoning, out in Hartford. We looked all over Queensbury and we picked our neighborhood because of the rural quality. I hear more owls and coyotes on Rockwell Road than I ever heard in Hartford, and it's because of the way the land is, the way there are forests and there are fields, and really if you went and looked at this parcel of land, it is tight, narrow and small, and to stick a house on that tiny parcel would absolutely the flow of the entire neighborhood. Our neighborhood is so special that people come from other neighborhoods to walk our neighborhood. It is the kind of place where everyone wants to be, and to take that away from not just our road, and not just Hiland and Summit and Rockwell, but also it's a wider casting. Even people from Master Commons come to walk our area because it has that quality that pulls people in, and to kind of take away from it, little bits and pieces for the benefit of one family, it's just not right in the big picture. I always say, as a conservationist, you fight on the side of conservation and you're always fighting a battle. When you're on the other side of development, you only have to fight until you win. When you're fighting on the side of conservation the battle never ends because you win one and then someone else comes along, and this so much feels like the same type of thing. So that's what I have to say. If I left anything else for Brad to say, we'll see. BRAD BIDWELL MR. BIDWELL-I was going to say a lot of stuff, but as usual I really didn't get the chance, but we did, we looked all over Queensbury. We looked down by the river. We were out by West Mountain, and we chose this parcel because of the rural quality, and when we moved in, we said to our neighbor, well, we came from the country, and our neighbor looked at us and said, you are in the country, and they're absolutely right. It does feel like the country. It does have that rural quality to it, and, you know, that's why we chose that area, and by the way, your website is fantastic. We could go on the website and we could check zoning. We could find out exactly the way that the neighborhoods were zoned and for us looking for properties that was extremely useful. It was a tool. MRS. BIDWELL-So please don't change it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. 17 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/15/2017) MR. BIDWELL-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-One more. MARCY BALLARD MRS. BALLARD-Hello. My name is Marcy Ballard and I live on 20 Howe Drive, and my lot is two, it goes the Swansons to the north and then there's mine. Besides Lorraine that's here, she's representing her family, I live in my parents' house. It was built in 1965. 1 have trampled all over that whole property and everything there, and I know that when Case Prime sold that lot to the Stratfords and they built a house on it, that was the only spot that was able to have a house built on it. That western half of that property is very, very wet, and I do not see how you could possibly put a house on that area without having, you know, five feet down and hitting groundwater, and there is the Army Corps of Engineers wetlands that are all around there, and the Town themselves are having a really hard time to fix the washout of the stream that goes between my property and the Swanson's property because it is a Class A trout stream, and so then if they're going to put a house there on that spot, all the water, you know, the wetlands with the septic, that is going to run into that little stream that runs right on their northwest corner of their property, runs right down behind the Swansons. It runs right into that Class A trout stream. So I just do not see how it could be plausible to have a house put there, let alone taking a whole area that was two acres and dropping it down to 1.7. Hate to see the precedent set there. So if that is set, what could happen to the Monahan's property that is right across the street when they want to subdivide? Are they going to drop it down to those less than two acre lots and continue all that or just do whatever they want to do there? We have, I've lived there my entire life and I just really don't want to see the quality of our life changed. I told my daughter I was going to a meeting tonight and she said why, because somebody wants to sell that property to build a house there and she's like, oh no, no, she wanted to come, but she's home doing her homework. So my kids don't want to see it. We love the area that we're in. Been there now for 52 years. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Seeing no one else interested in addressing the Board, I will leave the public hearing open and if the applicant could re-join us at the table. So after listening to public comment and before we do a polling of the Board, is there anything you'd like to address that you heard at the public comment? MS. DARRAH-Initially my client wanted to present a different configuration, but because of the minimum three acre zoning, she presented a configuration that maintains her own three acres with the house and created one nonconforming lot. She would be willing, or interested if you would entertain the idea of presenting a different configuration, taking what she has and split it in half and creating two larger lots that will be nonconforming but they would be closer to conforming with the current zoning. MS. SOTANSKI-Initially I wanted to have two, two acre lots, one, 2.93 and the other 2.2 acres, which would conform with everything that's there, but because it's three acre zoning, I was advised that it would be better for me to put in the application for the three acre zoning, and then the 1.87 as the variance lot. So that is why it came this way. MR. JACKOSKI-And could you address the wetlands matters? I mean, I know you said you didn't really do any. MS. DARRAH-We haven't looked into that yet. That's certainly something that we would be willing to do, just to put that issue to rest. I know there's a lot of concerned neighbors, but I'm not sure there's been anyone with the proper credentials to assess that lot yet. MR. JACKOSKI-Understood. I'll do a polling of the Board, I guess, at this point, and I would seek a volunteer to go first. MR. HENKEL-I'll go first. MR. JACKOSKI-Thanks, John. MR. HENKEL-With the lack of information, I think it's hard to make a determination on this. I mean I'd be definitely more at ease if it was closer to the three acres, like almost two and a half each lot, but until we have more information on that Lot Two, I can't, I would have to say no as it's presented right now. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? 18 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/15/2017) MR. MC CABE-1 took at this and just off the bat I was a little uncomfortable going from three to 1.87, and now I'm really uncomfortable hearing from the neighbors. I'm kind of in tune to having some sort of agreement in the neighborhood, and it concerns me that this project would cause such an upheaval within the neighborhood, and so based on that, I'd have to not approve this application. MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm not in favor of this project either. I'm empathetic to your situation, but based on all the evidence that we've heard tonight, I'm not compelled to say yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, the last time we visited this neighborhood I think was back in the days of Case Prime and that was a very controversial situation we ran into at the time and I think that there was adamant negativity on the part of the neighborhood for further subdivision of the parcel that he owned at the time, and it's understandable in this situation here again this evening. I think that we have to reflect upon what's happened with the zoning and the zoning has become more restrictive. It's gone from two acre to three acre, and I think that that's a reflection of what the people in the neighborhood expect and what they want, and I think we need to always look at the different areas in Town as to what they are, where they are, and we have higher density just up the road, up around the corner, you know, and it's an entirely feel to the situation but I think that as people come in and purchase property and people have long term attachment to their lands that they own, I think it's understandable that we have to do what's in the best interest of the long term ownership and the long term use of the properties up there, so at this point I would not be in favor of this. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I'm empathetic to the situation, but I'm not interested in doing defacto zoning and creating substandard, nonconforming lots in area. Once we agree to a variance of this nature, then it really opens the door to further nonconforming, substandard lots and I just think we have to be very careful when we tread in this area. So I would be against it at this point. MR. JACKOSKI-So of course you know this evening we're short a Board member. We only have six out of seven. However, we have a significant amount of no's at this point and I didn't necessarily hear the Board members, which is not really their responsibility to, but I didn't hear anybody really address whether or not two size lots, or equal sized lots would be a benefit or not. So you have the opportunity to simply ask for a vote, withdraw your application or table your application to re-group and try to re-think, work out some of the stuff with the neighborhood, if that's even possible, but at this point, hearing what the Board has suggested with the roll call, I'm kind of looking to you for suggestions as to how you would like to proceed. MS. DARRAH-Well, I guess, and I don't know if you can tell us this at this meeting or not, but as I had suggested, we had wanted to approach this with a different configuration. Would you advise that we come back with a different configuration? MR. JACKOSKI-I can't advise you that, and unfortunately, you know, normally we can grant you less relief than your application requires, but in the instance of creating two nonconforming lots, that's kind of more relief. So I can't really even guide you in that regard. MS. SOTANSKI-Which is why I went with, the suggestion I received, conform with the three acre zoning lot and then the 1.87 acre. MR. JACKOSKI-But I think that as some of the Board members have suggested, we really need to better understand the quality of the land. MR. DARRAH-If the property sold, the nonconforming lot to be sold, were conveyed without any principle building rights, would that make a difference? MR. JACKOSKI-I think we'd have to ask legal counsel that. I don't know that answer. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think you can put it into land trust or something like that. I mean, that would be your alternative. 19 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/15/2017) MR. JACKOSKI-I think I would advise you to, if you table the application and come back to us, but, I mean, if you did a boundary line adjustment, you really need to work with Staff to determine that. MS. DARRAH-Okay. We'd like to table this. MR. JACKOSKI-So I have a request from the applicant to table the application. MR. MC CABE-How long do you want to table? MS. DARRAH-If we're going to look into the wetlands question, it's probably going to be, I don't know how long we can table this. MR. MC CABE-As long as you want. MR. URRICO-May I offer a suggestion? I don't know if any of the neighbors would be willing to sit down with her and talk about what would be an acceptable situation, you know, would there be any compromise? Because I think with me, if the neighbors are behind it, I would be more inclined to be in favor of reconfiguration than if they totally oppose anything that would be presented. So that's just a suggestion. MS. SOTANSKI-And as I had mentioned I did speak with Jon Swanson and I gave him first refusal at fair market value, if he wanted to develop it it would be entirely up to him, and if he wanted to leave the land the way it is then that would be fine, too. As I have said, I want to be a good steward of the land. MS. DARRAH-Assuming we can get the wetland question cleared up fairly early in the season, I would think probably May or June. MR. JACKOSKI-So let's put it on for the June meeting with a May submission. So May would be when you would be required to re-submit. Is that all right? You can always ask for a further extension. MS. DARRAH-Right. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Mary Sotanski. Applicant proposes a two-lot subdivision of a 4.87 acre parcel into one lot of 1.87 acres and one lot of 3 acres to be retained by owner with existing single-family residence. Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements for the newly created lots. Planning Board: Subdivision Review for two lot subdivision. The applicant request relief from minimum lot size requirements for the Rural Residential 3 acre zoning. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-10-2017 MARY SOTANSKI, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Tabled until a Zoning Board of Appeals meeting in June with a submission deadline of May 15tH Duly adopted this 15th day of February, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-9-2017 SEQRA TYPE II DKC HOLDINGS, INC. AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN AND STEVES OWNER(S) DKC HOLDINGS, INC. ZONING NR LOCATION 63 ILLINOIS AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR TWO EXISTING PARCELS. PARCEL 309.9-1-30 EXISTING IS 12,000 SQ. FT. AND TO BE REDUCED TO 7,500 SQ. FT. ADJOINING PARCEL 309.9-1-29 EXISTING 3,000 SQ. FT. TO BE INCREASED TO 7,500 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR FURTHERANCE OF A NONCONFORMING LOT. CROSS REF P346 YR. 1980 MOBILE HOME WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE LOT 30: 12,000 SQ. FT.; LOT 29: 3,000 SQ. FT. TAX MAP NO. 309.9-1-30 AND 29 SECTION 179-3-040 20 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/15/2017) LARRY CLUTE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI- The next item on tonight's agenda is DKC Holdings, Van Dusen and Steves, 63 Illinois Avenue, Area Variance Z-AV-9-2017, a Type II SEAR. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-9-2017, DKC Holdings, Inc., Meeting: January 15, 2017 "Project Location: 63 Illinois Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment for two existing parcels. Parcel 309.9-1-30 existing is 12,000 sq. ft. and to be reduced to 7,500 sq. ft. Adjoining parcel 309.9-1-29 existing 3,000 sq. ft. to be increased to 7,500 sq. ft. Relief requested for furtherance of a nonconforming lot. Relief Required: The applicant request relief for furtherance of a nonconforming lot in the Neighborhood Residential Zone. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements for NR The applicant proposes a lot line adjustment to create a 7,500 sq. ft. parcel where 0.5 ac is required for lots that do not have access to sewer and water—site has access to water. 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 may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties as the lots are being adjusted for size to create lots that have enough room to place a home and utilities. 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 size of the existing parcels where one lot is becoming more conforming but both parcels will be undersized for the zoning requirements. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate. Parcel 309.9-1-30 is 12,000 sq. ft. and being reduced to 7,500 sq. ft. where 0.5 ac (21, 780 sq. ft.). Relief requested is 14,280 sq. ft. 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 lot line adjustment between two parcels where Parcel 309.9-1-30 will be reduced from 12,000 to 7,500 sq. ft. The applicant proposes to have two parcels at 7,500 sq. ft. to accommodate two new homes. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): P346 yr. 1980 mobile home" MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Clute, welcome. MR. CLUTE-Larry Clute representing DKC. Pretty self-explanatory. The lot line adjustment, as he had mentioned, doesn't allow for the two lots to conform to the zoning, but definitely puts 21 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/15/2017) the lots in line with what the neighborhood's pre-existing conditions are for the most part, and that's what they're after. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? Seeing none, is there any written comment? I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board concerning the application? Seeing no one, I'll poll the Board. I'll start with Michelle. MRS. HAYWARD-I've looked at the properties, and right now, based on what I've read, I'd be in favor of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I approve of the project. I think anything we can do in that area will improve the overall looks of the neighborhood. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, it seems like a good plan. I would be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think it's a typical Larry Clute upgrade of the neighborhood. So I would be all in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I've got to give Larry definitely a lot of credit. A lot of times he takes pieces of property that are pretty rundown and definitely makes it affordable living for people. So I'm definitely on board with this. MR. JACKOSKI-Will you soon be petitioning the Town for Clute ville? No MR. CLUTE-No. MR. HENKEL-You had your chance to buy some property on that last one. MR. JACKOSKI-Having polled the Board I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And seek a motion for approval. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from DKC Holdings, Inc. Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment for two existing parcels. Parcel 309.9- 1-30 existing is 12,000 sq. ft. and to be reduced to 7,500 sq. ft. Adjoining parcel 309.9-1-29 existing 3,000 sq. ft. to be increased to 7,500 sq. ft. Relief requested for furtherance of a nonconforming lot. The applicant request relief for furtherance of a nonconforming lot in the Neighborhood Residential Zone. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements for NR The applicant proposes a lot line adjustment to create a 7,500 sq. ft. parcel where 0.5 ac is required for lots that do not have access to sewer and water— site has access to water. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, February 15, 2017; 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 22 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/15/2017) 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. We feel that the larger lot being shrunk to 7,500 square feet and the smaller lot growing to 7,500 square feet will be better fitting with the size of the lots within the neighborhood. Plus the two dwellings that will be created will be an upgrade from the current mobile homes that are on site. 2. Feasible alternatives are to keep the property as it is, but we feel that there is something to be gained by putting those two homes on these lots. 3. The requested variance is substantial because the lots are essentially about 1/3 the size of what's requested for this zone, but we feel it reflects the other lots in the immediate area. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because it is an upgrade to the neighborhood. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created but we feel it is moving in the direction the Town wishes the neighborhood to go. 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. Z-AV-9-2017, DKC HOLDINGS, INC., Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 15th day of February 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck, Larry. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-11-2017 SEQRA TYPE 11 STEPHEN & CARYN LA FLECHE AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY, ENV. DESIGN PARTNERSHIP OWNER(S) STEPHEN 7 CARYN LA FLECHE ZONING WR LOCATION 12 WATERS EDGE DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RENOVATE A 697 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA PORTION OF THE SECOND FLOOR OF AN EXISTING HOME. THE NEW CONSTRUCTION ON THE NORTHEAST SIDE AND SHORELINE DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIRED SETBACKS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA. CROSS REF. BP 2010-553 BOATHOUSE; BP 2010-539 DEMO OF BOATHOUSE; BP 2009-135 SEPTIC ALT.; BP 2008-567 RES. ALT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2017 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.19 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-29 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-13-010 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-Next item on this evening's agenda is Dennis MacElroy with 12 Waters Edge Drive, Area Variance Z-AV-11-2017, a Type II SEAR. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-11-2017, Stephen & Caryn LaFleche, Meeting Date: February 15, 2017 "Project Location: 12 Waters Edge Description of Proposed Project: 23 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/15/2017) Applicant proposes to renovate a 697 sq. ft. floor area portion of the second floor of an existing home. The new construction on the northeast side and shoreline does not meet the required setbacks. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for expansion of a nonconforming structure in a Critical Environmental Area. Relief Required: The applicant request relief from minimum setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements The applicant proposes to renovate a second floor area of an existing home. The new construction area is to be 697 sq. ft. where proposed to be 29.5 ft. from the shoreline where a 50 ft. set back is required an 8.1 ft. from the east side property line where a 15 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 to no 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 design of the home and location on the site. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested for shoreline of 20.5 ft. and 6.9 ft. for the east property line. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: Applicant proposes to renovate the second floor of an existing home. Floor area existing on second floor is 474 sq. ft. and existing garage storage is 232 sq. ft. Proposed second floor with addition (36 +/- ft. x 5 +/- ft.) is 697 sq. ft. with removal of floor area storage above garage. The 2nd floor addition allows for 2nd floor bedroom expansion and 1st floor bedroom expansion — total 3 bedrooms. Project includes site work to install permeable pavers. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2010-553 Boathouse; BP 2010-539 Demo of Boathouse; BP 2009-135 Septic Alt.; BP 2008- 567 Res. Alt." MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board, on February 14, 2017, passed a motion which they said based on its limited review they did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was passed unanimously. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Hi, there. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I'm Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design representing Steve and Caryn LaFleche in this variance application for their property at 12 Waters Edge Drive, which is located off of Seelye Road in the Rockhurst Cleverdale area facing Warner Bay. This is a small lot with a lawful nonconforming structure, residence and the LaFleche's would like to expand the second floor of the residence and it really becomes a reallocation of living area space where it would be preferable to have that space in the second 24 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/15/2017) floor in the lake facing area. So there's a bit of a tradeoff, some of the space that currently qualifies as living space above the garage. Along with these improvements would be some site improvements, not necessarily related to the variance itself, but along with that there would be an elimination or replacement of the existing on-site wastewater system with a holding tank system that's been approved by the Board of Health already, and then a decrease in impervious area by converting some of the walkway to permeable pavers. So from an environmental standpoint there's some improvements being made in conjunction with the improvements that necessitate the variance request, but as the plan indicates, the area of expansion does not decrease the two setbacks the effect the variance request, the shoreline setback and the east, or westerly side, excuse me, it's the easterly side yard setback. They do not meet the current standards but they aren't any greater. In fact they're a bit less than what currently exists for that existing structure for where the expansion will occur on the second line. So by definition it qualifies as an expansion of a lawful nonconforming structure, but it doesn't increase the level of setback that currently exists. MR. JACKOSKI-Permeability improves? MR. MAC ELROY-Slightly. A portion of the walkway to the permeable pavers. MR. JACKOSKI-Floor Area Ratio stays the same? MR. MAC ELROY-It's ever so slightly less. The amount of space being reallocated in the front is about nine square feet less than what currently exists. MR. JACKOSKI-And how do you permanently take away the current space? MR. MAC ELROY-Through construction of some barriers, within that space that we've discussed this with Staff and that was felt to be a proper way of doing that. MR. JACKOSKI-But easily removable by a future owner? MR. MAC ELROY-Potentially. MR. UNDERWOOD-How many bedrooms currently? MR. MAC ELROY-Three. MR. UNDERWOOD-How big are they? MR. MAC ELROY-How big are the bedrooms? Square footage wise I'm not sure that I know that right offhand, but the two in the front would be, let me look on our diagram. Within the plans that Williams & Williams have provided, one bedroom is roughly 12 by 17. Another bedroom is 15 by 12 and a half, and then the master bedroom on the first floor is about 12 and a half by 15 feet 4 inches. MR. HENKEL-I was at the property on Monday and it's really kind of hard to see with the snow, but what's the concrete pad that's facing to the, say to the west side of the house? I should say that's kind of west. There's a big concrete slab here. Is that something that could be removed? STEVE LA FLECHE MR. LA FLECHE-There's a concrete walkway. MR. MAC ELROY-On the westerly side? As you're facing, as you're standing in the driveway. MR. HENKEL-Yes, it would be definitely west southwest I guess. MR. LA FLECHE-We replaced all that eight years ago when we did the original construction. MR. HENKEL-Like I said, I was there but I couldn't tell with all the snow. MR. LA FLECHE-Right. Just pebbles in there now. There used to be a dog pen in there, but the previous owner, when Chris Crandall, we had a bunch of work done when we first moved in to fix the drainage around the house because it was really, the whole underneath the house was getting destroyed and we went through, you know, the Town to get that all approved. Dave Hatin helped us figure out what we needed to do. Then we hired Chris Crandall. Tom Jarrett was our engineer. 25 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/16/2017) MR. HENKEL-So there's no concrete there at all? MR. LA FLECHE-There's no concrete at all. MR. HENKEL-Now what's connecting the slate here? Is that cement? MR. LA FLECHE-That's cement. MR. HENKEL-That was cement? MR. LA FLECHE-Yes. It's all solid. MR. HENKEL-That permeability is terrible. MR. LA FLECHE-We're going to get rid of all that. MR. HENKEL-Permeability, you're still not even close. MR. LA FLECHE-Correct. MR. MAC ELROY-And again it's a lawful nonconforming structure or lot. It's a small lot, that denominator in the equation is just small and that causes that problem with the permeability number. MR. HENKEL-There's no way of cutting that down more with that, I mean, do you really need the permeable pavers right to the dock? I mean, that's a flat area. There's no, it's all level there. I mean, that's not going to obviously help too much, but. MR. MAC ELROY-Right, and again, they're permeable pavers. MR. HENKEL-Yes, but permeable pavers, come on, I know they say they drain, but. MR. MAC ELROY-Other ways of, it's. MR. HENKEL-According to this it looks like you've got a lot of decks. You've got some extra. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, there's a deck at the entry. MR. HENKEL-Right. MR. MAC ELROY-Again, we're not, you know, it's certainly our intent, in discussions with the Town, that we certainly couldn't come here and expect to increase anything in terms of living area or permeability, and we're not. We created a design that would not increase that and in fact there's a very slight decrease in the parameters. MR. HENKEL-And you're strictly obviously going to holding tanks instead of? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct, in an effort to try to improve the environmental condition of the neighborhood. MR. HENKEL-That's fair. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll open the public hearing. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes, there are two letters. "We are the owners of the property located at 8 Seelye Road North, Queensbury, which neighbors the referenced property. We have been provided notice of the above referenced public hearings related to the proposals for modifications to the said property. Please consider this letter as evidence that we do not object to the variance and zoning requests made by Mr. and Mrs. LaFleche. The granting of the variance and proposed addition to the residence would not be detrimental or result in a negative impact to the character of the neighborhood and community. Further, the installation of holding tanks for wastewater disposal as part of the project, will result in an improvement to the neighborhood. Thank you. Very truly yours, David K. Ries Theresa M. Ries" 26 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/15/2017) "Craig, We are writing in support of the variance request by Stephen & Caryn LaFleche at 12 Waters Edge Drive. We are neighbors of the LaFleche's at 8 Waters Edge Drive, immediately to the south of their property. The project is a well-designed project that provides the LaFleches with a more livable house for their future family needs, but does so in a manner which does not worsen the already non-conforming aspects of their house. We do not believe that any of the proposed changes would have any negative consequences for the neighborhood. In fact we feel strongly that this is exactly the type of project that not only benefits the immediate neighbors, but also the lake. The LaFleches are being proactive in addressing potential septic system issues as well as reducing the amount of non-permeable surface on their property. As long time lake owners, and someone who is in the process of making significant improvements to our own property, we applaud the LaFleches on making an investment in their home that will benefit not just their own family but also all of us who care about preserving the beauty and pristine nature of Lake George. We strongly support approval of their project as proposed. Sincerely, Bob and Trish End" MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? Seeing no one, I'll leave the public hearing open and I'll seek comment from Board members. Mike? MR. MC CABE-I took a look at the property. I took a look at the proposed changes, and I don't see any big change that's being made. I think, in exchange for approving this, that we get a documented up to date septic system, and I see some other slight environmental improvements. So I'm in favor of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in agreement with Mike. I would be in favor of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm not in favor of the project. I think it severely compromises this lot. If there were no home here we would not allow anything to be built here. I think the fact that there is a house there is enough, and I think the fact that you're going on a holding tank even though it may be considered to be positive environmentally, it's not allowed by the State of New York Department of Health. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I think it's, I mean, there's a very slight improvement and they're really not adding anymore floor space. So I would be in favor of this as is. MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in favor of the project. I, too, have concern about the density of the properties, but it's preexisting. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I'll 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 Stephen & Caryn LaFleche. Applicant proposes to renovate a 697 sq. ft. floor area portion of the second floor of an existing home. The new construction on the northeast side and shoreline does not meet the required setbacks. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for expansion of a nonconforming structure in a Critical Environmental Area. The applicant request relief from minimum setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements The applicant proposes to renovate a second floor area of an existing home. The new construction area is to be 697 sq. ft. where proposed is to be 29.5 ft. from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required and 8.1 ft. from the east side property line where a 15 setback is required. SEQR Type II — no further review required; 27 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/15/2017) A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, February 15, 2017; 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 changes essentially result in the property being the same as it is now. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board but do not meet the requirements of the applicant. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. Essentially we end up with the same property that we have now. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? In fact we believe that we're improving the environmental conditions. 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 NO. Z-AV-11-2017 STEPHEN & CARYN LAFLECHE, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 15th day of February 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Underwood ABSENT: Mr. Freer MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck. Thank you. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. MR. LA FLECHE-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-7-2017 SEQRA TYPE 11 SHARLENE MOREHOUSE OWNER(S) SHARLENE MOREHOUSE ZONING MDR LOCATION 497 SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 150 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION (DINING ROOM) TO AN EXISTING 1,080 SQ. FT. HOME. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A 120 SQ. FT. PORTION OF THE DINING AREA THAT IS EXISTING AND TO BE REMOVED, THEN RECONSTRUCTED WITH A 30 SQ. FT. ADDITION, NEW FOOTPRINT — 630 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF BP 2008-313 RES. ADDITION; BP 2004-240 2-CAR DET. GARAGE; BP 95-384 ABOVE GROUND POOL; BP 89-622 ALTERATIONS; AV 53-2008 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.18 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.8-2-12 SECTION 179-3-040 WILLIAM MOREHOUSE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT MR. JACKOSKI-Next item this evening is Sharlene Morehouse, 497 Sherman Avenue, Ward 4, Area Variance Z-AV-7-2017, a Type II SEAR. I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. STAFFINPUT 28 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/15/2017) Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-7-2017, Sharlene Morehouse, Meeting Date: February 15, 2017 "Project Location: 497 Sherman Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 150 sq. ft. residential addition (dining room) to an existing 1,080 sq. ft. home. The project includes a 120 sq. ft. portion of the dining area that is existing and to be removed, then reconstructed with a 30 sq. ft. addition, new footprint — 630 sq. ft. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the MDR zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant request relief from the minimum setback requirements for the MDR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements The applicant proposes to remove an existing dining room area to construct a new dining area addition to an existing home. The single story addition is to be no closer to the property line than the original 7.8 ft. where a 25 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 has indicated the home has been through renovations. 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 as the existing home is noncompliant for setbacks. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested for setback may be considered substantial relevant to the code where 7.8 ft. is proposed and the relief is for 17.2 ft. 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 on the environmental conditions of the site or area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to remove a 120 sq. ft. dining room area and to construct a 150 sq. ft. addition. The applicant has explained the existing dining area is not able to be repaired and the new construction would include the same area and to construct 30 sq. ft. of new area. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2008-313 Res. Addition; BP 2004-240 2-car det. Garage; BP 95-384 above ground pool; BP 89-622 Alterations; AV 53-2008" MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Very straightforward application. If you could identify yourself for the record, please. MR. MOREHOUSE-William Morehouse. MR. JACKOSKI-And I assume you just want us to ask questions. Any questions from Board members? We do have 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? Seeing no one, I'll poll the Board. Roy? 29 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/15/2017) MR. URRICO-1 think it meets the test of the criteria. I would be in favor of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 see no problem. I'll support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, he's not getting any closer to the line there. So it's good. Go for it. MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-1 agree with the request. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It's a slight change. I don't even know why you're here. MR. JACKOSKI-I will 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 Sharlene Morehouse. Applicant proposes construction of a 150 sq. ft. residential addition (dining room) to an existing 1,080 sq. ft. home. The project includes a 120 sq. ft. portion of the dining area that is existing and to be removed, then reconstructed with a 30 sq. ft. addition, new footprint— 630 sq. ft. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the MDR zoning district. The applicant request relief from the minimum setback requirements for the MDR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements The applicant proposes to remove an existing dining room area to construct a new dining area addition to an existing home. The single story addition is to be no closer to the property line than the original 7.8 ft. where a 25 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, February 15, 2017; 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 essentially there's very little change from what's existing. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not reasonable. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. Essentially he's re-building an area to slightly larger than what exists now. 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; 30 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/15/2017) BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. Z-AV-7-2017, SHARLENE MOREHOUSE, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Duly adopted this 15th day of February 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck. Thank you. MR. MOREHOUSE-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-6-2017 SEQRA TYPE II MICHAEL KAIDAS OWNER(S) MICHAEL KAIDAS ZONING WR LOCATION 119 SEELYE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF 1,345 SQ. FT. WOOD FRAME HOME AND TO LEAVE THE STONE FIREPLACE. THE PROJECT INVOLVES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WITH THE ADJOINING LOT; 119 SEELYE ROAD EXISTING LOT SIZE IS 0.93 ACRES AND WILL BE REDUCED TO 0.89 ACRES. THE NEW LOT LINE PLACES THE STONE FIREPLACE ON PARCEL 227.17-1-49 (113 SEELYE ROAD) WHERE THE LOT SIZE IS 0.93 ACRES AND WILL BE INCREASED TO 0.96 ACRES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF Z-AV-5-2017 (GAZEBO AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT) WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2017 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.91 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-50 SECTION 179-3-040 MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-The next item on the agenda is Michael Kaidas, 119 Seelye Road, Ward 1, Area Variance Z-AV-6-2017, a Type II SEQR with a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-6-2017, Michael Kaidas, Meeting Date: February 15. 2017, "Project Location: 119 Seelye Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of 1,345 sq. ft. wood frame home and to leave the stone fireplace. The project involves a lot line adjustment with the adjoining lot; 119 Seelye Road existing lot size is 0.93 acres and will be reduced to 0.89 acres. The new lot line places the stone fireplace on parcel 227.17-1-49 (113 Seelye Road) where the lot size is 0.93 acres and will be increased to 0.96 acres. Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements for the WR zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant request the following relief: Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements for the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements, —Waterfront Residential Zone -WR The applicant proposes a lot line adjust so parcel 119 Seelye Rd parcel 227.17-1-50 will be reduced from 0.93 ac to 0.89 ac where 2 ac 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 lot line adjustments include a removal of an existing home that was located close to the shoreline. 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 31 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/15/2017) may be limited due to the size of the existing parcels where one lot is becoming more conforming but both parcels will be undersized for the zoning requirements. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Parcel 227.17-1-50 is 0.93 and being reduced to 0.89 where 2 ac is required. Relief requested is 1.11 ac. 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 will have minimal impact to the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes the lot line adjustment with two site improvements that include removal of a 1,345 sq. ft. camp and to construct an open sided pavilion to maintain the stone fire place. The project is part of a lot line adjustment to adjoining property that includes the construction of the open sided pavilion. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Z-AV-5-2017 (gazebo and lot line adjustment)" MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I was working hours on this presentation, but I'll save you on that and I'll abbreviate it. Mr. Kaidas bought the northerly lot in 1977. He bought the southerly lot this past year 2016. He'd like to straighten out the line between them. He would like, though, to keep the chimney fireplace that was on the southerly lot. It was built probably in 1920, and build an open-sided gazebo around it. The setbacks on that would be five feet from the boundary line at the closest point. Right now there's a structure on there that on three sides of it, the existing setback is five feet. When he does this he'll tear that down, and the improvement is if somebody builds on the southerly lot that then will be compliant with the Iakeshore setback. There's a small difference in the lot sizes. I think it's minimum. He can't do it exactly even because of the existence of the concrete driveway on the northerly lot, and that's why we need the variance. That's it. Unless you have questions. If you have questions we'd be glad to answer them. MR. JACKOSKI-Any questions from Board members? MRS. HAYWARD-So it's your plan to keep these properties separate? There's no plan to combine them and make them more? MR. O'CONNOR-No. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll open the public hearing. Seeing that there's no one left in the audience, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes, there is. "Dear Mr. Jackoski: The above referenced variance application was personally reviewed in my capacity as a licensed professional engineer and the Lake George Waterkeeper. The Waterkeeper recognizes the initial reduction in impervious coverage within the shoreline setback that is associated with the requested variance for the gazebo. However, it is our opinion the shoreline setback and the Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake George should remain in a natural condition, as the Town Code refers to in Shoreline Regulations § 179-6-050 "to protect the economic property value, aesthetic and recreational values and other natural resource values associated with all lakes....". The Lake George Waterkeeper requests the Zoning Board of Appeals apply the Town's regulations specifically § 179-14-080 Criteria for Granting an Area Variance and the consideration of Shoreline Regulations, during your deliberations regarding the above referenced variance application. There are alternatives available for the applicant other than an area variance. The proposed gazebo is located within the shoreline setback and although it is a decrease in impervious cover from existing conditions, it still creates a structure where one is not permitted within that critical environmental area. Additionally, the initial decrease in impervious cover is not guaranteed as the dwelling being removed will probably be replaced in the future on the 32 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/15/2017) adjacent lot and this gazebo will be an increase in impervious cover. There are alternatives available that include a natural patio for enjoying an outdoor fire near the lake. There will be adverse impacts to the environment from granting the shoreline variance for the proposed garage. The adoption of the shoreline setback was to protect the exceptional water quality and natural resources of Lake George and is the basis for the establishment of the Critical Environmental Area surrounding the lake. This encroachment of the impervious surfaces within the setback alters the natural resources and removes soils and vegetation within the critical area surrounding the lake, which will have environmental impacts. The Lake George Waterkeeper recommends the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals deny the requested area variance. The Lake George Waterkeeper looks forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to defend the natural resources of Lake George and its watershed. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Christopher Navitsky, PE Lake George Waterkeeper" And "I'm writing in response to the Public Hearing Notice I received on Michael Kaidas application scheduled for Wednesday February 15, 2017. My name is John Madej, my wife and I own the property at 111 Seelye Road which borders on Mr. Kaidas property. We are currently in Savannah, GA and are unable to attend the hearing scheduled for the 15th as noted above. We, however, have some concerns, they are as follows: Regarding the demolition of the house located at 119 Seelye, who will perform the actual demolition, and are they certified to perform this type of activity. The subject property is virtually on a lakefront location, and it's important to ensure that debris or toxic material does not enter the lake. Most of the people in the bay use this water for cooking, and as a source of drinking water. Is the Town/Adirondack commission going to ensure/monitor the demolition, to guarantee this does not occur. My second concern is in regard to removal of the debris created by the demolition. Will the Town of Queensbury be responsible for monitoring and ensuring proper and complete removal of all the resultant debris of this project. These are our concerns and we would appreciate a response to these issues. Thank you, John and Bette Madef MR. JACKOSKI-Would the applicant like to address any of the public comment? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I'm sorry that Chris Navitsky isn't here because I don't understand his comment. The cabin that's going to be removed is around 1380 square feet. The gazebo that's going to be built is 14 by 14, which is 196 square feet. So there's not an increase in impervious area within the lake setback. There's a significant decrease. As to the demolition, Mr. Kaidas will do the demolition himself. He's already got a demolition permit. He's talked to Dave Hatin about it. He knows he's got to build a silt fence. He's not inexperienced in the construction business. He's total demolition on some projects, Empire Theater on South Street, three or four of the Downtown stores where he's had to go in and take everything out. He knows what's involved. There shouldn't be a concern there. We had an asbestos survey and there was a small amount of asbestos that had to be removed, and all that stuff. You have to get an asbestos survey before you get a demolition permit in Queensbury. I think they have some type of order from the DEC because of the property up on Ridge Road. Any demolition in Queensbury has to have a pre-inspection and removal. This dwelling is on piers. It doesn't have a full basement or anything. That too, well, the whole building as well as the fireplace in the middle, was built probably in the 1920's. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, so I think the Waterkeeper was suggesting that because we were going to now be putting the newly built 200 approximately square foot gazebo onto Mr. Kaidas' current residential lot that technically increases the permeability, or decreases the permeability on his lot, but then. MR. O'CONNOR-There's a structure on there right now. MR. JACKOSKI-But that's on the other lot. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, okay, but it's in the neighborhood. MR. JACKOSKI-1300, and what he's suggesting is that if you build a home on the vacant lot, so to speak, of more than 1100 square feet. MR. O'CONNOR-If the home on the vacant lot is built, it will be built outside the setback. MR. JACKOSKI-Right, I agree, but I think that's what Chris was getting at. MICHAEL KAIDAS MR. KAIDAS-As a matter of fact, if you look at the plan it will show it. I have a question. I could go to the Building Department and say, well, I'd like to just build a little house right there, the replacement's there, and then leave it as a separate place. What I'm trying to do is make 33 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/15/2017) them both conforming, more conforming than they are. I mean, even the boathouse is right on the property line and we're taking 50% of that off to try to make that conform. So it just seems kind of. MR. O'CONNOR-And if you want to get into real detail, this small house that's, I think it's 14, probably 19 feet from the lake, the septic system probably isn't much more than that from the lake, because this lot has a slope to the lake, and I don't, it doesn't have a pump system. MR. KAIDAS-It pumps up but it's not a very adequate system. They approved it many years ago. MR. O'CONNOR-The other thing which we're going to do which is unrelated to what's before you, is we are going to make the dockage more conforming. We talked to Molly Gallagher at the Lake George Park Commission. He's going to take out the northerly side of the U-shaped dock and he's going to remove the boathouse cover that's on that U-shaped dock, and the U will be moved to the south, which is more conforming, which is okay, and it will probably have a boat cover on it, and the single dock that's on that will have to come out. So there's a lot of things that they're doing that's going to improve that are of the lake. MR. HENKEL-So you're saying that single dock at 119 is going to come out? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. HENKEL-Okay. So that single, I mean, you're just moving the other one, taking part of the other one off. MR. O'CONNOR-We're going to make the other one 13 feet, 13.5 feet from the extension lines into the lake, and we marked it on there. It says dock to remain. Just that one piece of that dock will remain. The rest will come out. MR. JACKOSKI-But that's not in front of us this evening. MR. O'CONNOR-No, well, I'm talking about overall environmental benefit. MR. KAIDAS-I have a question. When you read that, it sounds like he would just like us to pull the chimney down and then just, I'm just going to have like a 20 foot chimney there? MR. JACKOSKI-Anyway. So, Mike, tell me about the shoreline re-buffering. MR. O'CONNOR-We are not, I don't know, what do you have along your shoreline? MR. KAIDAS-What do you mean? MR. O'CONNOR-We presume if the southerly lot sold, they would have to come in with a landscape plan and they would take care of the buffering. MR. KAIDAS-Mine will stay the way it is. I've got probably the only natural shoreline on that side of the bay. It's got trees and it's got, I've got grass but it doesn't go right to the shore. MR. UNDERWOOD-The middle has got like a terrace going across there, too. So there is sort of a landing zone. MR. KAIDAS-That's pretty much all grass right to the shore. That should really be, eventually it should be made to filter out the water, the runoff. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, any other questions from Board members? Okay. I'll poll the Board real quickly here. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm okay with the project as it currently exists. MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm also in agreement. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-Yes, I don't see any problem with, the first one is 119, right? 34 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/15/2017) MR. HENKEL-The most southern one is 119. MR. MC CABE-So the only thing that we're really looking at here is the lot line adjustment. MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Yes, so I have no problem. MR. O'CONNOR-The lot line adjustment, if you're looking at the southern lot line adjustment, and a small decrease in square footage. MR. MC CABE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Totally good, good project. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Both of the lots that are going to be created are going to be just slightly, which is pretty big, I mean, that whole stretch of Seelye Road they're all kind of about that same size, and I think it's going to do two things. It's going to create more privacy for Mr. Kaidas' property because the house, the Middleton camp is going to be gone down there, and I think it's going to preserve that really unique fireplace that shouldn't be torn down, and I think that when you go to the gazebo that's a pretty reasonable re-use in making it so that your family is going to be able to enjoy the benefit. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll 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 Michael Kaidas. Applicant proposes demolition of 1,345 sq. ft. wood frame home and to leave the stone fireplace. The project involves a lot line adjustment with the adjoining lot; 119 Seelye Road existing lot size is 0.93 acres and will be reduced to 0.89 acres. The new lot line places the stone fireplace on parcel 227.17-1-49 (113 Seelye Road) where the lot size is 0.93 acres and will be increased to 0.96 acres. Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements for the WR zoning district. The applicant request the following relief: Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements for the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements, —Waterfront Residential Zone -WR The applicant proposes a lot line adjust so parcel 119 Seelye Rd parcel 227.17-1-50 will be reduced from 0.93 ac to 0.89 ac where 2 ac is required. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, February 15, 2017; 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 in fact we're going to reduce the size of the structure so that we'll have less effect on runoff and detrimental characteristics to the lake. 2. Feasible alternatives are not really possible here. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. In fact it's an improvement on existing conditions. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? In fact, we're improving the environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 35 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/15/2017) 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 NO. Z-AV-6-2017 MICHAEL KAIDAS, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 15th day of February 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-5-2017 SEQRA TYPE II MICHAEL KAIDAS OWNER(S) MICHAEL KAIDAS ZONING WR LOCATION 113 SEELYE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 250 SQ. FT. OPEN GAZEBO UTILIZING THE EXISTING STONE FIREPLACE. THE PROJECT INVOLVES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WITH THE ADJOINING LOT; 119 SEELYE ROAD EXISTING LOT SIZE IS 0.93 ACRES AND WILL BE REDUCED TO 0.89 ACRES. THE NEW LOT LINE PLACES THE STONE FIREPLACE ON PARCEL 227.17-1-49 (113 SEELYE ROAD) WHERE THE LOT SIZE IS 0.93 ACRES AND WILL BE INCREASED TO 0.96 ACRES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE GAZEBO IN THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF Z-AV- 6-2017 9 (LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT) WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2017 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.90 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-49 SECTION 179-3-040 MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-The next item on the agenda is a similar project, Michael Kaidas, 113 Seelye Road, Area Variance Z-AV-5-2017. A Type II SEAR. A public hearing is scheduled for this evening. I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. MR. URRICO-Let the record show that the Description of the Project is the same as Z-AV-6- 2017. So I'll reference that with this gazebo. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-5-2017, Michael Kaidas, Meeting Date: February 15, 2017 "Project Location: 113 Seelye Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 250 sq. ft. open gazebo utilizing the existing stone fireplace. The project involves a lot line adjustment with the adjoining lot; 119 Seelye Road existing lot size is 0.93 acres and will be reduced to 0.89 acres. The new lot line places the stone fireplace on parcel 227.17-1-49 (113 Seelye Road) where the lot size is 0.93 acres and will be increased to 0.96 acres. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the gazebo in the WR zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant request relief from minimum setback requirements for the gazebo in the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements, —Waterfront Residential Zone —WR, Section 179-5-020 accessory structures The applicant proposes a 250 sq. ft. open gazebo that is to be located 5 ft. from the south property line where 20 ft. is required and 29 ft. from the shoreline where a 75 setback is required. 36 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/15/2017) 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 pavilion area is smaller than the previous structure located in the same area. 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 possible to locate in a compliant location however the applicant intends to utilize the stone fireplace from the previous structure due to the uniqueness of stone built fire place. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The side setback relief is 15 ft. and the shoreline relief is 46 ft. 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 will have minimal impact to the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct an open sided pavilion to maintain a stone fire place. The project is part of a lot line adjustment to adjoining property that includes the removal of an existing structure near the shoreline. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Z-AV-6-2017 (lot line adjustment)" MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Welcome. MR. O'CONNOR-1 repeat my comments that I made on the prior application. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. It's a straightforward project. Is there any further questions from Board members? Seeing none, seeing no one in the audience, I will open the public hearing. Is there any written comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-The two written comments, the two letters were the same that were submitted to Z-AV-6-2017, and for the record, I'd refer to those records. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. So let it be known that those are referenced here in this application as well as the prior one. I'll poll the Board. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 have no problem with the request. I think it's going to look very nice. It's nicely designed and thoughtfully rendered and I think that there'll be runoff from the roof, but I'm sure you're going to address that at Site Plan Review as far as eaves trenches or something like that. You do have vegetation along the shoreline. I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'd be in favor of it as well. MR. JACKOSKI-John> MR. HENKEL-Yes, it's a nice project. Go for it. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I have no problem. 37 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/15/2017) MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm okay with it. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll 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 Michael Kaidas. Applicant proposes construction of a 250 sq. ft. open gazebo utilizing the existing stone fireplace. The project involves a lot line adjustment with the adjoining lot; 119 Seelye Road existing lot size is 0.93 acres and will be reduced to 0.89 acres. The new lot line places the stone fireplace on parcel 227.17-1-49 (113 Seelye Road) where the lot size is 0.93 acres and will be increased to 0.96 acres. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the gazebo in the WR zoning district. The applicant request relief from minimum setback requirements for the gazebo in the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements, —Waterfront Residential Zone —WR, Section 179-5-020 accessory structures The applicant proposes a 250 sq. ft. open gazebo that is to be located 5 ft. from the south property line where 20 ft. is required and 29 ft. from the shoreline where a 75 setback is required. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, February 15, 2017; 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 in fact we're reducing the size of the physical buildings. 2. Feasible alternatives are not practical if we want to maintain the existing fireplace. 3. The requested variance is not substantial in fact we're actually improving setbacks versus current situation. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? We feel that we're improving the environmental conditions. 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 NO. Z-AV-5-2017, MICHAEL KAIDAS, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood Duly adopted this 15th day of February 2017 by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-Any further discussion? MRS. MOORE-In reference to the size of the gazebo, it's identified as being 14 by 14, and I have it listed as 250. So if it is 196 square feet, that should be amended in the resolution. MR. O'CONNOR-That's the overhang. 38 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/15/2017) MICHAEL KAIDAS MR. KAIDAS-That's overall, everything. MR. MC CABE-That's not the footprint. MRS. MOORE-So the footprint is 250. Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Post to post I think is 14 feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-Probably the eaves are sticking out. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. There's a drawing. The gazebo is as proposed on the submitted drawing. MRS. MOORE-So 250 remains. AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there any additional business to be brought before the Board? MR. O'CONNOR-I think you have to submit plans with the resolution on it. MR. JACKOSKI-Right. Having no further business. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I have a comment. Well, I heard a comment earlier on. Holding tanks on existing structures are permitted, and that's permitted by the Department of Health. I would differ with. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I mean, I've reviewed on numerous times that says they're a temporary solution. They're not a permanent solution. MR. O'CONNOR-Unless the Department of Health gives you a waiver. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I guess maybe our Town has chosen that path and I think it started with the Morris property up on the lake. I mean, he's on holding tanks up there. MR. O'CONNOR-He preferred it. He thought it was an economic. I did that application years ago. MR. UNDERWOOD-But I think that was the first one. MR. O'CONNOR-He's got three good size tanks on his property, and he didn't want to, and he knew how big his house was, and he didn't want to have a septic system. So he put in an up to date ANSI holding tank, alarm system and all that stuff. I don't know how much he pumps because he's never there, but. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mr. O'Connor. Any further business? MR. O'CONNOR-And I thank you. MR. MC CABE-I make a motion that we adjourn the meeting. MRS. MOORE-You do a roll call vote for your closing? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. MR. HENKEL-That's the way we always do it. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF FEBRUARY 15, 2017, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 39 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 02/15/2017) Duly adopted this 15th day of February, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer MR. JACKOSKI-So, Staff, have we heard anything about the Assembly Point project going on the mountain? MRS. MOORE-The Perrotta's? MR. JACKOSKI-Whatever his name is. MRS. MOORE-Yes, they submitted revised information. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 40