Loading...
06-21-2017 06/21/2017) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 21, 2017 INDEX Area Variance Z-AV-29-2017 Robert Fulmer 1. Tax Map No. 296.14-1-49 Area Variance Z-AV-38-2017 William Rourke 1. Tax Map No. 289.10-1-13 Area Variance Z-AV-39-2017 Matt & Kristy Brennan 10. Tax Map No. 278.19-1-4 Area Variance Z-AV-40-2017 Michael Altare 13. Tax Map No. Z-AV-40-2017 Area Variance Z-AV-41-2017 O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC 17. Tax Map No. 302.7-1-28 Area Variance Z-AV-42-2017 Aviation Hospitality, LLC 22. CONSENT TO LEAD AGENCY STATUS Tax Map No. 302.5-1-96.1 Sign Variance Z-SV-6-2017 Aviation Hospitality, LLC 22. CONSENT TO LEAD AGENCY STATUS Tax Map No. 302.5-1-96.1; 302.5-1-93.1 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. 06/21/2017) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 21, 2017 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN MICHAEL MC CABE, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JAMES UNDERWOOD JOHN HENKEL RONALD KUHL HARRISON FREER LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-All right. We'll start this evening's meeting here at the Queensbury Activity Center. Welcome. I'll call to order the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals agenda for tonight, Wednesday, June 21St. For those of you who haven't been here in the past, there's an agenda on the back table and some basic guidelines of how we operate, but I'll explain them now. It's quite simple. We'll do some housekeeping and administrative matters first as a Board. Then we'll open up the meeting. We'll call each applicant, each application to the table here. Roy will be kind enough to read the application into the record when it's appropriate, and then we'll ask the applicants if they have any questions or if they'd like to add any information or if they Board could simply ask them some questions. At that point, at some point we'll open the meeting for the public hearings that are scheduled. There are public hearings scheduled for most items this evening, except for procedural items, and then after we have the public hearing, we'll poll the Board. We'll invite the applicants back to the small table to have further discussion if it's necessary and based on the polling we'll take action accordingly. So I'll begin this evening's meeting with the approval of meeting minutes of May 17tH APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 17, 2017 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 17 TH, 2017, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 21St day of June, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-May 24tH May 24, 2017 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 24 TH, 2017, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 21St day of June, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Administrative Item. We need to further table Area Variance Z-AV-29-2017, Robert Fulmer, to the July 2017 agenda with a submission deadline date of June. Did they make that June submission date? MRS. MOORE-Yes, they did. 06/21/2017) MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Great. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: TO FURTHER TABLE Z-AV-29-2017 ROBERT FULMER TO THE JULY 2017 AGENDA WITH SUBMISSION DEADLINE DATE OF JUNE 15, 2017 FOR SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL MATERIALS. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Robert Fulmer. Applicant proposes construction of a 1,100 sq. ft. 3-door detached garage. Relief requested for a second garage. Planning Board: Site Plan Review and Freshwater Wetlands review required for site work within 100 ft. of a wetland. The applicant requests relief for a second garage. Section 179-5-020 —Accessory Structures—garage The applicant proposes a second garage that is detached. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-29-2017 ROBERT FULMER, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: To the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting of July agenda. Duly adopted this 21St day of June, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Next item on the agenda this evening is William Rourke. It is 21 Jay Road. It is under New Business, Area Variance No. Z-AV-38-2017, a Type II SEAR. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-38-2017 SEQRA TYPE II WILLIAM ROURKE OWNER(S) WILLIAM ROURKE ZONING WR LOCATION 21 JAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,935 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 494 SQ. FT. CAMP. THE 300 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE AND 60 SQ. FT. PORCH WILL BE REMOVED WITH FOOTPRINT TO REMAIN. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM PERMEABILITY, SIDE YARD, AND SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED FOR EXPANSION IN A CEA. CROSS REF. P-SP-40- 2017; RC 143-2017; BP 93-702 SEPTIC ALT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.29 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.10-1-13 SECTION 179-13-010; 179-3-040 BILL & TORI ROURKE, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-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, Area Variance Z-AV-38-2017, William Rourke, Meeting Date: June 21, 2017 "Project Location: 21 Jay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,935 sq. ft. residential addition to an existing 494 sq. ft. camp. The 300 sq. ft. detached garage and 60 sq. ft. porch will be removed with footprint to remain. Relief requested from minimum permeability, side yard, and shoreline setback requirements and for expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for expansion in a CEA. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from permeability, side yard, and shoreline setback requirements and for expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA in the Waterfront Zone Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements WR zone The proposed building is to be located 1.6 ft. from the south property line where a 12 ft. setback is required. In addition relief is requested for permeability where 71% is proposed and required is 75%. 3 06/21/2017) 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. 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 orientation of the existing building on the parcel and parcel shape. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 10.4 ft. for the south property line and 4% in excess for the permeability. 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 to remove an existing detached garage (300 sq. ft.) and porch area (60 sq. ft.) of an existing 494 sq. ft. camp. The project includes the construction of 1,935 sq. ft. single story addition with a crawl space for mechanicals. The addition will have an attached garage and the previous detach garage location will be a bedroom. The applicant has indicated permeable pavers to be installed to increase permeability on the site. Also, eave trenches will be installed for the new addition to assist with stormwater management of the site. The existing hedges and plantings at the shoreline are to remain." MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board passed a motion and based on its limited review identified the following areas of concern: One, make sure the septic system is in compliance, Two a stormwater review should be provided. Three, concerns with the size of the home in light of the setback and Four landscaping review. And that was passed by a five to two margin on June 20, 2017. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. If you could just give us a moment. So the two votes for the Planning Board that were against the motion, was that because they felt it was too limiting, or they wanted it to be more specific? MRS. MOORE-They were the ones expressing the concerns about the size of the structure and the relief requested. MR. JACKOSKI-So they put in the conditions, so to speak. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Welcome. If you'd like to add anything at this moment or would you simply like Board members to ask questions? MR. ROURKE-No. I'll introduce ourselves. Bill Rourke, owner of Rourke Surveyors in South Glens Falls. This is my wife Tori. We bought the camp a year and a half ago next door to my brother's camp, and we're just trying to, the camp is only 494 square feet and we're going to add one story in the back. So I guess you know everything else. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Could you address the concerns that the Planning Board had regarding the septic system? MR. ROURKE-Well, we had Tom Hutchins, an engineer. MR. TRAVER-We know Tom Hutchins. MR. ROURKE-Review the septic system and I got the e-mail and they got the e-mail. I guess it wasn't in the packet. MRS. MOORE-Tonight's information. 4 06/21/2017) MR. HENKEL-We just got it. MR. ROURKE-1 think that takes care of it, and then there's the side line setbacks. There's an existing garage that's been there, I don't know, 1926 1 guess, and I was under the impression that you could build on a footprint of an existing building. I guess that's wrong. MR. JACKOSKI-Unfortunately. MR. ROURKE-Yes, unfortunately, and then we're slightly under the permeability for the project. We're going to be using the pavement blocks or I guess there's a new pavement you can use them both listed at 50%. So one or the other, I think it's the latter they're going to be using, and the side setbacks are, it's a foot and a half from the Haywood's the neighbor. MR. JACKOSKI-That's pretty tight. MR. ROURKE-Pretty tight, yes. MR. JACKOSKI-With the pavers that you're installing, have you already factored in the benefits of those into your calculations? MR. ROURKE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-And there's no way to minimize or reduce that lack of permeability? MR. ROURKE-We're going to, we're probably going to use the pavement. It's supposed to be 75%. We're at 71% I believe. So we are lacking in the permeability. MR. JACKOSKI-Right, and most of your non-permeability is closer to the lake. MR. ROURKE-There's an existing. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, the footprint of the house, when you do all the math, it's clearly closer to the lake than it is way in your back there. Most of your green spaces appears to me to be in the back. MR. ROURKE-In the back, yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. ROURKE-And with that we are adding only in the back. MRS. MOORE-Part of it is Jay Road that runs through. MR. JACKOSKI-Right. MRS. MOORE-You have to account for that. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. That's why they got such a good deal when they bought it a year and a half ago. Any questions from Board members before I open the public hearing. MR. HENKEL-Have you looked at other alternatives to get that away from, you're looking at 1.6 feet from the south property line. Have you looked at another configuration of the house? MR. ROURKE-We've tried. I've cut down a little bit. I agree, one foot six inches. MR. HENKEL-There's no way of going back out farther? Because, I mean, you've got a lot of, quite a bit of lot there to work with, as far as. MR. ROURKE-It's narrow but it's deep. I don't think we could go back further, back toward Jay Road. We can probably, we can probably come away from the one and a half feet and reduce the side line setback a little bit, do that. Going back is going to hurt the layout I think. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, we'll open the public hearing and see where we go. MR. ROURKE-Yes. 06/21/2017) MR. JACKOSKI-So I'm going to open the public hearing for this project. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-No written comment. Is there anyone here this evening who'd like to address the Board on this matter? So we do have some folks here who'd like to address the Board if you wouldn't mind sitting in that first row, give up the table for a bit. MR. ROURKE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Hello and welcome. GARY HIGLEY MR. HIGLEY-Good evening. My name is Gary Higley. I'm at 31 Chestnut Ridge Road but I also own 23 Jay Road, which is the neighboring property. MR. JACKOSKI-To the south? MR. HIGLEY-To the south. Yes. There is an existing garage that's 18 inches off our property line. It is a shed that's been there for a lot of years. I don' feel that building on that piece of property and building on that footprint is, originally the way it was set up to be where the way he has it planned he has that becoming part of the house, and it was never part of the house. It was just a garage and a shed, and I think that the Board setting a precedent of approving the construction project 18 inches off of the property line is not something you generally like to do. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there a number that seems reasonable to you? I mean it's 12 feet now is the Code. Correct? MR. HENKEL-Yes. MR. HIGLEY-No, I mean, that's lawn up there for me. So I mean I'm going to be even mowing the lawn in his bedroom window. He doesn't want that. I don't want that. So I think, I'm very sure that you gentlemen will make the correct decision, and you guys are the pros. I leave it up to you to decide what you would like to do. I just don't think that that structure should be built, should be allowed to be built on its original footprint. MR. HENKEL-Can I ask you a question? MR. HIGLEY-Yes. MR. HENKEL-How far are you off the property line? MR. HIGLEY-1 don't know. MR. JACKOSKI-Seven or eight feet. MR. FREER-So, but what Steve asked is useful to me because I think what the neighbors think, our decision process is a key factor for me. So what he asked was, what could you live with? Twelve feet is, they don't even have to get anything. MR. HIGLEY-Twelve feet I have no problem. MR. FREER-So that's the question. Could you live with six feet? Eight feet? Because that's important to me in determining, you know, our job is to give the least variance necessary, but part of that equation is, you know, neighbor input. MR. HIGLEY-We're all good neighbors. We all get along very well. I am not against this upgrade. I think it's actually a good project for the area, but I don't know. MR. FREER-That's fine. You don't have to answer. I'm just letting you know that that's part of my decision process at least. I take your advice and input. MR. HIGLEY-This is what you guys do. I'm not. 6 06/21/2017) MR. FREER-Yes, but every case is different. That's why they're here because of the variance. MR. JACKOSKI-In every case we listen to we do taken into account neighbor impact. MR. HENKEL-Eighteen inches. You're only talking 18 inches. So he can't get a lawnmower, if he puts a fence there, he won't even be able to get a lawnmower in there to cut his grass. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Anything else, sir? MR. HIGLEY-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. I appreciate it. MR. HIGLEY-Thank you very much. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone else in the audience who'd like to address the Board? Seeing no one, if you could please come back to the table, that would be great. So we have taken public comments. The public comment period is still open because we haven't decided whether we should close it or not. At this point I'm not sure if you'd like to address some of the concerns brought up in the public comment, especially the setback of 1.6 feet. I will acknowledge it's a lot of relief, and at least in my experience on the Board, when I owned property on Glen Lake, we had to keep to the 12 feet. So do you think it's feasible that you could keep to the 12 feet? MR. ROURKE-I'll tell you. I'll suggest something that the 12 feet really messes us up as far as layout. I guess Gary's house, and we do get along very well. Gary's house is just a hair under eight feet. MR. JACKOSKI-Eight feet. MR. ROURKE-Seven foot something, all right, and that was built before, just like the garage was built before, and, you know, that's what we have to live with. I could live with eight feet, to match his eight feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-That's going to make the bump out on there 1.5 feet. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, as it's presented now, but he could change his architecture as he's getting approval to build within the footprint eight feet off of the lot line. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think the think to keep in mind is if you look at the plot, the dashed line that goes along there, that's currently, that's the proposed wall of the house there. So that's 9.5, that punch out where the old garage used to be, where the bedroom's proposed to be. MR. KUHL-Can I ask one question? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. MR. KUHL-You stated earlier you thought that it was right to build on the existing footprint. MR. ROURKE-No, not right. I just understood it to be that. MR. KUHL-In the design of your house this room that you're planning on taking over the old garage, is that going to be a master bedroom, or is that going to be, is that a guest room? MR. ROURKE-We're only going to have, it was either three or four existing bedrooms in the existing house when we bought it. The front half is two story, and I guess there were three or four bedrooms up there. We're going to cut the, we're going to turn the upstairs into one bedroom and we're putting one bedroom in the back. MR. KUHL-In the existing structure? MR. ROURKE-Yes. MR. KU H L-Okay. MR. ROURKE-So it would be a total of two I guess. 7 06/21/2017) MR. KUHL-I got that. Now, of these two, is the one on the first floor going to be the master bedroom? So basically what you're saying is the third bedroom is going to be a guest bedroom. MR. ROURKE-There is no third bedroom. MRS. ROURKE-There will be no third bedroom. MR. KUHL-You're going to have two bedrooms in the existing structure, right, upstairs, downstairs? MR. ROURKE-No. Just one upstairs in the existing and then one new bedroom, master bedroom, in the new addition. There's going to be a total of two. MR. KUHL-Okay. Now my point here is we're charged with giving minimum relief, and I think you could design this differently two where you could be within the 12 feet for that bedroom, because you have so much room on the front side of your house away from the lake, and that's my point. I think at 1.6 feet, I think you're asking for an awful lot. MR. ROURKE-And I'm saying we are, too, and I was wrong about building on the footprint. MR. KUHL-I mean, that's why we're here. That's why we're discussing it. MR. ROURKE-So what I'm saying now, we can move in, by reconstructing or redesigning everything, we can move in eight feet from the property line, as opposed to a foot and a half from the property line, and not destroy everything. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. So what I struggle with a little bit is we've got to be careful how much we grant you eight feet. Let's just assume that you're getting four feet of relief, but is that the whole length of that property line, or where on the property is that eight feet allowed? MR. ROURKE-Twenty-one feet. MR. JACKOSKI-So many feet back from the shoreline. MR. ROURKE-Yes, and it's a 21 foot. MR. JACKOSKI-But do you understand we've got to be careful because you could all of a sudden say, oh, I can build eight feet along the whole property. MR. ROURKE-It's very, we have the plans for the house, and, no, it's the existing of 21 feet is this bedroom. MR. JACKOSKI-Is the Board okay with some kind of resolution that says that the 21 feet of structure would be over the setback by four feet? In other words, eight feet of relief for 21 feet of the structure? Does that seem reasonable? I'm just saying we've got to word it carefully if we grant it. Okay. Are there any other questions? MR. MC CABE-Now is that going to change permeability? MR. KUHL-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-That'll get the permeability up a little. MR. HENKEL-Is that going to give you enough room from that bedroom though? MR. JACKOSKI-I'm not going to worry about that. Let them, they've got plenty of room between those dashed lines to construct a home. Any other questions from Board members before I take a polling? I'm going to poll the Board. Would anyone like to volunteer to go first? MR. UNDERWOOD-I'll go. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think when we talk about new construction I think that we ought to always keep in mind the fact that it should become more compliant when it's new construction. So there's really no need for this to have this bedroom that protrudes out where the old garage used to be on the side yard. I think that the feasible alternatives are there to even put the 8 06/21/2017) bedroom over the top of the 20 by 21 garage that's in the back, which would give them all that side relief. So at this point in time I don't think I would be in favor of the application. I think that because there's feasible alternatives we can send them in that direction. Also as far as the permeability goes almost all the camps on Glen Lake could use more vegetation and I'd like to see some more vegetation put out front there. I don't think you're having that much of an impact because you are well set back from the water, but I think it'll green it up in front and give it a more woodsy appearance. MR. JACKOSKI-So as the application is presented, you're against it. MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm against it. MR. FREER-I'll go next. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Harrison. MR. FREER-I think if we re-design this so they ask for four feet of relief, four by twenty-one feet which is eight-four square feet, which is much less than they have in the proposal, then I can support this amended application. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I kind of have to agree with Jim on this. I really don't have much problem with the permeability. That's not too bad. It's only off a little bit, but I think you can re-construct the house so it's better for you guys and to even get rid of that bump out. You could really comply with the 12 foot setback. So I would not agree with the way it is. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 would accept the eight foot setback, four foot of relief, as Harrison stated. That seems like a reasonable compromise. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I agree that we need to, we're trying to shoehorn this property into too tight a fit and the answer may be to try on a different sized shoe to get it to fit in there. So I would think that we have an opportunity to make this more compliant and we should. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-I agree that this house could be designed to where that room could be bigger and over the garage. So I wouldn't be in favor of the way it's presented, and/or eight feet relief. MR. JACKOSKI-And just for the record I think that we should hold true to the 12 feet of setback. I think there's enough property there where you can build within the setbacks. I'm okay with the permeability if you needed it. I'm not too concerned with four points, from 75 to 71, but that's where I sit. So the public hearing is still open. Hearing the Board members at this moment, I'm not sure you still even have enough votes right now for approval with an eight foot setback. MR. ROURKE-1 thought a solution would be to match Mr. Higley's eight feet or seven foot something, and, I mean, these camps, I cannot go backwards, extend the home backwards toward Jay Road. It's just too tight in there, and that's what I was trying to do is I was trying to match Mr. Higley's setback of eight feet and we'd be able to have eight feet. MR. JACKOSKI-Unfortunately the sins of the past aren't going to allow us to make sins in the future. So we're trying to hold true to the Code as best we can, especially on Critical waterfront properties. I do think you have some green space available to build in. I do think you have an opportunity to accommodate a second or third bedroom if you wish going up, but right now the Board seems to be pretty strong about not encroaching on those setbacks. MR. ROURKE-Well, we wanted to have a full basement and area wise we cannot because of the size of the lot. We have to have a crawl space, a five foot crawl space. So if we're going to have a five foot crawl space and one story, I can't go up. That would increase the square footage and that wouldn't fit the formula either. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm not sure. I'd have to have you come back to us and make a suggestion, but at this point, you know, you can ask the Board to take a vote. You can ask the Board to table it until you can come up with a different plan now that you've had some feedback from the 9 06/21/2017) Board. You can withdraw the application at your request. We can't grant you more relief. We could offer to grant you less relief, but I'm not sure you even have the votes to do that this evening either. MR. HENKEL-But we can grant for floor area ratio, too. We grant variances for floor area ratio. So you could go over, if that's what you're worried about is going over the allowable floor area ratio. MR. JACKOSKI-Until we see the application in front of us we can't make a judgment. We can't guide you on where to go. We kind of have to rely on you as to what will work for you if you choose to do a different scenario. MR. ROURKE-All right. I don't think we can build back where we are. MRS. MOORE-Do you want to table the application and have that discussion? Tabling the application, meeting with Staff, you could potentially come back at a later time to have the Board review the application materials, the updated ones, and that would push the application probably into an August meeting. MR. HENKEL-Can I ask you a question? What was the reason for not going back farther? MR. ROURKE-Well, there's a driveway. There's some elevation, septic is in the back. MR. HENKEL-Yes, but the septic is pretty far away according to this. MR. ROURKE-Yes, it is, but it does go. MR. HENKEL-Because I walked the property, and it doesn't seem to be. MR. ROURKE-All right. You saw the garage and it's pretty level for a short distance and then there's woods up there. MR. HENKEL-Right. MR. ROURKE-And it does go up. Maybe it could be. MR. JACKOSKI-We've seen a lot of houses where some of the exterior is actually built in a little bit. There's so many options out there. You should talk to an architect. So it's up to you folks how you want to move forward, but I kind of need to get an idea of what you would like us to try to do for you. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we can give them some suggestions, and that is because you're on a .29 acre lot, that's a very small lot. The only option that I really foresee is that you can build up and put a second story on. You'll have to probably seek Floor Area Ratio relief, but I mean that would be a logical thing to do in this case. MR. ROURKE-We've had the plans all drawn up and everything. MR. JACKOSKI-I understand. MR. ROURKE-I don't, well, we don't want a second story for one thing, but I think we're going to be quite a ways over the square footage. MR. HENKEL-The allowable is at 2975 and you are at 2841. So you've got another 130 right there, and like I said, we grant, depending on the situation, we grant variances for floor area ratio. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, we can't tonight, we could theorize all night long. We have to have an idea of what you'd like us to do. In my opinion, tabling would be more appropriate. MR. ROURKE-All right. We'll table it. MR. JACKOSKI-So I do have an acknowledgement from the applicant to table. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from William Rourke. Applicant proposes construction of a 1,935 sq. ft. residential addition to an existing 494 sq. ft. camp. The 300 sq. ft. detached garage and 60 sq. ft. porch will be removed with footprint to remain. Relief requested from minimum permeability, side yard, and shoreline '10 06/21/2017) setback requirements and for expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for expansion in a CEA. The applicant requests relief from permeability, side yard, and shoreline setback requirements and for expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA in the Waterfront Zone Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements WR zone The proposed building is to be located 1.6 ft. from the south property line where a 12 ft. setback is required. In addition relief is requested for permeability where 71% is proposed and required is 75%. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-38-2017 WILLIAM ROURKE, Introduced by Harrison Freer who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Tabled to the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting in August with a July submission deadline. Duly adopted this 21St day of June, 2017, by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-Staff, is there any way that we can add wording that should the applicant choose to we don't have to do another tabling motion should they choose to have it later than that date? You know, we always table it to a meeting, but if they miss it, why do we have to go back and approve another one for a different meeting? Why can't we say that meeting or later? MRS. MOORE-Because of the public hearing notices. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, if they don't make the submission deadline then we'll certainly know it's later. Right? AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Good luck. The next item on this evening's agenda is Matt & Kristy Brennan of 593 Moon Hill Road. I think we've seen these folks before. Area Variance Number Z-AV-39-2017, a Type II SEAR. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-39-2017 SEQRA TYPE II MATT & KRISTY BRENNAN OWNER(S) MATT & KRISTY BRENNAN ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 593 MOON HILL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 15 FT. BY 12 FT. (180 SQ. FT.) FREESTANDING DECK FOR AN ABOVE-GROUND SWIMMING POOL WHICH RECEIVED PREVIOUS AREA VARIANCE APPROVAL FOR THE LOCATION/PLACEMENT OF THE POOL IN THE FRONT YARD. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE RR-3A ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF AREA VARIANCE PZ-0162-2016 POOL IN FRONT YARD; BOTH 310-2016 POOL WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2017 LOT SIZE 0.95 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 278.9-1-4 SECTION 179-5-020 MATT & KRISTY BRENNAN, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-I'll have Roy read the application into the record. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-39-2017, Matt & Kristy Brennan, Meeting Date: June 21, 2017 Location: 593 Moon Hill Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 15 ft. by 12 ft. (180 sq. ft.) freestanding deck for an above-ground swimming pool which received previous Area Variance approval for the location / placement of the pool in the front yard. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the RR-3A zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the RR-3A zoning district. Section 179-5-020 accessory structures — Rural Residential Three Acre, RR3A The applicant proposes construction of a 15 ft. by 12 ft. (180 sq. ft.) freestanding deck for an above-ground swimming pool. Deck to be located 60 ft. from front yard on Route 149 and 55 ft. 06/21/2017) from east property line (note east property line may be a non-issue when lots are combined) where a 100 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 deck will provide additional screening from Route 149. 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 parcel configuration having two fronts. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 40 ft. from the front property line and 45 ft. from 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. The project may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. The plans show the location of the deck to be with the existing pool. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered not self-created. Staff comments: The applicant previously installed a 24 ft. diameter above ground pool to the North side of their home —variance was granted to have a pool in the front yard. The applicant proposes a 180 sq. ft. deck to the existing pool with screening on the north side. The plans show the location of the pool with a deck and the parcel having two frontages. The applicant has also shown the location of the septic system, well and the existing tree line on the property. The applicant completed the additional plantings as requested with the pool variance." MR. JACKOSKI-Could you identify yourselves for the record? MR. BRENNAN-Matt Brennan. MR. JACKOSKI-Watch how fast this goes. This is a pretty straightforward application. Do any Board members have questions on this? Having none, I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board? No one in the audience would like to address the Board. Are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is none. MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment I'd like to poll the Board. I'll start with Ron. MR. KUHL-Yes, it amazes me that this applicant has to come back after we gave him the variance for the pool. MR. JACKOSKI-They segmented their application. MR. FREER-I was going to say, they segmented their application. MR. KUHL-I mean, Staff, is this a product that this young couple didn't know completely what they wanted to do when they laid it out? Would that be right, Matt? MR. BRENNAN-I put on there last June that we were going to put a future deck on. I didn't know the specifics. MR. KUHL-When I saw this application I said, wow, they have to come back. I would be in favor at this time. 06/21/2017) MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 have no problem. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Go for it. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-I'm in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm in favor. 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 Matt & Kristy Brennan. Applicant proposes construction of a 15 ft. by 12 ft. (180 sq. ft.) freestanding deck for an above-ground swimming pool which received previous Area Variance approval for the location / placement of the pool in the front yard. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the RR-3A zoning district. The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the RR-3A zoning district. Section 179-5-020 accessory structures — Rural Residential Three Acre, RR3A The applicant proposes construction of a 15 ft. by 12 ft. (180 sq. ft.) freestanding deck for an above-ground swimming pool. Deck to be located 60 ft. from front yard on Route 149 and 55 ft. from east property line (note east property line may be a non-issue when lots are combined) where a 100 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 21, 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 neither the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. We think that the deck will enhance the property. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered and are not reasonable or possible. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. There's no real backyard here. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. Is 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 Z- AV-39-2017, MATT AND KRISTY BRENNAN, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: '13, 06/21/2017) Duly adopted this 21St day of June 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck. Thank you. Enjoy the deck. MR. FREER-Enjoy your pool. MR. JACKOSKI-The next item on this evening's agenda is 92 Eagan Road, Area Variance Number Z-AV-40-2017, a Type II SEQR subdivision. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-40-2017 SEQRA TYPE II MICHAEL ALTARE OWNER(S) MICHAEL ALTARE ZONING WR LOCATION 92 EAGAN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 4.04 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS — LOT 1 TO BE 2.02 ACRES TO MAINTAIN EXISTING BUILDINGS & LOT 2 TO BE 2.02 ACRES TO REMAIN VACANT FOR FUTURE HOME. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NEWLY CREATED LOT IN THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. PLANNING BOARD: SUBDIVISION REVIEW REQUIRED. CROSS REF SUB(P) 11-2017; SUB(F) 11-2017; BP 92-415 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 4.04 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.17-1-2 SECTION 179-4-050 MICHAEL ALTARE & CHRIS BELL, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-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, Area Variance Z-AV-40-2017, Michael Altare, Meeting Date: June 21, 2017 "Project Location: 92 Eagan Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 4.04 acre parcel into two lots — Lot 1 to be 2.02 acres to maintain existing buildings & Lot 2 to be 2.02 acres to remain vacant for future home. Relief requested from road frontage requirements for the newly created lot in the WR zoning district. Planning Board: Subdivision Review required. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum road frontage requirements for the development of new lots in the Waterfront Residential zoning district. 179-4-050 Frontage on public or private streets The applicant proposes a 2 lot subdivision where the street is a private drive that is accessible from the Eagan Rd 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 minor impact on the neighboring properties as there are home already existing on the private drive and past the lot to be created. 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 lot configuration and location. The Town ownership of Eagan Road ends prior to the applicants property. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The project utilizes existing private drive for access where relief is for not having direct access to the Town road. 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 06/21/2017) 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: Applicant proposes to subdivide the 4.04 acre parcel into two lots where one lot will be maintained with the existing home and the newly created lot will be used at a later time for a future home. The applicant has indicated the new parcel will be able to accommodate a well, septic and a home. The access will be from the existing driveway to the existing private drive. The applicant has indicated the existing tree line will remain as the site has an existing clearing that will accommodate a new home area." MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that motion was passed on June 20th, 2017 by a unanimous vote. MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. If you could identify yourself for the record, please. MR. ALTARE-Hello. I'm Michael Altare from 93 Eagan Road. MR. BELL-Hi. I'm Chris Bell. I'll be building the house on the adjacent lot. MR. JACKOSKI-I assume you just want Board members to ask questions if they have any. MR. BELL-Sure. MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any Board members that have questions at this time? MR. KUHL-Can I ask a question, Mr. Jackoski. MR. JACKOSKI-No. MR. KUHL-On Lot Number One you have two homes? MR. ALTARE-Yes, there's my home and then a trailer. MR. KUHL-A trailer. And both of them are occupied? MR. ALTARE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll open the public hearing. Is there anybody here who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? I have two people who would like to address. So if you could sit in the front row. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARGARET FOOTE MRS. FOOTE-Hi. Margaret Foote, 84 Eagan. MR. JACKOSKI-So where is your property in relation to that one? MRS. FOOTE-To the right. MR. JACKOSKI-To the right. Okay. DAVID BOGUE MR. BOGUE-And my name is David Bogue, and I'm here for 74, 79 and 145 Eagan Road. MR. JACKOSKI-And those are the ones on the bottom side. MR. BOGUE-Those are the ones on the other side. '115 06/21/2017) MRS. FOOTE-1 have a couple of questions, and we just got back from vacation last night. So I didn't get a chance to go next door. We just got the notice about it. The property is obviously adjacent to mine. I have a well that I don't know that it affects it at this point or it affects you guys at this point, but I'm concerned because we don't have any utilities per se. We don't have sewers. We have septic and we also have wells. So I'm concerned when we say we're going to build a new house, where is it going to be? Because right now they're far away. MR. JACKOSKI-Right. The site plan will take care of that with the Planning Board. MRS. FOOTE-Okay. So this would be nothing here. Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Usually within two acres even within an acre you can make it work. MRS. FOOTE-Okay. MR. HENKEL-One hundred feet. MRS. FOOTE-It is 100 feet, but we have no idea where the house is going to go. MR. JACKOSKI-Right, but that well will have to get identified when they site the house. Yes. MRS. FOOTE-Okay. That was my main concern, and the other is that now we're making two lots out of one and there's already two houses on one. Is that an issue? MR. JACKOSKI-Density. We understand. MRS. FOOTE-Okay, and the other thing I'd just like to address and I know it isn't you guys, but we're all waterfront residential. We don't have any waterfront, and the papers are admitting that it's not a Town road which I've had problems with. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, so Waterfront Residential is a little bit, you know, just because you don't actually have waterfront, your property certainly does affect the waterfront with runoff and environmental concerns. So whether it's on Lake George and their second and third row houses. They're still considered Waterfront Residential, too, but it's because you're in a very critical environmental area. MRS. FOOTE-So saying that, you would say all of Eagan Road, then, would constitute Waterfront Residential. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm not going to make any judgments to that effect. MRS. FOOTE-Everything up to my property is Waterfront Residential. MR. JACKOSKI-That's generally the philosophy. MRS. FOOTE-Just ours. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. All right. Thank you. MRS. FOOTE-1 just want to know, because it's in the record now that it's not a Town road. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, we haven't said that, but you have, and the application has said that. We have not said that. MRS. FOOTE-Okay. MR. BOGUE-So let me say at the outset that I'm here to certainly support our neighbors. I find this application to be perfectly fine. We all live, as Margaret said, at the end of a residential neighborhood, but we're the back end of the residential neighborhood. So the impact of dividing this parcel really has no impact, I believe, on the neighborhood, and it will probably be a benefit, certainly, to the applicants. I share Margaret's concern. Just for the record I own the three parcels across the street and Margaret owns the parcel adjacent to the applicant's. Margaret and I also live together. So we share a lot of the same concerns about the neighborhood. So I would certainly support her concern as far as the well is concerned because, you know, that's something that I believe the Town would require certain Code restrictions to make sure that our well is protected any time there's new development. '16 06/21/2017) MR. JACKOSKI-The Health Department will get involved with the siting of the septic system as it relates to other wells. MR. BOGUE-Right, but the other aspect of this is the uniqueness of this area is it goes back as far as surveying is concerned, and a number of years ago, and we really can't get a good clear answer on how this became a Town maintained road. It just appeared. It's germane to my concern. The property lines on some of these parcels are on the other side of that road. MR. JACKOSKI-So it's a road by use. MR. BOGUE-So it's a road by use, but the people who own that property, is there any position the Town takes on somebody owns a piece of property and they want to then decide to change the road bed because they own that. MR. JACKOSKI-That's not our purview, sir, I'm sorry. MR. FREER-We're just looking at whether we give the waiver for the lack of road front property on the property. That's as far as the Zoning Board goes. MR. JACKOSKI-And you'd have to work that through the Town lawyers or whomever you feel is appropriate. Reach out to Mr. Strough and see what you can have them identify for you, or certainly the Highway Department. MR. BOGUE-So as it exists now, I have no issues as far as the applicants. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. If you could come back to the table. There's no written comment, Roy? MR. URRICO-There's no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-So having no written comment and no additional comment from the neighbors, in fact the neighbors are in support of the application as it was written according to them, I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-Unless there are other Board member questions. Okay. MR. KUHL-Can I make that motion, Mr. Chairman? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, thank you. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Michael Altare. Applicant proposes to subdivide a 4.04 acre parcel into two lots — Lot 1 to be 2.02 acres to maintain existing buildings & Lot 2 to be 2.02 acres to remain vacant for future home. Relief requested from road frontage requirements for the newly created lot in the WR zoning district. Planning Board: Subdivision Review required. The applicant requests relief from minimum road frontage requirements for the development of new lots in the Waterfront Residential zoning district. 179-4-050 Frontage on public or private streets The applicant proposes a 2 lot subdivision where the street is a private drive that is accessible from the Eagan Rd SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 21, 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 as this applicant would not be here if they were on a Town road. ,1.7 06/21/2017) 2. There are no feasible alternatives, again because it's a private road. 3. The requested variance is really not substantial. Again, if it were a Town road he wouldn't be here. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. We could say the alleged difficulty is self-created, but again, it's self-created because it's a private road, not a Town road. 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 Z-AV-40-2017, MICHAEL ALTARE, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 21St day of June 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck. Thank you. MR. BELL-Thank you. Thank you very much. MR. JACKOSKI-The next item on this evening's agenda is O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC, J & T Tsai, Inc. 682 Glen Street, and it has a public hearing scheduled for this evening. It's Area Variance Number Z-AV-41-2017, a Type II SEAR. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-41-2017 SEQRA TYPE II O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC AGENT(S) BOHLER ENGINEERING OWNER(S) J & T TSAI, INC. ZONING Cl LOCATION 682 GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 7,453 SQ. FT. BUILDING TO BE USED FOR AN AUTO PARTS RETAIL BUSINESS. PROJECT INCLUDES TEAR DOWN OF AN EXISTING BUILDING (FORMER SITE OF FIT FOOD FAST AND FRIENDLY'S RESTAURANT) AND SITE WORK TO CREATE TWO PARKING AREAS — ONE ACCESS FROM RT. 9 AND ONE ACCESS FROM GLENDALE AVE. (THIS IS A CORNER LOT). RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED FOR NEW COMMERCIAL USE. CROSS REF P-SP-44-2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2017 LOT SIZE 0.76 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.7-1-28 SECTION 179-3-040 ROB OUSTERHOUT & JOSHUA O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-41-2017, O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC, Meeting Date: June 21, 2017 "Project Location: 682 Glen Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a new 7,453 sq. ft. building to be used for an auto parts retail business. Project includes tear down of an existing building (former site of Fit Food Fast and Friendly's Restaurant) and site work to create two parking areas — one access from Rt. 9 and one access from Glendale Ave. (this is a corner lot). Relief is requested for setbacks and parking. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for new commercial use. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and parking. '18 06/21/2017) Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements Commercial Intensive zone The proposed building is to be located 21.1 ft. from Glendale Dr., and 72.6 ft. from Glen St. (Route 9) where a 75 ft. setback is required. Relief also requested for the parking requirements where 38 is required and 25 spaces are proposed. 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 to reduce the size of the building; though a variance may still be required as the parcel is a corner lot and front setback requirements are 75 ft. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 2.4 ft. from Glen Street and 53.9 ft. from Glendale Dr. All relief is for 13 parking spaces. 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. The submission materials indicate the location of the wetland off the property and the wetland buffer on the property that the applicant has indicated no disturbance is to occur in that area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created Staff comments: The project includes demolition of a 2,500 sq. ft. restaurant building to construct a 7,453 sq. ft. auto parts retail business. Site work creates two parking areas —one access from Rt. 9 and one access from Glendale Ave. (this is a corner lot). The applicant has provided elevations and floor plan showing the typical arrangement for this auto parts facility." MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board, based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. The variance was for the proposed setbacks. They said they would like to add that relief is also requested for parking requirements where 38 is required and 25 spaces are proposed. And that motion was adopted on June 20, 2017 by a unanimous vote. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, and just for a moment, please, for Staff, so was the public hearing properly presented, including the variance request for parking? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome. MR. OUSTERHOUT-Hi, good evening. Rob Ousterhout with Bohler Engineering, and I have Joshua O'Connor here with me as well from my office, and we're glad to be here tonight to present the O'Reilly Auto Parts project. You may have heard the O'Reilly jingles on the radio. They've started their program in Upstate New York now. They have no stores in New York today but they're looking to expand into New York. The company is in 46 states I want to say, and has roughly 4800 stores across the country. So they're new to the area. We're welcoming them to Upstate New York with a project here at 682 Glen Street. We were in front of the Planning Board looking for an initiation of the Site Plan Review process. We do have a couple of variances that were identified here that we need to pursue relief from with the Board this evening and with that I have an exhibit here that shows the existing site, an aerial photo that shows the existing restaurant and the parking use, and with that existing use the building's located in the corner, right near Glen and Glendale that runs down the side of the site here, parking wraps around the building with access on Glendale and access on Glen. The site has roughly 39 parking spaces out here today on this parking field. The wetlands that exist in the area are actually over here. There are the setback requirements, the Town setback '19 06/21/2017) requirements of 75 feet and then the DEC setback of 100 feet to the wetland that encroaches onto this corner of the property here. There is no impact on that wetland today for most of it, but there is a lot of existing impervious on this site, along with that restaurant use. What we're proposing to do is redevelop the site, so take an existing site, demolish the existing building and put up a new O'Reilly Auto Parts facility. So here the orientation, you've got Glen Street along the bottom and Glendale coming up the side. It just varies from the aerial I just had up, so oriented the same way here. You can see with this application we are maintaining the access point out onto Glen Street. We are modifying it to reduce the width of it. We're also modifying the curb cut on Glendale. You can see it's very deep from the back of the property line to the existing building here. We're narrowing that down a bit so that we can accommodate a second access and employee and service area behind the building here. So there will be no interconnection of the parking which should help to eliminate as much traffic as there is today circulating through the site, and up along Glendale. So the relief that we're seeking this evening from the board is related to the building setbacks. We've got a 75 foot front yard setback requirement which would put that setback over here, a little over half way through the building. Can everybody see that okay? Okay. So the 75 foot setback from Glendale puts the setback way over here. The 75 feet off of Glen puts the building, or the setback right up here at the front of the building. We're slightly encroaching on that setback, and quite a bit of encroachment into the Glendale setback. The existing building is located about 15 and a half feet or so off of Glendale, while the existing building's located a little under 13 feet off of the frontage along Glen here. So the existing building's much closer to the front. So what we're looking to do is to slide that building over from the Glendale drive right of way and to push it much further back from Glen. We got close to the 75 foot requirement from Glen. We just couldn't quite get there because of this jog in the front line. It pushes the building back quite a bit. We are more than 75 feet off of the majority of our frontage here, but it's really just this little segment right here that comes into play. So we're decreasing an existing nonconformance on the site by pushing the building further away from Glendale and by pushing it back from Glen Street. With that, the other variance that we're looking for some relief on would be related to the parking. Based on a parking ratio of five spaces per thousand square feet of gross floor area for the facility, we would need relief from the 38 parking spaces that are required to allow the 25 spaces that we are proposing. Like I said, O'Reilly Auto Parts has 4800 locations across the country. They have a very solid place in the market. They understand what their needs are from a space and from a parking requirement. They're perfectly comfortable with 25 spaces on this site. I think one of the benefits that we have here with trying to reduce the parking and benefits are multiple in my mind, in my opinion, but if we were to provide additional parking on the site, that's additional impervious area which affects stormwater. Stormwater is obviously a very important subject matter, especially in the Town of Queensbury. That coupled with the fact that we have a wetland off site further to the back corner here we're able to prevent additional runoff by reducing the parking, but like I said O'Reilly is comfortable with the parking as it's shown. They operate a number of these facilities. We're certainly open to any questions or comments. If I need to elaborate any further on the case for the variances, I can certainly do that as well. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions from Board members at this time? MR. URRICO-1 have a question. Do you do any service on site there? MR. OUSTERHOUT-Very good question. I apologize. I should have mentioned that. No, there is no service on site. MR. URRICO-Not even batteries? MR. OUSTERHOUT-They do recycle batteries. MR. URRICO-No, I mean, do you change batteries? MR. OUSTERHOUT-No, there's no service. They don't even change windshield wipers. MR. URRICO-Also do you deliver auto parts to other auto places? MR OUSTERHOUT-Yes, there will be deliveries to like auto body shops or repair shops. So there will be a small wholesale component to this. There's obviously a retail component, but the spaces around back would accommodate a couple of smaller like S-10 pickup trucks, smaller pickup trucks that would be used for deliveries to the shops. MR. URRICO-And that parking around back would only be for them? 06/21/2017) MR. OUSTERHOUT-That's right. We anticipate that this would all be employee and the service vehicles. MR. JACKOSKI-How do the tractor trailer trucks get in and out of the site? MR. OUSTERHOUT-So delivery trucks would obviously come down Glendale. We've got, right here, this lighter shaded tannish color that you see off the back of the building is a concrete apron for what's called the dealer door or the delivery door. So deliveries would be taken in and taken out of the back of the building here. The trucks would come down Glendale, be able to circulate in, back into the site here, and then leave via Glendale. MR. HENKEL-Are those 18 wheelers or no? MR. OUSTERHOUT-On this particular site it's going to be difficult for 18 wheelers to navigate. So we're looking at smaller vehicles for this. MR. JACKOSKI-But you can't guarantee that it won't be 18 wheelers going down Glendale, and we're now going to have tractor trailer trucks driving down Glendale. MR. OUSTERHOUT-The deliveries would be made here. So the termination point for any deliveries would be our driveway. Whether or not they're tractor trailers or smaller box trucks is to be determined. MR. JACKOSKI-Can you assure us that you won't utilize tractor trailers? MR. OUSTERHOUT-I've had conversations with O'Reilly's, and they have committed to using a smaller delivery vehicle here. Smaller delivery vehicle may be a cub type tractor trailer. It's a tractor trailer but it's like the downtown version that you would see. MR. JACKOSKI-I guess my question is trucks backing, I heard you say backing in, off of Glendale. It's not very safe. MR. OUSTERHOUT-Well, if I can clarify that, please. Trucks would enter head first in Glendale, pull up here and then back into this area and then exit this way. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll open the public hearing. There is no one here in the audience. Let the record reflect that. So there's no public comment from the audience. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-I do not see any written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no written comment at this moment, I'll poll the Board. I'll start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think if you look at the Glendale Ave. situation, the 75 foot setback, you know, was formulated so we had setbacks from main thoroughfares and Glendale's very much a non-used road, other than very occasionally at this point in time. I think even if you run 18 wheelers in there you're not going to have multiple trucks showing up at the same time. I think recognizing the fact that they're probably going to have to use a short version of, you know, a seven dual wheel on the truck, it would be a short box, it would probably make more sense for the delivery guys to not have to deal with the nightmare of backing out on a narrow road there. As far as the setback from the frontage on Glen Street, it's less than three feet and I don't think that really buzzes any red lights, or anything like that as far as that. I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I agree with what Jim stated. I think it's a good use of the property, and I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes. I support this. It just amazes that we will now have three auto parts places within a stone's throw of the application. 06/21/2017) MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I think it's a great project I think they're going off the main corridor there, quite a bit farther than what the old Friendly's was. It looks like a nice project. The only concern I have is the parking spaces, which there's not much you can do with that wetland area there, and it's a good project. I agree with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 think the applicant has done a good job fitting his service into this area, and I wish him luck and I'll support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in favor of the project. I think this satisfies the test. I'm not concerned at all about the setback. The parking spaces I think they've done a good job segregating the parking that's going to be necessary. I don't think they're going to need that many more spaces out front. So I'd be in favor of 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 O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC. Applicant proposes construction of a new 7,453 sq. ft. building to be used for an auto parts retail business. Project includes tear down of an existing building (former site of Fit Food Fast and Friendly's Restaurant) and site work to create two parking areas — one access from Rt. 9 and one access from Glendale Ave. (this is a corner lot). Relief is requested for setbacks and parking. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for new commercial use. The applicant requests relief for setbacks and parking. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements Commercial Intensive zone The proposed building is to be located 21.1 ft. from Glendale Dr., and 72.6 ft. from Glen St. (Route 9) where a 75 ft. setback is required. Relief also requested for the parking requirements where 38 is required and 25 spaces are proposed. SEQR Type 11— no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 21, 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 we're replacing one business with another business and we've actually improved some of the setbacks. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not considered reasonable. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. It would be moderate at worst. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. Is the alleged difficulty of course is 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; 06/21/2017) 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 Z- AV-41-2017, O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 21St day of June 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Good luck. MR. OUSTERHOUT-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. JACKOSKI-The next item on this evening's agenda is the Aviation Hospitality, LLC at 524 Aviation Road, Area Variance Number Z-AV-42-2017, a Type II SEAR. There is not a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Can we do these together or do we have to do them separately? MRS. MOORE-No, you're actually doing a simple resolution, that the Board is amenable to accepting the Lead Agency status from the Planning Board. You're just granting, and I believe Sue put a resolution into the packet. MR. JACKOSKI-So I'd also note that this is in reference to Aviation Hospitality, LLC Sign Variance Number Z-SV-6-2017 for the same address, 524 Aviation Road. ADMINISTRATIVE: ZONING BOARD MAY REVIEW REQUEST FOR CONSENT BY THE PLANNING BOARD FOR LEAD AGENCY STATUS AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-42-2017 SEQRA TYPE 11 AVIATION HOSPITALITY, LLC AGENT(S) BOHLER ENGINEERING OWNER(S) PCGF NEWCO, LLC ZONING ESC LOCATION 524 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 62.620 SQ. FT. 4-STORY, 92 ROOM HOTEL (FORMER SITE OF HOWARD JOHNSONS). PROJECT INCLUDES LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CONNECTOR ROAD WITH ADJOINING LOT TO AVIATION MALL RING ROAD AND ACCESS REALIGNMENT WITH AMBROSIA DINER. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT SETBACK ON 1-87 AND ROAD FRONTAGE. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED. SEQRA: ZONING BOARD TO CONSIDER PLANNING BOARD REQUEST FOR LEAD AGENCY. CROSS REF P-SP-45- 2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2017 LOT SIZE 4.57 ACRES (UTILIZING 2.5 ACRES) TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-96.1 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-4-050 SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-6-2017 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED AVIATION HOSPITALITY, LLC AGENT(S) BOHLER ENGINEERING OWNER(S) PCGF NEWCO, LLC ZONING ESC LOCATION 524 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES 3 WALL SIGNS FOR A NEW HOTEL; HOME2 SUITES BY HILTON. ALSO PROPOSED IS A FREESTANDING SIGN TO BE ON A SEPARATE LOT "HOME2 SUITES BY HILTON". RELIEF REQUESTED FOR NUMBER OF WALL SIGNS. RELIEF ALSO FOR FREESTANDING SIGN ON SEPARATE PROPERTY AND SETBACK. SEQRA: ZONING BOARD TO CONSIDER PLANNING BOARD REQUEST FOR LEAD AGENCY. CROSS REF P-SP-45-2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2017 LOT SIZE 4.57 ACRES; 1.74 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1- 96.1; 302.5-1-93.1 SECTION CHAPTER 140-5; 140-6 MR. JACKOSKI-There is a motion in the packet for us to grant the Planning Board as Lead Agency instead of ourselves, and I'm thinking that that's what we should do. If that's okay, does anyone have the resolution that they could read for approval? MR. MC CABE-I was thinking why would we turn over a Sign Variance, but then I was made wiser. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Aviation Hospitality, LLC. The project applicant proposes the following: 06/21/2017) Hotel-Applicant proposes construction of a new 62,620 sq. ft. (floor area), 4 story, 92 room hotel with associated parking. Project includes a connector road on adjoining property to Aviation Mall ring road. Included in the project will be a lot line adjustment between 302.5-1-96.1 and 302.5-1-93.1 with the former reduced to 2.0 acres and the later to be increased to 4.31 acres. Project includes work with Ambrosia Diner for access as lot does not have road frontage on Route 254. Applicant proposes 3 wall signs for a new hotel; Home2 Suites by Hilton. Also proposed is a freestanding sign to be on a separate lot "Home2 Suites by Hilton". Relief requested for number of wall signs. Relief also for freestanding sign on separate property and setback. Ambrosia Diner -Applicant proposes to modify the entryway area along Aviation Road and internal access to Ambrosia Diner. Project includes new alignment of driveway, new access for Diner and site work. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, amendments to previously approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Aviation Mall -Applicant proposes construction of a connector road that intersects Aviation Road and the mall. The project involves disturbance of 1.6 +/- acres and a new roadway of approximately 17,500 +/- sq. ft. The road will include access for Ambrosia Diner and the proposed hotel and connect to the Aviation Mall ring road. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, new connector road shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks, road frontage and signage. SEQRA: Planning Board request for Lead Agency. A public hearing has not been scheduled at this time. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO CONSENT TO THE PLANNING BOARD'S REQUEST TO BE LEAD AGENT FOR PROJECT APPLICANT AVIATION HOSPITALITY AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-42-2017 AND SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-6-2017, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 21St day of June 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Any further business in front of the Board? Can we have a motion to adjourn? MR. FREER-I'll make a motion to adjourn. MR. UNDERWOOD-I'll second it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Harrison. Thank you, Jim. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JUNE 21, 2017, Introduced by Harrison Freer who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 21St day of June, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 1:,4