Loading...
07-19-2017 (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 19, 2017 INDEX Area Variance Z-AV-28-2017 Seaton Property Holdings, LLC 1. FURTHER TABLING (A-1 Tree Works) Tax Map No. 308.16-1-55; 58 AND 61 Area Variance Z-AV-35-2017 James Beaty (Hars Pars, Inc.) 2. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 290.5-1-50 Area Variance Z-AV-29-2017 Robert Fulmer 3. Tax Map No. 296.14-1-49 Area Variance Z-AV-42-2017 Aviation Hospitality, LLC 13. Tax Map No. 302.5-1-96.1; 302.5-1-93.1 Sign Variance Z-SV-6-2017 Aviation Hospitality, LLC 16. Tax Map No. 302.5-1-96.1; 302.5-1-93.1 Area Variance Z-AV-44-2017 Garden World Assoc., LLC 22. Tax Map No. 302.5-1-50 Area Variance Z-AV-45-2017 David and Morgan Stanhope 25. Tax Map No. 296.15-1-1 Notice of Appeal Z-NOA-2-2017 Frank & Isobel Munoff 34. Tax Map No. 240.5-1-32 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING I (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) JULY 19, 2017 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN MICHAEL MC CABE, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL JAMES UNDERWOOD HARRISON FREER MICHELLE HAYWARD, ALTERNATE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER, FIRTH-MIKE CROWE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. JACKOSKI-Hello everyone and welcome. I'd like to call to order this evening's meeting of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. For those of you who haven't been here before, first off, welcome. There are some papers on the back of the table there, some Staff Notes and an agenda, and general some information as to how we conduct ourselves. It's actually a very simple process. I will be calling each applicant to the table here with their agents. Roy will be kind enough to read the application into the record when it's necessary and then the applicants will certainly add to that discussion that was read into the record. Board members will ask questions and then there will come a time when we open the public hearing section of each application. Each application this evening does have a public hearing scheduled so that we will make sure to open the public hearing accordingly. We'll listen to public hearing. We'll have some debate back and forth accordingly by Board members. We'll ask applicants to join us back at the table. I'll poll the Board to see where we're leaning on the application. That'll give you a good idea as to where we're going, and then we'll make a decision on how we're going to proceed with the application, whether we deny it, approve it, obviously, or maybe the applicant asks us to table it to another time or withdraw it. So without any further delay, I'm going to do some housekeeping first and then we'll be right into the Old Business. So the first item on the agenda this evening is approval of the meeting minutes of June 21St APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 21, 2017 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 21, 2017, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 19th day of July, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-The next item on this evening's agenda is we have received a request to further table project Seaton Property Holdings, LLC, which is A-1 Tree Works. It is Z-AV-28- 2017 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: REQUEST TO FURTHER TABLE PROJECT: SEATON PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC (A-1 TREE WORKS) Z-AV-28-2017 MR. JACKOSKI-So, Staff, I guess we just need a motion to table to a certain point? MRS. MOORE-You're tabling to the September meeting, which is the first September meeting. 2 (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) MR. JACKOSKI-We have a request to table to the first September meeting with an August appropriate submission deadline. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Seaton Property Holdings, LLC (A-1 Tree Works). Applicant proposes operation of a wood processing facility with a new 15,000 sq. ft. enclosed pole barn for wood products and to install two 1,200 sq. ft. kiln units on the site. Project includes merger of lots 308.16-1-55, -56, -58 & 61. Project includes continued auto facility for C& J automotive. Project includes already in use new storage area, maintaining 4 existing buildings on the merged properties, additional clearing, installation of a gravel parking area and material storage area (logs, woodchips etc.). Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements for the firewood processing facility in the CLI zoning district were 100 ac is required. Planning Board: Site plan and Special use permit for lighting manufacturing of wood products for a logging processing company. The applicant requests relief from minimum lot size required for a sawmill, wood product operations, and firewood processing facility in the CLI zoning district were 100 ac is required. 179-10-010 Special Use Permit Criteria for Commercial light industrial zone. The applicant proposes a wood product operations (Defined as SAWMILL, CHIPPING and PALLET MILL-Any building, site or place used for the cutting or milling of raw timber into dimensional lumber, pallets, chips or other wood products.) where 100 ac is required and the existing site is 9.4 ac. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, April 19, 2017 and Left Open; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z- AV-28-2017, SEATON PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC (A-1 TREE WORKS), Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Until the 1St September meeting with documentation to be submitted by the middle of August. Duly adopted this 19th day of July 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-We do have another further tabling request and this is for James Beaty Hars Pars, Inc. Area Variance Z-AV-35-2017 MR. MC CABE-Do we have a date? MRS. MOORE-Until the first meeting in September. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from James Beaty. Applicant proposes subdivision of land where existing golf course bar/ and 4-unit apartment complex are located into two parcels. The apartment complex, Lot 1 will be 0.30 acres and the golf course, Lot 2 will be 10.56 acres. Relief requested from minimum lot size / density, building setbacks, and permeability requirements of the MDR zoning district. Planning Board: Subdivision review is required for the creation of the new lots. The applicant requests relief for 2 lot subdivision to reduce one parcel less than the allowed lot size, density, building setbacks and permeability requirements of the MDR zoning district. 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—dimensional requirement MDR zone The project proposes to create a non-conforming parcel of 0.30 ac where 2 ac is required on lot 1. Density requires 8 ac for a 4 unit complex on lot 1. Setbacks for lot 1 —side 17.4 ft. west where 25 ft. is required then 11.3 ft. for garage where 25 ft. setback is required. Rear setback is proposed at 13.5 ft. where 30 ft. is required. Lot 1 permeability is 26 % where 50% is required. Setbacks for Lot 2 side setback proposed at 8.7 ft. where a 25 ft. setback is required. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-35-2017 JAMES BEATY, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: m:N (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) Tabled to the first September meeting agenda with additional application materials to be submitted by August 15, 2017. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm going to abstain due to a potential future financial matter. Duly adopted this 19th day of July, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Jackoski MR. JACKOSKI-The next item on this evening's agenda is under Old Business. It is Robert Fulmer, 54 Country Club Road. If you could join us here at the table. Area Variance Z-AV-29- 2017, a Type II SEAR. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. There was one also held open as of April 26th OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-29-2017 SEQRA TYPE II ROBERT FULMER OWNER(S) ROBERT FULMER ZONING MDR LOCATION 54 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD (COUNTRY CLUB MANOR) APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A REVISED 924 SQ. FT. 3- DOOR DETACHED GARAGE. REVISED PROJECT INCLUDES REMOVAL OF 1,800 SQ. FT. BLACKTOP PAD. 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. CROSS REF P-SP-31-2017; P-FWW 3- 2017; BP 2007-084 2-CAR ATT. GAR./RES. ADD. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2017 LOT SIZE 3.2 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.14-1-49 SECTION 179-5-020 ROBERT FULMER, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to add to the record and I'm going to recuse myself from this project due to the close proximity of relatives in the neighborhood. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-29-2017, Robert Fulmer, Meeting Date: July 19, 2017 "Project Location: 54 Country Club Road (Country Club Manor) Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a revised, 924 sq. ft. 3-door detached garage. Revised project includes removal of 1,800 sq. ft. blacktop pad. 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. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for a second garage. Section 179-5-020 —Accessory Structures —garage: The applicant proposes a second garage that is detached. 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 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 applicant would like to use the building for storage of lawn equipment and recreational vehicles. Z11 (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for second garage where only one garage is allowed. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant has revised the plans to now show a 924 sq. ft. garage, the 1800 sq. ft. black top area to be removed and that area to be replaced with lawn. The plans show the garage to have 3-garage doors and an open floor plan. The garage is to be 20 +/- ft. in height and the area in front of the garage is to remain lawn no drive is to be installed. The applicant has included photos of the existing and proposed conditions where the garage is to be located including locations from the bike trail. The applicant has indicated there will be no stairs or pull down stairs and the rear of the building is to be the same as the front without doors. The plans also show a regular door on the south side of the building. The applicant has indicated the garage is to be used for the recreational vehicles and lawn equipment for yard maintenance." MR. MC CABE-So, Mr. Fulmer, we've discussed this before. It's changed. Would you like to talk about the changes? MR. FULMER-Yes, thank you. Good evening. Thank you for your suggestions at our last meeting and the opportunity to present our revised proposal tonight. I've spent countless hours since January with Craig Brown and Laura Moore and I see both of them here today, and their Staff as well, and I want to thank them for all their technical assistance as well as their kind encouragement and support that I could do this without professional representation. This structure, primarily for boat and property equipment storage, has been reduced 174 square feet in size to 924 square feet total by reducing the depth five feet down to 28 feet. It's within the footprint approved by New York State DEC, Queensbury Planning Board, the Warren County Planning Department. No variances are requested from septic, property line or wetland setbacks. The structure will be on our back lawn facing our house, hidden by heavy uncut screening brush and woods on the other three sides. Our intent is to maintain the bike trail natural experience by leaving the existing vegetation as is. Blacktop pad, existing when this property was purchased by us, will be removed and seeded, actually increasing permeable green area to 94%. You should have a packet of revised documents and pictures that we've taken, and the first one, I hope you all have a, starts with a memo from my wife Suzanne and myself, and that kind of summarizes the major changes. The second page I consider to be the second most key item here. I completely revised the five criteria questions that you go by as far as determining the reasonableness of our request, and these have been re-worked and added to and exemplified seriously since the last time, and I'd like to ask the Board to take a moment and ask me any questions that you might have that arise from the five main questions that are the lighthouse questions that my wife and I went by in answering them. MR. HENKEL-I've got a question. Is there any way of dropping that height down a little bit? Twenty-two feet in height is still a little bit excessive. I know it's a building of like 28 by 33 which obviously is going to cause the height of that, but is there any way of dropping that down? MR. FULMER-Good question. It was originally a 20 plus or minus and I got the architectural drawings for trusses and I flattened them out at five twelve. It looks to me like it will come in at 20 feet, but I wasn't sure. I've never done this before, so I wasn't sure that I should miss by four inches and I asked a question is the elevation from the top of the pad or is it from the soil, the top of the land. I'm not sure that we had a definite answer on that. So I basically overdid it and I also put in your pictures a marker. I don't think it'll be 22. 1 think it'll be 20 and small change. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR. URRICO-Well I have a similar question. If you put up three sheds, you'd be allowed that, but they would total 750 feet. MR. FULMER-Right. 5 (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) MR. URRICO-Is there any way to reduce the size of the garage to 750 feet? MR. FULMER-It is a good question. The idea here is basically to get the length so that the boat would fit in and a door would close and at 28 feet, I might have six inches at the tail and six inches at the nose max with this. So the 28 is there. The other issue which has been discussed was I made the doors at 10 feet rather than a standard 9, having so many times had to go back a large trailer, by myself, without guidance, through a nine foot door and that gives you about two inches on either side of the fenders, and I wanted to just come up with a little bit more leeway to not have damage and so I put in 10 foot doors, and that did widen the structure, and the last thing is I made the doors 10 feet high so that basically the wilbar of the tractor and the windshield of the boat would clear, that and the overhead doors that added like another 20 inches on it for the track, the motor assembly. So that's why I made the walls 12 feet high. That also pushed up the peak a little bit, but that's, the purpose for this is to be able to store this boat or a future boat and other boats and lawn maintenance, yard maintenance tractors, snow blower, all that stuff, and I've got the garage I think down to the size where everything fits. Seven fifty doesn't. Some people suggested two doors. I think that came up before, and my only issue with that is trying to back up a boat trailer for storage, put it in there for the winter and then trying to turn it a little bit an scoot it over to one side without guidance. So I'm feeling that a 750 is going to be like two bays and too short, and of course three sheds or one big shed that's 750 does not require Planning Board or Zoning Board of Appeals and my understanding is just a building permit. So obviously I've been working on this now for almost a year and I started with the Planning Department right after Christmas. So I guess that would be a big step backwards. So I'm very determined to work with you tonight to make this project fly and to make it a good project. MR. HENKEL-I've got a Staff question. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. HENKEL-If we say it's okay for him to build this shed, I mean this garage, and he's saying he wants to put his boat in there, and then people are complaining that his boat's outside or whatever, is there a way of saying that he has to put the boat inside? I mean, could we make a stipulation saying that he's going to, because he is saying that he's going to put a boat inside not keep it outside. We can't make that rule, right, because he's basically saying that he wants to build this garage at a certain height to fit that boat in. So can we say that he can't keep the boat outside? MR. MC CABE-Well, the trouble is he's not exclusive. So what happens if he sells and somebody else takes over? MR. BROWN-Yes, and I'll try and answer. I don't think that's a reasonable condition. It's certainly not an enforceable one that we could go out and enforce. MR. HENKEL-But he's saying that's the reason why he wants to build these doors a certain way. Because if you could bring the doors down to a proper height then we could drop off some of the height of the building from the peak. MR. BROWN-Sure. Yes, I mean, you may get the applicant to stipulate that he's already said that that's his plan. If he wants to stipulate that that's what he'll do, then that's part of the application. MR. FULMER-You bring up a good point because now all this stuff, I own it, is all over the yard and my neighbors have to look at this boat shrink wrapped with white shrink-wrap in the backyard on the lot or wherever I move it to, and other items as well, littered all over. My hope is to clean up my neighborhood by putting this stuff in a good looking storage structure and not leave half of it out. I certainly would not want to leave my boat out after spending this kind of time, effort and treasure on building a garage. To leave the boat out would be counterproductive. That's not my wish. My wish is to jam pack this full. MR. HENKEL-What is approximately your square footage of your garage now? MR. FULMER-About 725 1 think. It's a two car garage and I have two vehicles in there and a lot of stuff that doesn't belong in there. MR. HENKEL-So we're basically approving about 1900 square feet of garage space for you. MR. FULMER-True, but they're different functions. The one that I'm proposing is storage. I want to put stuff in there and leave it. It wouldn't be going in and out all the time like the 6 (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) current garage which is filled up by two vehicles and other stuff. The need is there, and now the stuff, they're still looking at it. It's just in the yard. MR. MC CABE-Any other questions? MR. FREER-Mr. Chairman, the last time I believe there was some sort of strong outpouring from the neighbors on the other side of the bike trail. I'd be curious if any of those. MR. MC CABE-They'll have their opportunity pretty soon. MR. FULMER-In the packet, one thing you did not get last time that I've added in is the next sheet which is the Warren County Planning Department who reviewed the original application back in April and you've got the no significant impact on County properties, and in this case that would the bike trail. So that's gone through that review process. The next page of revision is revised per Staff's suggestion and that takes out the blacktop pad which is 40 by 45, and that's 1800 square feet taken out, and also the garage is squeezed down from 1100 feet and it slightly changes the setbacks, but all of the setbacks are above the minimums, side, front, back. MR. MC CABE-Yes. All we're doing here is we're approving or disapproving a second garage. MR. FULMER-1 understand. Believe me I got that. So I put in new sketches, and then the last thing I wanted to show you was six pictures that we took, and I want to show you where. MR. HENKEL-We got them all. MR. MC CABE-We got them all. MR. FULMER-Could I give you the context of what you're looking at and where it is, where it's located, like from the bike trail? Picture Number One that you've got, on suggestion of Staff, I parked two cars inside the proposed structure and all of these trees and greenery are ours. So we do not want to cut down the woods along the bike trail nor for our neighbors. It gives you an idea of some of the 80 foot and 90 foot trees that we treasure and it's one of the reasons we bought the property. You can see that it is lawn. So right now we're facing the bike trail. The neighbor who spoke last time, his house is straight in back of these two vehicles, and I acknowledge that this is the green season. We've lived there for three winters. It's definitely more visible, but a lot of this is evergreen and there's not a lot of traffic on the bike path anyway in the winter. So there are the corners of the garage, and that little blacktop pad you can see in the lower left. So this is what we would be looking at, and our neighbors that are contiguous to us are happy with its placement because it tucks it back in the woods. They can't see it. We're the only ones who'd be facing this garage. Number Two, this is the same setting but from the bike trail. Those two cars are in this picture. This is the bike trailer and it's directly there. So I left the stakes there and the cars there. Number Three, this is the bike trail looking north towards Wincrest behind me is Sweet Road. I took the pictures where those bikes are. Those are my bikes, and so I would, the last picture was looking east for those bikes and the speaker last time, his property is on the left. Those cedars line his property. So he would be looking through all the screening he has plus the screening that you just saw, and I'm going to leave everything that you see in the picture there. So it is fairly heavily wooded, which is why people like this section of the bike trail, and we're going to leave it as by two contiguous neighbors. Number Four, this will give you some idea of the elevation. I put this balloon at 22 feet, and it's right in the center. So that's about where the peak will be, but I think it will be two feet less, and this will also give you an idea of the size of the trees that we're leaving, and, you know, to move it off of this footprint, you know, my wife and I decided not to cut down 100 trees to get a boat storage facility. So they are pretty magnificent and we want to keep basically everything so it's on the lawn. Here's a close up with that balloon in it, Number Five, and once again, the bike trail is behind these trees, and my neighbors in the next development are behind their trees, and then the last one, this is what the elevation looks like from the bike trail. This Mr. Smiley is up in the trees at the point of that arrow. This is at 22 feet. He's lost a little bit of weight since flying, but his width and his height and with a magnifying glass you can see his two eyes there. The two cars are still there, right behind that center tree. So this will give you an idea of the vegetation that we're trying to preserve. I would like to take this opportunity, well, first of all, are there any questions on the pictures before I move from them? Gotcha. I would like to take this opportunity to correct the public record. My wife and I have never before requested a variance in Queensbury or in any municipality. Next our property is zoned. MR. MC CABE-What does that have to do with? MR. FULMER-It's in the public record from our last meeting. .7 (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) MR. MC CABE-Well, it's not you, it's the property. MR. FULMER-In the record, and I will read it if you want, it states that the Fulmers have requested many variances previously. Okay. So I would like to use this opportunity to say that, no, it wasn't the Fulmers. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. FULMER-We have never requested a variance, either in Queensbury or in any municipality where we've lived. Next, our property is zoned residential, not commercial. That's in the record. We are not requesting to build in a wetland or harm or destroy our wetlands. We take care of our property, our wetlands and our habitat. We very carefully considered all of our neighbors and bike path users with this project utilizing advice from various professionals to help preserve the natural environment, and where I got positive feedback on the amount of time put on this was the DEC when I made my presentation in front of three professionals back in March and April and also at the Planning Board for Queensbury. Thank you very much. Any questions that I can help you with. MR. MC CABE-1 do that, all right. You've done a nice job here. You've presented your case well, but I'll take care of finding out where the questions are and that sort of thing. Okay. MR. FULMER-1 expect that. MR. MC CABE-Yes. So do we have any more questions? So tonight there is a public hearing advertised. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak on this matter? Please identify yourself. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JAMES P. TWYMAN MR. TWYMAN-James P. Twyman. I live on 15 Edgewood Drive. I own the property to the west of Mr. Fulmer's property. I have something to read, but before I do that I want to rebut the photos. First of all the photos are like we live in, if we lived in Florida it would be like that, but he took those pictures when he initially had the variance. Totally different. Clear view all the way through. Just to clarify that. Anyway. Here we go. I'm here to oppose the 3 Bay Garage at 54 Country Club Road. I am also speaking on behalf of 20 households on Edgewood Dr. and on Country Club Rd. who signed a petition in opposition. MR. MC CABE-So could you give us. MR. TWYMAN-Absolutely. I'll give it to you when I leave. I live in the neighborhood located to the west of Mr. Fulmer's property. I initially opposed Mr. Fulmer's plans of the 1100 square foot 3 bay garage and I am still in opposition to the 924 sq. ft. garage on his property. Mr. Fulmer has changed the size to a small fraction but the location remains the same. I reiterate my initial argument in April that he wants a garage but doesn't want to look at it. This garage will create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and detriment in value to nearby properties for the following reasons. I quoted the law, but anyway. The first one. Will granting the variance produce an undesirable change in character or a detriment to the neighborhood? Yes, the neighbors on Edgewood Drive and the Warren County Bike Trail. This is a small section of the bike trail where people do not have to go far to be in the woods and where the Edgewood Drive property people can see the same from their homes but this garage will bring down the aesthetic of the area. Two, can the benefit sought by the applicant be gained by any other feasible alternatives? Yes. Mr. Fulmer stated that his adjacent neighbors did not have an issue with the garage. So if Mr. Fulmer places the garage next to his house on the south side up against the trees where he has a shed at this time this would resolve the problem. Have the rear of the garage facing south and the front of the garage facing north therefore not affecting anyone except the two neighbors that don't have a problem with it. This was mentioned earlier in the initial meeting by one of the Board members. I don't recall who it was. Is the relief requested substantial to the ordinance requirements? If Mr. Fulmer places the garage next to his home he will be able to satisfy his storage issues without affecting the surrounding areas. Also placing it in this location will somewhat curb the change in its use by future owners. Will the relief request have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Yes, again the property values on Edgewood Drive and the wooded rural aesthetics and the beauty of the Warren County bike trail. In talking with my neighbors the main concern was what is a garage this size going to be used for? I had the same concerns. I am not questioning Mr. Fulmer's intention but as a Board member you need to approach this decision with the premise that this garage could very easily 8 (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) become something else for a future resident of that property. This garage will always stay on the property but not necessarily the current owner. Mr. Fulmer already has a two car garage with two sheds. It seems to be very extreme to also be allowed a 924 foot storage garage. It seems his main concern seems to be the hardship of storing his boat. So why not just add one more attached garage to his existing garage. Why is there a need for such a large structure? Also I was doing some leg work and if it's an issue to store his boat they have plenty of boat storage places that are relatively inexpensive. There's one you could store for 125 dollars for six months. My neighbors pointed out various things that have changed in our neighborhood because of things that have occurred on the Country Club side of the bike trail that I wasn't aware of. Two neighbors showed me how they now can see Country Club Road traffic because other houses on that side have cut down more trees. Before they couldn't hear anything and they actually had some trees. Also on the other section above us where they're building the new homes there is a noise level increase also. So this confirms that there is a need to try and preserve what we still have. Mr. Fulmer got a variance a few years ago, and I apologize if I was wrong but I thought he had an addition to his house that he needed a variance which I showed up for. If that's wrong, I apologize for that. So I'll leave that section out. Anyway, he added an addition to his house and I understand that. That's a family thing, but I can't see where there's a hardship for a variance for a structure of this size. In my reasons mentioned above I have stated a few solutions to help resolve this issue but the current proposal we feel is unacceptable. I hope you agree with me, my neighbors, and the thousands of people who use the Warren County Bike Trail and not allow this variance to be passed. I would like to add that in getting signatures there was a total of 23 doors that were opened to me and 20 were opposed to the variance. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So, yes, if you could present the petition. MR. TWYMAN-Yes. Anybody else in the audience that would like to address the Board on this matter? STEVE DOUGHERTY MR. DOUGHERTY-May I ask just one question? MR. MC CABE-Come up to the table and identify yourself. MR. DOUGHERTY-My name is Steve Dougherty. I live on 14 Edgewood Drive, just above this section that's in question. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. DOUGHERTY-However, my question is such that in the previous issue when this whole thing came about there was a request for one three stall garage, and I believe there was a codicil hooked on to that request for an additional three stall garage at some time in the future. MR. MC CABE-No, that's not true. MR. DOUGHERTY-That's out of the program now? That's out of the program now? MR. MC CABE-It was just a single garage the last time. MR. DOUGHERTY-The letter that I received said a single garage with the option to build a second three stall garage sometime in the future. MR. MC CABE-That's not what I recall. MR. DOUGHERTY-It was in the letter that came to me. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Does anybody else remember that? MR. DOUGHERTY-You better look it up. AUDIENCE MEMBER-1 got the same letter. MR. DOUGHERTY-1 wish I hadn't thrown it away, but that's beside the point. My question was if there was going to be a two stall garage attached to the home, a three stall garage with an elevated roof and wider doors for the admission of a boat, and another garage in the future as I read the paper. I read it. Not you, me. Then I was going to say, why do we need six stalls for storage space for a lawn tractor and a couple of other small items? When you could go down 9 (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) here on Quaker Road and buy one of those small outfits to put the whole business in. I'm sorry. It's just my opinion. I don't have any hate programs for anybody, but I don't want that section to turn into a future business situation like Jay Leno does. He buys brand new fancy automobiles and puts them in the garage, shows them to his friends, and then he sells them. MR. MC CABE-Is your name on the petition? MR. DOUGHERTY-Yes, sir. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. DOUGHERTY-So that's all I have. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Anybody else? Ma'am? CORINNE TARANA MRS. TARANA-My name is Corinne Tarana and I live on Edgewood Drive, and most of my points have already been taken by Jim and Steve, but I'm trying to get my head around why a piece of property in our area that already has a two stall garage if I'm right, it has two outbuildings. MR. FULMER-One outbuilding, one shed. MRS. TARANA-We've gotten misinformation. Can I ask you, what is in the shed? MR. MC CABE-1 have no idea. It's kind of immaterial. MRS. TARANA-Well, it's not immaterial if we are now going to build three bays and he's going to put stuff in it. We know one is going to be for a boat. MR. MC CABE-And a tractor. That's two stalls. MRS. TARANA-And a tractor and what else? Okay. He's got a two stall garage. He's got an outbuilding for storage. Now he's going to have three bays, one with a boat, one with a tractor and one empty? What's the rest of the stuff? That would be my question for him to answer. Because it seems like there's a lot of people in Queensbury who have boats, who have tractors, they have tractors. They don't have all these outbuildings on their property. My second question would be, and I sort of disagree. I don't know, Mr. Brown, you said the argument regarding future owners was not significant. Not a good argument. MR. URRICO-The variance stays with the property. It does not travel with the owner. That's what we're talking about. MRS. TARANA-Okay. So the buildings are going to stay with the property. MR. BROWN-Right. MRS. TARANA-So my question would be, what recourse does the Town have if someone moves in and wants to do, or even if Mr. Fulmer, but I trust that he's not going to do that, but if a future property owner comes in and he sees all these bays and these outbuildings and wants to put in some sort of a commercial. MR. MC CABE-He can't. MRS. TARANA-He can't put in a commercial property. I understand that, a commercial business, but he could use it for storage for a commercial business. He can put even paper products in this shed. He could put all kinds of equipment. What recourse would you have to not let that happen? MR. BROWN-Code Enforcement. The property is zoned residential. Any kind of commercial operations aren't allowed there, whether it's storage of paper products or parts to support another commercial venture, something like that, he couldn't use it for that. It's strictly going to be used for residential, per the Zoning Code. If somebody uses it for something that's not allowable, we're going to be there, Code Enforcement, and tell them they can't do it and seek compliance. 10 (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) MRS. TARANA-So if a neighbor or someone comes to you and tells you it's being used in an inappropriate way, you would be able to. MR. BROWN-We're going to go to the site and take a look and see what's going on. MRS. TARANA-Okay. And my only other comment is the variance should be given to alleviate the hardship of a property owner, and I don't see a hardship, and I think the Board should take that into consideration. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would like to address the Board on this matter? Seeing nobody, is there any written comment on the matter? MR. URRICO-No, not since the last meeting. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public meeting for a minute and I'm going to poll the Board and see where we stand on this issue. So I'll start with Roy. What are your thoughts here? MR. URRICO-Well I know in the past we've given some preferential treatment to people that have more property because the Code says it doesn't matter what size the property is. It's one garage per property, no matter what it is. In cases where it's larger property, sometimes we've been less, we've been more generous. In this case I don't think I'm going to be. I think I still see a problem here with granting a second garage in an area that does not require or cannot, the Code does not support a second garage, and I believe that the project will have some impact on the neighboring properties and not just neighboring properties right next door to him, but if we grant this relief, then we're going to have a lot of people in Queensbury wanting a second garage because they have a lot of stuff to store. Everybody has stuff to store, and not every property in the Town has a garage period, never mind a second garage. So I think this is substantial relief and I would be against it. MR. MC CABE-Michelle, what are your thoughts here? MRS. HAYWARD-Well, I have a few concerns. I think my primary concern is aesthetics. I toured the property yesterday and I went over to the next street and I could see the house through the trees, and of course the deciduous trees are going to be losing their leaves and I do think that it would be an aesthetic issue to people on the bike path and of course the other neighborhood. I think it would be easily ameliorated with planting evergreens or something possibly, as a way to help that, but also my other concern is, as Roy said, the size and the need for such a large building. That's all I have to say. MR. MC CABE-So you're a no right now? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm a no right now. MR. MC CABE-So, John, what are your thoughts on this? MR. HENKEL-Well, I've got a question first for Staff. Now he could actually probably put a bunch of instant buildings there, right, or those instant garages? MR. BROWN-No, whether it's temporary or permanent like Mr. Fulmer's proposing, if it's big enough to store a vehicle in and it's got an opening wider than six feet, we call it a garage, whether it's the frame and fabric or wood and shingles. Yes. MR. HENKEL-Okay. Yes, I definitely have a problem because I think there could be a better location, where the basketball court is, could be a better location, smaller. I would definitely want the height not to be as high, and also the shed to be out of there. So I would not be in favor of the way it's presented in front of us right now. MR. MC CABE-Jim, what are your thoughts? MR. UNDERWOOD-The last time we discussed this, I made the suggestion of adding a third bay onto the house so that you had a three bay garage built onto the house made more sense. I don't think I would back away from that recommendation at this point, either. I think it's an extraordinary request being driven by the fact that you want to store a boat indoors, and I think that storing boats indoors is something that we have not really visited very often here in Town. I don't know of very many places that store boats indoors on residential lots. I think that the fact that the neighbors are generally almost unanimously opposed to this project has bearing on the project and I think Mr. Fulmer has always worked very diligently to accomplish making us aware 11 (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) of what he wants to do. I think it's an extraordinary instance here, and I don't think it's something that we can allow at this point. We have allowed other garages on larger rural lots, but this one is more residential and it would have a negative impact on the neighborhood. MR. MC CABE-Harrison, what are your thoughts? MR. FREER-So I would support a second garage, but the location and size of this request does not seem compelling to me. A two car garage that's closer to the garage may be what would be acceptable to me, but the distance back toward the bike path and the whole idea that well this would be not green in three or four months makes it so I'm not supporting the current application. MR. MC CABE-And I guess my feelings are that I'm stressed that the neighbors are as agitated as they seem to be as evidenced by the petition, and so I guess what I would like to see is a little bit more work with the neighbors to try to get their approval of this project. So as you sit right now you don't have too much support. So I'll look for some guidance from you as to what our next step should be. MR. FULMER-Who's not in, Mr. Kuhl? MR. MC CABE-Mr. Kuhl is not here nor Mr. Jackoski. MR. FULMER-Okay. So we have six votes. MR. MC CABE-We have six votes right now. MR. FULMER-And you need four? MR. MC CABE-You need four yeses. MR. FULMER-May I ask the Board a poll, and that is, who was able to make a site visit, and I did see Michelle yesterday. MR. HENKEL-I was at the bike trail, the driveway. MR. FULMER-The driveway also? Good. Thank you. MR. URRICO-We all made site visits. MR. MC CABE-Country Club, bike trail, and up on. MR. FREER-That's not your, that's our choice to make. MR. FULMER-And if I understand this right, Mr. Urrico, I basically. MR. URRICO-I'm not going to negotiate here. MR. FULMER-I'm not trying to negotiate. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. FULMER-If I understand you correctly, I could build a shed in this same location at 750 feet. MR. URRICO-You could build three sheds up to 750 feet, but you already have one there. MR. FULMER-One shed is 750. Correct? MR. URRICO-Up to three. MR. FULMER-But I could build one shed up to 750 feet on the same location. MR. MC CABE-I've got to call an end to this. We've spent enough time on it. So we've got a couple of choices here. You can withdraw. You can table. You can call for a vote. So withdraw means you're all done. Table means that you'll re-visit it and come back at a later time and call for a vote means that we'll formally do a vote. MR. FULMER-So we've reached a time limit. "'12 (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) MR. MC CABE-Well, from a practical standpoint. We've got five other cases that we've got to hear tonight. MR. FREER-So what do you want to do? MR. FULMER-As an amateur I've gone as far as I can with this with great help from over at this table here for seven months, and I really think I need some professional help at this point. So I would like some time to hire a professional and we could pick this up again, if you don't mind. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. FULMER-1 guess I would be requiring some help and looking for the September meeting. MR. FREER-If you want to table it you need to make a request to table. MR. FULMER-I'd like to request a table until September. MR. FREER-Has September got enough room on it? MRS. MOORE-We're just starting to get populated. If the applicant is looking to hire and then also meet with Staff, it may be better for an October meeting time so that gives the applicant over 30 days to work with a professional and work with Staff at that time. MR. BROWN-It's his call. MRS. MOORE-It's really up to the applicant. If you'd like September, then it would be the first September meeting. MR. FREER-What she's saying is you'd have to submit your information in August if you want to go to September. MR. FULMER-Understood. MR. FREER-Okay. That's what you want? MR. FULMER-1 do. MR. FREER-Okay. MR. FULMER-Thank you. Applicant proposes construction of a revised, 924 sq. ft. 3-door detached garage. Revised project includes removal of 1,800 sq. ft. blacktop pad. 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. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-29-2017 ROBERT FULMER, Introduced by Harrison Freer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: To the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting of September agenda with information to be submitted by the August deadline. Duly adopted this 19th day of July, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Thank you, Mr. Fulmer. MR. FULMER-Thank you, folks. Could I get a copy of the petition? I m:N (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) MR. BROWN-Yes, come in tomorrow. MR. FULMER-You have a copy of it? MR. BROWN-We can make a copy of it. Sure. MR. FULMER-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-We'll continue on with the next item on tonight's agenda which is Old Business. It's Aviation Hospitality, LLC, Area Variance Number Z-AV-42-2017. It is a Type II SEAR. It's at 524 Aviation Road. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-42-2017 SEQRA TYPE II 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. 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; 302.5-1-93.1 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-4-050 CHARLES DUMAS & JOSH 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-42-2017, Aviation Hospitality, LLC, Meeting Date: July 19, 2017 "Project Location: 524 Aviation Road Description of Proposed Project: 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 setback and road frontage. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from setbacks and road frontage in the ESC zone (Enclosed Shopping Center). Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements ESC zone The applicant proposes a hotel that is to be located 50.2 ft. from the front setback where a building over 40 ft. in height requires a 100 ft. setback—the building is proposed to be 66+/-ft. in height. Section 179-4-050 frontage on public streets The hotel is to be located on a parcel that is to have no road frontage but will be accessed from the construction of a common drive for the diner and the hotel along with a connector road from drive to the Mall ring road. 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 to no impact on the neighboring properties where the project is located over 500 ft. from Aviation Road and as part of the project common access drive is to be constructed as the main access to the diner and the hotel. 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. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate to substantial relevant to the code. The relief for setback is 49.8 ft. and the frontage is zero ft. (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07111111.:"1:',81.x') 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 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 2.5 acres and the later to be increased to 3.81 acres. The plans show the location of the hotel and arrangement of the site for the access drive with the diner and the connector road to the ring road." MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board based on its limited review reviewed it and did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal with the notation that the applicant will provide clarification on the size of the signage on the three spots on the building. This motion refers to both the Area Variance No. 42-2017 and the Sign Variance No. 6-2017, and both parts of that were passed unanimously on July 18th MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. MR. DUMAS-Greetings. Good evening. My name is Charles Dumas. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Lemery Greisler located in Albany and Saratoga. I have with me this evening Bhavik Jariwala who is the managing partner, a managing member of Aviation Hospitality the applicant, and Josh O'Connor who's with Bohler Engineering who's the civil engineer on the project. We were at Planning Board last night and received a Negative Declaration, and the referral to the Zoning Board. We also, as part of the project there were actually three different site plans. There was the site plan application which is still pending for the hotel parcel itself, but it also involved a modification to the site plan for the Ambrosia Diner up here as well as to the Site Plan of the Aviation Mall which is in this direction. The reason for the modifications to those other site plans is we're making a number of improvements to the traffic circulation and the traffic pattern of the project. The Ambrosia Diner currently has an access here and as a consequence of the connector road that we're going to build that access is going to be eliminated here and provided up in this area. It will also create the inability for traffic to pass from the Ambrosia Diner over to the Sunoco gas station and out onto Aviation Road. We feel that by providing the ring road connector down to the Aviation Road it will allow for a better traffic flow and cars wanting to make a left hand turn out doing so through the signalized intersection. So my understanding is that the Town Planning Department has, for a long time, wanted this connector road and this project is a catalyst for that. It potentially would enable better circulation and traffic patterns for these adjacent properties, presumably in the future. The reason why I think we're dealing with the setback issue here is because of the exit ramp of the Northway coming up just so and based upon the interpretation of your Town Code, we're considered, I guess this is considered to be our frontage, the Northway, and I think that's kind of a misnomer in a way because the whole idea of frontage is that you have access to your property from your frontage, and obviously we can't have access to the property from the Northway. If we could we wouldn't even be having this discussion. All right. So consequently in order to afford access we're building this ring road connector at our cost and expense on an easement. The fee property will be owned and maintained by Pyramid because they'd like to have control of their roadway system, but we will have the easement rights to lay utilities and to have access to our property from this location. We'll also have the opportunity to have a sign out here, if granted the variance by the Board. Under your Town Code I suppose that if you're going to consider this frontage and we can't have access to it, I would ask that the Board consider the outlet of the 254 connector here to be the functional equivalent of frontage. We're some 500 feet back from Aviation Road here, replacing the old Howard Johnson's facility which was here, and we have considered a number of different alternatives in terms of the location of this building, but because of the configuration of the property, because of the presence of the Northway, and because of the interpretation that you have of your own Code, we don't have frontage, all right. So that's what really, I think, drives the problem for us. There are a number of considerations, and I'll ask Josh in a minute to talk about some of the other things that we've tried to consider by way of feasibility. There's a huge drop off over in this area here. So it's a topographical problem, and you can see that this is kind of busy, you know, with this road and the ring road connector. There's utilities and so forth that have to be considered, and we can't 15 (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) really drive this building back any further because of the shape of the parcel. So, you know, I consider the hardship that is encountered and the need for this variance to be driven by the unique characteristics of the property, and so I would ask that you sort of consider that while there may be some hardship in obviously buying the property with the associated hardship, the unique characteristics of the property, the fact that the Northway is here, the fact that your Code sort of defines this as our frontage and requires us to have a 100 foot setback from the frontage creates a unique set of circumstances for any other properties in the Town, either at Exit 18 at this Exit or Exit 20. So that really I think is the lay of the land in terms of the setback issue. Do you have any questions? MR. HENKEL-That connector road is going to be a two way, not a one way, right? MR. DUMAS-Yes, it's a two way road, and it will be a right out only, no left out. Left turns will be shunted down through the ring road and out by the controlled intersection at Friendly's. MR. JACKOSKI-I honestly believe that we expected this kind of application was going to be coming in front of us because of the unique situation that this parcel experiences. So to be very truthful with you, I mean, I don't mind opening the public hearing and getting the public comment and letting you hear Board member comments if you'd like. MR. DUMAS-That would be great, thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Because I think we're all very familiar with this site and what's been going on for many years. MR. DUMAS-1 hope I didn't bore you. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm politely suggesting that I think we can move on and we'll see where we go with it. So if you don't mind I'll open the public hearing this evening. Is there anyone here who'd like to address this Board on this application? Seeing no one, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-1 didn't find any. MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment I'd like to poll the Board just real quick before we close the public hearing. Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm positive about the project. I think you've satisfied all the requirements that I see and I understand what you're doing here and why you need to do that. I'm in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-Fine. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I think it's a great project. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes, I can support this variance. It makes sense and covers our criteria quite well. MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm very excited about the project as well and my concerns about the traffic were addressed. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Roy and I have been on the Board since the first iteration of this project many years ago, and it was anticipated with the ring road connector going out for left hand turns at the stop light. So I have no problems with the request. MR. JACKOSKI-And I have no problems either. I think I was an alternate on the Planning Board at the time Ambrosia came through. So we were anxious for the ring road then. 16 (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) MR. DUMAS-2010. MR. JACKOSKI-We're all very familiar with your projects. So I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Aviation Hospitality, LLC. 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 setback and road frontage. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required. The applicant requests relief from setbacks and road frontage in the ESC zone (Enclosed Shopping Center). Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements ESC zone The applicant proposes a hotel that is to be located 50.2 ft. from the front setback where a building over 40 ft. in height requires a 100 ft. setback—the building is proposed to be 66+/-ft. in height. Section 179-4-050 frontage on public streets The hotel is to be located on a parcel that is to have no road frontage but will be accessed from the construction of a common drive for the diner and the hotel along with a connector road from drive to the Mall ring road. A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 19, 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. We feel that the new property will enhance this whole area. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not reasonable or possible. 3. The requested variance is not really substantial when you consider the nature of the plot. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. Is the alleged difficulty, although on the surface seems self-created, it actually is not. It was created years ago with the original configuration of this property. 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-42-2017, AVIATION HOSPITALITY, LLC, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 19th day of July 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-So we'll have to repeat some of this again for the next application. Just bear with us for a minute. The next application is Aviation Hospitality. It is the same applicant as before. Sign Variance Z-SV-6-2017. This is an Unlisted SEAR. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-6-2017 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED AVIATION HOSPITALITY, LLC AGENT(S) BOHLER ENGINEERING OWNER(S) PCGF NEWCO, LLC ZONING ESC 1.7 (Q,UeensbUiry Z�BA Meeting 07119120 17) 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. 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 CHARLES DUMAS & JOSH O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-And I will turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance Z-SV-6-2017, Aviation Hospitality, LLC, Meeting Date: July 19, 2017 "Project Location 524 Aviation Road Description of Proposed Project: 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, size and setback. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from the number of wall signs and a freestanding sign on separate property, size and setback. Section 140-6 Signs for which permits are required The applicant proposes three wall signs where only one wall sign is allowed. The applicant has indicated the signs are to be 30 sq. ft. In addition, the applicant proposes a free standing sign to be located on the neighboring property that is 50 sq. ft. where 45 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed and to be located two ft. from the property line were a 15 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this sign variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated due to the mix of signage in the neighborhood. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to adjust the number of signs and the size of signs. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate to substantial relevant to the code. The relief requested for the number of wall signs is 3 and only 1 is allowed then relief requested for size of the free standing sign is 5 sq. ft. in excess and 13 ft. of relief for the setback. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may have minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the district. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a new hotel that requires relief for the signage. The applicant also proposes three wall signs where only one is allowed. The applicant has indicated the walls signs each will be 30 sq. ft. and to be located below the parapet. The free standing sign is to be located on the Aviation Mall property that adjoins the Ambrosia Diner at the new entry drive for the hotel and diner. The sign is to be 50 sq. ft. and is to be 2 ft. from the front property line. The signs are associated with the construction of the new hotel that requires relief for setbacks due to the height along with additional site work. That would occur on Aviation Mall property for a connector road to the ring road and a new entryway alignment for the diner and the proposed hotel." 18 (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) MR. JACKOSKI-So if you could just bear with us for one moment. Staff, Board members are kind of confused as to why there's a public hearing scheduled for this evening and next week on this project. It's not really the same application, correct? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. JACKOSKI-They do the realignment. MRS. MOORE-So what happened was it was in reference to SEQR and getting their 30 day timeframe in, and those that needed to grant Lead Agency to the Planning Board. It all happened prior to the 30 days. Therefore you do not have any Aviation project information for next week's meeting. It's all occurring this evening. MR. BROWN-Unless it's tabled from this meeting. MR. JACKOSKI-Again, you did explain to us where the sign was. Can we just ask you questions at this point? MR. DUMAS-Sure. I'm going to ask Josh to take the mic. MR. JACKOSKI-Sure. MR. O'CONNOR-I'd like to just take a quick moment to point out the locations and what drives the need for the variances as they stand. So I'll start with the sign on the frontage and right off the bat note that it's slightly oversized. We're selecting signs from a catalogue that are provided by Home2, and the sign that they provide that's the closest to the 45 square feet is the 50. So for the time being we're going with the sign that comes out of their catalogue. We're proposing to locate it toward the front of the property. The reason for the location, the reason for the setback, is driven by a peculiar shape to the right of way, and as you can see on the survey there's a dashed line here and this is the right of way to the south, and the right of way to the north in front of the Sunoco is here. You can see it makes this jogging shape. So to get the sign as close as we can to what is the functional edge of pavement right of way as we think the Code's intending, it drives us closer to the actual right of way. So we're seeking relief due to this odd shape. If we were 15 feet from the setback in the area where we can construct the sign, we would be considerably set back from the road and the change in grade in the area, other signage and other structures would render it nearly invisible to passing traffic. So that drives the request for the variance in that location. The signage, I think I can provide a little bit more clarity on the size and location. You'll see on our detail sheet there is a sign of a particular size that's larger. That sign is on the east elevation, the sign that's on our detail sheet. It is slightly larger than the other two signs. On the elevation itself there's dimensions on the signage on the site. I have the elevation. I can point to those. So as you can see, this is the side that faces 1-87, and you can see the sign here is shown as nine foot eight by four foot nine at its largest, and that's a smaller sign than we have on the detail page on our plan set. The larger sign is the one that's on the front of the building here and that's the sign that's on the detail sheet. I think that clarifies the size discrepancy in our plan. So that said, as you're looking at the building, this is the front of the building, the space is the Aviation Mall, and you can see the larger of the two sized signs here on the facade, and we hope that that gets the site some visibility from the westbound traffic on Aviation Road. This is the side of this building, the front corner of it, pardon me, that is visible to the north. It's not behind the tree it would be above that tree, but located on this corner of the building, and we hope that that would get the site, get the building some marquee notice from Aviation Road as you're traveling eastbound, and then the third sign we're requesting is on the opposite corner here and we hope that that presents to passerby's on 1-87 as they're traveling northbound on that side. That said, due to the distance the building is away from our main road, which is Aviation Road, you know, I think a degree more noticeability of our marquee is appropriate in this case. We want people driving by to know what the brand is and to get that notoriety. In that regard, I don't think that that's a significant request, but I'd be happy to answer or address any questions that the Board may have/ MR. JACKOSKI-Any questions from Board members at this time? MR. URRICO-1 just have a general question. Is there going to be a covered walkway or anything connecting Aviation Mall with the Hotel? MR. O'CONNOR-There is no immediate plan for pedestrian access provided to the Aviation Mall. We're providing pedestrian access to Aviation Road. There are, as noted previously, some pretty steep slopes. They drop, you know, 35 to 40 feet down to the Mall, in and out that 19 (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) horizontal distance. ADA compliant pathways are not something that's really possible in this area. So there may be contemplation of future action that Pyramid might have for the remainder of the parcel in the future, but I can't speak to that right now. Pyramid has granted us easement for ingress/egress for vehicles and for pedestrians out to Aviation Road and noted we're making a connection to the Diner and improving their sidewalks as well, and noting the Diner owner's, the Ambrosia Diner owners, the Peligrinos, we've worked with them on this project. They've approved our application and are enthusiastic about it. We don't have food service in this Hotel, and we consider this a good synergy and a good co-use of this little local area on the project. MR. URRICO-The front of the Hotel you're considering facing the Aviation Mall? MR. O'CONNOR-That is correct, sir. MR. URRICO-And that would be where the larger sign would be? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, sir. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions before I open the public hearing? I'll open the public hearing at this time. Is there anyone here who'd like to address this Board on this particular application? Seeing no one, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-None that I can see. MR. JACKOSKI-Having none, I'll poll the Board. I'll start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-It's sort of a unique situation here. I think it's similar to what we had when we did The Great Escape's hotel complex because you're located pretty far off the road. I think that the, in the instance of the signage that you're going to need for the Northway side, I'm not really bothered by the signage that faces the Mall because the Mall's all lit up and that's not really going to have any lighting impact on anybody. And I think that the signage is necessary out by the road where you anticipate putting it. That's sort of in line with all the other signs, I remember when the Blacksmith restaurant was there, that sign was set kind of way back. It was difficult to see that sign. It makes more sense to have it in a prevalent position there. I don't really have, I mean, it is an extraordinary request, but I think that everything you're asking for is reasonable, and so I would be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-My only concern is the sign on the Northway side. I'm just wondering about the need for that sign given the visibility will be difficult because you won't even see it until you're at the exit ramp. MR. O'CONNOR-Understood. MRS. HAYWARD-So I'm in favor of two of the signs but not all three at this point. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-I'm not the sign gestapo. When you say it makes sense, I guess my only comment is we have a 45 square foot sign variance, why don't we just find a 45 square foot sign? I heard you say it's in the catalogue, but how hard would it be to comply with that? That would be my question. MR. JARIWALA-Hilton has brand standards for their signage and I think they just look at what the majority of municipalities allow and 50 feet is the norm, and I think it just comes from corporate Hilton and it's nothing that we can choose and try to do a custom sign that would double the cost. So I think it's just a matter of what Hilton gives franchisees, you know, the different options that they provide. MR. HENKEL-You're only talking five square feet. It's not a lot to give, especially as Mike just said with the size. When the building is that big, I think it should be justified to have a little bit more signage and bigger signs, but I'm for this project the way it is. I think it's a good project. MR. FREER-I can support it as is. 20 (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-Yes, it's a unique location and I can support what they want to do, and I'm anxious to have them get started. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the sign request as it is. MR. JACKOSKI-There you go. So I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-Now we have a SEAR, but do we have to do SEQR because we gave it up? MR. JACKOSKI-We gave it up. MRS. MOORE-You do not have to do SEAR. MR. HENKEL-All three of those wall signs, in our booklet here it says they're supposed to be 30 square feet. MRS. MOORE-They are not. MR. HENKEL-So he changed that. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. HENKEL-Because two of the signs were supposed to be 30 square feet and then one of them was going to be bigger, the one on the east side facing the wall. Okay, because that's different than what we've got here. MRS. MOORE-That's correct. MR. HENKEL-What we have here is different than what they said. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-We're looking at the number of signs, not necessarily the size. Correct? MR. BROWN-Well, if they go over 30, you probably. MR. HENKEL-What was the one facing the east? MR. O'CONNOR-It's approximately 12 by 7. MR. JACKOSKI-So unfortunately the applications were put in with not a size variance regarding the signs. So we can grant the number of signs and not grant you a larger signage than was advertised. Is that fair, Craig? MR. BROWN-Yes, we were just discussing that, exactly. MR. HENKEL-So it's got to stay to the 30, then? MR. BROWN-Or table and re-advertise and come back. MR. JACKOSKI-Hang on. We can go ahead with the pole sign out front, right? That was all advertised properly and we can go through with the number of signs. That was all advertised properly. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-If they choose to come back with a larger sign they're going to have to get a variance for a larger sign on the building. MR. BROWN-Correct. 2 1 (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So we can grant you the approvals tonight for what's been applied for, but you may have to come back to get larger sign variances. We've always had a little bit of difficulty with that in the past with other applications. So just be aware of that. So we're going to move forward with approving the application as written with the number of signs and the placement of the pole sign. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Aviation Hospitality, LLC for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of the Town of Queensbury. 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, size and setback. The applicant requests relief from the number of wall signs and a freestanding sign on separate property, size and setback. Section 140-6 Signs for which permits are required The applicant proposes three wall signs where only one wall sign is allowed. The applicant has indicated the signs are to be 30 sq. ft. In addition, the applicant proposes a free standing sign to be located on the neighboring property that is 50 sq. ft. where 45 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed and to be located two ft. from the property line were a 15 ft. setback is required. A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 19, 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. An undesirable change will not be produced in the character of the neighborhood nor will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign variance. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an sign variance? We feel not, again because of the unique location of the building. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? Again we believe not. We believe that the variances were necessary because of the position of the building. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? We believe not. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Indeed it is, but that's not a big deal. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh 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 SIGN VARIANCE Z- SV-6-2017, AVIATION HOSPITALITY, LLC, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame expires; B. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA's review is completed; 22 (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) C. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & codes personnel' D. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; E. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 19th day of July 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mrs. Hayward MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Good luck. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you very much. MR. JACKOSKI-The next item on this evening's agenda is Garden World Associates. It's the Silo restaurant, 537 Aviation Road, Area Variance Z-AV-44-2017. It's a Type II SEAR. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-44-2017 SEQRA TYPE II GARDEN WORLD ASSOC., LLC OWNER(S) GARDEN WORLD ASSOC., LLC ZONING LOCATION 537 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING 270 SQ. FT. DECK AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 400 SQ. FT. DECK FOR RESTAURANT'S OUTDOOR SEATING. PROJECT INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A 64 SQ. FT. ENTRYWAY OVER EXISTING CONCRETE RAMP. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK AND TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED FOR EXPANSION OF OUTDOOR DECK FOR SEATING AND ADDITION OF COVERED ENTRY. CROSS REF P-SP-49-2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2017 LOT SIZE 0.76 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-50 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-4-080 FRANK TROELSTRA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-And I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-44-2017, Garden World Assoc., LLC, Meeting Date: July 19, 2017 "Project Location: 537 Aviation Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant propose to remove existing 270 sq. ft. deck and construct a new 400 sq. ft. deck for restaurant's outdoor seating. Project includes construction of a 64 sq. ft. entryway over existing concrete ramp. Relief requested from minimum front yard setback and Travel Corridor Overlay Zone setbacks. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for expansion of outdoor deck for seating and addition of covered entry. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from setbacks in the Cl zone (Commercial Intensive). Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements Cl zone Section 179-4-030 travel corridor overlay—Aviation Rd The applicant proposes a 400 sq. ft. new outdoor eating area deck and an entryway roof 64 sq. ft. over a concreate ramp. The deck is to be located 46.5 ft. from the front property line where a 75 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: (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) 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 location of the existing building 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 28.5 ft. for the front setback/travel corridor overlay. 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: The applicant proposes a new 400 sq. ft. deck and a 64 sq. ft. cover over an existing entryway. The applicant has included a survey from this April showing the setback to the Silo. The new deck is to be about 2 ft. wider than the previous deck to allow better maneuverability from the eating area entryway to the store. A portion of the deck will allow two additional 2 seat tables." MR. URRICO-And then on July 18, 2017 a motion was made to recommend on behalf of the Planning Board to the Zoning Board that based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And that was passed unanimously. MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. MR. TROELSTRA-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-I suspect you just want us to ask you questions. It's a pretty straightforward application. MR. TROELSTRA-Okay. Again, my name's Frank Troelstra. I'm here with my dad Harry. We're owners of Garden Time and the Silo. A lot of people know who we are. So anyway, the building was built with this deck in 1981 and we've repaired the deck several times and we've kind of come to a point where we'd like to remove the old deck and replace it with a new deck, and in doing so, yes we are asking for another foot to add on there. My manager Glen Boise finds that it's a little narrow to maneuver in with waitresses and serving food. So an actual foot would help out a lot, and we're also proposing, as you can see an extra 10 by 10 area there. The addition we feel does not impact our parking situation at all, and we're really not changing the aesthetics at all. We're going to continue to have nice whiskey barrel planters there and the railing is going to have that nice flower box full of flowers. We're going to keep that nice as well, and in addition we have found over the years that people have difficulty finding where the entrance of the building really is, and so we're proposing to add this covered entrance, I think it's nine feet by seven. I'm not quite sure the exact dimensions, but at least it defines the entranceway so people can find their way around much easier, and I find that over the winter months I've shoveled it many times, that being covered I hope to make it a safer egress and ingress as well. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Are there any Board member questions at this time before I open the public hearing? MR. HENKEL-Is there any way to make that permeability better? You've got one percent you said permeability there. Is there any way of doing something? MR. TROELSTRA-What do you mean permeability? MR. HENKEL-Well, you're shedding a lot of water. You're not absorbing the water that you create on that piece of property. MR. TROELSTRA-I'm not really changing much. ZZ11 (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) MR. HENKEL-I realize that. It's a good project. I have no problem with it. I'm just saying is there any way that you could address that permeability problem? Because basically you're in here at one percent. We don't usually approve projects that are. MR. TROELSTRA-Well it's been like that since 1981. MR. HENKEL-I realize that. There's got to be something you can do. MR. TROELSTRA-It's never been a problem. MR. JACKOSKI-Where does all your water go? MR. TROELSTRA-Basically it sheds off the driveway, in front of our entranceway there's a grate along the whole entrance, it must be about 25 feet or so, it gets absorbed into, and then goes into the storm sewer. MR. HENKEL-It goes down the hill. MR. TROELSTRA-It goes down the hill, well, it actually gets absorbed in that grate. It doesn't go on the road. MR. HENKEL-Not until it gets down to Route 9. MR. TROELSTRA-1 don't know where it goes. MR. MC CABE-And that's why I was reluctant to make any changes because you don't know where it goes, and so it's been like that for a long time and upstream of him it's pretty non- porous. So I don't believe it would be wise to make any change to permeability in that particular area at this particular time. MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any other Board member questions? There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address the Board on this application? Seeing no one, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-1 do not see any written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment I'll poll the Board. I'll start with Harrison. MR. FREER-Yes, I can support this project. It's modest and makes sense and I don't have any objection to it. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-The Silo's been a good business for Queensbury for a long time and I'll support their application to improve the property. MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in favor of the project as well. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, they're not increasing the footprint. It's a good project. So go for it. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-1 believe this satisfies the test. I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-There's no impact on the Travel Corridor Overlay parking lots there, and there's no issues as far as that goes. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval. 25 (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application Garden World Assoc., LLC (The Silo Restaurant). Applicant propose to remove existing 270 sq. ft. deck and construct a new 400 sq. ft. deck for restaurant's outdoor seating. Project includes construction of a 64 sq. ft. entryway over existing concrete ramp. Relief requested from minimum front yard setback and Travel Corridor Overlay Zone setbacks. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for expansion of outdoor deck for seating and addition of covered entry. The applicant requests relief from setbacks in the Cl zone (Commercial Intensive). Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements Cl zone Section 179-4-030 travel corridor overlay—Aviation Rd The applicant proposes a 400 sq. ft. new outdoor eating area deck and an entryway roof 64 sq. ft. over a concreate ramp. The deck is to be located 46.5 ft. from the front property line where a 75 ft. setback is required. A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 19, 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 new deck will be an improvement over the old deck. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not possible at this particular time. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because the deck has essentially existed in this configuration for quite a period of time. 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; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-44-2017, GARDEN WORLD ASSOC. LLC (THE SILO RESTAURANT), Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 19th day of July 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck. MR. TROELSTRA-All right. Thanks for your time. MR. JACKOSKI-Next on the agenda is Area Variance Z-AV-45-2017. It is a Type II SEAR. It is at the corner of Sweet Road and Country Club Roads. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-45-2017 SEQRA TYPE II DAVID AND MORGAN STANHOPE AGENT(S) JOHN R. CANNEY IV, ESQ. OWNER(S) DAVID AND MORGAN STANHOPE ZONING MDR LOCATION CORNER OF SWEET ROAD AND COUNTRY CLUB ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,604 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW AND FRESH WATER WETLANDS APPLICATION REVIEW. CROSS REF P-SP-52-2017; P-FWW-4-2017 26 (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2017 LOT SIZE 4.43 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 296.15-1-1 SECTION 179-3-040; CHAPTER 94 JAMES CANNEY & 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-45-2017, David and Morgan Stanhope, Meeting Date: July 19, 2017 "Project Location: Corner of Sweet Road and Country Club Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 3,604 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. Relief requested from minimum shoreline setback requirements. Planning Board: Site Plan Review and Fresh Water Wetlands application review required. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum shoreline setback requirements in relation to the wetland located on the property. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements MDR zone The home is to be located 53 ft. from the shoreline where a 75 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 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 location of the wetlands and the location of the proposed home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 22 ft. The information submitted indicates 507 sq. ft. of the home would be in the wetland. 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: The applicant proposes a 2,339 (footprint) sq. ft. with a floor area of 3,604 sq. ft. on an existing 4.43 ac vacant parcel. The applicant has indicated there is a 35 ft. buffer area between the site disturbance and the wetland boundary. The applicant has explained there have been two wetland delineations and the home to be orientated to be compliant as possible and feasible for access. The plans show the location of the home in relation to the wetland buffer and boundary." MR. URRICO-And then a motion was made by the Planning Board that based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. However, during discussions the driveway will be moved further away from the bike path and this will be reflected on an updated plan when the applicant comes back to the Planning Board, and that motion was adopted on July 18, 2017 by a unanimous vote. MR. JACKOSKI-Hello and welcome. LIBBY CORENO MS. CORENO-Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. My name is Libby Coreno. I'm a partner with Carter Conboy in the Saratoga office. I'm here tonight with 2 (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) my associate John Canney, as well as Pamela Casey and Morgan Stanhope, both owners of this parcel and along with a special guest, Theo Stanhope who is 12 days old and obviously wanted to be heard tonight and maybe a future ZBA member. So we're here this evening to discuss this parcel which is at the corner of Sweet Road and Country Club Road. It's a vacant 4.43 acre parcel. As many of you know, and I've heard this evening, it is bounded on one side by the Warren County Bike Path. So again out in the Country Club Road area of Town. Here's our proposed plot plan. It's a single family home. I have a bigger one, but I guess I didn't want the Board or the audience to not see the entirety of the four acres. As you can see, the project is being oriented into the northwest corner of the property because the balance of the property has been delineate as wetlands, and this is the closer proposed plot plan. You can see within it the driveway that was just mentioned a moment ago, and I understand the Planning Board will have part of its revised plans to look at moving the road further to the east. Certainly we're amenable to that, and also see that we had the opportunity to meet with Town Staff. We want to thank them for their time, and were very thoughtful about creating the backyard away from the bike path to preserve the buffer between the bike path and the house as well as the privacy for the home, and I'll talk more about that in a moment, and so I don't know if there's a light on here, but the western side of the property is actually the bike path Okay. The total amount of relief that we're seeking is a single relief from the wetlands setback of 75 feet. We have one corner of the proposed house that will be closer than 75 feet to the wetland setback, and that's, it's at 53 feet, which is a 29% variance, and it was already noted, I believe the Planning Board provided its recommendation earlier this week. A little bit of history on this one for those who aren't familiar and why we're sort of here today and why this design was done the way that it was is that we purchased the property in 2015, engaged DEC to come down and do some wetlands mapping. They came down and did that and we were given what I would call the 2015 wetland delineation which shows this building envelope. We took that building envelope to Witt Construction in Saratoga Springs in order to design a single family home. When they came in to apply for the building permit they were advised there was a wetland delineation much earlier and DEC was invited back down and disregarded its 2015 delineation following our purchase of the property, back to its 2007 delineation which gives very little buildable space and so if I go back to my plot plan you'll see how much more narrow the buildable space actually is, and this one's better. Just real quickly you'll see it's a significant change. So that necessitated our, excuse me, there it is right there. That's the wetland delineation. So based upon this 2007 delineation we found that our design that we hired Witt Construction to do would require a single variance. It also requires a Freshwater Wetlands Permit which we'll be doing with the Planning Board and, excuse me, the coloration, and I'm sorry that it's rendering this way, but I wanted to give the Board an idea of just the scope of how close that point is and sort of relative to the rest of the site, that upper, this corner, and it's just not rendering well, this is the corner that's within the 75 feet. So obviously the Area Variance standard, and I've heard it tonight so I know, everyone probably knows it better than I do, but I want to just talk through a few minutes about the standards and how we think we meet them. The first is whether there would be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. They don't see a change. It's a permitted use in a single family zone. The home will be in conformity with other nearby surrounding properties. This is the minimum amount of relief to be requested, and our closest neighbor is to the north across Sweet Road with very little impact. We did look at alternatives. There's only a single alternative that would allow us not to have a variance at all, and it's rotating the entire home 80 degrees, but that would place the entire backyard along the bike path and require the removal of a buffer, and so on balance it would seem to us that preservation of the buffer area around the bike path would be of primary importance as an alternative since that's the purpose of the path itself. There are no additional structures or additions. There's no back porch. There's no added buildings that would exacerbate the size, and we have done our best to minimize everything to the maximum extent practicable. Whether or not it's substantial. I just want to note a few mathematical or technical elements. It's a 4.43 acre parcel of which .58 acres is being developed. 507 square feet of total footprint is within the setback. That's two percent of the entire development area, and .2% of the entire acreage. So very minor, and relative to the site size a very minor incursion. However, it's still a 29% variance from Code, but given, we hope that the Board might find that that's mitigated by the substantial size of the property, the amount of the consistent green space and our distance from adjacent neighbors. Whether or not we'll have an impact on the environment. We've tried to, the wetlands, the shoreline, the neighbors and the bike path, and again, it's a permitted use within the zone. We're making the argument that this is not self-created. I come into variances all the time and it's very hard sometimes to argue that it really isn't self-created because it so often is, but here's one circumstance where we'd just like the Board to recognize this entire site in reliance on a 2015 wetlands delineation. You understand this is where we find ourselves now and we need to ask for relief, but we're hoping that that might mitigate some of the self-created consideration, and then the alternative as I've heard mentioned tonight, self-created hardship is not fatal to an Area Variance. So that's all I have, and I wanted to thank the Board very much for your time and your consideration. 28 (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any Board members with questions at this time before I open the public hearing? MR. HENKEL-You are going to change the configuration of the driveway, right? MS. CORENO-Correct. MR. HENKEL-Okay. So there'll be less pavement. MS. CORENO-Yes, the driveway will be, the orientation of the house was more of what I was speaking to for the backyard purposes. MR. MC CABE-1 have a question. How much fill is going to come in to situate the house on? MR. CANNEY-1 believe it's about 1500 yards of fill will be coming in. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions? I'll open the public hearing at this time. Is there anyone here who'd like to address this Board regarding this application? I do see a couple of hands going up. So if you could give up the table and while the public is coming to the table, Roy, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-1 have not located any. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. TOM ROSS MR. ROSS-Thank you for hearing me. My name is Tom Ross. I live on the other corner of Sweet Road and Country Club Road, the white house up on the hill with the rocks we all brought in. I went up to the Town office and looked at the materials and everything and as their hopefully future neighbor, we would strongly support their request for a variance, as long as they understand the water problem over there, but we would be in support of the variance. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Board? Hello and welcome. DOUG SHAVER MR. SHAVER-Hi. Doug Shaver. I live on Nova Lane which would be just to the west of this property on the opposite side of the bike trail. I would like to extend our support for the variance request. It's an appropriate use of the property there. It is all residential and we see no impact from us as a neighbor. There's a large buffer between the bike trail and our neighborhood and the applicants are going to maintain that. So we would extend our support for the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. I don't see any other hands at this time. If you could re-join us at the table. And, Roy, you did not find anything. Correct? MR. URRICO-No, I did not. MR. JACKOSKI-So there was some public comment in support of the project. Can you tell me, there's no way at all to move the house to the south and to the west? MS. CORENO-No. If we move the house, and I brought my orientation sheet with me, if we move the house to the west, then we necessarily impact the buffer for the bike path, and then if we move the house to the east we get even closer to the wetland buffer. So the intention of this particular layout is that this is the one where we feel like, in connection with the design, where we impact the neighbor and the bike trail the least with our backyard and the amount of space that would need to be created for the homes. So that's why it's located there. As I've mentioned there is a single way to turn it, but the home would be oriented long and narrow and it would not face Sweet Road and the backyard would impact the buffer as well. MR. JACKOSKI-And how much of the existing vegetation is going to remain along the western line? MS. CORENO-All of it, and we intend to improve. 29 (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) MR. JACKOSKI-How much is all of it? Because I see a driveway, I see a turnaround. I see backing out of the garage I see a lot of pavement. MS. CORENO-Along the bike trail? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. MS. CORENO-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-How many feet of existing original vegetation will not be disturbed? MS. CORENO-1 don't know how much existing vegetation there is. So I apologize for that, but I believe it's 20 feet. MR. JACKOSKI-So that's not a lot of screening. PAMELA CASEY MS. CASEY-1 think it's 35 feet. MS. CORENO-Thirty five feet. I'm looking at an old. I'm trying to find my map right now. MR. JACKOSKI-So the edge of your driveway will be no closer than 35 feet at the western boundary? MS. CASEY-Actually last night when we discussed it at the Planning Board it was deemed over a little bit more, it was going to be, but our intent is to keep all the vegetation. We love that. We want to keep all of that natural, and actually when we landscape we're actually going to have the place in Granville come that actually brings in plants that are more native to the environment to keep it intact and to bring more of that here. MR. BROWN-So is the shaded the area to be cleared? MS. CORENO-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-The light green versus dark green versus gold. MS. CORENO-Right. The gold is the area of the variance. The driveway is under consideration still. So this is the plan that was submitted with the application. So the driveway itself may be moving to the east in their discussion with the Planning Board and the Freshwater Wetlands Permit, but our variance is related solely to the house. MR. JACKOSKI-Can you tell me the distance roughly in scale from the point of the curb or a radius. It looks like part of the turnaround area where you back out of the garage. How close is that point of clearing to the property line? MS. CORENO-To the property line? Like I said, I don't have my scale with me. MR. CANNEY-It's 35 feet to the wetland boundary which is just over the property line. So it's probably right around 30 feet. MR. BROWN-So just to be clear, you're talking about this distance right here? MR. CAN N EY-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-That's all that is, 35. MS. CORENO-Thirty-five. MR. JACKOSKI-I keep hearing you say how you want to keep all the vegetation. You understand vegetation and trees about 35 feet is nothing to screen from the bike path. MR. BROWN-And there's a 20 foot setback line that's on the map. This shows the 20 foot setback line right here. MR. FREER-Craig, can you show us where the bike path actually is? :N 0 (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) MR. BROWN-The bike path is right here between these two dotted lines. MR. FREER-So there's 20 feet on the bike path. MR. All of that stays. MR. BROWN-Yes, I mean, they don't have any control over that. MS. CORENO-Yes. The distance between the bike path and the actual improvements is much larger than that, and I apologize. I thought the question was to the property line. MR. JACKOSKI-It is. MS. CORENO-And I apologize if I was overstating. My point in saying the orientation of the home was to orient most of the clearing away from the bike path not that there would be none. So I apologize if I overstated on that. MR. JACKOSKI-I just have a hard time understanding why you can't simply take that house that's there right now, slide it to the southwest. I don't understand if that's the clearing area in light green why you can't slide it to the southwest and continue to be further away from the northeast. To me wetlands are critical. We're in the 75 foot buffer. MS. CORENO-Our calculation is to that back, I guess we'll call it the south corner. Sliding it in that direction would require a second variance because it's 76.1 feet, at this point, from the wetland buffer to that setback corner. So moving it any further to the south indicates another variance. MR. JACKOSKI-Are you referring to that point that's there? MS. CORENO-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-So by sliding the house parallel with that point, you're telling me I'm going to get closer to that point. MS. CORENO-When you say parallel, I guess what I'm. MR. JACKOSKI-Would you like me to show you? MS. CORENO-Please. I mean I certainly don't want to be obtuse. MR. JACKOSKI-This is the point you're worried about being 76 feet from? MS. CORENO-No, no, no, no, no. It's down further. It's the next one down. It's that one. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm sorry. So I understand that that's the line, and I understand that this house is angled like this. I don't understand why you can't just slide it this way and get rid of this. MS. CORENO-Okay. So if we're sliding it this way, it again, would require us to receive a variance from this wetlands edge. MR. JACKOSKI-There is a wetland ditch on the Warren County property? MS. CORENO-Edge I believe. There is. It's not on our property, but it's across the boundary line. MR. CANNEY-It continues up just shy of where it says construction of the municipal services. So right there. That line, if you look on the larger map, that indicates the end of the wetlands. MS. CORENO-So as I said, we are certainly willing to stay as minimal. MR. JACKOSKI-Let's see what the rest of the Board says. MS. CORENO-Certainly. Thank you, sir. MR. URRICO-I have a question about the delineation. I want to make sure we're all talking about the same one. You mentioned 2015 and 2007. What are we using to determine the wetland delineation? m:N l (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) MR. BROWN-We're using the 2007. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. FREER-Why? MR. BROWN-Because the DEC said they did it wrong in 2015. Essentially. MR. JACKOSKI-And I wonder if they did it this year where the wetlands would be. MR. BROWN-Well, let's not do that. MR. JACKOSKI-But that is a legitimate concern. MR. BROWN-Yes, I mean it's not going to grow, a wetland's not going to grow that fast. The impounded water may be there, but that doesn't mean the wetland's grown. MR. UNDERWOOD-Part of that may be, too, when they re-did that Sweet Road, all that infrastructure went in at the base of the hill to capture all that runoff that came from the top of the hill all the way to the base of the hill. So I'm sure that increased the amount of water that was being percolated into the ground down there. It may have changed the whole site. MR. BROWN-It could be, you know, standing water or something that looks wet that's not the only criteria for a wetland. You've got certain vegetation, types of soil. It's not just, you know, is there water, are your feet wet. That's not the only thing. MR. URRICO-So if we used the 2015 delineation, would that be more favorable to them? MR. BROWN-Yes, the 2015, the erroneous 2015 wetlands delineation, puts the line over a lot further to the east. So it would definitely benefit their application or the potential to develop the site, but the DEC said, sorry, we did it wrong. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. I'll poll the Board at this time and see where we're going. Mike? MR. MC CABE-I'm against this project, and the reason I'm against this project is Mr. Ross referred to his house as the house on the hill, and there's a reason why he's the house on the hill because that's the low spot in that whole area. Everything runs down to that spot, and I'm afraid that if we grant this variance it could cause problems to other houses on Sweet Road, houses up on Nova, and maybe even Edgewood. Fifteen hundred yards of fill is a pretty big number, and so, you know, a house that size is definitely going to change the hydrology of the area and I believe it'll be a detriment to the environment. So I'm against this project. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I have questions about whether we should allow anything on this site also, but at the same time, the Town has reviewed the project with the Planning Board pre- emptively. MR. BROWN-The Planning Board issued a recommendation. That's correct. They're on for next Tuesday. They come back next Tuesday for their Site Plan. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think that with the Planning Board's review of the project, I think that they would dial in whether to infill the project to make it doable is in the best interest of the Town. I think that they recognize the fact that the structure on Sweet Road does infiltrate a substantial amount of water at the base of that hill there as Mike mentioned, but at the same time I think that this project is reasonable because the bulk of the site is still going to remain untouched. I don't think the impact of the wetlands from this construction is going to change anything. I think that the bulk of the moisture comes down that hill, and it's going to come to the base of the hill anyway and this project isn't going to change that. So I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-Well, I'm concerned about the wetlands as everyone else is, and we want to minimize that impact, but Mr. Jackoski mentioned the possibility of moving the building to minimize the variance. I would be in favor of that, if possible. :N2 (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm sort of on board with Jim to a certain degree, but I get nervous because Meadowbrook Road, which is more severe wetland I would think, has had problems at two different locations because of additional building along the way there. There's a place down by Aviation, by Quaker Road that they literally have a dock in their backyard because it's flooded so much, and then up the road, right up here, there's some severe problems as well when more houses were added in. I would be in favor of it if you considered moving, sliding that down a little bit. I think that would give it a little bit more room and make it a better project. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes. I can support this project as presented, especially since the DEC wetlands delineation was part of the cause of you being here, and it looks like you've done a very conscientious job of trying to fit the building onto a tough building site. So I understand that, from what I heard, sliding the house down like the Chairman suggested would infringe on the wetlands to the west. If that's not the case, then I think that makes sense, but what I heard was that sliding as suggested impacts the wetlands on the west. So if it's six of one half dozen of the other, then I would support it. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I think with the support of the neighbors Mr. Shaver and Mr. Ross. I think definitely they should consider the amount of blacktop there, which they're going to it sounds like. I think it's a workable project. You're talking 4.4 acres, and they're only going to utilize a small portion of that. So I would be in favor of it as is. MR. JACKOSKI-So some of the stuff that I've been thinking about in the balancing test is that it is self-created. You're building a larger home than you need to build on the site. The site could support a smaller home. It's a $32,000 lot. It's not a significantly expensive lot in the Town of Queensbury. It's large. It's there. I do think there are concerns with the wetlands. I'm not in favor ever of building in the buffer and then you're going to disturb even further into the buffer. So the buffer is there for a reason. It's not THE wetlands that you're building in. You're building in the buffer, and I understand that perfectly, but I don't have so much of a problem as just disturbing in the buffer while you're building, but you're going to actually locate a lot of the house in there, and I just wonder if there's something else that can be done. I understand where you're at because I understand that this is something that happened with DEC, but we're here to protect the wetlands of the Town of Queensbury. MS. CORENO-If I may respond just to that point. I want it to be very, very clear that there is no buildable space that's not in the wetland buffer. So there is no, we could, when I say no buildable space, I mean you could probably get a driveway or the adjacent area. MR. JACKOSKI-Well then you need to help us all understand, because the light green there suggests what? MS. CORENO-The light green is the area that will be cleared. MR. JACKOSKI-And can you show us? MS. CORENO-1 don't have a picture tonight of the 75 foot measuring that is the wetland, that is the wetland requirement for a Freshwater Wetlands Permit. MR. JACKOSKI-So you're telling me the white part of the house is actually also in the buffer? MS. CORENO-I'm saying that we have an adjacent area of, the adjacent area of 100 feet is going to be an issue for us when we go both in front of the DEC for our Freshwater permit as well as the Town. So these hydrology issues and the ability to build within that adjacent area is something that's being reviewed, unless I've misstated that, I think that was what we discussed. MR. BROWN-Yes, I think there's two things here we're talking about. One's the adjacent area to the wetlands, which is the need for the Freshwater Wetlands Permit. Then there's the building setback. The adjacent area is 100 feet. The building setback is 75. So I think your question may be where is the 75 foot setback to the wetland building envelope, and it appears as though you can fit a house in there because only the orange portion, sorry, I'm color blind. I'm not sure what color that is, but the orange portion is the part that's in the 75 foot setback. MS. CORENO-Correct. m:N m:N (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) MR. BROWN-So the rest of the house is outside the 75 foot setback to all the wetlands. MR. JACKOSKI-The house cannot move anymore to the southwest without impacting the wetland. MR. BROWN-A foot maybe I think the answer was. MR. JACKOSKI-I get that. MR. BROWN-So there is area outside of the setback, but I would tend to agree tht there's very limited area outside the adjacent area, 100 foot buffer. MR. JACKOSKI-I guess I just struggle with, Harrison may know more because he's on the bike path all the time, but maybe we start understanding which quote unquote wetland, true wetland is more important than not. If the wetland on the bike path area really is the. MR. UNDERWOOD-That's the swale, where all that water comes down. MR. JACKOSKI-The swale, right. Is that as important as the true wetlands that are. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think the forefront out toward Country Club Road where it spreads out semi absorbs, that's the more critical area out there. MR. BROWN-It's all connected. It's all the same wetland. MR. JACKOSKI-It's just parts that you want to disturb or upset. I get it. Well, we kind of heard Board member comments. So right now we don't necessarily have four votes that pass. MR. URRICO-1 want to change mine. I'm definitely on board with it, without any adjustments. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So Roy is an approval as is. Mike, you are against it. MR. MC CABE-Right. MR. JACKOSKI-John, you are? MR. HENKEL-I'm for it. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? For it. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm going to say for it because of lack of alternatives. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. And, Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval. And I hope, Harrison, can you knock it out for us? MR. FREER-Yes. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from David and Morgan Stanhope. Applicant proposes construction of a 3,604 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. Relief requested from minimum shoreline setback requirements. Planning Board: Site Plan Review and Fresh Water Wetlands application review required. The applicant requests relief from minimum shoreline setback requirements in relation to the wetland located on the property. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements MDR zone The home is to be located 53 ft. from the shoreline where a 75 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 19, 2017; (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) 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 this is a very limited building site on a larger piece of property that is mostly wetlands and we also heard no objections from the neighbors that it would influence in a negative way the character of the neighborhood. 2. Feasible alternatives are not really possible because the wetlands surround the entire property. The suggestion of moving it one way or the other just infringes on other wetland buffers. So it's not possible. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. It's moderate. They're not building in the wetlands. They're building in the buffer. They're not disturbing the wetlands design, but the Planning Board will have the lead on that to make sure the minimum disturbances occur. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The wetlands are there for a purpose and we're not violating the actual wetlands. It's just the buffer. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? I believe they deserve at least partial credit because they purchased the property in 2015 when the DEC gave them a broader building latitude and then revised their findings. 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-45-2017, DAVID & MORGAN STANHOPE, Introduced by Harrison Freer, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Duly adopted this 19th day of July 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer NOES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski MR. JACKOSKI-I'd love to say yes. You've got a good project there. Wonderful builder. I just don't like encroaching on our wetland. MS. CORENO-Thank you very much for your time and your consideration. MR. CROWE-I just want to note for the record that I'll be recusing myself on the next item. Just one housekeeping item. I believe that the public hearing was closed on Fulmer. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I saw that. I'll clean that up later. MR. CROWE-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-The next item on this evening's agenda is the Appeal of Frank & Isobel Munoff as the appellants and the owners of the property are Harold & Lyn Halliday. This is at 2599 State Route 9L. Property owners are Harold & Lyn Halliday. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. This is Notice of Appeal Z-NOA-2-2017. We have had this project in front of us before. NOTICE OF APPEAL Z-NOA-2-2017 SEQRA TYPE N/A FRANK & ISOBEL MUNOFF, APPELLANT OWNER(S) HAROLD AND LYN HALLIDAY, PROPERTY OWNER ZONING WR LOCATION 2599 STATE ROUTE 9L, PROPERTY OWNER: HAROLD & LYN HALLIDAY APPELLANT IS APPEALING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S ISSUANCE OF :N 5 (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) THE BUILDING PERMIT (OUR FILE NUMBER: AST 148-2017 HAROLD HALLIDAY ISSUED ON APRIL 13, 2017) FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,600 SQ. FT. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE BUILDING. CROSS REF NOA 1-2017 MUNOFF RE: HALLIDAY PARCEL: SUP 1-2017; SP 2-2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.66 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 240.5-1-32 SECTION N/A FRANK & ISOBEL MUNOFF, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Notice of Appeal Z-NOA-2-2017, Frank & Isobel Munoff, Meeting Date: July 19, 2017 Location: 2599 State Route 9L, Property Owner: Harold & Lyn Halliday Description of Proposed Project: Appellant is appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals relative to the issuance of a building permit for the above referenced matter. Staff comments: First, Standing: Was the appeal taken within the appropriate 60 day time frame and is the appealing party aggrieved? • Building Permit AST 148-2017 was approved by the Zoning Administrator on April 13, 2017. The Notice of Appeal application/letter was originally filed with the Town on June 6, 2017 and supplemented on June 16, 2017. • The appellant has not offered any information regarding a direct damage or harm to them that differs from that of the general public, or an explanation of how they are aggrieved. They are a nearby property owner. Second, Merits of the argument if the appellant is found to have standing: The appellant is appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the issuance of Building Permit AST 148-2017. The appellant asserts that the Building Permit should not have been issued because: • Should be an Accessory Structure and require an Area variance • Neighbors were not notified • Lake George Park Commission denied the project • Building does not meet any Town Codes • Density requirements not met • Wetlands Setbacks and Stormwater runoff concerns The Variance, density and setback issues are not ripe for an Appeal to this Board. The allotted timeframe to challenge these items has expired and these items, along with others were discussed during a previous Munoff Appeal (NOA 1-2017) which was decided in favor of the Zoning Administrator. With regard to the other items asserted as merits of the appellants' arguments: The Lake George Park Commission has issued a Notice of Intent to Deny. This affords the applicant an opportunity to appeal. Halliday has filed such an appeal. The LGPC has not denied the application as of this writing. Neighbor notification is not required for a building permit. The project was reviewed and approved by the Planning Board. The Zoning Administrator reviewed the Building Permit plans for compliance with the Planning Board approval and, having found the plans in compliance, issued a zoning approval for the building permit." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. :N 6 (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) MR. MUNOFF-Frank Munoff. Isobel Munoff. We live at 2626 Route 9L. We're not here to even talk about the marina. We got a letter in the mail a long time ago about a boat storage facility, and then I looked up the law and wrote a letter here and said, you can't have a boat storage facility with a Special Use Permit. You have to have two acres. And then Mr. Brown said, yes, and he writes me a letter. Well let's call it what it really is. It's not a boat storage facility. I know this is old news, but I'm going to say it. You can look at the Planning Board. The Planning Board called it a boat storage facility. That's what they called it, okay. That's all that was ever said. Then it got to be a marina. Then it was denied. I'm not here to even talk about that. I did a FOIL request and found an Accessory Structure application. I had four phone calls people knowing I'm coming here today and this is in April 7th. This was like snuck in with Mr. Brown's help I'm sure. This is an accessory structure application. I had four phone calls tonight knowing I'm coming here. They said how do you have an accessory building 3600 square feet on a piece of land that is 1.62 or 1.66, whatever one you want to read, that has a single family house, no, a two family house, whichever one we want to read, both are incorrect. How do you have an accessory building without going through what that poor guy, the first guy here today? He didn't mean the Codes. You said that's a pretty big structure for a piece of land. How do you have an accessory building without doing the Codes? I'm lost. Help us out. MRS. MUNOFF-I guess our Appeal was after we FOIL'd these records and we found that a building permit was issued. Yes, the Planning Board approved the project, I think contingent on Lake George Park Commission, they needed a Special Use Permit for the whole thing to be complete packaged, okay, now you can go ahead. So how do you go from a Planning Board that says, okay, we'll okay it if the Lake George Park Commission okays it, but then Lake George Park Commission hadn't even ruled one way or the other and a building permit is issued? The original Planning Board meeting was in January. This application for a building permit is dated April 7th. It was stamped approved on I think it was April 13th or something like that it was signed off on, and for 1.66 acres and to have an accessory structure 3600 square feet, no questions asked, yes, here's your building permit, go ahead, you know, but we don't care that you still have to go in front of the Lake George Park Commission and what happens? Subsequently Lake George Park Commission denies it ultimately, and now I understand it's going through an appeal so that decision may, there may be a recommendation in a different direction, which would certainly change this if it goes in their favor, then, of course, they have their Special Use Permit and can go ahead with it. In this interim time, they have a building permit in hand. MR. MUNOFF-There's no Special Use Permit attached to this. MRS. MUNOFF-There's nothing on this application that even identifies it as being connected to boat storage sales service and whatever it was, commercial boat sales storage facility or a Class A Marina. They were given a building permit, approved a building permit, to construct a 3600 square foot accessory building on 1.66 acres of land without having to go in front of you guys to get a variance. It doesn't make sense to us. That's why we're here. We want to find out why and we also have some comments about activity that's occurred in the meantime. MR. MUNOFF-I did meet with Mr. Brown the day after the Lake George Park Commission denied this, and Mr. Brown assured us, assured us if he did build this building it would have to be considered an accessory structure, and so I asked Mr. Brown, an accessory structure, and I looked at all this, I've got all the Codes, that means the building can't be bigger than his residence? That's correct. That means that it's got to meet all the criteria in the Codes? That's correct. MRS. MUNOFF-If it wasn't going to be a marina or boat storage then it turns into an accessory structure. That's a whole other application, but I guess our Appeal is how does somebody get a building permit without having to go through the Zoning Board of Appeals, which people have to go in front of you if they want something more than the Code allows. How they get a building permit in their hand and can go ahead and build if they want to. MR. MUNOFF-And after this, I have no malice towards Mr. Halliday. I'm very upset about how this thing has been going down. We think there has been a lot of help for Mr. Halliday from Queensbury, and the fact that there's been no communication between Mr. Brown and us in any positive manner. Any time I've asked a question, it's well, I'm confused. No I'm not confused. I'm not confused the way that we've been treated. I'm not confused that I have an accessory structure application that I had to make a FOIL request. I was in direct contact with Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown always said I will let you know, Mr. Halliday is out of town. I will let you know what his intentions are. We already know what his intentions were. It's right here. So then I saw people going over there and I called Mr. Brown and I said, I thought there was going to be no activity. They denied it. There's nothing going on there. I said, yes, I think there is. So then I ,3 7 (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) e-mailed Mr. Hatin and I know there was a footing inspection, and I don't have the truth as I'm sitting here, because I got an e-mail from Mr. Hatin that said be careful what you're telling Munoff. I was there for a footing inspection yesterday. So you have to understand that I don't have trust here. I don't have trust. MRS. MUNOFF-I don't think we were supposed to see that, but it was still attached to the e-mail that my husband got. MR. MUNOFF-I don't know if there's footings there or not. Mr. Brown told me we're not doing anything. Everything is contingent upon the Lake George Park Commission ruling. We're wait and see. I'm okay with that. We'll wait and see with the Lake George Park Commission. Everything is contingent. He says we have a gentleman's agreement. I don't want a gentleman's agreement. I want a stop work order. Why can't we have a stop work order? If it's contingent upon the Lake George Park Commission. If it is contingent on that, how was he allowed to keep going to build? Because when we first talked to Mr. Brown he said excuse me I have to go to my office. He came out of his office to my wife and I and said this permit is not contingent on the Lake George Park Commission. Now it is contingent on the Lake George Park Commission. I don't know if there's footings there or not. Something tells me there might be. I'd like to ask somebody. Can somebody tell me if there are? So anyway, an accessory structure application I thought required all the necessary Codes. Without this Special Use Permit, and I know Adirondack, the APA, I called down. They have many of the same codes and I said could you interpret the one about each dwelling unit constituting one principle building? Could you interpret on lots less than five acres a structure can't exceed 1100 square feet. They said what do you want me to interpret? I said, well if you have a three family house, is each unit considered a principle building? And they said well absolutely. The reason we do that is motels, this and that. He says there's no interpretation on that. Each unit has to meet the density that it's in, without a Special Use Permit. We're not talking Special Use Permit. This is an accessory structure, and he says of course it has to meet the density. You have 1.6 acres of land with a three family house and you want to put a 3600 square foot building. MRS. MUNOFF-Across from our property, and he says that we don't have a grievance here? We do. Commercial enterprise is, commercial is being pushed into our neighborhood. It's a storage unit for stuff. Okay, and I'm sorry we're in front of you again, and maybe we shouldn't be here, maybe it's not technically correct for us to appeal, but we're appealing because we just see the game being played where we're going to stall. We're going to do this, and then you know what, you're going to go to the next step, going to be in this game for a couple of years and somebody's going to stop paying attention and before you know it the building is going to be gone from Fort Ann and it's going to be across the street from us, and you know what, if there wasn't all this game playing with the marina and the commercial boat storage and sales facility, I wasn't here, but my husband showed me the other meeting you had earlier, okay, that person had 3 point whatever acres and they wanted to put a 982 square foot garage on it and you denied him. Okay. This is somebody who has 1.66 acres. MR. JACKOSKI-Just a moment. We did not deny them. MR. MUNOFF-You tabled. He was here for a variance. MRS. MUNOFF-But that person had to go through a variance, and I don't mean to be rude, I really don't. I guess I'm just frustrated because we feel like we'd like some help from somebody, too. The Hallidays are getting help. They're getting supported at the zoning board office, you know, how do we do this, how are we going to figure this out and all that, okay, that's nice be helpful. Okay. But you know what, we're in a residence, that's a residential area. That family has fought against the encroachment of commercial enterprises since we've lived there, and they've often asked us to go along with them to help fight things to keep them from encroaching, and the Lake George Park Commission denies them. They have a building permit and they have taken action on it. I guess that's what we're appealing. There's a freestanding building permit out there that, you know, somebody has it. They got it without having to go through the proper requirements to get a variance. MR. MUNOFF-And now you have to send us, I guess you don't have to send us notice, but when you go to the code administrator Mr. Brown and he tells us that we're waiting, Mr. Halliday is going to wait and make his decision knowing that this already existed, there's not a lot of trust here, and I guess my final question is, how do you have an accessory structure without meeting the codes? I'd like an answer from the Board if that's possible. m:N 8 (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So what we have to do at this point is to allow you certainly to make your appeal, and then we have to hear from the Zoning Board administrator who you are appealing against what his side of the story is. MR. MUNOFF-Of course. MR. JACKOSKI-Once we hear that, then the Board can start discussions about what they feel is appropriate. MR. MUNOFF-And that's fair. I just want to make it clear. You're telling me what I'm appealing, and that's unfair. That's not what I'm appealing. I'm appealing the accessory structure not meeting the codes of Queensbury. That's what I'm appealing. This has nothing to do with the fact you said I already did this. I did do this in the timeframe of when I filed this FOIL request, of when the application was. This has nothing to do with marina. I'm not appealing anything about that. I'm appealing the accessory building across from my house not meeting any of these codes that the Town of Queensbury set forth, and they don't meet the Adirondack, APA codes either. MRS. MUNOFF-Just that this building permit could be issued before anything was really finally approved. I guess that's kind of confusing. MR. JACKOSKI-Let's hear from Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown. MR. BROWN-Okay. Thank you. Yes, I guess the issuance of a building permit that's associated with a Planning Board approval is almost kind of a foregone conclusion provided that the application for the building permit is consistent with what the Planning Board approval was for. So in this case there was a Planning Board or Zoning Board approval. There was a Board approval for a project, an allowable use in the zone, a commercial boat sales and storage facility, of which there is no limit to the square footage other than what the Planning Board may approve. So you have an approval in place for that. The building permit that comes in is consistent with that approval. I'm obligated to issue that building permit from the zoning perspective. There's another review component of that. It's the Building Code review. The Building Department, the Building Inspectors, review for the construction and make sure it meets the International Building Code, it's a safe structure. So there's two parts to issuance of a building permit. The zoning issuance is the part that I do, and in this case, again, the application was consistent with the approval that the Planning Board issued. So unfortunately there's a little confusion here that the Building Department considers this, on their applications that they require people to fill out, they consider this type of structure to be an accessory structure, that kind of an application and not a principle building structure, principle application. So there's confusion there with the name of the application that the Building Department uses and the definition in the Zoning Code. It's unfortunate, but there, the application, the building permit that was issued is the exact building that was approved by the Planning Board. It's not a different building. It's not an extra building. It's exactly what was approved by the Planning Board. The Planning Board approval, I guess it's not contingent upon the Lake George Park Commission acting. I think the contingency is, if I'm the developer, I want to have all my approvals in place before I go to the next step and actually construct. The Planning Board typically doesn't, and probably if an attorney was here they would recommend that the Planning Board not condition, or the Zoning Board, not condition an approval on the action of another Board. You don't have any control over what that Board does. That approval, that permit that they're obligate to get is on them. It's their onus. If they don't get it they have to face whatever enforcement action comes from that agency that they didn't get the permit from. If they've met all the requirements for the Town to issue the permit, the Town issues the permit. In this case the Planning Board did, after a lengthy review and public hearings, and my part of it was to issue the building permit that matched up to that approval that the Planning Board issued. MR. UNDERWOOD-Did the building permit comply with the Zoning Board accessory structures? MR. BROWN-It doesn't have to comply with the zoning for accessory structures. It complies with the approval that was issued, which is an allowed use in that zoning district. MR. UNDERWOOD-The size doesn't matter? MR. BROWN-Size doesn't matter. MR. UNDERWOOD-So they could build a 10,000 square foot building? :N 9 (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) MR. BROWN-If the Planning Board approves that. The difference comes in here, and I think we're just mixing colors here a little bit is, what I told him was, if Mr. Halliday doesn't get his approval from the Park Commission and he can't operate this as a marina, and he still wants to build a building, we would look at it then as a private garage, which is an accessory structure which he'd have to come back to get a variance for. That's the conversation that we had. We're not there yet. The Park Commission hasn't finished with their approval process yet. If they, through this appeal that they're in right now, if the Park Commission grants them the approval, the Town's SUP, the Special Use Permit, the Town Building permit, all those things are valid and they go forward with the project. If the Park Commission denies the marina, now we're in a different ship, we're in a different boat. We're in a different position with this building. Now we can't operate it as a boat storage facility. Can't operate it as a marina under the Park Commission's requirements. So we have to look at it now as a different kind of building, and if he wants to build it, we're going to look at it as a garage, and he would have to come back before this Board. MR. JACKOSKI-Why would he have to come back before this Board? MR. BROWN-Because now it's a different use. Now it's a garage, and there's a maximum allowable square footage for a garage, and that's the 1100, but that's not what this is. This isn't a private garage. It's a boat sales, storage, service facility that the Planning Board approved. So it seems strange that you can call it one thing and have a certain size building but if you call it something else it's a different shot, that's the way the zoning is written. MR. URRICO-So it seems like somebody could actually circumvent this whole process by doing what they just did. Right? MR. BROWN-Well, no, I think there's still an enforcement tool there. If we discover that they're not using the building the way that it was approved and they're using it as a private garage, we're going to call them to task and say you need to come in and get an approval now because you're not using this building according to the way you had it approved. We can't assume that they're going to do it. We can't drag them in front of this Board for something they haven't done yet. So it's an administrative enforcement kind of issue that we have to follow and make sure he's using the building and operating under his approvals. If he isn't, we have to deal with it. MR. URRICO-It just seems strange that the Town is incumbent upon the Lake George Park Commission to determine whether it's an allowable use, you know, we're waiting for their determination to decide whether the use they intended. MR. BROWN-Yes, we're not so much waiting for it. I think the applicant, Mr. Halliday, is waiting for that before he proceeds to the next step. If he wanted to he could proceed, he has a Planning Board approval. He has a building permit that's been issued by the Town, subject to whatever the outcome is of this meeting. So he could proceed with the building. The risk that he runs and the conversation that I had with him and of which I shared with the Munoffs the outcome of, was that you run the risk of not getting a Lake George Park Commission permit approval. If you've got this building that you already have to move from a place where you shouldn't have done it in the first place, you have to move it to a new location, let's make sure you have all the approvals in place before you start doing that. So after the building permit was issued, immediately after the Lake George Park Commission's notice, what's called a Notice of Intent to Deny. They haven't denied it yet. They've said we're about to deny this, but we're going to offer you a time period to appeal it. As soon as that decision came out from the Park Commission I reached out to Mr. Halliday and said, you need to come in and we need to talk about this because you probably shouldn't go ahead with any construction until you have all your approvals in place, even though it's not holding you up with the Town, logistically you probably want to have these things in place. He came in with his attorney and his consultants. I think you guys were in and we talked about this and it was agreed upon that there's no work to be done on the site. I can assure you in my conversations with Dave Hatin there are no footings that have been installed on the property and maybe Mr. Halliday can respond to that tonight. MRS. MUNOFF-There were bulldozers over there. MR. BROWN-Well they can certainly continue with the site work that they have approval for, but they can't start construction on the building, and they haven't. MR. UNDERWOOD-Craig, I had a question. Is the Adirondack Park Agency going to get involved again? Because it's got to be passed by them. MR. BROWN-1 don't think they are. I don't see any reason why they would. Z1.0 (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) MR. UNDERWOOD-1 mean it's a project within the Adirondack Park. MR. BROWN-We have an approved land use plan from the Park Agency. So there are certain thresholds, certain approvals that the Town can issue. If the Board was to grant the variance, that variance approval has to go to the Park Commission. They have 30 days to review it and approve it. You've seen that before with a couple of applications. So that's really the only oversight the Planning Board has on top of Town approvals. In this case we have a list of uses that are allowed in the Waterfront Residential zone. MR. UNDERWOOD-So we're basically, if the Park Commission denies this a second time. MR. BROWN-The Park Commission hasn't denied it yet at all. MR. UNDERWOOD-They have not made a decision. MR. BROWN-They haven't made a decision, not that I'm aware of. They've put their cards on the table saying we're about to deny this, if you want to appeal it and have us talk about it a little more, you have the right to do that, and they did that. So they're still in that process of deciding, I guess, and I'm not sure when that's going to happen. I think if you guys get a notice of when that Park Commission meeting is? Okay. AUDIENCE MEMBER-August. MR. BROWN-Okay. So sometime in August. MR. UNDERWOOD-So, I mean, just for their own benefit, would you be satisfied if you had it in writing that no building would occur on site until after that? MR. BROWN-We've traded e-mails several times and I've informed them of the fact that there's no construction that's taking place nothing's going to happen until we see the outcome of the Park Commission's decision. MRS. MUNOFF-You posed a question, though. So I don't know if you posed that question to us, but rather than him answer for us, I think I would like the opportunity to answer that question that you posed, if that's okay. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll give it to you in a moment. I need to finish this side. So let me get this side done. Craig, what else? MR. BROWN-Did you have a question? MR. JACKOSKI-I do. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm hoping she's going to pull up the map, the zoning map, so that we could see the delineation of the zone. MR. BROWN-That's the zoning map. MRS. MOORE-That's the zoning map, yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Can you shrink it down a little bit? MR. BROWN-Blow it up or shrink it down? MR. JACKOSKI-I want to see a lot more of this than the Cleverdale area. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Good. So, Craig, is this the same zone as the garage application that we had earlier this evening? MR. BROWN-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Why? (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) MR. BROWN-This is WR and that's MDR. MR. JACKOSKI-So is this considered only residential like the zoning application was earlier tonight? MR. BROWN-Is what considered, is this zoning district? MR. JACKOSKI-Is WR considered only residential? MR. BROWN-No. MR. JACKOSKI-What are the other uses that are not residential allowed in that district? MR. BROWN-Well, do you want a list of them? There's maybe a half a dozen. There's the boat storage, the commercial boat sales/service. There's a food service. There's motel. I have the list right here. There are a few limited commercial. MR. JACKOSKI-It's not a residential district. MR. BROWN-Not strictly residential. MRS. MUNOFF-It used to be residential and it used to be neighborhood commercial. They used to separate them out. MR. JACKOSKI-I know. I'm making a point for the record. MRS. MUNOFF-I'm sorry. I'm just naive. I'm sorry. MR. JACKOSKI-And adjoining these parcels is neighborhood commercial as well, correct? The Cleverdale Store, Dan Davies Real Estate office. MR. BROWN-It doesn't adjoin this parcel but it adjoins the WR zone. MR. JACKOSKI-Correct, and that's what I'm trying to understand. So this general area of a half of a mile, if that's what it is, of, we'll call it three quarters of a mile, from bay to bay, Harris Bay Yacht Club, Castaway Marina, fire department, the Post Office, rescue squad, real estate office, liquor store, if it's still operating, and a general store, all within that general corridor. MR. BROWN-Right. Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-And this is not considered a residential corridor. Right? I mean, based on the zoning here I don't see how it's a residential corridor. MR. BROWN-Yes, I don't know if that's a zoning question or not. I mean, the actual physical development? Yes, there's a mix of commercial uses. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm trying to understand. Therefore it's an accessory structure under the zone that it's in, and if it were in a medium density one acre, two acre zone, it would be considered a garage or another accessory structure or whatever it is, but it would have different limitations as to why, I'm trying to get to the size issue. MR. BROWN-Okay. Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-In this case, again, there isn't a size issue other than what the Planning Board approved as a commercial. It was approved. MR. MC CABE-They did a Special Use, right? MR. BROWN-They did a Special Use Permit. It was approved as a commercial boat storage and service and sales facility. So there's no threshold on the size of that building other than what the Planning Board may approve. If the use changes from that commercial boat storage to now they don't have their Park Commission approval, I still want to build the building. What can I do? Well now we're going to look at it as a private residential garage that's oversized and now you need a variance for that because it's a different use. MR. JACKOSKI-I get it. MR. BROWN-Okay, and then the size comes into play. Z1.2 (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) MR. JACKOSKI-Right, and as the appellant suggested, people calling how can this be an accessory structure, it's simply because they don't understand that an accessory structure doesn't mean that it's a shed from Garden Time. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-Gotcha. MR. BROWN-Or in this case the approved building that the Planning Board approved was not approved as an accessory building. It's an allowed use in the zone. It's a primary use. It's a principle use. MR. JACKOSKI-And this Board did not see these types of things in front of it because the only time we see things in front of us is when you make a determination that they don't meet the current Code. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-Therefore the applicants then appeal to us, because you denied them. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-So it didn't come in front of us because you had made the determination that it was an allowed use. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-An allowed structure. We then had an appeal filed about your determination about whether it was an allowed structure or use. MR. BROWN-Use, correct. MR. JACKOSKI-And we went through it and as a Board we supported you as the Zoning Administrator's determination. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-So now what I'm faced with is an appeal again, I believe, from the appellants as to whether or not the building permit should have been issued. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-And by issued, it's not just you that's issuing it. It's also Dave Hatin's office issuing it. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-Is it dually signed? MR. BROWN-Yes, I mean, I sign a zoning approval form and actually Dave signs the actual building permit. MR. JACKOSKI-So then it's up to Dave Hatin to put together all the pieces and parts and finally issue the building permit? MR. BROWN-Correct, you could say that, yes. MR. JACKOSKI-He issues the building permit. MR. BROWN-The building permit has his name on it. MR. JACKOSKI-So the appeal is more about the fact that you signed off on the allowance to have that permit happen? MR. BROWN-That's how I interpret the letter. Again, the application, the appeal that came from the appellant said I want to appeal the issuance of the building permit. So that's why it's been advertised that way. (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) MR. JACKOSKI-I get it. I'm getting it. There is nothing in the record that you are aware of or Staff is aware of that the Planning Board, when they provided the Special Use Permit approval, said hinted at, allowed for that it was contingent on the Lake George Park or APA or anything else? MR. BROWN-I'm not aware of that. MR. UNDERWOOD-So did they ignore the rules and regulations? MR. BROWN-Who, the Planning Board? MR. UNDERWOOD-The Planning Board. MR. BROWN-No. There's no rule that says they have to approve it contingent on somebody else. MR. UNDERWOOD-You have a pre-approved plan that's been filed with the APA. Did you follow the APA's recommendations? MR. BROWN-We didn't get any recommendations from the APA. MR. UNDERWOOD-You have to comply with the APA regulations if you're pre-approved. MR. BROWN-We have an approved land use plan, and it's this book right here, the Zoning Code MR. UNDERWOOD-That's in compliance with the Adirondack Park Agency rules and regulations. MR. BROWN-And I don't know how we're not in compliance with that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Otherwise you would not have an approved plan. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Well, I need to open a public hearing. I need to have continued discussion. Having listened to this side of it, I'd like to open a public hearing next. If you don't mind, unless there's something else you'd like to add. MR. MUNOFF-Just real quick. I want to know if these codes are actually just written to be there or are they enforced. I checked with the APA and many of their codes are like yours. Each unit in a multi-family structure shall be required to have the minimum lot area for the district in which it's located. The accessory building can't be bigger than your residence, in use, and it goes on and on and on, and lastly this says accessory application. This is for an accessory building. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, Mr. Munoff, I'll ask you this. Since you've done all your research and you've gotten all this, what I need you to tell me is what form that is currently being used by the Town of Queensbury would you have recommended that they fill out in order to complete their application for a building permit? MR. MUNOFF-Well, first of all I would have liked them to sign it. It's not signed. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm asking you what form, of everything they have available, the Town has been functioning for many years, what form is it that you would have had them fill out? By default Mr. Brown is suggesting that that form is what we use. MRS. MUNOFF-Okay. So semantics don't count, but it does mean things. If you had a lawyer sitting here they'd say, yes, this could be switched every which way because wording is important. So maybe you should have other forms. Maybe you should have a process here that makes things contingent. MR. JACKOSKI-Right now we need to figure out what the right form would have been, in your mind, what one should we have used? MR. MUNOFF-I don't know that, but I thought for an accessory building you had to have a variance. I really thought that. Zl 41 (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) MR. JACKOSKI-I hear you, but from what I understand in that zone. MR. MUNOFF-I'm Waterfront Residential. MR. JACKOSKI-In Waterfront Residential there is no size requirements for what is or isn't an accessory structure. MR. MUNOFF-Yes, there is. With an SUP. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm sorry, I meant with an SUP, in this situation. MR. BROWN-Right. If you have an SUP there's a limit on the size of the building, whatever the Planning Board approves. If it's a private garage, then you need the 1100 and the 2200. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm being told that the Planning Board issued all of that and that's why he issued the building permit. MR. MUNOFF-Does this have SUP? MR. JACKOSKI-What is this? MR. MUNOFF-This application for an accessory structure, does it have the SUP protection where you don't have to do density? MRS. MUNOFF-The SUP is not, the Special Use Permit is not, I mean it doesn't come into play unless the Lake George Park Commission approved it. Correct? MR. BROWN-No. Well, ultimately for the applicant, to have all of their ducks in their row, all of their approvals in place. MRS. MUNOFF-You know you have to do what you said you were going to do from the beginning. If you don't do what you said you were going to do then you've got to start from scratch. MR. BROWN-That's what we just said. That's what I just said. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Halliday is taking the risk, if he builds this building, if he erects it, whatever he does, if he does that, he's taking the risk that if he doesn't get the Lake George Park Commission approval he has to then come back to the Town, from what I understand from the Zoning Administrator, there would be a ruling that he'd have to ask us for a variance to have the building. MR. MUNOFF-Well, I don't think this application, this permit, should have been granted. I'd like the Board to consider that. MR. JACKOSKI-But what we have in front of us here isn't that January decision, was it January, the SUP? MR. BROWN-The Planning Board? Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-The Planning Board decision is not in front of us. Unfortunately is not in front of us. MRS. MUNOFF-Right. But this building permit wasn't issued until April. MR. JACKOSKI-But they can issue a building permit up to a year unless they re-file. MR. MUNOFF-But don't you think the Zoning Administrator should be a little more compliant with both sides here? I asked him and he said well we don't know what he's going to do yet. He already knew what he was going to do. He already had planned. MRS. MUNOFF-We're just trying to prevent something from happening that's happened in other towns, and we have to live across from it, and we don't have money to go in front of a big high court and file an Article 78 or whatever it's called. MR. MUNOFF-We are in a residential zone. (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) MR. HENKEL-Don't be mad at Craig. He did nothing wrong. MRS. MUNOFF-I'm not mad at anybody. MR. JACKOSKI-Anyway I'm going to open the public hearing at this time. Is there anyone here in the audience that would like to address the Board on this application, or this appeal I should say? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NICHOLE GILLIS MRS. GILLIS-Nichole Gillis, 2428 Ridge Road. So I know Mr. Brown you had said when I was listening if Mr. Halliday did decide to build, took the risk, went ahead, I heard something, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that if he went ahead and erected the building and went ahead and used it, then that's when there would be a site visit made and then enforcement from there. Can you kind of elaborate on that and what your thoughts are? Just because I feel it's been done before and certainly could be done again for him to erect a structure in 24 hours and do what he wants with it. MR. JACKOSKI-So what I've got to be careful of is you have to address the Board because there could be lead on discussion. MRS. GILLIS-I'm sorry. Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-So I'll ask the Board, would it be reasonable that Craig answer that part, because I think it could lead to other discussion that won't come up. If we have her put it all on the table now then go back ask then she won't be able to go back and elaborate. Craig? MR. BROWN-Yes. I would just ask for, I'm sorry, just a more specific question. What are you? MRS. GILLIS-My question or concern I guess is that due to the track record and historical measures of his building within the Town of Fort Ann in Washington County, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that he's going to go ahead and erect a building and do what he wants with it. So my question again would be, you had spoken about enforcement of that and that action. So what are your thoughts on that, in that if he did do that, I mean, where does that leave everybody? I'm just confused and I'm concerned about the pattern being repeated. MR. BROWN-Yes, I mean, I don't hold anybody to what you've done in the past. That's not in my purview. I don't know that. That doesn't come into play with what I've done. I'm not familiar in detail other than hearsay of what happened in Fort Ann. I don't have any approvals in front of me. I wasn't part of that process. I've heard stories from both sides. I've heard information from both sides. In this case, you know, where am I with the construction of the building. I think you kind of asked that question. Where I'm at is, based on the conversation I had with Mr. Halliday and his attorney and his consultant and his son was there at the time, they've agreed to not do any construction on the building until the outcome of the Lake George Park Commission approval. To date they've honored that agreement that we have. I don't have any reason to see why they wouldn't honor that agreement. I think I may have even gone to the point in that conversation that we've had to say if you don't honor this agreement I'm going to pull your building permit. Kind of little arm twisting thing. So at this point I don't have any reason to believe that they're not going to continue to not build until the decision from the Park Commission. If they do, well then we'll have to cross that bridge when they get there. It's impossible to, I don't want to use the word convict somebody or approach somebody for something that they haven't done yet. So I mean, I'm happy to, well not happy to, but it's my job to do enforcement of the Town Code. If they're doing something that they're not supposed to be doing, I have to go and check into it and call them out on it. If they're doing something that's within the Town Code that I may or may not agree with, it's allowable in the Town Code. MRS. GILLIS-Okay. Then am I allowed another question to the Board? Okay. So I did also hear, and I'm trying to understand and follow, that because there were approvals with the SUP in January then it's okay then to go ahead forward and grant that building permit. I guess, I don't know if it's a question but a comment, and I'm looking for clarity. It seems like it's the chicken before the egg hatched. We don't have that decision, that determination from the Lake George Park Commission. Why go forward or because especially that you can't have a contingency, from what Mr. Brown said. So why go forward and grant that building permit until we have that decision. Z1.6 (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) MR. JACKOSKI-I don't disagree with you, but that's at the risk of the property owner, but I don't know if we've ever made stuff contingent on getting those approvals before you could issue the building permit. MR. UNDERWOOD-What's the usual turnaround time from the Adirondack Park Agency if they're asked to review one of our decisions? I mean they usually get back to us within three weeks or so. MR. BROWN-Any variance that's granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals, they're the only decisions that the APA reviews. They have a 30 day window to, once we provide them with what they consider the complete record, which is your resolution, a copy of the application and the minutes. Right? We have to have the minutes done when we send them up. So once they receive that complete record they have 30 days to respond and either agree with your decision or overturn the decision that the Board makes. That's the only oversight that the APA has on Town decisions. So 30 days I think was, you asked the timeframe. MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, personally I don't think I would start construction either until I had all my approvals, but I don't know, because it wouldn't go in front of the Lake George Park until we approved it. Right? MR. BROWN-No, I think they could probably run concurrent, and I can't speak for the applicant or for Mr. Halliday. I could only assume that he was very optimistic. I'm going to get my approval. I have my Town building permit. Let's start construction. When that didn't happen, it was within a day or two, maybe it was a week because Mr. Halliday was out of town, we had a meeting and basically said we're not doing any more work on this project until we're done with the Park Commission. MR. JACKOSKI-So what determines, makes it a marina, in terms of boat storage, sales, service, whatever? If they just actually store boats in it and they rent that space, that's within the Code. MR. BROWN-That is a great question for the Park Commission. I think that's the issue at hand that they have right now. Because the Town Code doesn't classify it as a marina. There's a different use in the Town Code that allows for sales, storage and service, yes. MRS. GILLIS-All right. Thank you, and I do have a couple of further questions regarding the application which I don't have in front of me, but from my recollection of taking a look at them, it's not signed by Mr. Halliday and also that there was a setback that was left blank, and my concern with that, I'm wondering how a building permit gets granted with those, a signature and a setback left blank, especially when it's surrounding wetlands. I don't know if anyone can respond on that. MR. BROWN-Yes. Again, the review of the plan that was submitted matched the plan that the Planning Board saw. MRS. GILLIS-Even with the incomplete building permit, or application rather? MR. BROWN-It's the same plan. MRS. GILLIS-There's areas in which that are not filled out or it's not signed, and that makes it valid? MR. BROWN-Yes, and this isn't a great answer, but I don't make sure that it's signed. The people that take the application in at the front desk, they're supposed to be making sure the application is signed. I rarely even look at that application page. I'm more focused on the plan, the site plan that shows where the building is on the property, and in this case does it match with what the Planning Board's already spent hours reviewing. In this case it matched. MR. JACKOSKI-Are we aware of whether or not the building permit application was signed by the applicant? MR. BROWN-I'm guessing that it isn't. I think I saw a blank one back there. MR. JACKOSKI-And we require it normally. I mean, you don't issue building permits. Dave Hatin does, I understand that, but in general. MR. BROWN-I'm sure we could get it signed, if that's an issue. '4.. (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) MR. JACKOSKI-Is it supposed to be signed before we issue a building permit? MR. BROWN-Yes, typically. Yes. MRS. GILLIS-So again you see we're questioning the validity. MR. JACKOSKI-We're working on it, and then I don't know about the setback issue. I'd have to look at the application. Sometimes that's irrelevant. MRS. GILLIS-1 mean certainly the surrounding wetlands. MR. JACKOSKI-All that stuff got talked about at the Planning Board level. So it would have changed after the SUP was issued. So I don't know that that formality of filling that blank out in the application would matter when they got the plans right there to hand us so that we could clearly see what it was. MRS. GILLIS-Again, I question it being blank. MR. JACKOSKI-It's like whether there's validity or not if an application doesn't, if somebody didn't fill in the date next to it. MRS. GILLIS-1 think that's a little bit smaller. MR. JACKOSKI-A date is a date. MRS. GILLIS-So is there a way to follow up and have a question? MR. JACKOSKI-We'll work on it. We don't know what the Board's going to do. MRS. GILLIS-Okay. Thank you. I appreciate the time. TOM ULASEWICZ MR. ULASEWICZ-Good evening. My name is Tom Ulasewicz. I'm the attorney for Mr. Halliday. To my left is Jeff Anthony, a landscape architect, and his son Jason Halliday is to my right. Mr. Halliday is working in Maine at the present time and couldn't be here tonight. I'll try to answer some of the questions that came up, but let me begin with regard to starting work on the construction site, the only thing that was done was that forms, some forms were placed on the property. No footings have been poured. No concrete has been poured. I believe Craig realized that something was going on there. We had our meeting and yes we agreed that we would not do anything on the site until we completed the Lake George Park Commission process. MR. JACKOSKI-So the forms themselves have been delivered to the site or the forms themselves have been installed on the site? JASON HALLIDAY MR. HALLIDAY-I'd be happy to clarify that. So there was, when the permit was just issued there was a week or two period of time where we did some site work and we started to put forms in. At that time the timing came when Craig called us and said let's get together. So on his recommendation he said I recommend until we get the Lake George Park Commission approval that you don't do any work. So we agreed and we stopped right there. So there has been site work and there has been forms started. When you say delivered, these aren't like professional concrete real expensive forms. We're talking like two by tens, you know. MR. JACKOSKI-So some of them have been installed. MR HALLIDAY-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm not saying you, I want to clarify for the record there has been some site work done, some footing, forms, whatever, have been installed. No concrete, no rebar, none of that stuff. You agreed to stop any construction until the Lake George Park Commission. MR. HALLIDAY-We would feel better waiting until the Park Commission approval. MR. ULASEWICZ-The other issue that came up is we have a letter from the Adirondack Park Agency that the project is not jurisdictional. It's a moderately intense land use area, and we'd Z1.8 (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) be happy to leave a copy of that with you. So they're out of the picture. We did get involved with the Lake George Park Commission on an enforcement matter with regard to where the building is located now. One of the reasons we picked this site is because it's non-jurisdictional with the APA. First of all I want to say that I agree with the Staff's comments concerning this Appeal. Second, this second Appeal by the Munoffs is clearly in violation of the 60 day statute of limitations by at least 23 days, and I argue late by over four months given the Planning Board's original Special Use Permit approval back on January 24th, 2017. Third, issuance of a building permit does not trigger a new statute of limitations. This is supported by the Cromwell case which this Board won on May 4th with a favorable ruling from the Appellate Division 4th Department. And finally I want to clarify the Lake George Park Commission. It has not been denied, the project has not been denied. There's a Notice of Intent to Deny. That doesn't give my client an opportunity to appeal. It gives my client an opportunity to request a public hearing which we have done. The notice for that public hearing is going to be listed in the Post Star tomorrow. The hearing will take place August 21St before the DEC administrative law judge. Which will be an adjudicatory hearing, sworn testimony, witnesses, expert witnesses and so forth. We have agreed not to do anything until that ruling comes out from the Lake George Park Commission. I want to tell you that we're also in the process of trying to negotiate a settlement with the Lake George Park Commission to avoid that hearing, so far unsuccessfully but we continue to talk, and that's about all I have to say. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you want. Jeff is reminding me that we also have a letter from the APA saying that there are no jurisdictional wetlands on the property. That's dated February 14th, 2017 and I'd be happy to give you a copy of that as well. MR. JACKOSKI-So that begs the question is APA wetlands different from DEC wetlands and all that other fun stuff? JEFF ANTHONY MR. ANTHONY-1 can clarify that. DEC has no wetland jurisdiction within the Adirondack Park. APA has total jurisdiction over it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. ANTHONY-We also discussed this with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Army Corps of Engineers told us that they have no jurisdiction over this since this is an isolated wetland and our wetland biology wrote a report. We shared that with the Army Corps and they agreed that it's non-jurisdictional by the Army Corps. There's about 5,000 square feet of wetland on this site. It's marginal habitat quality. It may be shy of 2,000 square feet, no jurisdiction at any Agency. What fools people a lot on this piece of property is there is a Phragmites stand right adjacent to the edge of that, very visible. It looks like wetland, but Phragmites has a habit of being able to grow on disturbed soils and in wetlands, and in this case these are disturbed soils. A wetland biologist looked at them. They almost fooled me, and I went to the site for the first time to look and said, wow, look at this, it looks like wetland vegetation. It's not. It's not wetland vegetation, and when you're driving by in a car or you're walking by and looking into the site you see the stuff, and it fools the uneducated person because it looks like wetlands. There is 5,000 square feet of very low grade wetland. We have the report here from the wetland biologist and both agencies, Army Corps, again, APA declined any jurisdiction. MR. ULASEWICZ-Maybe just let me conclude by saying we are aware of the fact that if we are denied by the Lake George Park Commission we have a problem with the approval that we got from the Planning Board. So we will have to come back and discuss that with Craig and the likelihood is we may very well have to come back to get a variance for the size building we're proposing from you people. MR. JACKOSKI-If you were here early this evening you might realize that that might be a tough one. MR. ULASEWICZ-1 didn't have to be here to realize that. MR. JACKOSKI-We'll certainly listen to the application if it comes in front of us. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Board members, the public hearing is still open. I don't believe there's anyone else who wants to speak. Is there any written comment, Roy? MR. URRICO-No, there's no written comment, but if the permit was not signed, then how can the clock start, the timeframe clock start? MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I think the clock that got started was the issuance of the permit. Z1.9 (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) MR. URRICO-But it was an unsigned permit. So therefore it really hasn't been signed yet. It hasn't been issued. I need some legal advice on that. MR. JACKOSKI-I would argue to you that there could be an argument made, at least from my side, that an administrative error. MR. MC CABE-When we talked about the Cromwell, it was not a signature. It was the issuance. MR. JACKOSKI-I apologize. It's late. I'm not remembering the details of Cromwell. Fill me in briefly. Craig may want to fill me in. MR. MC CABE-You know, one of the issues with Cromwell was the complaint person waited until absolutely the last minute to raise his complaint, and it was based on the issuance of the building permit because he had no way of, according to him, knowing that there was going to be construction until he actually saw the building permit, but it didn't say anything about signature. The language was issuance. MR. JACKOSKI-So Craig during the public comment period it was brought up, and Mr. and Mrs. Munoff please come back to the table for us, if you don't mind. It was brought up that the Cromwell case proves that this Appeal in front of us actually wasn't done in a timely manner, thus, therefore we wouldn't be able to hear it. MR. BROWN-Are you asking if I agree with that or disagree with that? MR. JACKOSKI-My initial thing was the Munoffs had standing. I felt the Munoffs had standing. They met the date. They are across from this facility, and so I thought they had standing for sure. MR. BROWN-1 would agree with you on that. I think if you look at the Town Code it says any decision, action, determination that's made by the Zoning Administrator is appealable for a sixty day time period. So my stamp on that building permit on that date is a decision that I made. So I think that starts the time clock of when you have that sixty day time clock to appeal my approving of it. Regardless of when the building permit was issued, when I stamped it with my approval date on it, that's when I made that decision. MR. JACKOSKI-Are all Board members okay that the Munoffs do have standing? All right, on this particular Appeal? MR. MC CABE-Yes. MR. HENKEL-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-So we got through that part. How are Board members feeling about the issuance by the Town of Queensbury of a building permit without the application being completed? Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that we would expect the application to be complete, unless it was some minor thing. It may have been the Freshwater Wetlands, you know, because there aren't any noted on site or something maybe there's a blank there. I don't have the permit in front of me to see what was missing on the permit, but I doubt Craig would have gone through the permit process and not dotted all the I's, crossed all the T's in looking to see that all the information was there for him to make his decision. I mean, I don't think you leave stuff blank on most of them that come through. Do you? MR. BROWN-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I think really the issue was that the Planning Board gave the okay, and so that was the reason to issue the building permit, and I don't see any reason or haven't heard anything to dispute that, that the Planning Board reviewed the project and it met their criteria and so they gave it their okay and that was what triggered the building permit. So as far as I'm concerned we follow our Administrator. MR. JACKOSKI-And I assume that the applicants for the building permit paid for the building permit? You have to go upstairs and pay your money. 50 (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07111111.:"1:',81.x') MR. BROWN-Correct. Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-So the intent was they felt that they had completed the application properly. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy thoughts on the lack of a signature? MR. URRICO-I've been on the Board long enough to remember when we wouldn't accept a plot plan unless it had a valid signature attached to it, you know, and I think this to me is no different. I think we want to get it right and I think the application needs to be properly filled out in order for it to be totally correct, totally valid. MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in agreement with Roy. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes. I mean, a date missing is different than a signature. So if there's no signature on the application then we've got an issue. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I agree with everybody here. There's no doubt the Board made a decision to, the Planning Board made a decision to accept it. That's not really Craig's fault. He accepted what the Board accepted, but then like what Harrison was saying and Roy with the signature, to be complete it should be signed. MR. JACKOSKI-I guess I would say this. If the application got sent in and it was erroneous, who do you hold accountable? At least with a signature on it you could hold whoever is accountable for submitting the application and certifying to the Town that everything on that application is proper and correct. MR. HENKEL-It's not a legal document. MR. UNDERWOOD-Would there be some valid reason for not signing the building permit? Or not signing? I mean it's always required. MR. BROWN-This one has a signature on it. No, it's a printed name, sorry, it's not signed. It's just that his name is printed. MR. JACKOSKI-Does it say signature? MR. BROWN-There's a print name and a signature line. The print name is filled out. MRS. HAYWARD-What he was trying to say was the more important part was the Planning Board approved it and the process was followed except for the signature. MR. JACKOSKI-So if I poll the Board right now, I have five concerns for lack of a signature. MR. HENKEL-Who's job is it to make sure that the thing is completely? MR. JACKOSKI-The Town. MR. HENKEL-That's not really Craig's fault. MR. URRICO-We're the appealing Board. We're the Board they go to when there's a discrepancy or there's a problem, but I think that's a problem. MR. JACKOSKI-Right. I think that unfortunately everybody involved here. MR. BROWN-Just so that I can understand what the next step might be, if the hiccup is that the building permit wasn't signed and the applicant comes in and signs it tomorrow. MR. JACKOSKI-But as of tonight. 51 (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) MR. BROWN-No, no, I understand that. I mean, if the Appeal is found in favor of the Munoff's, tomorrow they come and sign it. MR. JACKOSKI-Right now what I'm going to argue is, I would argue that if I were to grant the Appeal of the appellant because the application was not complete and therefore you shouldn't have issued the building permit, your approval of the building permit, that doesn't suggest that if the applicant came in tomorrow and did whatever he had to do to make it official, that you couldn't re-issue it. I'm not making the argument right now that you should not have issued it as it relates to whether or not there's a valid accessory structure or whatever that detail was. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm only looking at the legal aspects of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think usually when we do permits, in fact I would just review all the ones that I've reviewed through all the years, I've noted lots of times where Staff has said signature was missing that it was necessary, usually Staff reminds the applicant, you know, all the things that are missing on their application so they can follow through and deal with that. So I don't know if that's been the case here or not or whether it just got overlooked. MR. BROWN-Yes, and that's an interesting point about the signature on the application. I guess technically since the Building Department and Dave issues the ultimate building permit, it has his stamp on it, who's responsibility is it to make sure the signature's on there, it sounds like from the tone of the conversation tonight that's going to be my responsibility, which is fine, you know, we'll follow up and get the application signed, but if it's Dave's responsibility, Dave's decisions aren't appealable to this Board so what I'm saying is if it's my responsibility that the application should have been signed and it wasn't, then that's appealable. If it's Dave's responsibility that the application should be signed and it wasn't, that's not appealable to this Board. So his determinations aren't appealable to this Board I guess. MR. JACKOSKI-I guess could we argue that had you not given your approval for him to release it because you didn't have a complete application as far as the signature. MR. BROWN-Sure. I'll take the heat. MR. MUNOFF-Mr. Chairman, can I be heard? MR. JACKOSKI-Not yet. MR. HENKEL-But you're not issuing the permit. Dave Hatin is. MR. BROWN-1 issue the zoning approval from the zoning side. MR. HENKEL-Right. MR. FREER-A zoning approval is required for him to issue a building permit. MR. HENKEL-Given what the approval of what the Board said, the Planning Board, he said it was all right because the Planning Board said it was all right. MR. JACKOSKI-But he could not issue his approval unless he had the whole packet for the building permit complete. Craig Brown cannot just go ahead and give an approval because he got a site plan that matches everything and everything's ready to go. MR. HENKEL-I can see something like that easily being overlooked. How many does he look at. Right or wrong? MR. JACKOSKI-I don't think the intent was wrong. I don't think the intent was wrong at all, but in a court of law it's all about the details. Would you mind if I allow the property owners' representatives to speak one more time? You don't have to go all the way back. You can sit in the front row. That's perfectly fine. MRS. MUNOFF-Okay. MR. ULASEWICZ-Thanks you. Just a couple of quick things. I'm told by Jason that the application was submitted to the Town Clerk with a check which was signed in the amount of the application fee, and that's who accepted the application. Secondly, I have here the application for this Appeal from Mr. Munoff, and I've got here the Staff comments, and nowhere 52 (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) in either document is the issue of whether the application was signed by the applicant part of this Appeal. I don't know why this issue is even being entertained at this time. MR. JACKOSKI-But the issue in front of us is whether or not Craig Brown should have issued the building permit. Period. Was the building permit allowed to be issued, yes or no, and that includes the whole process of getting to the point where it can be issued. Part of that process is whether the application was filed. MR. ULASEWICZ-And the fact that the Planning Board issued the approval. MR. JACKOSKI-If that was the case we wouldn't need a building permit application. Right? What you're suggesting is since the Planning Board did it, why even have that application process at all. Just go ahead and issue it. MR. ULASEWICZ-No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying that given the application materials that were submitted to the Planning Board through the Town Clerk, the Planning Board acted and granted approval of a Special Use Permit. Why isn't that final action? MR. JACKOSKI-First off it's my understanding that the application isn't submitted to the Town Clerk. The application is submitted to the office downstairs. You fill out a form. That form goes upstairs to the Town Clerk where she accepts or he accepts the money and the permit process is back downstairs. The application does not go to the Town Clerk. Am I wrong about that, Staff? MR. BROWN-I'm sorry, I heard part of it. MR. JACKOSKI-The Clerk does not physically get the application that the Building Department gets downstairs. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-They just fill out that form and they go up and pay their money. MR. BROWN-The Clerk gets the invoice for the payment. Correct. MR. ULASEWICZ-If there was not a check, there would not be execution of the application. So the appellant, I want to read these six bullet points here, asserts that the building permit should not have been issued because, and I'm just going to make it short and say that none of these bullet points say because of lack of signature on the application. The scenario is he comes in with his application. He hands his check over and it's reviewed by how many people. You just mentioned that all missed that the signature wasn't on there, and if he was here right now he would sign it and it would be done. MR. JACKOSKI-He could sign it tomorrow and they'd be done. I understand that. So my thought is at this point, everybody, we've heard this and we've heard a lot of this. I would recommend that we not take action on this matter this evening and seek advice of legal counsel and he could help us through. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think where we're at, just to summarize that I think the Board feels comfortable at this point in time that we will not have any building construction occurring until the Lake George Park Commission hearing decision is forthcoming to the Town of Queensbury at that point. At that point in time not knowing what the decision is, you know, we can safely basically interpret the fact that nothing's going to happen in the interim. So I think for the Munoffs that gives them relief for the moment, and then we'll cross the next bridge wherever that leads us at that point when the Park Commission comes through with their determination. MR. FREER-So I concur with you, Mr. Chairman, that we take no action, that we seek legal advice. That's the prudent thing to do. MR. HENKEL-I would say yes. We do that. MRS. HAYWARD-I agree. MR. MC CABE-I'm fine. MR. JACKOSKI-So what this Board would like to do at this point is not approve or deny your Appeal. This Board is going to seek legal counsel, which we can do. I will try to do that right 5 m:N (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) away as to how we should move forward with this, given the record that has been established and then we will move on it at a later date. MR. HENKEL-I agree. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Do we have to make a motion to do that? MR. BROWN-1 would do that. Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. So I need a motion. MR. BROWN-So it's a motion to table? MR. JACKOSKI-To table the decision. MR. MC CABE-Well, we don't even need a motion. We have 60 days, right? MR. BROWN-Yes, but if you table it to a date, if you don't table it to a date you have to render a decision in 60 days. If you table it to a date, you can bring it up and talk about it again, keep the public hearing open. MR. JACKOSKI-If I get legal opinion that I want to disseminate to the Board, can we call a Special Meeting? MR. BROWN-You can only schedule a Special Meeting at one of your regular meetings. So you can call a Special Meeting, but you have to do it now. MR. JACKOSKI-So we have a meeting coming up next week, is it reasonable that we could put this on the agenda for further discussion next week? MR. BROWN-You could table it until next week. We opened up a bunch of Aviation Mall space. MR. JACKOSKI-Is that okay, everyone? MR. HENKEL-Sure. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Frank and Isobel Munoff. Appellant is appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals relative to the issuance of a building permit for the above referenced matter. MOTION TO TABLE NOTICE OF APPEAL Z-NOA-2-2017 FRANK & ISOBEL MUNOFF, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Tabled until the July 26th, 2017 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Duly adopted this 19th day of July, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-I just want to say to everybody, this is very difficult for all of us. I've known the Hallidays since I was 17. I've known Mr. Munoff since I was about 6. So we've got to figure out how to get through this. We're going to figure out how to get through this. The best thing we can do is stay as neutral as possible. We'll just try to find out what the resolution will be. MRS. MUNOFF-Thank you for deliberating as well as you did. I know you could have just dismissed us as being pains in the butt, and we don't want to sound like we're angry at anybody. We're not. We just want to be heard and we want things to be done the way they should be done, and we have no animosity towards our neighbors. We never have. This is merely business. I appreciate you guys helping neighbors stay good neighbors and so we respect you all for what you do and we appreciate your serious deliberation. MR. JACKOSKI-I need a motion to adjourn. MR. MC CABE-1 make a motion that we adjourn this meeting tonight. 5,51• (Q,UeensbUiry ZBA Meeting 07119120 17) MR. URRICO-Second. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JULY 19, 2017, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 19th day of July, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 55