Loading...
08-16-2017 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 16. 2017 INDEX Area Variance No. 55-2017 Michael Yurdiga 1. EXTENSION OF APPROVAL Tax Map No. 266.1-2-62 Area Variance Z-AV-38-2017 William Rourke 3. Tax Map No. 289.10-1-13 Area Variance Z-AV-47-2017 Nancy Lobo 6. Tax Map No. 302.46-1-73 Area Variance Z-AV-49-2017 Douglas McCall 9. Tax Map No. 226.15-1-30 Area Variance Z-AV-52-2017 Daniel and Timothy Lawler 13. Tax Map No. 289.7-1-36.1 Area Variance Z-AV-54-2017 Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless 17. Tax Map No. 302.94-43 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES [IF ANY] AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 16, 2017 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN MICHAEL MC CABE, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL RONALD KUHL MICHELLE HAYWARD, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT HARRISON FREER LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER, FIRTH-MIKE CROWE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. JACKOSKI-Good evening. Welcome, everyone, to the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for tonight, August 16" here in the Queensbury Activities Center. We do have an agenda identified and it is on the back table. For those of you who haven't been here in the past, it's actually an easy process. We'll call each applicant up to the table. Roy will read the application into the record. We'll ask for some additional comments from each of the applicants. The Board members will ask questions. There are public hearings scheduled for each of the items this evening. So I will open a public hearing and ask for anyone to address the Board for every application if they wish to do so. After listening to the public comments we ask the applicants to re-join us at the table, and the Board members may ask questions or ask for some clarification to what they've heard during the public comment period and then usually I will poll the Board to see about where they think they're going with the application to help the applicants decide how to move forward. Having said all of that, we do have a few housekeeping matters to deal with this evening. The very first is to approve the extension request of Area Variance 55-2015 of Michael Yurdiga on Sunset Trail. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF APPROVAL: AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-2015 MICHAEL YURDIGA MR. MC CABE-I'll make a motion that we extend Area Variance AV 55-2015. MR. JACKOSKI-I do have a motion for an extension. Do we have a second? MR. URRICO-I'll second it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. MRS. MOORE-He's asked for a two year extension. He's not ready to go yet. MR. MC CABE-Is that normal? MRS. MOORE-Typically I've seen you do six months to a year. Two years is a long time. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. So, to me, I think they just withdraw their application and start over. By that time we don't know what the Zoning Code is going to be and I don't think we should keep it on the docket, unless Counsel tells us otherwise, for that long of a period. That's holding it up for a long time. MR. HENKEL-What's the real reason? Is he saying? MR. JACKOSKI-He's not ready to build. 2 MRS. MOORE-He's not ready to build yet. MR. MC CABE-Well then that's fine, unless it's financial or something else. MR. JACKOSKI-I mean otherwise everyone's going to start holding place markers for the Code at the time they extend for two years. That's a long time. MR. HENKEL-I'd be willing to go a year. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received a letter of request for a 2-year extension of approval dated Thursday, June 19, 2017 from Michael Yurdiga for construction of a 1,360 sq. ft. single-family dwelling including porch/deck. The initial ZBA approval date was Wednesday, October 28, 2015. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR A 1-YEAR EXTENSION OF APPROVAL FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-2015, MICHAEL YURDIGA, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: For a period of 1-year. Duly adopted this 16" day of August 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer MR. JACKOSKI-The next item on the agenda is the approval of the meeting minutes of July 19tH APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 19, 2017 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 19TH, 2017, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 16th day of August by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer MR. JACKOSKI-Approval of meeting minutes of July 26tH July 26, 2017 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 26TH,2017, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Duly adopted this 16th day of August by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer MR. JACKOSKI-Finally onto real work. Old Business. William Rourke, 21 Jay Road, Area Variance No. Z-AV-38-2017, a Type II SEAR. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening, as there was on June 21St 3 AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-38-2017 SEQRA TYPE 11 WILLIAM ROURKE OWNER(SJ WILLIAM ROURKE ZONING WR LOCATION 21 JAY ROAD APPLICANT HAS REVISED MATERIALS FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,016 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 494 SQ. FT. CAMP. THE 300 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE AND 60 SQ. FT. PORCH WILL BE REMOVED. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS AND FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR EXPANSION IN A CEA. CROSS REF. P-SP-40-2017; RC 143- 2017; BP 93-702 SEPTIC ALT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.29 ACRE(SJ TAX MAP NO. 289.10443 SECTION 17943-010; 179-3-040 WILLIAM ROURKE, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to read anything into the record that he feels appropriate. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-38-2017, William Rourke, Meeting Date: August 16, 2017 "Project Location: 21 Jay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has revised materials for the proposed construction of a 2,016 sq. ft. residential addition to an existing 494 sq. ft. camp. The 300 sq. ft. detached garage and 60 sq. ft. porch will be removed. Relief requested from minimum permeability requirements and for expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for expansion in a CEA. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from permeability and for expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA in the Waterfront Zone Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements- WR zone The proposed addition and the existing building allow for 70% of the site to be permeable where 75% is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor 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 limited due to orientation of the existing building on the parcel and parcel shape. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The relief requested is 5% in excess for the permeability. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to remove an existing detached garage [300 sq. ft.] and porch area [60 sq. ft.] of an existing 494 sq. ft. camp. The project includes the construction of 2,016 sq. ft. single story addition with a crawl space for mechanicals. The addition will have an attached garage. Eave trenches will be installed for the new addition to assist with stormwater management of the site. The existing hedges and plantings at the shoreline are to remain." MR. JACKOSKI-Pretty straightforward. Hello. Welcome back. MR. ROURKE-Thank you. MR.JACKOSKI-Would you like to add anything to the record at this time or just have Board members ask you questions? MR. ROURKE-We've changed the plans. We're completely in the setback, front, side and back. I was under the impression that we could build on the footprint but I was wrong. So we've changed the plans. We were going to have a full basement. Now we're going to have a crawl space for the addition. Square footages we meet. The permeability we do not meet. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions from Board members at this time with the revised application before I re-open a public hearing? MR. KUHL-Yes, I'd like to see a rendering of what it's going to look like. I mean I see a floor plan. That's all I see. Do you have a rendering of what it's going to look like? MR. ROURKE-We had the plans drawn up for what we were going to build. It's been a couple of weeks. I've given them back to the architect and he does not have the rendering done yet, but I'm showing the exterior of the addition in the green and the red is the existing. MR. KUHL-What's that up there? Because that's not in the package. MRS. MOORE-That was the previous one. MR. KUHL-That was the previous one. The one thing I have is you talk about 494 square feet in our documentation here, Staff Notes, and yet in the backup documentation it talks about 893 square feet of existing building. MRS. MOORE-We went back and forth on this. So actually we took out the footprint from real property, and so it is truly 494. MR. KUHL-Okay. MRS. MOORE-Yes, because he was counting the space that was like at the front of the camp that is a half story, and it's not accurate. MR. KUHL-Well, I guess that's my question. Are you cutting down that second level of the existing dwelling? Are you going to have one roof line all the way through? MR. ROURKE-No. No, it's going to be completely separate. It's going to be a lower, it's going to be one story is the addition and the existing home is, it's a one story and, you know, kind of an attic. It's got short walls. By the definition it does not count as a full story. So that's how we've calculated it. By using the full front first story and then a portion of the second story as per the formula. MR. HENKEL-It's got a maximum height of 18 feet here. MR. KUHL-Well, I mean, you know, you're asking me to give an approval on a pictorial looking down instead of what it's going to look like, and I have a problem with that. MR. ROURKE-When I came here first I had the whole thing designed by an architect and I think I was ahead of the game. I probably should have waited because we had the whole thing changed. MR. KUHL-Sure. MR. ROURKE-So I think if we get turned down we're going to have to change it again. MR. KUHL-Is that Hutchins? MR. ROURKE-No. MR. ROURKE-But, I mean, we're trying to get the formula correct for the area. MR. KUHL-Yes. I understand. MR. ROURKE-Rather than have the whole thing designed again. 5 MR. HENKEL-That is the game plan, it's going to be a height of 18 feet? The height s going to be 18 feet, that's the game plan, right, according to this? MR. ROURKE-Yes. MR. HENKEL-That's not going to change. MR. ROURKE-No. It's going to be one story. MR. JACKOSKI-We do have a public hearing scheduled again for this evening. I'll open the public hearing and ask Roy if there's any written comment. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. URRICO-There is no written comment that I can see. MR.JACKOSKI-Having no written comment, is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board on this application? Seeing no one, I'll leave the public hearing open and I'll poll the Board. I'll start with a volunteer. MR. HENKEL-I'll go. I think they've done a nice job. They took a lot of our recommendations last time and they've fit it within the boundary lines. They're within the setbacks everywhere, height, and permeability is off a little bit by five percent, but I think it's a nice project. They're far away from the lake like we want them to be and the shoreline's roughly 54 feet according to this. I think they've done a nice job according to our request. So I'd be in favor as is. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Mike? MR. MC CABE-If their next door neighbor is happy, I'm happy, and it doesn't appear like their next door neighbor has anything to say. So I would be in favor of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I know you're going to do the right thing and I appreciate the changes you've made, and I think you're asking for minimum relief. I have a niche about seeing the rendering, but I'm sure you'll do well otherwise your neighbor will burn the house down, but I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-1 am in favor as are the other members that have already spoken, but I do agree with Mr. Kuhl. Is it your plan to have it appear pretty much like it was in your original application? MR. ROURKE-Yes. Very much. We're only going to build on one bedroom downstairs. We're going to have a garage, bathroom, very much like the other, but we're taking, you know, it's going to be straight back, not a jog, very similar. MRS. HAYWARD-Yes, I could see that in the drawing you submitted. So I am in favor. Thank you. MR. ROURKE-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I think he's moving in the right direction. I'd be in favor of the application. Having polled the Board members, I'll close the public hearing. I will seek a motion for approval. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from William Rourke. Applicant has revised materials for the proposed construction of a 2,016 sq. ft. residential addition to an existing 494 sq. ft. camp. The 300 sq. ft. detached garage and 60 sq. ft. porch will be removed. Relief requested from minimum permeability requirements and for expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for expansion in a CEA. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements WR zone 6 SEAR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 21, 2017 and Wednesday, August 16, 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: PER THE DRAFT PROVIDED BY STAFF 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because the new property will be an improvement over the old property. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not deemed reasonable. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because the permeability approval here is just five percent, not really a big deal. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. Is the alleged difficulty is, of course, self-created, 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 (approvall the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) b) , c) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-38-2017, WILLIAM ROURKE, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 16" day of August 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations. MR. ROURKE-Thank you very much. MR.JACKOSKI-Onward and upward. The next item on the agenda this evening is under New Business. It's Nancy Lobo. And it is 26 Fairwood Drive in Dixon Heights. Area Variance No. Z-AV-47-2017. This is an Unlisted SEAR. We have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-47-2017 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II NANCY LOBO OWNER(SJ JANET BERDAR ZONING UR40 YR. 1982 ZONING ORDINANCE; CURRENT: MDR LOCATION 26 FAIRWOOD DRIVE— DIXON HEIGHTS, PHASE 3 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 220 SQ. FT. DECK TO AN EXISTING 1,006 SQ. FT. HOME RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE UR40 ZONING DISTRICT WHICH WAS THE APPLICABLE ZONING AT THE TIME THE PARCEL WAS CREATED IN THE DIXON HEIGHTS, PHASE 3 SUBDIVISION. CROSS REF SUBDIVISION NO. 6-85 DIXON HEIGHTS WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE .10 ACRE(SJ TAX MAP NO. 302.464-73 SECTION 179- 4-080 NANCY LOBO, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn the application over to Roy to be read into the record. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance Z-AV-47-2017, Nancy Lobo,Meeting Date: August 16,2017 "Project Location: 26 Fairwood Drive — Dixon Heights, Phase 3 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 220 sq. ft. deck to an existing 1,006 sq. ft. home. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the UR-10 zoning district which was the applicable zoning at the time the parcel was created in the Dixon Heights, Phase 3 Subdivision. Relief Required: The applicant request relief for minimum setback requirements for the UR-10 zoning district for Dixon Heights, Phase 3 Subdivision. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements UR-10/MDR zone The 220 sq. ft. deck and the steps to be located 3.4 ft. from the rear property line where a 10 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. The applicant has received approval from the Home Owners Association for the construction of the deck. 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 available to construct a smaller deck as an existing 64 sq. ft. is removed for the proposed construction of 19.1 ft. wide deck. Real property records indicates many have maintained the 64 sq. ft. deck and a few have decks that are at least at 200 sq. ft. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 6.6 ft. for the distance. 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. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes the removal of a 64 sq. ft. deck to construct a 220 sq. ft. deck and steps to be located 3.4 ft. from the rear property line. The project plans show the location of the deck and sketch of the deck appearance. The applicant has included the approval from the homeowners association for approval of a "deck install". MR. MC CABE-Why would this be an Unlisted SEAR? MRS. MOORE-It's not. That's a typo. It's a Type II clearly. MR. JACKOSKI-We have it in writing. It's Unlisted. All right. We don't have to go through SEQR which is good. Not that it's complicated, but anyway, thank you, Roy, for reading all that into the application. A very straightforward application, especially with the common area behind. So I suspect you just want Board members to ask questions if they even have any. 8 MS. LOBO-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-Do Board members have any questions at this time? Seeing no questions I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here this evening who'd like to address this Board on this application? Seeing no one in the audience, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-From Richard and Valerie Seidel, 32 Fairwood Drive. They have no objections. MR. KUHL-Could I ask one question, Mr. Chairman? What's the dimensions of the deck? You said 220 square feet. What is it? MS. LOBO-It's 16 by 13. MR. KUHL-16 by 13. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-And they probably include the stairs with that, too, right, in the calculations? MRS. MOORE-1 did. MR. JACKOSKI-Since there are no questions from Board members and the public hearing, there's no comment other than the one letter, I'm going to poll the Board members. I'll start with Michelle. MRS. HAYWARD-1 saw the project yesterday and it looks like all the other decks lined up in a row. So I'm in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I think it's placed in a way that's out of the way and I don't think the rear neighbor will have an issue with it. I'm in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, that being a common area in the back with no buildings there it should be not a problem. Go for it. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 see no problem with the request and I'll support it. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-1 agree with everybody else. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. KUHL-Can I make that motion, Mr. Chairman? MR. JACKOSKI-Perfect. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Nancy Lobo. Applicant proposes construction of a 220 sq. ft. deck to an existing 1,006 sq. ft. home. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the UR-10 zoning district which was the applicable zoning at the time the parcel was created in the Dixon Heights, Phase 3 Subdivision. SEQR Type 11; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 16, 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: 9 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because the deck will be located in the rear. 2. Feasible alternatives are limited because it's the rear of the house and it's a semi-attached house. 3. The requested variance, although listed as substantial, is not really as it blends in with others. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. We might suggest that the difficulty is self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approvall the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z- AV-47-2017, NANCY LOBO, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 16" day of August 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Sorry to put you through the process, but you're on your way. MS. LOBO-We're free to go with our project? MR. JACKOSKI-You can. You've got a get out of jail free card. You're all set. MS. LOBO-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-The next item on the agenda is Douglas McCall, 6 Neighbors Way, a Type II SEAR. Area Variance No. Z-AV-49-2017. A public hearing is scheduled for this evening. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-49-2017 SEQRA TYPE II DOUGLAS MC CALL OWNER[S] RICHARD PROVENZANO ZONING WR LOCATION 6 NEIGHBORS WAY APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATIONS TO THE EXISTING RESIDENCE WHICH INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A 166 SQ. FT. DECK ON THE SECOND FLOOR OVER THE EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PORCH; CONSTRUCTION OF 48 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO BE USED AS A UTILITY ROOM; AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 84 SQ. FT. ENTRYWAY. THE EXISTING HOME IS 1,052 SQ. FT. (FLOOR AREA 2,689.3 SQ. FT.]. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SHORELINE AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED. CROSS REF P-SP-53-2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2017 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD DOUG MC CALL, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-49-2017, Douglas McCall, Meeting Date: August 16, 2017 "Project Location: 6 Neighbors Way Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes modifications to the existing residence which includes construction of a 165 sq. ft. deck on the second floor over the existing first floor porch and a 27.33 sq. ft. 2" floor bedroom porch area; construction 10 of 48 sq. ft. residential addition to be used as a utility room; and construction of a new 83.3 sq. ft. entryway with a 35 sq. ft. front porch. The existing home is 1,052 sq. ft. [Floor Area 2,689.3 sq. ft.]. Relief requested from minimum shoreline and setback requirements. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required Relief Required: The applicant request relief from minimum shoreline and setback requirements. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements- WR zone The applicant proposes an open deck above the first floor that does not meet the 50 ft. setback requirement where 47 ft. is proposed. In addition, there is a 48 sq. ft. utility room proposed where 20 ft. is required and it is to be located 15.9 ft. from the south property line. 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 existing home and site access for the proposed utility room. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The requested relief may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The relief requested for the utility room addition is 4.1 ft. and the open deck is 3 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. The applicant has indicted there has current septic system (alteration in 1992) sized for a four bedroom where the interior renovations will reduce the bedrooms to three. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes alterations to an existing home to include an open deck off the master bedroom on the second floor, a smaller deck on the second floor from another bedroom, a utility room addition and an entryway addition. The elevations and floor plans show the details of the alterations." MR. URRICO-Then the Queensbury Planning Board met and based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And that was passed on August 15, 2017 by a unanimous vote. MR. JACKOSKI-Hi, Doug. How are you? Welcome. Straightforward application, again, I think you just want questions from Board members at this time if they even have any. MR. MC CALL-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any questions at this time from Board members? MR. HENKEL-What was the permeability? MRS. MOORE-There wasn't an issue with the permeability. MR. HENKEL-Okay. I was just wondering what it was. MR. KUHL-Doug, the 48 sq. ft. utility room, will that have access from the inside of the house or just the outside? MR. MC CALL-Just the outside. 11 MR. KUHL-Just the outside. MR. MC CALL-It would be ideal if I could put the utility room in the basement, but it's just a minimal crawl space. The house was built in 1935. MR. KUHL-Gotcha. MR. MC CALL-It's a nice original camp. The inside is just studs and then you see the chip lag on the outside. It's still just the way it was built in 1935. MR. KUHL-It's in good shape. I have a question for Staff. There's a certification letter here on the septic tank saying it's a 1250 tank and it's got a 20 by 54 runoff pipe. What gives them the number of bedrooms, the size of the tank or the runoff? Get back to me with an answer on that. MRS. MOORE-1 was going to say, that's actually not something I can answer. That's Building and Codes. MR. KUHL-Well, I mean, Hutchins substantiated there were, Hutchins was in two of these and he substantiated the septic system. So who gets an answer on that? Is it the tank, the size of the tank, 1000 gallons versus 1250, or is it the runoff pipes like this one has 20 foot by 54 foot runoff pipes. MR. MC CABE-1 think it's always been the size of the tank. MR. MC CALL-Runoff pipes are depending on the soils. How many feet of runoff pipe depends on the soil that you have. MR. KUHL-Yes, but then why a bigger tank? How do I get an answer for that? MRS. MOORE-Dave Hatin would be able to answer that, and I. MR. KUHL-Should I talk to Dave Hatin? MRS. MOORE-1 can get you an answer and give you a call back or you're more than welcome to call him. MR. JACKOSKI-That could be part of our four hour training for the year. MR. KUHL-There you go. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was just wondering because the certification was in there for this and then one of the other ones Hutchins certified the other one. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR.JACKOSKI-It would be interesting to learn what the formulas are or how that all works, how they determine which septic system actually does work. MR. KUHL-Is the plan here to use this house 12 months a year? MR. MC CALL-That's their plan. Their plan is to retire, sell their house in Vermont and move here. MR. KUHL-It's a nice property. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members MR. HENKEL-So they're decreasing the number of bedrooms but they're increasing the number of bathrooms? MR. MC CALL-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here this evening that would like to address the Board on this application? Seeing no one, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 12 MR. URRICO-There's no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment, seeing no one in the audience for public comment, I'll poll the Board. I'll start with Roy. MR. URRICO-In my opinion this application passes the test. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-Yes, as far as I can see it's minimal. I mean, it's kind of a small area. They're not really asking for very much given the small area. So I would approve the project. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I think it's nice that they're using the original camp and really not changing the footprint by much, and it's going to be a nice looking project. Go for it. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I believe it's minimal relief and I think they're making an improvement to the property which will benefit them in the long run, and us. MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-1 agree with everyone else. I also approve it. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll 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 Douglas McCall for Richard Provenzano. Applicant proposes modifications to the existing residence which includes construction of a 166 sq. ft. deck on the second floor over the existing first floor porch; construction of 48 sq. ft. residential addition to be used as a utility room; and construction of a new 84 sq. ft. entryway. The existing home is 1,052 sq. ft. [Floor Area 2,689.3 sq. ft.]. Relief requested from minimum shoreline and setback requirements. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required. SEAR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 16, 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: PER THE DRAFT PROVIDED BY STAFF 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because the improvements will make the property more desirable. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not reasonable because of the nature of the property. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. It's minimal. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. Is the alleged difficulty is self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approvall the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: 13 a) b) , c) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z- AV-49-2017, DOUGLAS MC CALL FOR RICHARD PROVENZANO, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 16" day of August 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck, Doug. MR. MC CALL-Thank you very much. MR.JACKOSKI-The next item on this evening's agenda is Daniel and Timothy Lawler, 19 Reardon Road Extension, Area Variance Z-AV-52-2017, a Type II SEAR. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-52-2017 SEQRA TYPE 11 DANIEL & TIMOTHY LAWLER OWNER(SJ DANIEL &TIMOTHY LAWLER ZONING WR LOCATION 19 REARDON ROAD EXTENSION APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 288 SQ. FT. OPEN DECK WITH 80 SQ. FT.STAIRS ON THE LAKESIDE OF THE RESIDENCE. EXISTING HOME IS 1,100 SQ. FT. (FLOOR AREA 1,580 SQ. FT.]. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA. CROSS REF P-SP-54-2017; CURRENT: AST 291- 2017 DECK WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.77 ACRE(SJ TAX MAP NO. 289.74-36.1 SECTION 179-3-040 DANIEL LAWLER, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-52-2017, Daniel & Timothy Lawler, Meeting Date: August 16, 2017 "Project Location: 19 Reardon Road Extension Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of 288 sq. ft. open deck with 80 sq. ft. stairs on the lakeside of the residence. Existing home is 1,100 sq. ft. [Floor Area 1,580 sq. ft.]. Relief requested from minimum shoreline setback requirements. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA. Relief Required: The applicant request relief from minimum shoreline setback requirements. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements- WR zone The applicant proposes 288 sq. ft. open deck addition with 80 sq. ft. stair area where the addition is to be located at 60 ft. where the setback due to the adjoining average home setback is 102.5 ft. from the shoreline. 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. 11 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 as the two adjoining homes are setback further than the applicant's home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 42.5 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a 288 sq. ft. open deck with 80 sq. ft. stair area addition to an existing home. The plans show the location of the addition and elevation view of the deck. The applicant has included a photo showing the home from the shoreline." MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And that was adopted August 15, 2017 by a unanimous vote. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. LAWLER-Yes, Daniel J. Lawler. MR. JACKOSKI-So, Staff, just real quick, I feel it's important to go through and explain a little bit about Code as it relates to adjoining properties and setbacks. MRS. MOORE-1 was asked about this earlier. So this is actually in our design requirements, and the minimum setback from the mean high water line from the shoreline for all buildings and structures shall be a minimum of 50 feet or the average setback of the dwelling structures on the two adjoining lots, whichever is greater, and that's where this falls into. MR. KUHL-But that's not in 179-3-040. MRS. MOORE-1 understand that. It's not. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-But I do know we've applied it in the past because even I have had to do it. MR. KUHL-That's the first time it's every come across for adjoining properties. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. MR. KUHL-For me, because of the specs that we have in the table, I think it's a waste of our money having this gentleman come, and a waste of us getting paid. Because the specs are talking 50 and 75. He's well within that. MRS. MOORE-Right. The idea was, and this was brought up last night in the Planning Board meeting was the view shed of someone's property from adjoining neighbors and the property that the project is occurring on. MR. KUHL-I mean, is that going to move into when somebody wants to put their house a little closer to the road and they're still 30 feet off the road? MR.JACKOSKI-I had, my parent's house on Country Club, I had to set the house further back because the one house was very close to the road and one house was way off the road and I had to average the middle. I had to. MR. KUHL-That's dumb. 15 MR. JACKOSKI-But we have applied it in the past. MR. KUHL-We have a lawyer here. I'll put my guns in my holster and be quiet. MR. JACKOSKI-But we have consistently applied it in the past. We truly have. MR. KUHL-But I personally think it's costing the Town money when it shouldn't. MR. MC CABE-Well, there could be reasons for it. It could be topographical. MR. HENKEL-Well, if they built a big two story or something blocking somebody's view, I could understand that, but in this case it's not. It's an open deck. So it kind of makes sense, but it doesn't. MR. JACKOSKI-See we've argued your application for you. You haven't had to say a word. It's all positive. So I suspect you just want us to ask you some questions, although I think you've already heard a lot of what we're going to be talking about, but then I'll open the public hearing. Are there any Board member questions at this time? Having none, I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here this evening who'd like to address the Board on this application? Is there any written comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes, there is. "The deck looks beautiful. We fully support and approve of your project. We look forward to joining you there soon. Mike and Kathy Aspland" And then, "I think the deck would be a great addition to your home and don't have any problem with your project. Good luck. Tim Stockman" That's it. MR. LAWLER-That's the neighbor on each side. MR. JACKOSKI-The neighbor on each side. Perfect. I was just going to ask, are either of those adjoining neighbors. Great. So we're obviously promised refreshments on the deck once it's built. All right. So no other public comment, correct? MR. URRICO-No other public comment. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll poll the Board at this time. Anyone want to go first? MR. MC CABE-I'll go first. I'm impressed that the applicant has taken time to speak to his neighbors and the neighbors approve of the project and I think that the setback, although it doesn't meet the standards, is well within the requirements of the Town. So I'd support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in favor of the project. I think it fits in with the character of the neighborhood. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, the stairs that are there are in pretty good disrepair and this would be a nice added touch to that front there, so I'd be in support of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-1 support the application. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I'm in favor of it. I think it's a good addition. I think you and your brother are going to make nice improvements on the house. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval. MR. KUHL-Can I make that motion, Mr. Chairman? MR. JACKOSKI-You like Glen Lake. MR. KUHL-No, Mike is the only one making recommendations. 16 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Daniel and Timothy Lawler. Applicant proposes construction of 288 sq. ft. open deck with 80 sq. ft. stairs on the lakeside of the residence. Existing home is 1,100 sq. ft. [Floor Area 1,580 sq. ft.]. Relief requested from minimum shoreline setback requirements. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA. SEAR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 16, 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: PER THE DRAFT PROVIDED BY STAFF 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because the addition of this deck will blend in with the adjoining properties. 2. Feasible alternatives are not there. 3. The requested variance is considered a minimal request. The request is not substantial. It blends in with the neighbors. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? 5. Is the alleged difficulty is really not self-created, It's got to do with the adjoining properties. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approvall the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) b) , c) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z- AV-52-2017 DANIEL&TIMOTHY LAWLER, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl,who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Duly adopted this 16th day August 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Good luck. MR. LAWLER-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-We could be invited to the deck too sometime. The next item on this evening's agenda, Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless. The owner of the property is the City of Glens Falls. Public hearing is scheduled for this evening. It is Area Variance No. Z-AV-54-2017, a Type II SEAR. 17 AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-54-2017 SEQRA TYPE CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS AGENT(SJ DAVID C. BRENNAN, ESQ. YOUNG &SOMMER, LLC OWNER(SJ CITY OF GLENS FALLS ZONING PR-42A LOCATION CITY OF GLENS FALLS WATER TANK (AVIATION MALL ROAD) APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO PREVIOUS ZONING BOARD APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN 11 FT. 6 IN. BY 16 FT. EQUIPMENT BUILDING FOR ANTENNAE COLLOCATION PROJECT ON THE CITY OF GLENS FALLS WATER TANK. PROJECT INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF 12 PANEL ANTENNAS AND SITEWORK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM PROPERTY LINE SETBACKS FOR THE PARKLAND (PR-421 ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF PZ-0178-2016; SP PZ-0171-2016; BP 6503 YR. 1980 CHLORINE ROOM WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2017 LOT SIZE 1.53 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.94-43 SECTION 179-5430; 179-3-040 DAVE BRENNAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-54-2017, Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Meeting Date: August 16, 2017 "Project Location: City of Glens Falls Water Tank (Aviation Mall Road) Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes modification to previous Zoning Board approval for construction of an 11 ft. 6 in. by 16 ft. equipment building for antennae collocation project on the City of Glens Falls Water Tank. Project includes installation of 12 panel antennas and site work. Relief requested from minimum property line setbacks for the Parkland [PR-42] zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant request relief from minimum property line setbacks for the Parkland [PR-42] zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements- PR-42 zone The proposed 184 sq. ft. equipment building is to be located 25 ft. from the front property line where a 100 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor 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 are limited due to the size of the parcel at 1.53 ac and the location of the existing water-towers. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested is 75 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a modification of the location of the proposed equipment shed for the Verizon antenna equipment for better access for maintenance. The previous approval was for a 28 ft. setback and the proposed is for a 25 ft. setback. The plans show the 2016 approval and the proposed 2017 location of the equipment shed." MR. JACKOSKI-Good evening, welcome. MR. BRENNAN-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Dave Brennan with the law firm of Young/Sommer. I'm presented this project a little more than a year ago on behalf of Verizon Wireless in front of this Board and then later the Planning Board, and at that time, because of the unique 18 configuration of this parcel owned by the City, I should back up a little bit more. We received approval to add panel antennas to the existing water tank and base station to the north of it, and one of the things that came up during that process is the zoning district has rather large setbacks owing to its good nature as being deemed Parkland, although the City is on it, and when we came here we received a variance to allow us to be 28 feet from what was designated as the front yard setback, which is on the northerly end of the parcel which basically goes through some tree growth up to the parking lot on the back side of the Mall which is where the Dick's Sporting Goods store is among others, and what happened is we got that approval and it went to construction drawings and there was a request made to rotate the shelter by 90 degrees. It is an 11 and a half by 16 foot shelter which basically they kept the one end of it and rotated it 90 degrees, but being a rectangle sort of a square, it put one end of it towards, three feet closer. Unfortunately Verizon Wireless, their construction manager and engineer, didn't ask me my opinion of it. I would have hopefully flagged it was we have a variance that we needed to adhere to. So in fairness they did submit it to, we didn't do this on our own. We submitted it to the Building Department and did receive a building permit to put it into construction in accordance with this revision and I believe what happened is the Zoning Department came out and looked at it and said, wait a second, you've got your building permit, that's nice, but it doesn't comply with the variance and they flagged it and we were already in the ground, and so Verizon didn't do it right but there's a little bit of shared responsibility in this in that we didn't do it in the dark of night. We did submit it this way. It did not get flagged by the Building Department unfortunately, and my advice, hopefully you agree with me. My advice to Verizon was that this isn't next to someone's house or in a particular spot where the three feet would hopefully make a big difference to the Zoning Board that we should go and explain this to the Board and apologize that it was not caught by a variety of people and ask that the three feet, the fact that it's really screened in the woods and not making a difference one way or the other. If I had come and had it laid out this way originally more than a year ago the Board would have, I think, said yes that was still fine, but that being said, it was done incorrectly and the approval needs to match what is being built out there.. The shelter is in place. So we're asking for your indulgence for this oversight, albeit it a minor one, that the Board approve the change in the variance to conform the approval to what is being built. I believe, I did heard. I did not realize this was happening but I'm grateful for it is that the City of Glens Falls Water Department put in a letter of support in favor of this, but that being said, Verizon is paying somewhat of a price to revise the drawings, send me back up here and go through the process. I will say this. They're a company that dots their I's and crosses their T's. They don't like to leave loose ends, and so we're asking for approval to fix this and make it right and again, I apologize that this played out this way. MR. JACKOSKI-Any questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? MR. KUHL-Could we have a taped copy of his groveling so that Verizon will be happy? Verizon pays my pension, by the way. It's kind of a shame that when they went for that building permit that we didn't catch it in the Town, either, but you did a splendid job and I'm sure that it wasn't done, you know, maliciously. It happens. MR. BRENNAN-This company is so by the books it is painful sometimes. In my estimation there's not a big impact to this. I make mistakes every day still in my life so I guess I'm good at groveling, too. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? MR. URRICO-I just want to say that I don't think it's a minor mistake like you're saying it is because you were given, Verizon was given approval for a variance of a certain type and size, and I appreciate you made a mistake, but this is not a little mistake. It's something you basically went ahead, somebody made the decision to go ahead with the project without checking knowing that they had already gotten a variance. I just want to say that I appreciate you coming back, but I disagree with you saying that it's a minor mistake. MR. BRENNAN-I guess I didn't come here to argue. I did speak with the people who were involved with this and it's not that they switched things. When they looked at it they did not appreciate the fact that, because we weren't changing the location of the fence, they made a mistake in looking at it and saying that if we were still within our fence area that we were not, you know, they made a mistake. I don't know how they looked at this and thought that this was okay, but I just would like to clarify that it was not that they looked at this and ignored it. They looked at it and thought that they were within the fenced area that they were within the limits that was approved, but it got by and they submitted for the building permit and the Building Department apparently did not send it to the Zoning Department for confirmation and so the building permit got issued and so we know that a mistake was made. I say it's minor in the sense that, not that making a mistake is minor. It's the fact that it's three feet in a wooded area next to a parking lot. I mean, if it was three feet and it was next to someone's backyard I'd be going folks. 19 MR. URRICO-It's still three feet. You can make all the excuses you want, you know, and I appreciate you owning up to it, but it's still a mistake. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members before I open a public hearing? I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is one letter. The City of Glens Falls supports this project. Steve Gurzler, City Engineer. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address the Board on this application? Seeing no one, I'll leave the public hearing open as I poll the Board. Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 approved it before. I'll approve it again. MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'll reluctantly approve it. It was a substantial variance to begin with and now it's being extended a little farther, but under the circumstances I'll approve it. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I agree with what Roy is saying. I understand it is a big relief, but in this situation I don't think it's a big deal for this situation. So I'll approve it. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm going to vote no. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. It happened and hopefully you will get back to them and not let this occur again in the future. MR. BRENNAN-Absolutely. MR. KUHL-If the engineer that sat down and wrote this job thought that the fenced in area, that he could do whatever he wanted, he's definitely wrong, and that person should learn from the bad news, which is don't do it again, but I would be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Having enough votes for an approval I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless. Applicant proposes modification to previous Zoning Board approval for construction of an 11 ft. 6 in. by 16 ft. equipment building for antennae collocation project on the City of Glens Falls Water Tank. Project includes installation of 12 panel antennas and sitework. Relief requested from minimum property line setbacks for the Parkland [PR-42] zoning district. SEAR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 16, 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 this area is basically wooded and not viewable from most of the surrounding areas. 20 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not reasonable because the building's already been built. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. It's a fairly small number considering the rest of the area around it. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty of course is self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approvall the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z- AV-54-2017, CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 16" day of August 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Urrico ABSENT: Mr. Freer MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Good luck. MR. BRENNAN-Okay. Thank you. I will bring the lesson back to my immediate employer. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I've got to tell you it's very peculiar to me that Verizon would hire a project manager or engineer that truly believed that the lot line, you could build anything within. I mean, they've got to have experience enough to know that there's setbacks. MR. BRENNAN-And I am unhappy. I agree with you. MR. JACKOSKI-It also got through, administratively there were issues on our side, but we'll take care of that ourselves. MR. BRENNAN-And I'll take care of it on my end as well. I appreciate it. Thank you very much. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any other business to be brought before the Board. We usually don't have an active audience sitting back there. There's no additional matters from the audience coming to us. I just have questions for Staff. Several Board members have brought to my attention that the Wood Carte, Too has already erected their sign yet they didn't show up for their last meeting. We're wondering how that happened. MRS. MOORE-Okay. So they have, I think it's temporary at the moment, but the Wood Carte, when we shared, he and I shared some e-mails, he completely misunderstood that he thought his meeting was on Thursday and not Wednesday. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, but the sign is up. MRS. MOORE-1 mean, we can communicate with him. MR.JACKOSKI-It doesn't sit well with this Chairman or the rest of the Board members here, especially when we've had discussions with Mr. Carte who does seem to believe that we owe him some courtesies 21 that may not be necessarily appropriate. It doesn't seem right that he erects a sign knowing damn well that he hasn't gotten his approval. MR. HENKEL-Did someone give him approval to say go ahead it's all right to erect the sign? MRS. MOORE-Never. MR. JACKOSKI-Are you sure? MRS. MOORE-Absolutely. Unless he's gotten a temporary sign permit. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I mean we just found out this evening that the Building Department issued a building permit on a property and yet we understood from last meeting that the Zoning Department goes through and approves them before the building permit even gets issued. So now we're wondering what's going on? MRS. MOORE-So that's a miscommunication between the Building Department and the Zoning Department. MR. JACKOSKI-So we don't know if a building permit was issued for the sign? MRS. MOORE-As far as I know here was no building permit issued. MR. JACKOSKI-So, Counsel, what do we do in a matter like that? MR. CROWE-It's, I think, a recommendation to enforcement. It can certainly be enforced. There's been no permit or approval given yet and so just as if there wasn't anything, any application in the queue, it would be the exact same scenario, even though there is some, you know, an application pending, it obviously doesn't mean you get to move forward with the permit. MR. JACKOSKI-I can certainly think of times that enforcement has required signs to be covered with tarps until they got approval. MR. HENKEL-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-On the Route 9 corridor. MRS. MOORE-And I'll communicate the same to Craig. MR. JACKOSKI-But this one isn't, that's not happening with this one. So we're just wondering why it's selective. MRS. MOORE-No, I can possibly check with Craig and find out if it was issued a temporary sign, because you can do a temporary, those banner things can be placed. MR. JACKOSKI-That's great. If the Town of Queensbury is going to start calling these large signs temporary, that's fantastic. MRS. MOORE-You're confusing, there's a process for obtaining a temporary, advertisement sign, and I don't know if they have or haven't. MR. JACKOSKI-There's a permit process for temporary signs. MRS. MOORE-Yes, you can advertise a sale, things like that for a certain amount of time. I don't know if this fell into that or not. MR. JACKOSKI-Are any other Board members concerned with this? Because I certainly don't want to raise an issue if you're all comfortable with it. MR. HENKEL-I'm not happy with it. MRS. MOORE-I'll carry that information back and relay an answer. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other business to come in front of this Board? 22 MR. URRICO-1 think we've had a lot of questions over the last several months regarding the approval process, you know, with the Halliday and with this, and with this, the Verizon, and it seems, you know, it's concerning because we already had somebody appeal a decision based on that. So I think it's more than just the one case. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. KUHL-Is there, do I have access, through my access in the Town software, to what building permits are issued right now? There's some work going on on the lake, aside from George Sicard re- building his deck, but there's something, there's somebody adding a porch on a house that I don't ever remember them coming up here. I mean I know I'm not here in the wintertime. So maybe it got approved in January, February or March, you know. MR. CROWE-What's the address? MR. KUHL-It's on Hall Road Extension. The address I don't know. MR. HENKEL-We did do one Hall Road Extension. MR. KUHL-You did do one? You did? Okay. Well then that's it. Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Hang on. MR. MC CABE-1 remember Hall Road. MR. KUHL-No, no, you're thinking of Hall Road when we did the garage. That was for Mackowiak. That was Mackowiak's garage, but two houses down from him. MR. JACKOSKI-I know the very house, and I do not. MR. KUHL-There's a new owner in that house but he's putting a porch on it. MR. CROWE-The property details link on the website, which is public access, but if you put in the property address, in all the information it'll list what building permits have been issued. MR. JACKOSKI-Maria, do you know how quickly hat gets updated? MS. GAGLIARDI-Whenever, the Assessment Department gets their information from the County. Whenever they get their information from the County, the Assessment Department usually updates their information, their addresses. MR. HENKEL-So it's pretty quick. MS. GAGLIARDI-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Building permits are listed on the laser fiche site, but you'd probably have to communicate with the Building Department to confirm whose building permit it is, but they're all, the 2017 building permits are listed, and we're all the way from 1 to 600 at the moment. MR. HENKEL-But that building permit has a section number on it. MRS. MOORE-Right, but then you'd have to communicate with someone at the Building Department to confirm what number. So I can pick out 148. 1 don't know who it is until I click on it. So that information is available on the Town's laser fiche now, like you could pull that information up now. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So I'm guessing that's, what, 94 Hall Road or 92. MR. KUHL-You've got Mackowiak's there? Mackowiak was approved about three months ago, it was a garage. It would be two down from him, and I don't know what that number is. It's Hall Road Extension. It's not Hall Road. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, because I was in '98. Barry's were right next to me. It's right next door to the Sipowicz one, right? All right. Well we can look it up. Any other questions from Board members. MR. MC CABE-Just, I will not be here for either meeting in September, unless they're in Dublin. 23 MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Are you ready to make a motion to move all the meetings to Dublin? MRS. HAYWARD-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Only in September. And we have legal counsel here to approve it. We're good. MR. KUHL-I'll tell you he's very selfish if he planned a vacation right when, I mean I come to every meeting. MR. JACKOSKI-Can I have a motion for adjournment, please. MR. KUHL-I make a motion we adjourn this meeting. MR. HENKEL-I second it. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF AUGUST 16,2017, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 16" day of August, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 24