Loading...
01-17-2018 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2018) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 17, 2018 INDEX Use Variance Z-UV-3-2017 Errol Silverberg 2. Tax Map No. 252.-1-38.1 Area Variance Z-AV-59-2017 Errol Silverberg 10. Tax Map No. 252.-1-38.1 Area Variance Z-AV-1-2018 William Mason 12. Tax Map No. 239.8-1-45 Area Variance Z-AV-6-2018 Leonard Romeo 17. Tax Map No. 226.16-1-40 Area Variance Z-AV-5-2018 HWP Development, LLC (Johnny Rockets) 24. Tax Map No. 295.8-1-5 Area Variance Z-AV-3-2018 David Cohen & Michelle Kaplan 28. Tax Map No. 239.15-1-9 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 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2018) JANUARY 17, 2018 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT HARRISON FREER, CHAIRMAN MICHAEL MC CABE, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JAMES UNDERWOOD JOHN HENKEL MEMBERS ABSENT RONALD KUHL LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. FREER-We're here at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road. For those of you who haven't been here in the past, there's an agenda on the back table and there's also some literature including Staff Notes that people are welcome to. It's quite a simple process. We'll begin with some housekeeping matters. So we'll do some Old Business, New Business and any other business that needs to be brought to the attention of the Board. What we'll do is read each application. We'll call the applicants and representatives to the small table. Roy will read the application into the record. We'll then ask the applicants to expand on the reading if necessary. Otherwise we'll ask questions. When there's a public hearing we will open the public hearing, and there should be a public hearing scheduled for each of the applications for this evening to seek public comment. Please address your comments to the Board and we'll take that into consideration and follow up with the applicants accordingly. We'll bring the applicants back to the table. We'll poll the Board and see where they're leaning and then we'll take actions accordingly. So we have a couple of housekeeping items first to get done this evening before we call the first applicant. I'd like to begin by thanking Steve Jackoski for his leadership of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals over the last several years. Steve did an excellent job in setting an example of treating everyone with the respect, civility, and dignity with which I plan and hope to continue. He also recognized and respected the value of people's time, which I also intend to do. I will undoubtedly do some bumbling as the new Chair. I hope and expect that the same team oriented approach that has been the norm here will continue among the Board and the Staff. I was going to welcome Michelle Hayward as a regular member, but she's ill this evening. She'll be formally appointed as a regular member. She's been a great alternate for the last year or so. Finally I'd like to acknowledge and thank John Henkel for reaching out to me to discuss his vote last month on the recommendation for my appointment. I think the air's been cleared and I'm happy with the way John handled the situation and I was pleased that I had a chance to clarify the process. So if you could bear with us just a couple of more minutes, we need to get a motion to approve the minutes for December 20th. APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 20, 2017 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 20, 2017, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 17th day of January, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, and Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Freer MR. FREER-Okay. So we're ready for the first applicant. Are you ready to read it in, Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. OLD BUSINESS: 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2018) USE VARIANCE Z-UV-3-2017 SEQRA TYPE II ERROL SILVERBERG AGENT(S) DALE R. CLOTHIER OWNER(S) ERROL SILVERBERG ZONING RR-5A/LC-10A LOCATION 230 LOCKHART MOUNTAIN ROAD (L. RAE GILLIS SUBDIVISION) APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,304 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE EXISTING 8,400 SQ. FT. GARAGE. RELIEF IS REQUIRED AS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ADDITION TO THE PRIVATE GARAGE IS ON A PARCEL WHERE A PRINCIPAL USE (SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING) DOES NOT EXIST. ADDITIONALLY, AN AREA VARIANCE IS REQUIRED AS THE STRUCTURE IS PROPOSED TO BE IN EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR A PRIVATE GARAGE. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED FOR THE EXPANSION OF A PRIVATE GARAGE. CROSS REF Z-AV- 59-2017; P-SP-62-2017; SUB 8-1996; UV 79-1995; SUB 3-1994; UV 82-1990 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 6.55 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 252.1-38.1 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-020 MICHAEL BORGOS & DALE CLOTHIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance Z-UV-3-2017, Errol Silverberg, Meeting Date: January 17, 2018 "Project Location: 230 Lockhart Mountain Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,304 sq. ft. addition to the existing 8,400 sq. ft. garage. Relief is required as the construction of the addition to the private garage is on a parcel where a principal use (single-family dwelling) does not exist. Additionally, an area variance is required as the structure is proposed to be in excess of the maximum allowable square footage for a private garage. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for the expansion of a private garage. SURVEY WAIVER APPROVED Relief Required: Section 179-5-020 Accessory Structure -Garage The applicant proposes a 10,704 sq. ft. garage where 8400 sq. ft. is existing and 2,304 sq. ft. is the addition. Garages are limited to 2,200 sq. ft. Garages are also considered accessory structures and may not be constructed without a principal structure. January 2018 new information...Applicant has supplied additional information in relation to a reasonable return Criteria for considering a Use Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether the applicant cannot realize a reasonable return, provided that return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence. The applicant has indicated the property was purchase in 2008 for $200,000 and an additional $50,000 spent to clean property, $60,000 to rehabilitate the building and property then $20,000 for pavement. The investment total is about $330,000 to date where the property and building area assessed at $388,000. The applicant has explained that the building and property use was originally used as a farm in 1961. The applicant has indicated the building would not be compliant for residence or commercial usage due to code requirements. The applicant has also indicated the development of the property for residential use would cost about $650,000 and the current improvements would cost about $150,000. Additional information provided by the applicant is from a NYS certified real estate appraiser. The Appraiser highlights the construction of the current structure and notes it does not meet current local building code standards. The Appraiser notes the neighborhood has been converted from an agricultural/commercial to predominately residential use where the private storage building as is condition and used for personal car collection would be the use supported as a reasonable return versus other uses of the building. The appraiser identifies uses allowed in the Rural Residential 5 Acres zoning area including Agricultural Service/Retail, Agricultural use, Bed and Breakfast, Boat Storage Facility, Cemetery, Group Camp, Kennel, Nursery, Outdoor Recreation, Place of Worship, and others. The information on uses already applied to the site and building are noted as not providing reasonable return in part due to location, accessibility to site by the public, costs exceeding investment to remove the current structure and to build a new structure. Additional uses such as residential use for a single family home indicates the demolition and disposal cost, land purchase (with no views of the Lake George area due to topography), site work including installation of septic and well then house construction would also not lead to a reasonable return by the applicant. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2018) The project site was previously granted a Use Variance (UV79-1995) for the operation of trailer manufacturing business —utilizing the site and building for the operation. The applicant has provided information that the previous use variances did not succeed due to location. 2. Whether the alleged hardship relating to the property in question is unique, and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood. The applicant has explained was the use from a commercial chicken farm, then to an auto repair shop and to a trailer manufacturer to the current use as a private garage. The project as presented indicates the site has been marketed from 2005 to 2008 from $320,000 to $200,000 with a site assessed per RPS of$388,000. 3. That the requested Use Variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The applicant has indicated the use is currently and will remain a low-key use and have no impact on the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant has indicated a boat storage use is a permitted use in the zone under a special use permit and would be more intense for the area including movement of boats on a seasonal basis winter storage and spring/summer pick up. The applicant has noted the neighborhood area has changed from agricultural/commercial to residential area. 4. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. The applicant indicated they purchased the property as current trailer manufacture was relocating with the intent to use the site for storage of cars. The Code requires a principle use to be on site before an accessory use. The applicant had purchased and utilized the property without a compliance request —the applicant would have been notified the proposed use would have required a use variance. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a 2,304 sq. ft. single story addition to an existing 8,400 sq. ft. private garage. Project is in RR-5 zone that does not list private garage as an allowed use. The garage is to be used for storage of classic cars a private collection. The plans show the location of the addition and elevations." MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning 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 passed and seconded on September 19, 2017by a unanimous vote. That's all I've got. MR. FREER-That's it. Do you guys want to elaborate? MR. BORGOS-For the record Michael Borgos on behalf of the applicant. I'm here with Tracy Clothier and Dale Clothier in support, and we also have appraiser Tom Orr here with us in the audience in case you have any questions of him. I don't remember if every one of you was here in September at the meeting, but. MR. FREER-Mike, let me interrupt that since we have less than seven members, I should have started out with my initial remarks and said that you're welcome to table the application until we have a full Board. So just keep that in mind as the discussion goes on, and that's for all of the applications. You need four votes for it to pass, and that means with only five of us there's sort of a different dynamic. MR. BORGOS-Well with the Chair's permission I'd like to finish and get some feedback and see where we are and what we'd like to do then. I don't want to re-hash everything that we've put on the record in September. I'm not going to bore you with all that fact history. I think you'll just remember from Mr. Urrico's reading of the Staff Notes, I think the Staff Notes are very accurate to portray the history and kind of refresh your recollection as to the fact that this was the Gillis poultry farm. It was farmer built, actually it was built before the Town of Queensbury had a Planning Department. So there was no building permit process in Queensbury or the County at that time, but it clearly has not been built to current modern standards and it was never built with an anticipation of future uses. They were building it for chickens. The history was that after that use was discontinued, Top of the World Auto Body was operating out of there, came before the Town of Queensbury ZBA that was constituted at the time, back in the 90's, received a Use Variance for that operation. Subsequent to that there was a light trailer manufacturer doing boat trailers because the next door property had the boat storage and they had some compatible business and they received another Use Variance. After that the property 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2018) was marketed as was related in the Staff Notes, for three years on the market, and I submitted to the Board the listing data back in December. It was originally listed in March of 2005 for $320,000. In October 2005 it was $369,900; April 2007; $269,900; May 2007 $269,900 and then it dropped down in April of 2008 and has been under contract to Mr. Silverberg for $200,000. So the long marketing period defined a buyer, this buyer. No one knows if there would have been another buyer at a lower price if it remained on the market without Mr. Silverberg buying it, but he saw it as facility right for storage. It would have been great had he come to the Town and talked about it and asked the question, but oftentimes that doesn't happen. It fit his needs. He didn't need any building permits at that time, so he just moved right in, and it's been almost 10 years that he's operated there without raising any eyebrows. There were no complaints or issues. This was a self-reported issue that he brought through Dale's application looking to expand a little bit. He needs more space, and that's when all of this came out, and Craig Brown made the determination that we don't have a perfect fit in our Code definition for this. It probably should be something that could be developed in the future, but Craig said this is most akin to a private garage, but of course you can't have a private garage in an RR-5 zone without a principal dwelling. Well there's no dwelling there. There never has been a dwelling on that property as it's been subdivided off years ago, but this one's never had a house on it. So it's kind of an odd situation where you have to build a house in order to keep what's already there. Quite often we use that terminology pre-existing, nonconforming use or structure, whatever it might be, and that was appropriate here, but if the Use Variance is not deemed acceptable, not approved by this Board, one could conclude that the use would have to discontinue, and then you take it down the line and you say what happens. Cars leave, what happens to that property? Where does it go from here? Does it go back on the market presumably? How does it get used in the future? And that's the really evaluation that we hired the appraiser, Mr. Tom Orr, to go through and in order to meet the test as this Board pointed out to us in September when we tabled the matter to go back and do more homework, we hired Mr. Orr to do that for us, to evaluate all of the allowed uses under the Code currently to show whether or not a reasonable return on investment could be made. I'm not going to go through Mr. Orr's full submission to you. I know it's been reviewed by all of you and it's part of the record. I would submit to you that it's a very exhaustive review, dollars and cents, of each of those individual uses. The take away that I have personally from it is that this is a unique property. This is something that because it's built in 1960 or '61 as a chicken coop there isn't anything comparable like it around the Town. Because of its physical location, Lockhart Mountain Road, very remote section, there isn't a lot of traffic, and it has some geographic difficulties to utilization of the property for these other things. The combination of the structure and its location it really limit what can be done. So we're hopeful to get the maximum utilization out of it. Mr. Silverberg's use of the building for the storage of his own vehicles seems like the most appropriate. It seems reasonable, and we believe it doesn't impact anybody else. So we've tried to do our homework and understand that the Board members of the ZBA have to do what those ZBA members did back in the 90's, go through and look at the test. Can we check the box on each of those individual elements? And tonight I submit to you that we've come back with the requisite financial proof in order to be able to check all of those boxes, and we're happy to answer any questions about that tonight, provide more information, clarify anything that we need to, but again, I don't want to dwell on a lot of the stuff that we've already talked about before. I do like what the Staff Notes have said. I don't want to re-hash that. I do want to clarify one thing in Staff Notes under section one, it mentions the project site was previously granted a Use Variance UV-79-1995 for the operation of trailer manufacturing. I believe that was the most recent one. There was one prior, and I think the next line says it kind of acknowledges that the applicant and provided information that previous Use Variances plural did not succeeded due to the location. The other one is The Top of the World. So I think we've talked about that before. I just wanted to point that out. When it comes to self-created difficulties it's always a question that's difficult and I think it really depends on perspective. In this case, Mr. Silverberg freely went and purchased the property and you could say it was self-created because he didn't go and check with Craig Brown before he did so, didn't vet it with the Town, didn't make that inquiry and ask the questions, but I think it's pretty reasonable and understandable that he would rely upon representations from the real estate agents and what he saw and said, yes, I can make this work and he went ahead with it. Many people would. He didn't build this structure. So he didn't create that strange situation, this unique situation that we have, nor did he create the zoning that goes along with it or the difficulties that we've laid out that are part of making this thing work for other uses on that site. So we don't believe it was fully self-created, but we do acknowledge that he purchased it without having a full inquiry, but it is what it is today here in 2018. He owns it. He'd like to continue using it for his cars and for a continued use we understand that this Board has to grant the minimal relief necessary and it would be a narrowly tailored variance just like the prior two variances that were granted. The first one was for auto body. The next one was for trailer. Those did not survive. This would be narrowly tailored to a private garage for the storage of a fleet of personal automobiles period. So it's something that, while it is a grantable Use Variance, it's not likely to preserve for ever and ever, and it's not setting a precedent 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2016) somewhere else in the Town because it is such a unique situation. So we ask that you give some consideration to those unique facts here. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. John? MR. HENKEL-Question. Now you say it's just going to be for storage. He's not going to be selling vehicles out of there and I see he's got a registration sticker on the front that says he's a retail dealer. MR. BORGOS-He's got a hobby. Some might call it an affliction, his wife probably does. He buys his cars as a hobby. He doesn't buy and sell for profit. MR. HENKEL-There won't be an auction there or anything like that? MR. BORGOS-No. He has, there's no walk up. There's no retail. There's nobody flying in to see the vehicles. There's really very, very limited activity. It's mostly just a place to store his collection. The law requires that to be a dealer and be able to go to the auctions so you can dabble and buy other cars requires him to transact a certain number of vehicles, and he's been fulfilling that requirement elsewhere because he can do it anywhere. He's got a home in Long Island and that's where he's been doing those in and outs with. This property is really just to house his babies. MR. HENKEL-No mechanical work per se? Does he have a mechanic that actually works there? MR. BORGOS-Dale does light maintenance. He's not putting miles on these vehicles really. He might be changing an oil, rotating the wheels. MR. HENKEL-So is that something that should be in the use permit when that's issued? Is that something that probably should be granted in that? MR. BORGOS-Absolutely. I'll let Dale expound on that a little bit. MR. CLOTHIER-I'm expected to start the cars on a regular basis and so the oil needs to be changed and there's a flat tire or something that always happens. That's the only maintenance that's done. We aren't doing any welding, painting. We don't store any gas. The mechanic comes in as needed to make some, it's very little, but we have a lift. He can change the oil, the transmission fluid or something like that. MR. BORGOS-But that's not open to the public at all. It's just for his personal vehicles. MR. HENKEL-Personal. MR. URRICO-So when he's not in the area is it open in any way? Is there anybody there? MR. CLOTHIER-It's invitation only all year round, but for nine months you've got to get me and have some reason that I would allow you to come in and see his cars. MR. FREER-Mike, do you have questions? MR. MC CABE-The only problem I have is the appraiser called it a white elephant. Now by increasing the space is that going to be a larger white elephant now to make it harder to sell? MR. BORGOS-That's a good question, and as we worked on this trying to develop our thoughts, we realized that it's very difficult to distinguish between the Use Variance and the Area Variance because it's all kind of wrapped together. From a use standpoint, the use that's been going on for these past ten years, we're proposing would continue, the storage of private automobiles as limited as we talked about, and I've asked the question, we're asking for permission to make it bigger? How does that relate? Why do we have to make it bigger? If it's already technically in violation, how are we going to make it bigger? Well, the distinction here is tht it's the use that would be permitted if there was a primary residence there, although constrained by size, but this is not something that is a single family detached residence in the modern construction thought process where somebody wants a jumbo garage. This is an existing structure. How does this applicant make this structure work for him in order to keep it vital, keep it utilized, keep it inhabited, and avoid it from becoming a derelict shell, something that would be an attractive nuisance, something that would detract from the property values in the neighborhood? Something that would potentially be a fire hazard if it wasn't occupied and maintained, and the rationale that Dale has submitted is that he needs the space in order to 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2013) continue to maintain this unique collection of cars. The structure that's there right now has those very low ceilings. I'm not sure how many of you were able to get over there and see it. Some of the photos kind of show you, but you can't utilize it all for these mundane tasks that Dale is trying to do. Particularly what he's explained to me is that he needs to build this additional space in order to move a third of the inventory, the fleet over so he can work on that part of the building to upgrade it. These cars all have significant value. It's in a public forum so I don't want to create more of a security threat by stating exactly the values, but you don't want to be doing construction work with them in proximity. They are babies. They are well cared for and in order to make the building continually maintained and viable as a storage facility work needs to be done. I asked the question why not just move these cars to another location, fix them up and then just bring them back. Do it like you would if you were re- modeling a house. The information that I got from Dale, and he can certainly elaborate upon it if you wish, is that these cars are moved usually one by one. You could do it on a flatbed but most of them are moved in a box truck. The box truck itself is a good shell for moving them, but it's very time consuming and very expensive to move them one by one in that fashion, and if you have to move a vehicle like that, you can't exit by opening the doors, you have to climb out a window. A lot of these, like the Lamborghini, is small one you can't fit out. So the guy moving it has to steer while others are pushing it and he's lying on the roof, reaching through pulling the steering wheel. So there's a lot of complexity with moving this. As a very practical matter Mr. Silverberg said if I just expand here on this site, this will be the best way to do it. I think the while elephant reference is appropriate because it's hard to imagine that somebody else is going to want to do the same thing down the road. I think it's realistic to assume that when Mr. Silverberg decides he's no longer going to use it this way, it's unlikely that that use is going to continue, and any future owner of that property would have to come back before this Board seeking some different relief and it would be a fresh review for their facts. They might question the sanity of their financial wisdom of making a further investment into something so limited in utilization and use and that would be a reasonable observation to make, but that's the applicant's choice. This site is six and a half acres. It can well support an additional 2400 square feet. That's not a problem 2304 square feet. We're not trying to stuff too much in here. The expansion size wise isn't an issue from a planning perspective. We're still well within the range of reasonableness for site permeability and build out, and the real determining factor I think is the lack of visibility. That addition area that was marked off in September in the grass with paint to show you where it is is almost invisible. You'd have to be walking through the woods from the neighbor's property line in order to even see it. It's not going to be visible from the road and there are no neighbors looking down on us. So it really is a very unique situation and for those reasons we think that that's why it's necessary. It's really truly necessary to the applicant for this particular use. It may not be for somebody else. MR. FREER-Okay. I'd like to then poll the Board. MRS. MOORE-You have to do your public hearing. MR. FREER-Okay. I'm sorry. We have a public hearing. Is there anyone here who wishes to make a comment on this application? And do we have any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. FREER-Okay. Seeing no one and no written comments, I'll poll the Board. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. As the applicant knows a Use Variance is a little different than an Area Variance. An Area Variance is a balancing test. A Use Variance you have to satisfy all the criteria, not just one or two of them. I think in this case I believe that the applicant has satisfied all the criteria necessary. So I would be in favor of the application. I think this is a very unique application. It's a very unique use. The property has had a history of automotive and also commercial use in some cases. They may not have been successful but they existed there. So it's not out of the question that something like this might turn up now. So as I said, I'd be in favor of the application. MR. FREER-Thanks. Mike? MR. MC CABE-I have a problem with this, and the problem is that we're gearing the variance to an individual, and that's not how a variance is supposed to work. The variance goes with the land, and so I feel that by granting this variance we could, in a back door manner, be opening this property up for some sort of commercial project, and this is something that would be better done by the Town through a special Use Variance than by us in a back door manner granting a Use Variance. So I'm not in favor of this project. MR. FREER-Okay. John? 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2018) MR. HENKEL-I definitely agree with Mike somewhat, but as it changes ownership it would have to come in front of us again anyway to re-visit it. It wouldn't be, yes it goes with the land, but doesn't it change every time there's an ownership? No, it does stay with the? MR. FREER-I think Mike's concern, as I understood it, is that somebody could buy the property and make it more commercialized and have a more ongoing. MR. HENKEL-Couldn't we put that in the condition that it stays with this particular owner? MR. MC CABE-You can't do that. MRS. MOORE-It's questionable, but if an another person purchased this property and amended the use on that site, that would trigger them to come back for review, whether it be with the Zoning Board or the Planning Board, depending on what that use is. So it's not necessarily the back door, but if someone else were to purchase that property and use it other than what it was. MR. MC CABE-Which is what happened for quite a period of time and I guess I'm not going to support that. I don't want to be the Board that allows that to happen just because nobody knows what's going on in the site. MR. BORGOS-Can I just clarify? MR. FREER-Let me go through the rest of the people, Mike. MR. HENKEL-I can see what Mike is saying. I think I would rather see the Town Board make a decision on this, too. I personally don't have a problem with the Use Variance, but I agree that it probably should be a Town Board decision not us. MR. FREER-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think what's before us is whether this is a reasonable re-purposing of use on the site, and I think here's my take on it. It's been used for the applicant's request that we're supposed to approve this evening if we approve it. It's been in effect already for ten previous years to this date, all right, and as far as I'm concerned we have to think about what the reasonable re-purposing would be on this property. You've had commercial use up there. Any change to commercial use would have to go through the planning process. It also would have to be reviewed by the Zoning Board because that would be a significant change from what's been proposed here this evening, and I think because it's going to be for personal car storage, all right. It's not repairs. It's not an expansion of a new use over what it's been. It's been a benign use for over ten years, over a decade already. So I don't think at this point in time, I think Roy is correct in his interpretation. They fulfilled their obligations by looking at the re- purposing and the financial return and the financial benefit of what they've done up there so far. I think it's reasonable for us to consider that this is a reasonable use of this purpose in time, but if Mr. Silverberg passes on, he doesn't have his car collection, somebody else decides they want to have a car collection up there, that continues with the property in perpetuity as long as that us is what it's designed for and that is personal automobile storage. I don't think we need to think about what the possibilities are going forward because if somebody decided they want to re-establish commercial auto body repair up there, that would be something that would have to be reviewed by the Town and I think that we would be more concerned at that point in time, but at this point in time I think we should be reasonable in our conclusion that it's only going to be for personal use. It's not going to be for anything but that. MR. HENKEL-Yes. I agree with that. I'd change my vote to yes, then. That makes sense. MR. FREER-Okay. So, I don't know, I wasn't here last month. We had a similar situation actually. So there is a need I think, Mike, for the Town to look at, you know, classic car storage as something more than a garage. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would also add you know in Ward One we have the old ex-firehouses on Glen Lake Road and East Sunnyside which had to be re=purposed. They were, they became obsolete. The Town had no use for them, and so you're left in a quandary. Do you just tear these buildings down? Do you let them rot into the ground? And in this instance here it's a well-kept building. It's off the road. It's not seen by the public. There's no public access at any point in time. I think it's reasonable to conclude that it's a reasonable use. MR. FREER-Okay, and I too believe that I could support this given the criteria. So we have four yeses, which is enough to approve it. So I'd be looking for a motion. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2018) MRS. MOORE-So there's a couple of steps. One, so you need to close your public hearing, and the next one would be reference to SEQR and I believe there's a SEQR resolution in your packet. MR. FREER-Okay. So I guess I'll close the public hearing, and since this is an Unlisted SEAR, I'd look for a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HENKEL-There's no. MRS. MOORE-There's no SEQR resolution? Okay. I have one extra. MR. MC CABE-1 have one. MRS. MOORE-You have one? All right. MOTION REGARDING USE VARIANCE Z-UV-3-2017 ERROL SILVERBERG BASED UPON THE INFORMATION AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, THIS BOARD FINDS THAT THIS WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. SO WE GIVE IT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted 17th day of January, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. FREER-Okay, and now we can get a motion for the variance. MRS. MOORE-Now you can do the motion, yes. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Errol Silverberg for a variance from Section(s) 179-3-040 and 179-5-020 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes construction of a 2,304 sq. ft. addition to the existing 8,400 sq. ft. garage. Relief is required as the construction of the addition to the private garage is on a parcel where a principal use (single-family dwelling) does not exist. Additionally, an area variance is required as the structure is proposed to be in excess of the maximum allowable square footage for a private garage. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for the expansion of a private garage. SURVEY WAIVER APPROVED Relief Required: Section 179-5-020 Accessory Structure - Garage The applicant proposes a 10,704 sq. ft. garage where 8,400 sq. ft. is existing and 2,304 sq. ft. is the addition. Garages are limited to 2,200 sq. ft. Garages are also considered accessory structures and may not be constructed without a principal structure. In this instance here we are recognizing the fact that of the previous uses on this site here, the original Gillis poultry farm. January 2018 new information...Applicant has supplied additional information in relation to a reasonable return. Motion regarding Use Variance Z-UV-3-2017 Errol Silverberg based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the applicant, this Board finds that this will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. So we give it a Negative Declaration, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted 17th day of January, 2018, by the following vote: 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2018) AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl The four (4) criteria usually associated with a Use Variance are: 1.) That the proposed improvement is a public necessity in that it is required to render safe and adequate service. It is our finding that: This applicant's request for the additional structure would allow an easier ingress and egress for the vehicles from the building and allow for re-purposing and re-building of the building without harming the collections housed inside. 2.) That there are compelling reasons, economic and otherwise, for permitting the variance. It is our finding that: This re-purposing of the building that would be not allowed on site because of its over size, is a reasonable re-use of this building, going forward for personal car collection as opposed to a secondary use which might be commercial use which previously existed on site. 3.) Where the intrusion or burden on the community is minimal, the showing required by the utility should be correspondingly reduced. It is our finding that: We don't find that the applicant with an over six acre lot would be accommodating for this structure. Based upon our findings above, we hereby determine that the applicant [ HAS ] demonstrated that the applicable zoning regulations and restrictions have caused unnecessary hardship. They went through the process of looking at other possible uses on site. This seems to be the most benign use for this building. [ (Note: use the following only when approving a use variance.) The Board finds that the variance under consideration is the minimum necessary and adequate to address the unnecessary hardship proven by the applicant and at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. ] Based upon the secluded nature of where this building is located we do not feel, there's been no neighborhood negativity about the application. Based upon all of the above, I move that this Board [ Approve ] Use Variance Z-UV-3-2017, Errol Silverberg with the following conditions: For personal use and storage only for Mr. Silverberg's collection of automobiles. Duly adopted this 17th day of January 2018, by the following vote: MR. HENKEL-Should we add in that he can do oil changes and all that stuff, or doesn't that matter? That's an allowable use to do oil changes or minor mechanical work. MR. UNDERWOOD-That's normal servicing of the personal vehicles. MR. FREER-We're talking about garage, right? MR. HENKEL-Okay. AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer NOES: Mr. McCabe ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. FREER-Okay. Good luck. Thank you. MR. BORGOS-Thank you. MRS. MOORE-Now the Area Variance. They're back. MR. FREER-Okay. MR. HENKEL-Did we do that wrong because we did those together? Is that going to get us in trouble? 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2013) MRS. MOORE-You didn't say Use. MR. HENKEL-I think he did say Area Variance and Use Variance. No? We're all right on that? Because we did approve. MR. MC CABE-All we had to do was give the proper number. Is the number right? MR. HENKEL-Because it did say Use Variance and Area Variance. MR. BORGOS-It's Use Variance 3-2017. But I do think from a procedural standpoint you do need to go through. MR. MC CABE-Well they're going to pick that up on boilerplate. As long as he referenced the right Use Variance. MR. HENKEL-Which he did. MR. FREER-So we need to do the Area Variance now. MR. BORGOS-The Use Variance was done and now we're on the Area Variance. MR. FREER-Yes. So could I get a motion for the Area Variance? MRS. MOORE-I'm sorry. Before you do that you need to do the public hearing. You need to give a little bit of an overview and then go through the public hearing as well. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-59-2017 SEQRA TYPE II ERROL SILVERBERG AGENT(S) DALE R. CLOTHIER OWNER(S) ERROL SILVERBERG ZONING RR-5A/LC-10A LOCATION 230 LOCKHART MOUNTAIN ROAD (L. RAE GILLIS SUBDIVISION) APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,304 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE EXISTING 8,400 SQ. FT. GARAGE. USE VARIANCE IS REQUIRED AS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ADDITION TO THE PRIVATE GARAGE IS ON A PARCEL WHERE PRINCIPAL USE (SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING) DOES NOT EXIST. RELIEF REQUIRED AS THE STRUCTURE IS PROPOSED TO BE IN EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR A PRIVATE GARAGE AND TO HAVE AN ACCESSORY WITHOUT A PRINCIPLE. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED FOR THE EXPANSION OF A PRIVATE GARAGE. CROSS REF Z-UV-3-2017; P-SP-62-2017 P-SP-62-2017; SUB 8-1996; UV 79-1995; SUB 3-1994; UV 82-1990 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 6.55 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 252.-1-38.1 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-020 MICHAEL BORGOS & DALE CLOTHIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. FREER-Roy, do you want to read the Area Variance? STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-59-2017, Errol Silverberg, Meeting Date: January 17, 2018 "Project Location: 230 Lockhart Mountain Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,304 sq. ft. addition to the existing 8,400 sq. ft. garage. Use Variance is required as the construction of the addition to the private garage is on a parcel where principal use (single-family dwelling) does not exist. Relief required as the structure is proposed to be in excess of the maximum allowable square footage for a private garage and to have an accessory without a principle. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for the expansion of a private garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from an addition to a private garage in excess of the maximum allowable square footage and for construction of an accessory structure without a principle. Section 179-5-020 Accessory Structure -Garage The applicant proposes a 10,704 sq. ft. garage where 8400 sq. ft. is existing and 2,304 sq. ft. is the addition. Garages are limited to 2,200 sq. ft. Garages are also considered accessory structures and may not be constructed without a principal structure. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2018) 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 as the project is an addition to an existing private garage that is currently used for storage of classic cars. The applicant has indicated the storage of the classic cars is the proposed use in the private garage. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial in regards to the code. Relief requested is 8,504 sq. ft. in excess. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant has indicated the stormwater is managed on site by an underground storage area with overflow into an underground gravel trench. The storage of stormwater is recycled for water usage on the site. The buildings have pea stone eave trench areas. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created as the applicant purchased the property as is that had a use variance for the manufacturing of trailers. Staff comments: The applicant proposes the construction of a 2,304 sq. ft. single story addition to an existing 8,400 sq. ft. private garage. The garage exceeds the size allowed for private garage. The applicant has indicated the garage is used for the storage of classic cars and will remain the same with the addition. The plans show the location of the addition and elevations." MR. BORGOS-Again for the record Michael Borgos on behalf of the applicant for the Clothiers. I think we've already discussed everything. If there are any further questions, I'd be happy to entertain them. MR. FREER-Do we open the public hearing first? MRS. MOORE-You can open your public hearing. MR. FREER-Okay. So first any other questions from the Board? Okay. We'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that wishes to make a comment on this application? Seeing no one, is there any written comment, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No, there is not. MR. FREER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-You can close the public hearing. MR. FREER-Okay. We'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. FREER-And seek a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Errol Silverberg. Applicant proposes construction of a 2,304 sq. ft. addition to the existing 8,400 sq. ft. garage. Use Variance is required as the construction of the addition to the private garage is on a parcel where principal use (single-family dwelling) does not exist. Relief required as the structure is proposed to be in excess of the maximum allowable square footage for a private garage and to have an accessory without a principle. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for the expansion of a private garage. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2018) Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from an addition to a private garage in excess of the maximum allowable square footage and for construction of an accessory structure without a principle. Section 179-5-020 Accessory Structure -Garage The applicant proposes a 10,704 sq. ft. garage where 8400 sq. ft. is existing and 2,304 sq. ft. is the addition. Garages are limited to 2,200 sq. ft. Garages are also considered accessory structures and may not be constructed without a principal structure. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on September 20, 2017 and on January 17, 2018; 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 building has existed for a number of years and the addition is basically invisible from normal viewing areas. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not deemed reasonable. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because the building has existed in this use 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 not really self-created. It existed long before the applicant took over this particular 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; 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-59-2017, Errol Silverberg, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 17th day of September 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. BORGOS-Thank you very much. MR. FREER-Thank you. The next application is the William Mason, Area Variance 1-2018. AREA VARIANCE NO. Z-AV-1-2018 SEQRA TYPE II WILLIAM MASON AGENT(S) WILLIAM MASON OWNER(S) SAMUEL LIGHTBODY ZONING WR LOCATION 13 TUSCARORA DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 246 SQ. FT. OF NEW SECOND FLOOR AREA ON SOUTH SIDE AND RAISING ROOF AREA ONLY ON THE NORTH SIDE. ALSO PROPOSED IS CONSTRUCTION OF A 32 SQ. FT. ENTRY DECK TO THE WEST. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SETBACK, PERMEABILITY, EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, AND FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS OF THE 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2018) WR ZONING DISTRICT. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. IN A CEA. CROSS REF P-SP-1- 2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 2018 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.05 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 239.8-1-45 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-13- 010 BILL MASON, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. Z-AV-1-2018, William Mason, Meeting Date: January 17, 2018 "Property Location: 13 Tuscarora Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of 246 sq. ft. of new second floor area on south side and raising roof area only on the north side. Also, proposed is construction of a 32 sq. ft. entry deck to the west. Relief requested from setback, permeability, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and Floor Area Ratio requirements of the WR zoning district. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA. Relief Required: The applicant request relief from minimum setback, permeability, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and Floor Area Ratio requirements for the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements The applicant proposes to construct a 246 sq. ft. second floor area of an existing home and a 32 sq. ft. entryway deck. The new construction upstairs is to be 10 ft. from the property line and the new entry deck area is to be 3 ft. from the property line where a 15 ft. setback is required from all property lines. The new living area is 256 sq. ft. for a total floor area of 2049 sq. ft. 89.6% where 22% is the maximum allowed. The site permeability is to be 65% 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 appear limited as a result of existing conditions and nature of the variance request. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for side setback of 5 ft. Permeability relief is requested for 10% less than the 75% required Floor area relief of 67.6% in excess of 22%. In regards to the Floor area —the applicant has explained the parcel is part of an existing HOA where a majority of the 18.7 acres is common area for the association members —in addition the master plan indicates the 18.7 ac is to be considered during the request for a house expansion with the HOA. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on 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 construction of 246 sq. ft. of new second floor area on south side and raising roof area only on the north side. Also, proposed is construction of a 32 sq. ft. entry deck to the west. The project occurs in the Takundewide cottage development off of Cleverdale Rd. In 2003 the Planning Board adopted an MOU with Takundewide HOA outlining activities for future development. The project is similar to other cottages on the site where the increase floor area is comparable to the other housing. The submission includes renditions of the proposed home with the existing roofline shown on the plans. The floor plans of the existing interior arrangement are provided." 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2018) MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board based on its limited review passed a motion that did not identify any adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And that was adopted on January 16, 2018 by a unanimous vote. MR. FREER-Okay. Welcome, Mr. Mason. MR. MASON-Thank you. My name is Bill Mason and I'm here to represent, I am the applicant but I'm representing Sam and Jeannie Lightbody, the owners of Cottage Number 13 of Takundewide. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Many of you are aware of a lot of the issues that we've had before, and in fact this home looks very similar to the one that I was here for before last year and just built for my brother Dick at Cottage Number 10 at Takundewide. The owner, the Lightbody's, liked that so much that they kind of copied a couple of the features that my brother had. As explained it coincides sort of or it goes along with this memorandum of understanding that Takundewide negotiated with the Town in 2003 where basically we agreed that each one of these homes, the owners, when they purchased, originally they wanted the right to add a second floor, and this is precisely what he's doing. Back in the 90's Mr. and Mrs. Lightbody asked me to add a second floor but a smaller one, and the roofline in the lower right kind of shows what I did. I just kicked up a dormer on the north side of the house, gave them two bedrooms and a bathroom upstairs. The problem with that is really from a functional standpoint I knew it going in is that the ceiling height in the center was seven feet and out near the wall was six feet and that left us with a one twelve pitch on the roof, and we did have trouble with leaks a couple of years ago or probably five years ago. I put a rubber roof on it. That solved it, but a one twelve pitch is not ideal for any roof in the North Country. It works fine in the summer, spring and fall, but in the winter it has a little bit of trouble. So going to this, you've got a four twelve pitch which looks flat on the top, but I've never had a problem with a pitch with a four twelve with ice buildup or snow, and especially with the new insulation that we put in, which this one will be foam insulation up in the attic. It'll seal it up completely. There'll be no issues at all with those. That's a practical standpoint. So in doing so, this is kind of an expensive way, a roundabout way to do it once and then do it again, and I kind of feel sorry for the owner that he decided to do this, but he gains 256 square feet on the second floor, which still turns it in, it's a modest addition but it improves his home quite a bit, and it's well within the memorandum of understanding that Takundewide established with the Town, which just to put a second floor on. One other thing, I don't want to forget this, so let me mention it right now. Chris Navitsky the Water Keeper e-mailed me today. I'm not sure if he corresponded with the Board. He was wondering if we would be willing to do something in terms of a rain garden or something for stormwater mitigation. He understands there isn't a square inch being added to impermeable area, and even under construction we're going to have very, very little affected area because we're just going to come in and demo it. We'll be able to stage most of it from the parking lot, but I said absolutely. We have kind of a master plan at Takundewide about stormwater mitigation and rain gardens are part of it, and I said there's absolutely no problem. So he and I have got an appointment that in the springtime we'll meet and kind of talk about that. He asked me to mention it. So I'm mentioning it. MR. FREER-Okay. MR. URRICO-1 don't see it here. We don't have it here. MR. MASON-1 don't, I think he was last minute. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. MASON-And he said that he might show up tonight and then I saw him at a meeting today on the Hemlock Wooley Adelgid, it's a hard word to say, in Lake George. I asked him if he was showing up, and that's when he said no, but feel free to mention that we had the discussion. So I'm mentioning it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Was the septic upgraded last time when you did the previous? MR. MASON-In the, I mean and as part of this it was upgraded and I'm kind of at a loss as to how I did it. I did, I originally drew four 50 foot laterals for 200 feet. After I got the permit and during construction or something I changed that to five 50 foot laterals and connected the ends. I don't remember exactly what the reason was, but I know by looking at the map that it's a 1,000 gallon concrete tank with a D Box than these. It's what would be considered State of the Art today. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 know you guys have to be responsible for pump outs and everything else and making sure that all occurs on a regular basis. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2016) MR. MASON-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-Everything is functioning properly? MR. MASON-We have never had a problem with the septic and we do inspect it regularly, and in addition he has the right to join the community septic system which still has plenty of room in it, which any of you who were here know and I can show the prints on that. There's plenty of room in that and that's also State of the Art. MR. UNDERWOOD-Just out of curiosity, since creating that community system, has anybody had to additionally join up to it since you created it or is it just sitting there? MR. MASON-Well, it's not just sitting there. It's serving eight homes, and it's really serving the eight homes, I brag all of the time, I couldn't believe how that all worked out. I got every single cess pool, every single system that was in our lowest tier if you will out, and they joined it, and we're now pumping all of that septic 1,000 feet away from the lake to these three drain fields that dose themselves. We haven't gotten anybody to join that. We should have gotten one, but there really aren't, we still have openings if they need it. So, and this system is not one. He's in an area, it's kind of funny because I remember when I did that we dug all of the test holes throughout Takundewide to find out where the best soils were. The worst soils were farther away from the lake. The best perking soils were closer to the lake. This one is in a distance, it's about 400 feet away from Lake George. It's in a perfect situation. The soil, the perc tests show that there's nothing wrong and there would be really no reason for him, for this owner, to pump back, 1,000 feet back into more inferior soils. So I don't think we'll ever put in there, but he has the right to. If he ever needed to, we could plug him right in without too much problem. MR. UNDERWOOD-And as far as the addition of this, it's not going to increase the use of this property or tip the scales as far as that goes. MR. MASON-1 don't really think so. He's got two bedrooms up, one bedroom down now. He's adding space, but not really another bedroom. He's got a bathroom up. He's not adding another bathroom. It might increase capacity a little bit, so, you know, maybe one more bed or one more sleeping person now and then, but I don't really see it, it's not going to be a huge impact one way or the other. It's really for him, the six foot tall ceiling. This man, he's not my height. He's a little taller, and he's never liked the second floor. So this will give him an ability to graduate to the second floor before he decides that he doesn't like climbing stairs because he's getting older. MR. HENKEL-I thought the whole idea about the community septic system was as a, people do increase the size of their places they were supposed to hook up? MR. MASON-They're not all supposed to. We don't have enough capacity for the 32 homes in the septic system. We've got capacity for 13 homes in what we've built. It doesn't need it. I mean, as I said, his system is 400 feet away from Lake George in an area of very good soils. MR. HENKEL-So save it for somebody that really. MR. MASON-Exactly. And I do have, I know the ones that need to do it and I'm hopeful, as time goes on, that they'll join. That's really what we sized it for, knowing perfectly well which ones need to get in and which ones. MR. HENKEL-It makes sense. MR. MASON-Right. MR. FREER-Other questions? So has there been any dialogue with any of the owners that you can report on of the neighbors I guess? MR. MASON-Any members at Takundewide? MR. FREER-Yes. MR. MASON-Everyone, anybody speaking to it is in favor of it. There's no problems. MR. HENKEL-Because they'll all want to do it eventually. It makes sense. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2018) MR. MASON-Well, it's not exactly true. In a group of 32 homes I've got one guy who has said to me I don't like change. So I don't think he would really be in favor but he understands that his neighbors have the right. When everybody bought in they kind of. MR. HENKEL-Like you said, you did one for your brother, now this guy said, oh, that looks good and they all start looking like that, they all want them. MR. MASON-Yes. MR. FREER-Okay. I think we have a public hearing scheduled. I'd like to open the public hearing. Is there anyone here who'd like to make a comment on this application this evening? Seeing no one, was there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There's no written comments. MR. FREER-No written comments. I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. FREER-And poll the Board. Mike, thoughts? MR. MC CABE-It sounds very similar to one that we heard not too long ago and if it's within the agreement made with the Town, I'd support the project. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I agree with Mike. I support the project. MR. FREER-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-No change in the building's footprint as per the other ones that we've previously approved. I don't really have a problem with it either. I think it's a reasonable request. MR. FREER-And Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. It satisfies the test for me and I'm in favor of it. MR. FREER-Okay. I also support it based on the balancing test and meeting the criteria. It seems to be the minimum variance that is necessary. With that, I'll seek a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from William Mason for Samuel Lightbody. Applicant proposes construction of 246 sq. ft. of new second floor area on south side and raising roof area only on the north side. Also, proposed is construction of a 32 sq. ft. entry deck to the west. Relief requested from setback, permeability, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and Floor Area Ratio requirements of the WR zoning district. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA. Relief Required: The applicant request relief from minimum setback, permeability, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and Floor Area Ratio requirements for the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements The applicant proposes to construct a 246 sq. ft. second floor area of an existing home and a 32 sq. ft. entryway deck. The new construction upstairs is to be 10 ft. from the property line and the new entry deck area is to be 3 ft. from the property line where a 15 ft. setback is required from all property lines. The new living area is 256 sq. ft. for a total floor area of 2,049 sq. ft. 89.6% where 22% is the maximum allowed. The site permeability is to be 65% where 75% is required. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on January 17, 2018; 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2018) 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 aft.er 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 expansion was basically approved quite some time ago. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but not deemed reasonable. 3. The requested variance is certainly substantial and very similar to several others that have been done in the past. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is not self-created. It was foreseen. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) 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-1-2018 WILLIAM MASON FOR SAMUEL LIGHTBODY, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 17th day of January 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. FREER-Before you leave, I was at a meeting in Cleverdale and this Board was accused of approving all kinds of development, variances, etc., etc. How do we balance that with property owners in your neck of the woods? Any thoughts? MR. MASON-1 wish you luck. Balancing is difficult. As a member of the Lake George Park Commission, I feel the same as you, and you work as hard as you can and you figure out what's right on each application. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you, sir, good luck. MR. MASON-Thank you very much everybody. MR. FREER-So next on the agenda is Leonard Romeo, Area Variance 6-2018. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-6-2018 SEQRA TYPE 11 LEONARD ROMEO AGENT(S) JIM GIRARD LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CORP. OWNER(S) LEONARD ROMEO ZONING WR LOCATION 282 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF AN EXISTING PATHWAY AND PATIO TO BE REPLACED WITH PERMEABLE PAVERS AND NEW PATIO AREA FOR A TOTAL OF 654 SQ. FT. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED FOR HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE. CROSS REF P-SP-5-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 2018 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.30 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 226.16-1- 40 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-6-050 DAVE LINEHAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2018) MR. FREER-Roy? STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-6-2018, Leonard Romeo, Meeting Date: January 17, 2018 "Project Location: 282 Cleverdale Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes removal of an existing pathway and patio to be replaced with permeable pavers and new patio area for a total of 654 sq. ft. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief Required: The applicant request relief from permeability requirements for the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements The applicant proposes an additional 654 sq. ft. of permeable pavers and new patio area pathway. The proposed permeability is 70% where 75% is required for the waterfront zoning district. The calculation for permeability has taken into account 654 sq. ft. as 327 sq. ft. for the permeable paver credit of 50%. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 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. 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 considered to further minimize the hard surfacing to the shoreline. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minor relevant to the code. The permeability relief requested is 5%. 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 proposes to renovate an existing pathway from the home to the shoreline that includes removal of existing concreate walkway area and install permeable pavers. The plans show the location of the existing and proposed pathway." MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board based on its limited review has identified the following areas of concern: setbacks to be noted on Page 3 of the Site Development sheet to be submitted to the ZBA as well as the Planning Board Site Plan next week. The motion was seconded by Jamie White and adopted unanimously on January 16, 2018. MR. FREER-Okay. Could you identify yourself for the record. MR. LINEHAN-My name is Dave Linehan. I'm associated with Jim Girard Landscape. I'm part of his team, and also I'm here to represent the Romeos, the Romeo family that recently bought this property and are improving it, and we just hope this is one more improvement and not only visually an aesthetic improvement but also one that helps with the stormwater management on the site. The pavers themselves are a system that helps to manage runoff not only for itself but it can also trap and help on other sources of runoff like a downspout or a roof on that particular side of the home. I'd like to approach the Board with a picture book. Some are pictures of the different systems, and the tab with the yellow is the particular system that we're going to be using, the permeable paver. The different permeable pavers have different permeabilities, the gap between pavers, and the one we're using is the Mista paver on that tab. Actually the picture next to it is one that's on Lake George in Cleverdale not too far from this particular 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2018) location. So in your consideration of the permeability, when I first reviewed it with Staff, well, when I first got the application from Craig, they said you're pretty close. So when I went through and did the calculations, I was pretty close, and then I reviewed it with Staff, I looked at the area of the garage and it was easy to determine that instead of multiplying the length and width to get the area I was adding the length and the width to get the area. So I was no longer inside the permeability requirement. So Staff got us on the agenda. So I'm here because the permeability was exceeded or the permeability was less than what was required per the area of the lot. MR. FREER-Okay. Any questions? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I've got a few questions. I was there on Monday and there was a tri-axel that was going down the side. It was hard to believe that that thing fit in there. I don't know if you were there or not. MR. LINEHAN-That was an issue that was brought up last night. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. LINEHAN-I had no idea. MR. HENKEL-That was unreal to see that guy getting in and out of there. He was driving. MR. LINEHAN-I asked Jim Girard last night and he said, yes, they were going to do some work up there. Chris Crandall, the contractor, is up there. MR. HENKEL-From what I could see they did some damage to what they have there now. So if we did approve this and they wanted to keep what they had there, they'd be in trouble. MR. LINEHAN-I would think so, but I haven't been up there. I was going to try and get up there today but we've been plowing snow and I've got the. MR. HENKEL-The other question I've got is there's not concrete that goes all the way to the boathouse. MR. LINEHAN-That's correct. That's the addition. MR. HENKEL-So therefore they want to make an addition of pavers which are great, but you're still creating more of a problem. Yes, there's a permeability. The pavers do have a permeability, but you've got more permeability now without anything there. Right? MR. LINEHAN-With the credit. MR. HENKEL-But I'm just saying you've got grass area there now. MR. LINEHAN-Actually the pavers actually manage the water better than grass. Grass has a certain limit. There's only like four inches and once the soils fill up with water then you begin to have runoff. So what this system does. MR. HENKEL-I have a hard time believing that. MR. FREER-That's why rain gardens instead of grass are the. MR. HENKEL-Yes, I understand. It's just hard to believe because once you clog those. MR. MC CABE-Well that's the problem here is what are you going to do to keep the permeable pavers permeable? MR. HENKEL-Over time they get filled with moss and things like that. MR. MC CABE-Over not too much time at all. MR. LINEHAN-The ones that I've used, they were getting filled up with white pine needles, for example, like we ran a Toro lawnmower over them and picked them up. They do have to be maintained a little bit, but generally speaking, and there's different stone types now. Now they're coming out with stone types that allow for permeability and don't plug quite as much. They've come a long way, but you can scratch them up. They do have to be maintained to a certain extent. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2013) MR. HENKEL-I really don't have a problem with what you're doing there, other than extending it farther to the, towards the lake. I just don't think there's a need to extend anymore toward the lake MR. LINEHAN-Well, if you continue to pack the soil it becomes less permeable. So the idea here is to provide a system which I believe is, the water to a greater extent. It's actually a system and the detail is on Page 13, if you reference that, the detail we'll be using is the Number One, the one on the top, where the sub base, even though the picture suggests that it's that way all the way down, you can actually develop a pond type sized area where you're reflecting more water over time. What you're trying to do is extend or lengthen the time of concentration, and this system is, to my way or thinking, a better way of accumulating more water and allowing it to percolate down into the natural soils that are below, rather than sod actually. Jim Girard Landscape is a big believer in sod, and a well maintained sod. We take our clippings out of the lake water shed and dispose of them off the water shed, but this particular system you can create much deeper, you can create a larger storage area. Actually pitched backwards. So just because it looks like this and just because we have a pitch of around seven percent on that particular site, my feeling is that you can manage quite a bit more water. One of the things that Techo-Bloc shows you, the permeability and infiltration rates for this particular system specifically, they're different for the different blocks, is 610 inches per hour. I mean, what is that kind of relating to? It's like taking a bucket, throwing it on the surface of these pavers and it goes directly into the ground, but what's underneath it and how that water begins to filter through into the lower soils is the success of this particular system, and the other thing, and I mentioned it yesterday to the Planning Board. Even this time of year, if you were to, it's an all-weather kind of surface. If you take the snow off it, you don't need any calcium chloride or anything like that. It kind of just melts away, and I suppose it's from the average temperature that you have below ground, and we all know that air is the best insulator, and these voids that are in the stone are, you know, about 40% of the stone mass is air. So they work out really, I think it's an excellent system and an excellent thing for around the lake. The reason for it is we're not going to be compacting it. They keep their feet clean when they head into the house. They don't pick up the clippings of the turf. It's just, it just seems a little bit more. MR. UNDERWOOD-How do they hold up in the minus weather we've been having? MR. LINEHAN-As far as the meltdown feature? MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I just meant the pavers. Are they susceptible to blowing apart? MR. LINEHAN-The freeze/thaw cycle? No these hold up pretty good. Recently I got some literature that you're not supposed to put calcium chloride on them and I guess, and like I said, there's no need for it, but you're not supposed to, if you're using the paver, they aren't permeable. You're not supposed to be throwing the calcium. MR. UNDERWOOD-They're not actual pavers made out of stone. MR. LINEHAN-No. They're a concrete product. These, the ones I'm going to be using is kind of like a quartz system, rather than one that's under compression. A little different. This particular one is I believe that they have been manufacturing in Europe. MRS. MOORE-Could I just to go back to the comment that there was a contractor on site. So the other day my understanding is the DEC is on site and there appear to be some oil spill from a couple of years ago and maybe you can describe that and so we had a Planning Board member talk with the person at DEC. No one at the Town was notified. So it's a DEC project. It's not the applicant. MR. HENKEL-Yes, I saw that company. MRS. MOORE-Just so you know. So I'll let him explain what's happening on the site. MR. HENKEL-It's a company over by the airport that does that. MR. LINEHAN-Testing? When we were discussing this particular project it was around the time that the Yankees were eliminated from the American League, and he said that he was still seeing some film, oil type film, on the lake, and he was distressed by the fact that it was there. I told the Planning Board last night that most of the people that I deal with, that I've dealt with that are around the lake, once they're vested in the lake they become Lake George keepers and, you know, they're willing to do anything, and so that seemed to me what Lenny wanted to 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2018) do. So he said the DEC had signed off on, there was a minor, they tried to clean it up last year after the boathouse was built, and he was still seeing sheen on the lake. So his insurance company didn't like it and he didn't like it and he was going to do something about it and I guess three days ago they started doing something about it. I have no idea. MR. FREER-Just a buried oil tank? MRS. MOORE-No one seems to know. There's not an answer to what is coming off the property in reference to what the oil is, but apparently the DEC is obviously out there and working with the contractor to remove what potentially is the source. MR. LINEHAN-And they're saying the company I think had a monitor there for some time and they were seeing it. MR. HENKEL-They had a vacuum system there going on, too. MR. LINEHAN-Yes, so that's why they were up there. I didn't know anything about it but I asked another individual about it. Jimmy knew about it. He said a couple of weeks ago that they were going to do something, but he didn't tell me. I was in the dark until today. I'm still in the dark because I haven't been up there and I don't know who had done the testing but they're trying to mediate the situation. MRS. MOORE-So the Planning Board at last night's meeting identified that the applicant would be probably responsible again to install some plantings. We talked about shoreline buffering so when the applicant comes potentially back next week we have that opportunity to have the applicant comply with the landscaping plan and things like that. So the Planning Board's aware of that. They have the same information that you have now. MR. FREER-Okay. MR. HENKEL-So they're going to help us out? MRS. MOORE-Well, as his company, I would assume that in this case they'll be able to meet the landscaping requirements for the shoreline buffer. MR. LINEHAN-But to change the issue, you know, my feeling is if you're walking down on this pavement, and it's not a walk really. It's really a path. I think it's only 32 inches. The one down might be a little bit more. The idea was the exit from the deck, the stairway down doesn't quite line up with the stairway, the existing stairway in the cottage. So I was trying to draw a circle just so that visually, it looks like it lines up. The idea, too, they have a fire pit and everything and I thought maybe that would be in the center but they have a fire pit over on the deck area, and the deck area is going to become pavers, and again, right there we have the ability to trap and collect water to infiltrate it rather than go all the way down. One of the problems with this particular site is that adjacent sites, the boat storage, boat launch company has a tremendous amount of runoff and it does head down Lenny's way and right now there's not anything to keep that runoff in and that goes into a small area drain on the west side, and so anything that we can do, in fact I'm certain that, I think there's going to be a septic system on, Laura, is that on the schedule yet? I don't know, but I think they're going to approve that, and at the time they approve that they're going to try and keep the water from heading down, it does go right down the sidewalk on the Number 11 sheet down to the Number 12 sheet. Our activity is limited to this lower section where the work is being done right now, but there is a concrete walk and it goes right down just like a stream when there's a sizeable storm event. So we're trying to collect and manage any runoff. MR. FREER-Okay. So we have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anybody in the audience who wants to make a comment about this application? Seeing no one, Roy, is there any? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes, there is correspondence. "The above referenced variance application was personally reviewed in my capacity as a licensed professional engineer and the Lake George Water Keeper. The Water Keeper supports the applicant's proposal to install permeable pavers and soil restoration, which provide water quality benefits. One of the most important shoreline restoration actions is the installation of a shoreline buffer, which was recognized by the Town of Queensbury, and is a requirement in the Town Code. The Lake George Water Keeper requests the Zoning Board of Appeals apply the Town's regulations, specifically § 179- 8-040, Shoreline Buffers, during your deliberations regarding the above referenced variance application. The requested variance will water quality and the environmental conditions 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2013) in the neighborhood with the installation of a shoreline buffer. It is recognized that the installation of pervious pavers will increase the site permeability, which will remain under the required site permeability. To further reduce the effects of excessive permeability, a shoreline buffer should be installed as required by the Town of Queensbury Code for greater water quality protection, especially on a site where this is limited vegetation existing. The Lake George Water Keeper recommends the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals place a condition on the variance request requiring the installation of a shoreline buffer in accordance with Town Code. The Lake George Water Keeper looks forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to defend the natural resources of Lake George and its water shed. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely Christopher Navitsky, P.E. Lake George Water Keeper" MR. FREER-Okay. Do you want to comment on Chris' recommendation? MR. LINEHAN-Yes. I'm aware of the buffer. The only thing that I would like, and I think we could accommodate a buffer and work on that, but to Mr. Henkel's comment about not having paving and using the grass that's existing, I still would like to have them be able to get more directly to the area that's between the dock and the walk itself. Maybe some stepping stones which would be increasing the thing, just so that they're not walking through plant material and dirt to get to the area that we've got scheduled for pavers. That's a little storage shed. Instead of having the 15 feet all the way through there, the 15 feet is actually to the front or to the back of, however you look at it, of the storage shed. I still would like more of a direct path at least to those pavers so we can get to them. Do you understand what I'm saying? MRS. MOORE-Can you just describe on the drawing where you're talking about? MR. HENKEL-Are you talking about eliminating that circle thing, too? MR. LINEHAN-No, no. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. LINEHAN-The 15 foot buffer would be right here, this area is 15 feet, and 15 feet. These are steps up to the dock. So I think to scatter and to get to there, to get to the lower area rather than go, because there's no other way down to the thing. We still want to get from here to here in both ways. MR. HENKEL-What do you mean get from there to there? It's all flat anyway. MR. LINEHAN-Without going through the planting. MRS. MOORE-You would be able to create, there's some guidance about the length of the buffer and area buffer that you would communicate with the Planning Board. So if there's some, you know, grass pathway that happens, that occurs within that buffer area, then that would be, you need to work on that. MR. FREER-Let me make sure that I understand. So you'd do the length times the width, figure out what it would be without any variances and then create the buffer at that area. Is that what you're saying? MRS. MOORE-No, there's a specific width and density, I guess, and if you give me a second I'll go look at it. MR. LINEHAN-All I want to be able to do is, you know, a path to be able to get to the pavement, but not necessarily pavement. It could be stepping stones, something that. MRS. MOORE-Is a landscape feature. MR. FREER-Which is allowed in the buffer regulations is what you're saying? MRS. MOORE-Yes. There's a certain amount of buffer that needs to occur and if there happens to be a, he's looking to get underneath the deck. It's not all buffer. MR. FREER-Right. Okay. So I think Chris understands that maybe a little bit better than some of us and gets back to my question whether you'd be okay with accepting that as a constraint. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2018) MR. LINEHAN-I think so. I think I can. MR. FREER-Okay. MR. HENKEL-And we're still going to stay with that 70% permeability. It's not going to get worse. MR. LINEHAN-Yes, because that's pretty close. The permeability is within a half a percent. That's what I hope you look at as a Board. MR. FREER-Okay. So at least I understand what Chris is asking and that it's feasible. It might take a little bit more effort in terms of the landscaping, but it doesn't sound like it's going to be impossible. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. FREER-Okay. So I guess I'm ready to poll folks. Do we need to close the public hearing first? MRS. MOORE-You can do either one, but if the resolve that we've addressed the public hearing, then you can close that. MR. FREER-Okay. I think I'll poll the Board first. John? MR. HENKEL-I'm on board as is. MR. FREER-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think site conditions will be slightly improved, and I think with the addition of the vegetative buffer I think I would approve it. MR. FREER-Roy? MR. URRICO-1 would go along with it if we add the buffer as a condition. MR. FREER-Okay, and Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 agree that the permeable pavers are better than a pathway, although I understand that the permeable pavers need to be maintained and I would approve the project if it's conditioned to include the buffering. MR. FREER-Okay. 1, too, would support the project given the constraint of creating the buffer in accordance with the Town Code. So I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Leonard Romeo. Applicant proposes removal of an existing pathway and patio to be replaced with permeable pavers and new patio area for a total of 654 sq. ft. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief Required: The applicant request relief from permeability requirements for the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements The applicant proposes an additional 654 sq. ft. of permeable pavers and new patio area pathway. The proposed permeability is 70% where 75% is required for the waterfront zoning district. The calculation for permeability has taken into account 654 sq. ft. as 327 sq. ft. for the permeable paver credit of 50%. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on January 17, 2018; 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 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2018) Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because we believe that the pathway will improve the look of the property. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board but are not deemed reasonable. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. The change in permeability is really a small number, and it also gives the opportunity to channel runoff. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is of course self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) That buffering be provided per the Town standard. b) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z- AV-6-2018, LEONARD ROMEO, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 17th day of January 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. FREER-Okay. Good luck. Thanks. MR. LINEHAN-Thanks, everyone. MR. FREER-Okay. The next applicant is Area Variance 5-2018, HWP Development, LLC, Johnny Rockets. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-5-2018 SEQRA TYPE 11 HWP DEVELOPMENT. LLC (JOHNNY ROCKETS) AGENT(S) BOB HOLMES — JARRETT ENGINEERS, PLLC OWNER(S) HWP DEVELOPMENT, LLC ZONING CI LOCATION 89 SIX FLAGS DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 2,280 SQ. FT. OUTDOOR EATING AREA ADDITION TO THE JOHNNY ROCKETS RESTAURANT. THE DECK IS TO ACCOMMODATE 120 NEW SEATS AND 1,080 SQ. FT. OF THE DECK IS TO BE COVERED. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED. CROSS REF P-SP-3-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 2018 LOT SIZE 10.76 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 295.8-1-5 SECTION 179-3-040 CHARLES DUMAS & ROBERT HOLMES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. FREER-Roy? STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-5-2018, HWP Development, LLC (Johnny Rockets), Meeting Date: January 17, 2018 "Project Location: 89 Six Flags Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 2,280 sq. ft. outdoor eating area addition to the 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2018) Johnny Rockets Restaurant. The deck is to accommodate 120 new seats and 1,080 sq. ft. of the deck is to be covered. Relief requested from Floor Area Ratio Requirements. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required. Relief Required: The applicant request relief from Floor Area Ratio requirements in the Commercial Intensive zone Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements The applicant proposes a 2,280 sq. ft. outdoor eating area addition to the Johnny Rockets restaurant and 1,080 sq. ft. is to be a covered deck. The floor area ratio of .3 was included in the code after the construction of the hotel. The current floor area ratio is 57% and proposed is 58%. 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 existing hotel facility on the site. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 28%in excess of 30% Floor Area. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on 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 2,280 sq. ft. outdoor eating area addition to the Johnny Rockets Restaurant. The deck is to accommodate 120 new seats and 1,080 sq. ft. of the deck is to be covered. The plans show the location of the deck where access is from the interior of the restaurant." 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. That motion January 16, 2018 by a unanimous vote. MR. FREER-Okay. Welcome, just a note. I don't think either of you two were here at the beginning, but we only have five Board members, and so you're welcome to table it to get the four votes necessary for passing the resolution if you think that a full Board would be more beneficial to your situation, but I'll ask you to introduce yourself and add anything to the application that you think is appropriate. MR. DUMAS-Sure, thank you. My name's Charles Dumas. I'm an attorney. I represent the applicant HWP, LLC. I'm with the law firm of Lemery Greisler. I have with me the project engineer, Robert Holmes, who is from Jarrett Engineering and Casey Klingbeil who is with the Six Flags group. So I think we have the ability to speak to any concerns that the Board may have. Laura, could we get a little bit larger rendering of what it is we're proposing? Yes, that's good. Thank you. Okay. So I imagine you're all probably familiar with the Hotel Waterpark and Johnny Rockets restaurant. We're proposing, this is the Johnny Rockets restaurant right here, and the main entry to the restaurant is about in this location, which you have the Northway over here and 9 over here. The main parking area for Johnny Rockets restaurant is here. There's overflow parking for people to park in this location. This is the area that we're proposing to have the deck and might I say only a portion of the deck is going to be covered. The entire 2,080 square feet approximately 40% of it. It will be this end here that will be 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2018) covered, and there will be two entry points into the Johnny Rockets restaurant. I believe, Casey, by sliding doors. CASEY KLINGBEIL MR. KLINGBEIL-That's correct. MR. DUMAS-Yes. And so we went through a discussion with the Planning Board last evening about the consequences of what it is we're proposing, things like traffic and parking and stormwater drainage, noise and so forth, and it looks like the Planning Board is leaning toward the project and they referred us to you this evening. The reason why we're here has to do with Floor Area Ratio. When the restaurant was first built in 1949, it's been operating continuously as a restaurant since then, there obviously probably wasn't even zoning at that point. Then the Hotel Waterpark was built, it was about 11 years ago, 12 years ago now, it was given the zoning classification. The present zoning is Commercial Intensive and with that comes a Floor Area Ratio of .3 or 30%. So the property right now has a Floor Area Ratio of 57.5% and with respect to the difference between what the statute calls for and what's on the property, the property needs to be considered a pre-existing, nonconforming use. So we're asking simply for a variance of half a percent, from 57.5 to 58%, which we feel is diminimus, and I do agree with Staff's comments that the impact of the project on the surrounding properties would be minimal because Six Flags is the neighborhood. Except for the Northway here, all the properties surrounding it and across the street is the Six Flags property, and the Theme Park, Hotel Waterpark as well as parking area. I would just simply otherwise point out that I don't feel that the difficulty is really self-created. There was a change of zoning after the facilities were built, and while you may think it's self-created because we don't have to build a deck, I think it's a reasonable, very reasonable request for a business of this nature to have this enhancement for the benefit of its patrons. So those are the comments that I have to offer. Do you have any questions? MR. FREER-Well let me kind of see if there are any questions from these guys. Roy, do you have any? MR. URRICO-Not yet. MR. FREER-Okay. Anybody else? Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here who would like to make a comment on this application this evening? Seeing no one, is there any written comments, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There are no written comments. MR. FREER-Okay. I'm going to poll the Board and start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think everybody recognized the unique setting of the restaurant here and I think we also recognize the historic nature of the building being there, pre-dating, going back to the Year One, in as many iterations. I think that, you know, the impact of creating this deck and creating the covered structure is, you know, I would agree with the applicants. It's quite minimal. You have the wetlands located right nearby, but when we did the Master Plan it was over a decade ago now. I think we dialed in improvements and things like that as anticipated, and I think that, you know, this is a reasonable addition to your restaurant. It's going to increase your business and make that work for you and at the same time I think that the half a percentage point of impermeability increase is not going to trip anything major as far as I'm concerned. I live downstream at the lake and there's never been any issues. I used to do the water testing up with you guys and there's never been any problems. So I don't anticipate anything. Good changes. MR. FREER-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I'm in favor of the project. Like Jim, we're probably the only two that were here when it went through the Master Plan and I think for the most part Six Flags has kept to the Master Plan. I mean they've made some vast improvements. The only thing I would suggest is maybe, it has nothing to do with this application, but put a sign there that directs people to the right parking lot because I'm sure you get a lot of people turning into Johnny Rockets thinking its Six Flags parking, but as far as this project is concerned I don't see a problem. I think the deck would be well used and probably needed by the restaurant. MR. FREER-Mike? 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2018) MR. MC CABE-Yes. This area has been hard surface for a long time and they proposed patio/deck isn't going to have any appreciable effect on runoff and so it's a small variance that's being asked for. I would approve it. MR. FREER-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes. I think it's a nice addition. I think it's nice when people can eat outside and be outside and enjoy it. The only question I have is were they going to put curtains on it in the winter and put heaters, or is this just going to be strictly for summer use? MR. KLINGBEIL-At this time it's strictly summer use. MR. HENKEL-Yes. I'd be on board with it. It's a nice deck. It's not sticking out anywhere by Route 9 or it's kind of hidden. You wouldn't even know that it's there really. It's a good idea. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you, and I too think that this is within the bounds of our authorities and I support the project. So I'll close the public hearing, and seek a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from HWP Development, LLC (Johnny Rockets). Applicant proposes a 2,280 sq. ft. outdoor eating area addition to the Johnny Rockets Restaurant. The deck is to accommodate 120 new seats and 1,080 sq. ft. of the deck is to be covered. Relief requested from Floor Area Ratio Requirements. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required. Relief Required: The applicant request relief from Floor Area Ratio requirements in the Commercial Intensive zone Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements The applicant proposes a 2,280 sq. ft. outdoor eating area addition to the Johnny Rockets restaurant and 1,080 sq. ft. is to be a covered deck. The floor area ratio of .3 was included in the code after the construction of the hotel. The current floor area ratio is 57% and proposed is 58%. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on January 17, 2018; 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 recognize that the outdoor seating will be in addition to the interior seating at the restaurant but we don't anticipate that that will create any excess traffic. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered. I guess you could consider the fact that they could not build the deck or have any kind of outside covered structure, but people enjoy eating outside in the nice weather months of the summertime. 3. The requested variance is deemed not substantial. It will slightly increase the floor area by a half a percentage point, but we recognize the built up nature of this area and the Six Flags area has been dealt with by the Planning Board in the Master Plan. 4. We do not anticipate any adverse impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district by creation of this structure. There will be a slight change in the amount of runoff but there's adequate buffering available of the wetlands nearby. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? It is somewhat self-created because they did create this, but again it was the change in zoning that tripped this whole process. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2018) 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 to accommodate the large number of guests using the facilities; 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-5-2018, HWP DEVELOPMENT, LLC (JOHNNY ROCKETS), Introduced by Jim Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 17th day of January 2018 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Just to clarify it's floor area, not permeability. MR. FREER-Yes. You said permeability, you meant floor area. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Floor area is what I meant. MR. FREER-Thank you. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks, guys. MR. DUMAS-Thank you. MR. FREER-And our last applicant is Area Variance 3-2018, David Cohen & Michelle Kaplan. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-3-2018 SEQRA TYPE II DAVID COHEN & MICHELLE KAPLAN AGENT(S) TOM JARRETT, JARRETT ENGINEERS, PLLC OWNER(S) DAVID COHEN & MICHELLE KAPLAN ZONING WR LOCATION 18 CROOKED TREE DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RENOVATE A 352 SQ. FT. SHED TO A GAME ROOM. PROJECT INCLUDES RAISING THE ROOF ON A PORTION OF THE BUILDING, ADDING ONE SCREENED-IN PORCH AT 192 SQ. FT. AND A FRONT PORCH AT 168 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS AND MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN THE WR ZONING DISTRICT AND CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA (CEA). CROSS REF P-SP-4-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 2018 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.41 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 239.15-1-9 SECTION 179-13-010; 179-5-020; 179-3-040 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-3-2018, David Cohen & Michelle Kaplan, Meeting Date: January 17, 2018 "Project Location: 18 Crooked Tree Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to renovate a 352 sq. ft. shed to a game room. Project includes raising the roof on a portion of the building, adding one screened-in porch at 192 sq. ft. and a front porch at 168 sq. ft. Relief requested from the maximum height restrictions and minimum setback requirements. Planning Board: Site Plan Review is required for expansion of a nonconforming structure in the WR zoning district and Critical Environmental Area (CEA). Relief Required: The applicant request relief from minimum setback, height, expansion of a nonconforming structure, requirements for the WR zoning district. 29 (Queensbury ZFA Meeting 01/17/2018) Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements The applicant proposes renovation of an existing accessory structure to a game room. The new construction is to be 11 ft. 9 in from the west side property line where a 25 ft. setback is required and 17 ft. 1 in from the front property line where a 30 ft. setback is required. The new height is to be 19 ft. 10 in where 16 ft. is the maximum height for an accessory structure. 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 topography of the property and the location of the existing structure. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The side setback relief requested is 13.25 ft. and the front relief requested is 12.92 ft. The height relief requested is 3.83 ft. above the height allowed. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2018) 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on 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 to renovate an existing accessory structure to a game room. The plans show the existing site conditions and associated buildings on the property -a main home, two guest cottages, a shed to be removed and the shed to be converted to the game room. The new construction includes a new roof line with the interior area to be an open loft area. The project includes the additions of a new open deck area an enclosed porch area. The plans also show a regraded green pathway to connect to the existing concrete walkway." MR. MC CABE-There was a mistake. I think it was the height relief to be requested is 3.83 feet not 3.83 inches. So the new height is 19 10 where 16 is the max. So that's a difference of 3.83 feet not 3.83 inches. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Thank you. Sorry. MR. URRICO-I'm just reading what's here. MR. JARRETT-Feet is correct. Wherever the inches came from, feet is actually correct. MR. FREER-Okay. So can you please identify yourself and talk about anything you'd like to add to what was read into the record? MR. JARRETT-Certainly. Good evening. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers. With me is Michelle Kaplan. She and her husband David Cohen purchased the property in 2015. Ever since then they've tried to make improvements to the property. It was old and tired at the time. They've removed an old oil tank. You heard about a problem earlier tonight. They headed that off by removing an old oil tank. They upgraded the wastewater system. There was a brand new wastewater system in 2016 which accommodates the entire property further from the lake than the original systems were, and they've been replacing walkways and walls that have been deteriorating and falling apart. So they're trying to be good neighbors and good lake stewards with their ownership. The project before you is to remove one of the existing accessory structures. There's four on the property right now, that's a wood shed, and upgrade a second room, which is currently storage. It used to be a cabin Michelle believes and they want to make that into a game room. The accessory structure that's being removed would be replaced with a rain garden that would manage runoff from the game room and improve drainage control on that back slope that comes off 9L. Part of that water comes off 9L especially during frozen ground conditions. The game room would be expanded with the addition of porches on the north end and the east side, and that's what creates the height variance. Right now we're nearly compliant at 16 foot 1 inch. By extending the porch to the north you notice the grade drops off there. So we become, even though the roofline's going up by about two feet, the grade drops off so the variance is really a four foot variance, 3.83 feet. We have two existing sideline setbacks that are existing. We're not aggravating those, and of course we're modifying a pre-existing nonconforming structure. We have neighbor support on all sides. I believe Laura has those in her submission. And I can dive right into the Planning Board concern which was they would be concerned that this could be converted to a living, and overnight structure, basically living quarters in the future, and I failed to mention last night to the Planning Board, we have a note on Drawing C-3 that tries to head that off. We've said that this would not be used as or converted to living quarters without approval from the Town of Queensbury. We've already added that. We knew there was a concern. There was discussion about a full-fledged bathroom at one time and we realized that that would not go well. We removed the shower. So it's just a toilet and a sink right now to function as, so people using the game room could use the toilet without having to go down to the main house. So I don't know if you want to add anything, but we can open it up to questions. MR. FREER-So do you have children, grandchildren? Is this going to become your in-law apartment? I'm kidding. MR. HENKEL-Were these originally permitted buildings at one time? MR. JARRETT-We believe they all pre-date zoning. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2013) MR. HENKEL-Okay. MS. KAPLAN-They were built in the 1930's. They all look like they were built at the same time to me. MR. JARRETT-The siding is new for sure. MR. HENKEL-I was going to say, I went and looked at it doesn't look like it was built in the 30's. MS. KAPLAN-I don't know existing architecture. If you look at the inside it looks like it was last renovated, it's all paneled, maybe the 1960's. I don't know. MR. JARRETT-I don't know if Laura has any history, but we believe they pre-date zoning. MR. HENKEL-Okay. I was just wondering if they were permitted, how old they were. MR. JARRETT-There were no variances for them. MRS. MOORE-Right. There's nothing that exists. MR. HENKEL-That's pretty hidden. You could build that without anyone knowing. It's a nice looking property. It really is. MR. FREER-Any other questions for the applicant? MR. UNDERWOOD-When the extended family is there in the summertime how many people are on site, like staying usually? MS. KAPLAN-Between 12 and 14. MR. UNDERWOOD-So you have a large group. MS. KAPLAN-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-And everything is handling that adequately now, your septic and everything? MR. JARRETT-It was undersized before. Now it's sized properly. There were several systems on the property and little small undersized tanks and the system was basically a cess pool. MR. UNDERWOOD-So are these all tied into that system then? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-All the other dwellings outside the main house. MR. JARRETT-There are pictures in your application. I don't know if you have them readily available or not, but I can show you when that took place. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 assume you put it as far back as you could because of the slope. MR. JARRETT-Yes. It's right there. There's where the wastewater system is. MR. HENKEL-It's about as far as you can go. MR. JARRETT-As far as you can go. MR. HENKEL-It's a big piece of property. MR. JARRETT-Yes. You'll notice that floor area ratio which was discussed in the last project, we're at nine percent. It is a big property. MR. FREER-Any other questions? We have a public hearing scheduled. There's nobody in the audience so I'm assuming that there's nobody that wants to talk to this application. It sounds like we have some comments. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2018) MR. URRICO-1 have one letter. "I live at 14 Crooked Tree Drive, next door to Michelle Kaplan and David Cohen, who live at #18. 1 wanted to let you know that I fully support their project to convert their shed to a small living area. This will only enhance their lovely property. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thank you, Kit Seelye New England Bureau Chief, The New York Times, Boston, Massachusetts" MR. FREER-Okay. MR. URRICO-That's it. That's all I have. MR. FREER-So I'll start since I made everyone else start. I think it's a good project. My concern is, I'm glad you talked about the measurement of the height variance was based on a porch that you did down slope. I worry about excess approvals of height variances around the lake, but it sounds like this is not going to be a substantial height variance and the rest of the stuff I'm fine with. So I do support the application. Roy, I'll let you go next. MR. URRICO-Yes. I support the application, too, as long as we're talking about 3.83 feet not inches. I'd be in favor of it. Do we need to add in the stipulation about the apartment or is that something that would be handled by Planning? MRS. MOORE-1 can identify with the Planning Board that you're aware of it. I mean, the concern was that, having the bathroom in there, that they could convert this dwelling unit. If the Zoning Board is not concerned, then there's no reason for. MR. URRICO-No, I am concerned. I would like to see that in there, if they're willing to do so. MR. JARRETT-Well, if I might add, we have the note on the drawing and we're certainly willing to stipulate that something should be put into the motion to go with whatever action you take tonight. We agree with that. They're not intending to convert it to living quarters that would be rented out. They want this in the family. MR. FREER-We'll try to figure out how to sort of say that. Okay. Mike? MR. MC CABE-Again, we've been pretty stingy about giving away extra height, but in this particular case it's because of the way the measurement is done. It's not as it seems. So I would support the project. MR. FREER-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, you can't even see that building from Crooked Tree Drive or Route 9. So even if you went up 30 feet in the air you probably wouldn't see it. So I have no problem with it as is. MR. FREER-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I mean I think the request could be considered excessive if you just look at it with hands off, but if you look at the floor area ratio for the whole property I think it's within keeping of a reasonable amount of building and structure on the property on site. I think, you know, like if you're strictly going to use it as a game room it probably makes more sense to have a bathroom in there than it does to have the kids run up the road to the main house to use the facilities. So I think we can reasonably assume this is not going to be used as a third dwelling on site, you know, in excess of the main house. So I'll support it. MR. FREER-Yes. So I was kind of teasing a little bit. We've had several applications where we're looking at in-law, mother-in-law apartments and this comes close where there's no kitchen obviously. MR. JARRETT-We are sensitive to that. MR. FREER-So what's your suggestion? MRS. MOORE-So language that would include no kitchen and no, not a dwelling unit on the site, not a living dwelling unit. MR. URRICO-Isn't a bathroom and a window, are windows part of the equation? MRS. MOORE-Typically adding a kitchen. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2018) MR. HENKEL-That's what has designated it as a separate unit. MRS. MOORE-So in this case you're saying no kitchen and limited to a toilet, I guess would be one way to. MR. UNDERWOOD-How do you define a kitchen, though? No stove or just a fridge if they want to have cold drinks? MRS. MOORE-Full kitchen. MR. UNDERWOOD-Full kitchen. If someone has one of those college fridges in there, that's not a kitchen. MR. FREER-That wouldn't be a kitchen to me. MR. JARRETT-This is probably too loose but we can also defer to the Building Department and see if they have language that would be acceptable to them. We could stipulate to that. We have our language on the drawing to match as well. MRS. MOORE-Okay. I think that that would work. MR. FREER-That works for me. Okay. I will close the public hearing and seek a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from David Cohen & Michelle Kaplan. Applicant proposes to renovate a 352 sq. ft. shed to a game room. Project includes raising the roof on a portion of the building, adding one screened-in porch at 192 sq. ft. and a front porch at 168 sq. ft. Relief requested from the maximum height restrictions and minimum setback requirements. Planning Board: Site Plan Review is required for expansion of a nonconforming structure in the WR zoning district and Critical Environmental Area (CEA). Relief Required: The applicant request relief from minimum setback, height, expansion of a nonconforming structure, requirements for the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements The applicant proposes renovation of an existing accessory structure to a game room. The new construction is to be 11 ft. 9 in from the west side property line where a 25 ft. setback is required and 17 ft. 1 in from the front property line where a 30 ft. setback is required. The new height is to be 19 ft. 10 in where 16 ft. is the maximum height for an accessory structure. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on January 17, 2018; 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 aft.er 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 requested change will enhance the look of the property. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not deemed reasonable. 3. The requested variance is not substantial considering that a building already exists with the existing setbacks and the height increase is because of the topography of the land. 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. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2018) 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) There not be a full kitchen in the new structure. b) That it not be used as an auxiliary living area. c) That note to be added to the drawings. d) 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-3-2018 DAVID COHEN & MICHELLE KAPLAN, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 17th day of January 2018 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Just to clarify, in reference to the full kitchen, that that, we'll communicate with Building and Codes. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think no cooking facilities. MR. URRICO-Exact language to be determined. MR. FREER-Yes. MR. HENKEL-I mean, you know, you could have a microwave and say that that's a cooking facility. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think it's either like a full stove or a fridge. MRS. MOORE-And that note to be added to the drawings. So if you put that in your motion. MR. MC CABE-That's what I meant to say. MRS. MOORE-Okay. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much. MR. FREER-Hey I've got one more thing real quick. You heard me mention to Mason, three of the applicants today were involved with Waterfront Residential, and we approved them all. I think they were all pretty reasonable and people are cautious about what they bring before the Board and I think the Staff deserve a lot of credit for weeding that, but I'd like for us to think about how we get this reputation of, you know, rubber stamp in terms of. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I think the most important thing we do is that we substantiate why you're approving something, and so it's important for us to have a discussion and to participate in the discussion and to add something to the mix. In other words, if you have knowledge or something that would be convincing or something that would simply negate some of these projects passing that you bring that to the forefront for the other Board members so they have the ability to discern for themselves what they think is reasonable. MR. FREER-Okay, and I appreciate that and I appreciate the dialogue this evening and I hope that will be the way we. MR. MC CABE-And then the people have to understand the function of the Zoning Board of Appeals. They say well the Town makes these rules. Why don't you follow the rules? Well because of the Zoning Board of Appeals the rules don't fit every situation and so that's what we have to look at. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/17/2016) MR. URRICO-1 think we have to do a better job of stating why we're here because sometimes we just assume everybody knows, and so I disagree with their characterization of what we do here because they don't really understand but we have to do a better job of explaining that we're not here to just approve something because they want a variance. A variance is by definition a violation of the rule that we're approving because it's allowed in the zoning laws of New York State. MR. FREER-Well I appreciate that feedback and I think it's incumbent upon all of us and we're going to get a couple of new Board members. Laura, can you give us an update on that? MRS. MOORE-1 just know that they're in the process of appointing them at the next upcoming meeting, and I'm not certain who it is at this point. MR. FREER-Okay. Well I know they're going to appoint Michelle as the regular to fill Steve's position and I think they have alternates for both of the Boards. MRS. MOORE-1 don't know if you're at a point where you want to close the meeting, but you also need to close the meeting. MR. FREER-Okay. Can we adjourn? MR. MC CABE-1 make a motion that we close tonight's meeting. MR. HENKEL-Second. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JANUARY 17, 2018, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 17th day of January, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. FREER-Thank you, guys. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Harrison Freer, Chairman 36