Loading...
11-14-2018 ( u.ueenshu.ua y ZBA t,lleeth- 11/14/2(:18] QUEENSBURY20MING BOARD OFAPPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING NO►/EMBER 14,2018 INDEX Sign Variance Z-SV-8-2018 Flintlock Corp. d/b/a Adirondack Gun Range 1. Tax Map No. 288.8-144 Area Variance Z-AV-53-2018 French Mountain Inn (Aftab Bhatti) 6. Tax Map No. 288.4-56 Area Variance Z-AV-55-2018 Tra Tom Development 10. Tax Map No. 308.74-48 Area Variance Z-AV-71-2018 Michael White 13. Tax Map No. 301.6-1-18 Area Variance Z-AV-70-2018 Melissa Freebern/Artisan Ink 17. Tax Map No. 296.13-1-14 Area Variance Z-AV-72-2018 Xiao Jun Li & Carol Yang 20. Tax Map No. 309.6-1-46 Area Variance Z-AV-73-2018 Curtis D. Dybas 23. Tax Map No. 239.18-1-32 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES [IF ANY] AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 ( u.ueenshu.ua y ZBA V°'1eelJn 11/14/2(:18] QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 2018 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT HARRISON FREER, CHAIRMAN MICHAEL MC CABE, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL RONALD KUHL JAMES UNDERWOOD BRENT MC DEVITT, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. FREER- I'd like to welcome everyone and open tonight's Town of Queensbury Zoning Board for November 14t". For those who haven't been here in the past, the process is quite simple. On the back table there's some information about each applicant and a bit about the process. We'll call each applicant to the small table here. They'll make a presentation. We'll read the application into the record, ask questions, open a public hearing, and I think we have public hearings scheduled on virtually all of the items we're going to cover this evening. I'll poll the Board and we'll make a determination and move forward, making motions as applicable, and then we'll go on to the next application. This evening Mr. McDevitt will be filling in as our seventh member, and with that I guess we'll get on to old business, and that's approval of minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 17t", 2018 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 17TH, 2018, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 14" day of November, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay, and Old Business. Flintlock Sign Variance 8-2018. SIGN VARIANCE SV-8-2018 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED FLINTLOCK CORP. D/B/A ADIRONDACK GUN RANGE AGENT(SJ EC STUMPF, INFAMOUS GRAPHICS OWNER(SJ FLINTLOCK CORP. ZONING Cl LOCATION 1540 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A REVISION FOR THE INSTALLATION OF 2 WALL SIGNS ON THE BUILDING WHERE ONLY ONE IS ALLOWED FOR THE BUSINESS ADIRONDACK GUN RANGE. SIGN NO. 1 IS TO E 27.33 SQ. FT. AND SIGN NO. 2 IS TO BE 68.8 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE WALL SIGNS AND MAXIMUM SIGN SIZE AT A SETBACK OF 100 FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. CROSS REF SIGN 259-2018; SIGN 260-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2018 LOT SIZE 1.33 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.8444 SECTION CHAPTER 140 EC STUMPF, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. FREER-And, Roy, do you want to? MR. URRICO-I'll just read the description of the project and the Staff Notes. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance Z-SV-8-2018, Flintlock Corp d/b/a Adirondack Gun Range, Meeting Date: November 14, 2018 "Project Location: 1540 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: 2 ( u.ueenshu.ua y ZBA t,lleelJn 11/14/2(:18] Applicant proposes a revision for the installation of 2 wall signs on the building where only one is allowed for the business Adirondack Gun Range. Sign No. 1 is to be 27.33 sq. ft. and Sign No. 2 is to be 68.8 sq. ft. Relief requested from number of allowable wall signs and maximum sign size at a setback of 100 feet from the front property line. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from number of allowable wall signs and maximum sign size at a setback of 100 feet from the front property line Cl zoning district. Section 140 signage —Commercial Intensive zone The applicant proposes to place 2 wall signs on an existing building Sign No. 1 is to be 27.33 sq. ft. and Sign No. 2 is to be 68.8 sq. ft. The property is only permitted one wall sign at 30 sq. ft. up to 100 sq. ft. with a building setback of 100 ft. or max of 200 sq. ft. for a sign with a building setback greater than 100 ft. at 10 sq. ft. increments. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this sign variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated as the signs are larger than allowed. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the size of the signage and number of signs. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The signs exceed the number allowed and the size allowed. One wall sign is allowed for the property at 30 sq. ft. sign. 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 to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes two signs with Sign No. 1 to be 27.33 sq. ft. and Sign No. 2 to be 68.8 sq. ft. Both of the signs are to have red lettering and to be internally lit. Sign No 1. is to be about 78 ft. from the property line and Sign No. 2 is to be about 74.8 ft. from the property line. The plans show the location of the signs to be installed. The board had tabled the application at the September meeting indicating concern for the number of signs and the size of the signs also the board inquired the use/intent of the freestanding sign. The applicant has reduced the size of the signs and has indicated there are no plans to change the free standing sign at this time." MR. FREER-Okay. Welcome back and welcome. Please identify yourself and if you want to add anything to what was just read in. MR. STUMPF-Yes. I'm EC Stumpf from Infamous Graphics. BARRY HOFF MR. HOFF-I'm Barry Hoff, General Manager of Infamous Graphics. I wasn't here at the last Board meeting. I was at a previous meeting. EC was representing them and I know there was some talk about size and we couldn't get the owner on the phone and what not. I apologize for that, but I believe we've come up with a fair solution that works for everybody. We understand, you know, the business, there's two separate businesses in there, and it sort of falls in a weird area of your Code because you have a Code that allows a sign on the building for one business and then you go to Business Complex which has three. There's nothing really in the middle for a building that has two businesses in it. I know there was some comment on the size at the last meeting. I read the minutes 3 ( u.ueenshu.ua y ZBA t,lleelJn 11 f 14 f 201a8] that I had access to and I saw that, you know, everybody seemed to want it smaller. So we brought the one down below 30 square feet and basically almost chopped the other one right in half. MR. FREER-Okay. MR. HOFF-So I'd be happy to answer any questions the Board might have. MR. FREER-So anybody on the Board have any questions for the applicant? MR. HENKEL-I'd like to ask Staff a question. I mean is that true, there's two separate, considered two separate businesses? MRS. MOORE-It's not considered two separate businesses. They applied for one CO. So it's noted as one, one business as part of their building permit. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. FREER-Any other questions? MR. KUHL-Yes. As I remember the Guns and Ammo are going over the door? MR. STUMPF-Yes, sir. MR. KUHL-And the gun range is going to the? MR. STUMPF-The side, yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. STUMPF-Yes, sir. MR. FREER-Okay. I think we left the public hearing open last time, and I'd like to know if there's anyone in the audience who'd like to make a comment about this application. Seeing nothing, are there anymore written comments, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. URRICO-There is none. MR. FREER-Okay. With that I'm going to poll the Board and I'm going to start with Roy. MR. URRICO-Well, I still have concerns about there being two signs, but I understand the circumstances. I would like more assurance on the freestanding sign. It's saying not at this time, but does that leave the door open down the road where you're going to stick another sign on there, too? MR. HOFF-Well that would have to come back to, obviously, the Zoning Board. Our understanding from the owner is he doesn't want to touch that sign. It's at full size now for what the Town allows. It's actually a little bit higher because it's an older sign. So it would have to be chopped down and be more costly. Bringing the sign down, if you're familiar with where the sign currently sits, that road sign, if you've been by the property you'll see there's a drop off there. So bringing it down would lower that sign much more down. We'd have to move it over which means new footings, new poles, much more of an expense than this would be. The owner has no intention and it's been implied to us that there's no intention to do anything with the sign. Back when he was first talking with the Boards about opening this business he had approached us about the signs and we gave him some options, and they were pretty expensive at the time. It's a fairly new endeavor for him up here, and we're just trying, you know, from a business standpoint you've got to try to do what you can. He's indicated to us no intention to do anything with the sign, and I'm sure, I don't know if the Board, what your law is, if you can put a stipulation. MR. URRICO-Well in a business complex we try to encourage the multiple businesses to all stick their logo on the sign that's the freestanding sign, rather than on the walls, because it's less obtrusive and it actually helps the business more. In this case we're doing the opposite, and I just want to make sure we don't get to the point where we do the same anyway. So I would be okay with this at this point, the way it is. With the understanding we're not going to re-visit the freestanding sign. If they come back with that then we'd have to review it anyway. So I would be a yes right now. 4. ( u.ueenshu.ua y ZBA t,lleelJn 11/14/2(:18] MR. FREER-Okay. Do we want to make some kind of note? MR. HOFF-Anything done to that sign would have to come back. MR. FREER-Okay. Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-Based upon the fact that the size of the signs have come down,they've gotten smaller, I have no issue and I'd be in favor of the project. MR. FREER-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think, you know, when you consider the building's below road grade there, it's set back almost 75 feet, it's kind of hard to see it when you drive by, and I think that as a new business trying to get established it's important for them to be successful, after putting all that money and effort into it, so I'd be all in favor of it as it is. MR. FREER-Okay. Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I agree with my Board members. I would be in favor of this. MR. FREER John? MR. HENKEL-They've done a nice job of putting a nice business there. I do have a little problem with the 109 square foot but I guess I agree with my Board members and I'd be all for it I guess. MR. STUMPF-We brought it down from 109 down to 68. So it's not at 109 anymore. One hundred and nine was the original. We dropped it down to 68 square feet. We cut it almost in half there, and we brought the other one down to 27.3 from its original, I think it was 37 square feet. MR. FREER-I think that still comes out to pretty close to 109 total. MR. STUMPF-It's less than 109. MR. KUHL-96. MR. FREER-Okay. Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 think the applicant has made some fair concessions and I support the project. MR. FREER-Okay. I do, too, appreciate you guys working with us. When I joined this Board several years ago I was sort of mesmerized by the Sign Ordinances. I've come to respect the fact that the Town is trying to do right by maintaining some control over signs. Because there's some good examples. MR. STUMPF-I agree 100%. MR. FREER-So I do support it, but the message here is discourage your person from coming back and asking for another waiver, because the Board, the sense I get is we would not be too receptive. MR. HOFF-Right. I've read previous decisions from this Board and I've seen that people have done that in the past and I don't agree with that. I've been in this business 23 years and I would discourage anybody from doing that. Once you make an agreement with the Board, that's the agreement you stand by. MR. FREER-Okay. With that, I'm going to close the public hearing and request a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-We've got to make a motion for SEQR first. MR. FREER-Thank you, Mike. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-8-2018 FLINTLOCK CORP., D/B/A ADIRONDACK GUN RANGE AND 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 5 ( u.ueenshu.ua y ZBA t,lleelJn 11/14/2(:18] ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. SO WE GIVE IT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this I+' day of November 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay, and now a motion for the variance. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Flintlock Corp. d/b/a Adirondack Gun Range for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes a revision for the installation of 2 wall signs on the building where only one is allowed for the business Adirondack Gun Range. Sign No. 1 is to be 27.33 sq. ft. and Sign No. 2 is to be 68.8 sq. ft. Relief requested from number of allowable wall signs and maximum sign size at a setback of 100 feet from the front property line. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from number of allowable wall signs and maximum sign size at a setback of 100 feet from the front property line Cl zoning district. Section 140 signage —Commercial Intensive zone The applicant proposes to place 2 wall signs on an existing building Sign No. 1 is to be 27.33 sq. ft. and Sign No. 2 is to be 68.8 sq. ft. The property is only permitted one wall sign at 30 sq. ft. up to 100 sq. ft. with a building setback of 100 ft. or max of 200 sq. ft. for a sign with a building setback greater than 100 ft. at 10 sq. ft. increments. SEQR Type: Unlisted [Resolution / Action Required for SEAR] Motion regarding Sign Variance Z-SV-8-2018 Flintlock Corp.,d/b/a Adirondack Gun Range and 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 Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this I+' day of November 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE A public hearing was advertised and held on September 26, 2018 and November 14, 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 will not be an undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood nor will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign variance. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? We don't feel that's true and we recognize that this is a special case because of two businesses being involved in the single building. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? At this time we do not feel that it's substantial. At best it's moderate. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? We believe not. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? It is indeed self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 6 ( u.ueenshu.ua y ZBA V°'1eelJn 11/14/2018] 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV- 8-2018 FLINTLOCK CORP. D/B/A ADIRONDACK GUN RANGE, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one [1] year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one [1] year time frame expires; B. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency [APA]. The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA's review is completed; C. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & codes personnel' D. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; E. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this I+' day of November 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Before you go, and for the rest of the applicants this evening, I just want to remind you that there's additional items that need to be completed and that you'll get a compliance letter from the Town and if there's any changes to what you proposed and got approved here you need to come back and work that out with the Staff or the Board. We've had examples that have occurred, and I think the next item on the agenda fits into that. So we're trying to remind people ahead of time that there's more to this process than just this, and so please be cognizant and diligent in following that. Good luck. Thanks. MR. STUMPF-Thanks to the Board for working with us. MR. FREER-Okay. The next application, Area Variance 53-2018, French Mountain Inn. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-53-2018 SEQRA TYPE 11 FRENCH MOUNTAIN INN (AFTAB BHATTI) AGENT(SJ GARY HUGHES OWNER(SJ AFTAB BHATTI ZONING Cl LOCATION 1449 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A REVISION TO AN EXISTING 1,110 SQ. FT. AREA AS BLACKTOP WHERE A PREVIOUS APPROVAL WAS FOR THIS AREA TO REMAIN AS LAWN. REVISION IS AN 882 SQ. FT. LAWN AND 228 SQ. FT. PERMEABLE PAVERS TO BE INSTALLED. PROPERTY USE IS AN EXISTING LODGING FACILITY. APPLICANT REQUESTED APPROVALS IN YEAR 2012 FOR ADDITION TO LOBBY,STORAGE OVER LOBBY,SIGN TOWERS, HANDICAP RAMP LOCATION AND A CANOPY AREA. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF AV 48-2012; SP 54-2012; AV 24-2011 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2018 LOT SIZE 1.01 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.1-56 SECTION 179- 3-040 GARY HUGHES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; AFTAB BHATTI, PRESENT MR. FREER-Roy? STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-53-2018, French Mountain Inn [Aftab Bhatti], Meeting Date: November 14, 2018 "Project Location: 1449 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a revision to an existing 1,110 sq. ft. area as blacktop where a previous approval was ( u.ueenshu.ua y ZBA t,lleelJn 11 f 14 f 2(:18] for this area to remain as lawn. Revision is an 882 sq. ft. lawn and 228 sq. ft. permeable pavers to be installed. Property use is an existing lodging facility. Applicant requested approvals in year 2012 for addition to lobby, storage over lobby, sign towers, handicap ramp location and a canopy area. Relief requested from permeability requirements. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from permeability requirements of the Commercial Intensive zoning district. 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements The applicant proposes to modify the existing 1,110 sq. ft. hard surfaced area with 882 sq. ft. of lawn and 228 sq. ft. of permeable pavers. The permeability existing is 22.6% and proposed is 25%. The approved plans of 2012 indicate the proposed permeability was to be 25%. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives would include converting the hard surfaced area to lawn as previous approvals required. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The requests may be considered moderate relative to the code. Relief is 5.0% 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. The property is existing non-compliant in regards to permeability and maintaining the hard surfacing may have an adverse effect concerning stormwater. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to modify the existing hard surface area between two of the lodging buildings for French Mtn. Inn. There is to be 882 sq. ft. lawn and 228 sq. ft. permeable pavers for a permeability of 25%. The Code Compliance Officer notified the applicant in 2017 the plan was not completed per the approved plan for zoning board and planning board." MR. FREER-Thanks, Roy. If you guys could identify yourselves and make any other comments you want. MR. HUGHES-My name is Gary Hughes representing Sammy Bhatti for this. This is Sammy Bhatti, owner of the project, and back in August I believe we were here and it was decided we had to bring the permeability up to 25%. 1 believe we had 22.6, and I've taken that on myself. I've done some calculations, which you should have in front of you, and I also did a little sketch of the area in question, and if you have any questions I'd like to try to answer them. MR. FREER-Any questions for the applicant from the Board? MR. KUHL-Once you put these permeable pavers in, do you have a plan for making sure they maintain the ability to drain water mainly? MR. HUGHES-They have basically have to be kept clean. MR. KUHL-How about vacuuming them once every so many years? I mean everybody comes up with permeable pavers, yet they're good when you put them in, but over time with dirt, dust, you know, they can get blocked up and get useless, and I realize that we have permeable asphalt down on Beach Road in Lake George, but unless it's kept up it's going to lose its permeability. 8 ( u.ueenshu.ua y ZBA t,lleelJn 11 f 14 f 201a8] MR. HUGHES-1 totally agree with that concept, and we could have something, if you want to put that into the minutes that's something that he would really have to do. MR. KUHL-Well, no I was looking for the fact that you had researched it and believed that it was going to be part of the ongoing maintenance of this area. That's all. MR. HUGHES-Yes. MR. BHATTI-Yes. MR. HUGHES-Another thing that's kind of unique I think with this one is the fact that where our new lawn is is pretty much surrounding those pavers and with the detailing there's certain materials that go underneath the permeable pavers, and in this situation if those things were plugged up, we don't want it, the water would actually go over the permeable pavers and actually back onto the lawn materials and the materials underneath the pavers. Not that we're going to do that, but I'm just saying that's. MR. KUHL-I'm fortunate enough to go down south in the wintertime and I go into the Keyes and these pavers are used a lot. I mean it's a good thing, but the only thing that we have up here, right, that they don't have down there is the road salt and the sand because we sand and salt things up here because of the snow. Down there they don't, but, no, it's a very good product and it's highly used down south. So I know it's good, but I'm concerned that you know that there should be some upkeep in the future, and you'd have to figure out how and what to do it. Otherwise they're going to lose their efficiency. MR. HUGHES-Sure. MR. KUHL-And we're going to be all back to zero. Okay. MR. FREER-Brent, did you have a question? MR. MC DEVITT-I do not. That resolved it. MR. FREER-Okay. So we have a public hearing kept open from the last time this applicant was here. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to make a comment on this application? Seeing no one, I'm assuming we have no more written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. URRICO-There is no public comment. MR. FREER-Okay. I'm going to poll the Board and I'm going to start with Brent. MR. MC DEVITT-I believe, you know, doing a little bit of research on this, you know, the pavers, the Nicolock manufacturer and the fact that this product allows stormwater to percolate back into the soil the way that it does, you know, I like that. I think this is pretty well thought out, and I'm in favor of the project. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think the tradeoff with the permeable pavers instead of just grass there, we have to keep in mind it's a high use area and I think having just grass there would be a disaster in the long term if you have a wet summer and you have people coming and going all day long. So I think it's a reasonable alternative to the originally approved plan and I think it'll work. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I'm in agreement. I think this is a good project. MR. FREER-Okay. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I also agree with the combination of the grass and the permeable pavers. It's a good alternative to pure blacktop there, and it satisfies my concerns. I'd be for it. MR. FREER-Okay. Mike? 9 ( u.ueenshu.ua y ZBA t,lleelJn 11 f 14 f 2(:18] MR. MC CABE-Yes, I believe the applicant satisfied our request from our last meeting and so I'll support the project. MR. FREER-And Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the project based on satisfying the criteria. MR. FREER-Okay, and I, too, support this alternative for the project. So I'll close the public hearing and request a motion. MR. KUHL-I'll make that motion if I could, Mr. Chairman. MR. FREER-Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from French Mountain Inn. Applicant proposes a revision to an existing 1,110 sq. ft.area as blacktop where a previous approval was for this area to remain as lawn. Revision is an 882 sq. ft. lawn and 228 sq. ft. permeable pavers to be installed. Property use is an existing lodging facility. Applicant requested approvals in year 2012 for addition to lobby, storage over lobby, sign towers, handicap ramp location and a canopy area. Relief requested from permeability requirements. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from permeability requirements of the Commercial Intensive zoning district. 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements The applicant proposes to modify the existing 1,110 sq. ft. hard surfaced area with 882 sq. ft. of lawn and 228 sq. ft. of permeable pavers. The permeability existing is 22.6% and proposed is 25%. The approved plans of 2012 indicate the proposed permeability was to be 25%. SEAR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 22, 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 really is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties as these pavers support the drainage as well as the lawn. 2. Feasible alternatives are really limited. They have been considered and are reasonable and they should be considered as minimal. 3. The requested variance is not substantial as the lawn will work out well. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. You could suggest the alleged difficulty is self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approvall the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: 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 10 ( u.ueenshu.ua y ZBA t,lleelJn 11/14/2018] Z-AV-53-2018 French Mountain Inn (After Bhattil, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 14" day of November 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. HUGHES-Thanks. MR. FREER-Okay. Next is Area Variance 55-2018, Tra Tom Development. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-55-2018 SEQRA TYPE 11 TRA TOM DEVELOPMENT AGENT(SJ TOM CENTER — HUTCHINS ENGINEERING; VANDUSEN & STEVES OWNER(SJ TRA TOM DEVELOPMENT ZONING MDR LOCATION RICHMOND HILL DRIVE — BARRINGER HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION (NORTHERN PORTION) APPLICANT PROPOSES A REVISION FROM A FIVE LOT TO A FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION OF LOT 1 IN BARRINGER HEIGHTS. THREE LOTS TO BE RESIDENTIAL; REMAINDER OF LOT; 25.78 ACRES NOT TO BE DEVELOPED PER PREVIOUS SUBDIVISION. LOT IA TO BE 1.2 ACRES; LOT 1B TO BE 1.01 ACRES; LOT 1C TO BE 1.04 ACRES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS OF 2-ACRES FOR NEWLY CREATED LOTS WITHIN THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT. PLANNING BOARD: SUBDIVISION REQUIRES REVIEW. CROSS REF SUB 4-2003 MOD. (OCTOBER 2009 — LOTS 3 THRU 10; LOTS 18 &191. SUB 4-2003 (33 LOTS); FWW 6-2003 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 29.06 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.74-48 SECTION 179-3-040 JON LAPPER & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. FREER-Okay, Roy? STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-55-2018, Tra Tom Development, Meeting Date: November 14, 2018 "Project Location: Richmond Hill Drive — Barringer Heights Subdivision (northern portion) Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a revision from a five lot to a four lot subdivision of Lot 1 in Barringer Heights. Three lots to be residential; remainder of lot; 25.78 acres not to be developed per previous subdivision. Lot lA to be 1.2 acres; Lot 1B to be 1.01 acres; Lot 1C to be 1.04 acres. Relief requested from the minimum lot size requirement of 2-acres for newly created lots within the MDR zoning district. Planning Board: Subdivision requires review. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from the minimum lot size requirement of 2-acres for newly created lots within the MDR zoning district Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts The applicant proposes 3 residential lots and lots are to be less than 2 acres in the Moderate Density zoning district. Lot lA to be 1.2 acres, Lot 1B to be 1.01 acres; Lot 1C to be 1.04 acres. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The proposed project may be considered to have minimal impact on the character of the neighborhood and nearby 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. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the number of parcels to meet the 2 acre requirement of the MDR zone. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested for lot lA is 0.80 acres, and the lots 1B is 0.99 ac and 1C is 0.96 ac. 11 ( u.ueenshu.ua y ZBA t,lleelJn 11/14/2(:18] 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The relief requested may be considered to have minimal to no environmental or physical impact on the neighborhood. The proposed lots are to have septic systems, connect to Town water, and a no cut buffer along the power line. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created as the previous subdivision Barringer Heights in 2003 was a conservation subdivision and the proposed area to be subdivided was not done at the time the 2003 subdivision occurred. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a 4 lot subdivision of Lot 1 in Barringer Heights. Three lots to be residential; remainder of lot; 25.78 acres not to be developed per previous subdivision. The plans show the Barringer Height subdivision and the subdivision of the three residential lots with access to Richmond Drive. In addition the lots show an approximate home location the board may consider requesting additional information about accessory structures i.e.decks/porches, pools,or sheds to confirm setback distances can be met." MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks, Roy. If you guys could identify yourselves and add any comments you'd like. MR. LAPPER-Good evening,everybody. For the record,Jon Lapper with Tom Center. We understand that when you last saw this the Board was not excited about going to approximately seven acres which is what the rest of the neighborhood is like. This is a compromise to move this towards what the Board was looking for. One acre, these are all slightly larger than one acre. So in terms of the character of the neighborhood larger than the other lots, but in terms of that area of Town these would be considered big lots, but to do this as a two acre estate lot is really out of character and would be a lot for a homeowner to maintain which means that might not be well maintained as the entrance to the neighborhood, just too much land for somebody. So we recognize this was a situation where compromise was needed to address the Board's concerns and hopefully at the one acre at least three lots are a compromise. Tom, do you want to talk about stormwater? MR. CENTER-In regards to stormwater management, briefly looking at it over the issues that were there, what we'll do is provide gutters for the houses so that the drainage will drain towards the rear of the lot. A quick calculation shows that there will be no runoff. We have well-drained sands back there. For the driveway we'll provide an infiltration trench along the driveway so that no stormwater goes off the lot. We had a couple of questions from the Town Engineer regarding whether this was part of the larger subdivision which we worked with DEC and it's going to be its own entity, get its own Notice of Intent where only erosion and sediment control are required. The State will not require post stormwater controls, but do need to meet the 25 year requirement which we will be able to meet that and keep all of the stormwater on the existing lots. MR. FREER-Okay, and does this have Town water? MR. CENTER-This does have Town water. Correct, yes, and in regards to the other question that had come up regarding groundwater issues and what not, in talking with Mr. Nace and some further research I believe Dan Ryan's here, he can attest to it. There is a French drain that goes down Michaels Drive next to Luzerne Road and also our stormwater for the original Barringer Heights is all interconnected and has an outlet to daylight to the south. So everything for the subdivision road daylights and drains to the south. So we're not directing anything to the north where I think the one resident took issues with some of the subdivision. So we're actually, what this did was take any groundwater issues that are in that area and take them down the normal path to the south. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. We have questions from the Board? No questions. So we have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to make a comment on this application? Seeing no one, do we have any written comments, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. URRICO-There is none. MR. FREER-Okay. So I'm going to poll the Board and start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think when we enacted the new two acre requirement I don't think it took into account previous subdivisions where the lots were smaller, and I think you've made a good 12 ( u.ueenshu.ua y ZBA t,lleelJn 11 f 14 f 2(:18] justification for the fact that at .7 acres on most of those smaller lots these lots are going to be larger. I think it's going to be a good fit. I don't think, I don't see any extenuating environmental result. I think you've explained with the drainage problem that was noted by the neighbors was not the cause of that at this time. So I'm comfortable with going forward and approving it. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I think that this blends in very nicely with the character of the neighborhood. So I would be in favor of it. MR. FREER-Okay. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, actually you look at the neighborhood and you've got Cerrone's development across the road there that's got,what, quarter acre lots,third acre lots. You've got the NiMo property behind there that can't be developed. There's nothing there, and if they made those lots any bigger they'd put the whole neighborhood out of character. So that's a good compromise. I was for the project as is. I'm definitely for the project as is now. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 support the project. MR. FREER-Okay, and Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of it as well. MR. FREER-Okay. Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-Yes, I, too, support the project, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate Mr. Center that indicated relative to that French drain. My concern relative to development such as this is where's the water going and the environmental impacts thereto. So I think this is well thought out. Like John I was probably in favor as it was previously before the Board and now you're making these lots all an acre plus. It gives me comfort here. So I'm in favor of the project. MR. FREER-1, too, favor the project, but I want to take a moment to kind of explain to the younger members in the audience sort of what your Town is trying to do here with two acre minimum zoning and the deal is if you don't have water and sewer then you need places to take care of that, drill a well and have a septic and you don't want them too close. So that's why we're having this debate here, and the fact that it has Town water but not Town sewer mitigates half of that. So I'm comfortable with that as well, but I know this gets a little technical for you high schoolers, but I just wanted to sort of take a moment to kind of give you a brief summary of all the chatter that you just heard. So with that, I'm going to close the public hearing and ask for a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Tra Tom Development. Applicant proposes a revision from a five lot to a four lot subdivision of Lot 1 in Barringer Heights. Three lots to be residential; remainder of lot; 25.78 acres not to be developed per previous subdivision. Lot lA to be 1.2 acres; Lot 1B to be 1.01 acres; Lot 1C to be 1.04 acres. Relief requested from the minimum lot size requirement of 2-acres for newly created lots within the MDR zoning district. Planning Board: Subdivision requires review. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from the minimum lot size requirement of 2-acres for newly created lots within the MDR zoning district Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts The applicant proposes 3 residential lots and lots are to be less than 2 acres in the Moderate Density zoning district. Lot lA to be 1.2 acres, Lot 1B to be 1.01 acres; Lot 1C to be 1.04 acres. SEAR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on August 22, 2018, October 17, 2018, and November 14, 2018; 13 ( u.ueenshu.ua y ZBA V°'1eelJn 11/14/2(:18] 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 noted. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered to go to two-acre lots but we deem that to be excessive. One acre plus is more than adequate. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because the previous lots in the subdivision were much smaller than this as proposed. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. We do not note any. Having reviewed the project we feel that the one acre plus size of these lots is more than adequate to handle the expected wastewater produced on site and the fact that there's Town water means that there won't be any issues with wells or anything like that in the area. All the concerns by the neighborhood addressing the runoff from this project have been explained by their project engineer and we're comfortable that they'll be able to handle runoff appropriately without any impact on nearby properties. 5. The alleged difficulty is more created because of the Code being two-acre zoning now in effect. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approvall the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 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-55-2018, TRA TOM DEVELOPMENT, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 14" day of November 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Good luck, guys. Okay. Next is Area Variance 71-2018, Michael White. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-71-2018 SEQRA TYPE 11 MICHAEL WHITE OWNER(SJ MICHAEL WHITE ZONING SR-20 AT TIME PL.BOARD APPROVAL MDR CURRENT LOCATION 20 PINION PINE LANE, VAN HOWE SUBD. SECTION 1 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN ALREADY CONSTRUCTED 23 FT. BY 12 FT. POST AND BEAM COVER OVER AN EXISTING DECK IN THE REAR YARD OF THE ARCHITECTURAL ENTRANCE ON QUEENS LANE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF 20 FT. FOR SR-20 ZONING DISTRICT AT THE TIME OF PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL APRIL 16, 1985. CROSS REF AST 468-2018; SB 9-84, SECTION 1 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.01 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.6448 SECTION 179-4-080 MICHAEL WHITE, PRESENT MR. FREER-Roy? STAFF INPUT 1�. ( u.ueenshu.ua y ZBA t,lleelJn 11 f 14 f 2(:18] Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-71-2018, Michael White, Meeting Date: November 14, 2018 "Project Location: 20 Pinion Pine Lane, Van Howe Subd. Section 1 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to maintain already constructed 23 ft. by 12 ft. post and beam cover over an existing deck in the rear yard of the architectural entrance on Queens Lane. Relief requested from rear yard setback requirement of 20 ft. for SR-20 zoning district at the time of Planning Board approval April 16, 1985. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from rear yard setback requirement of 20 ft. for SR-20 zoning district at the time of Planning Board approval April 16, 1985. Current zoning is MDR. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements The applicant has constructed a 276 sq. ft. cover over a portion of an existing 602 sq. ft. deck. The deck was constructed without approvals by previous owners. The deck cover is 18.8 ft. from the rear property line and the deck is 5.8 ft. where a 20 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. 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 possible to reduce the size of the deck cover and deck. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The deck cover relief is 1.2 ft. and the deck is 14.2 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be considered to have minimal 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 requests to maintain an existing deck constructed by prior owners of 2015 and a constructed deck cover completed in May of 2018. The applicant was informed by building and codes the project would need a building permit and the Zoning Administrator explained a variance for setbacks. The applicant has a completed survey and photos of the existing conditions of the deck cover and deck. The submitted information includes letters of support from neighbors." MR. FREER-Okay. Welcome. Please identify yourself and add any comments that you'd like for the Board. MR. WHITE-Okay. My name's Michael White, the owner of the property, and the reason it came about is we had an existing pergola on the deck itself and the wood was rotting. So we took that down and we put in the posted cover on the existing porch that was put up in May. So that's how all that came about. So there was an existing pergola on there, but we wanted to enclose it and make it a screened porch. MR. FREER-Okay. Any questions from the Board on this proposal? MR. KUHL-I have a question just so that you don't feel that nobody wants to ask you anything. Do you plan on putting a cover on it? Is that what you're going to do, Michael? MR. WHITE-Yes, we do. 15 ( u.ueenshu.ua y ZBA t,lleelJn 11 f 14 f 2(:18] MR. KUHL-This is in the middle of construction is then what it is. I mean it looked kind of finished when I went by it. It looked nice. I thought maybe you were just trying to block out the wind or sun with it. MR. WHITE-We're going to put just a roof over the top with a screen on the side. MR. KUHL-Okay. Thank you. MR. WHITE-Thank you. MR. FREER-Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled for this application. Is there anyone in the audience? Let me just say that if you're in the audience and you've made a written comment, we're going to read them in so there's no need to duplicate that. I know some of you are here just to be entertained and I'll try to do my best, but there's no need to come up and make a comment if you've already made a written comment. So is there anyone in the audience that would like to make a comment on this application? Seeing no one, I know we have some written comments. Roy, do you want to read them in, please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes. I only see one letter. When you say some, I only see one. "I have a conflict this evening and will not be able to make the Public Hearing of the Board of Zoning Appeals. I received a notice of the Public Hearing due to the variance request by our neighbor Michael White. Since I'm not able to attend the meeting, my husband and I wanted to let you know that we have no problem with the variance. The construction project is on the other side of the house from us and over an existing deck and therefore has no impact on us. I hope you have a good meeting and it doesn't go too long! Cheers. Maureen and James Coutant 22 Pinion Pine Lane Queensbury, NY 12804" MR. FREER-Okay. I had a couple of other ones in my packet. John, do you want to pass them down to Roy. Did everyone else have a written comment? MRS. MOORE-They were in the application itself. So you received them. MR. URRICO-Okay. So we still have to read them in, even though they're part of the packet? Okay. This is, "We own and reside in the home at 19 Pinion Pine Lane, directly opposite form the home at 20 Pinion Pine Lane owned by Michael and Melinda White. We have seen their plans to add an enclosed porch to their existing deck which apparently requires a variance from the Town to proceed. We believe that this structure will enhance the appearance of their property as well as the neighborhood in general, so we are writing to express our approval and support for this variance. Please feel free to contact us at any time if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Janet Newell Stephen Schaefer 19 Pinion Pine Lane Queensbury, NY 12804" "My husband and I are the owners of the property adjacent to 20 Pinion Pine Lane Queensbury, NY. We do not object to the footprint of the existing deck on the 20 Pinion Pine Lane property. This footprint has been in existence for over 10 years and we were unaware of setback rules. We would hope that plantings will restore privacy for both homes. Sincerely, Marlene Connolly Charlie M. Connolly" And that's 18 Pinion Pine Lane. And then "Our neighbors, Melinda and Michael White, who live directly across the street, are proposing to add an enclosed porch on part of their existing deck and apparently require a variance to proceed with the construction. We are in full support of their plans and strongly believe that this porch will not only enhance their property but would add value to the neighboring properties as well. We are hoping that a variance will be granted for their enclosed porch. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call or write us. Thank you in advance for allowing us to voice our support for this variance. Sincerely yours, Judith Bulova Dr. John Bulova 21 Pinion Pine Lane" MR. FREER-Thank you. Okay. I'm going to poll the Board and start with Ron. MR. KUHL-Yes. I find it interesting that this deck was built by somebody else and we never picked it up until now. Right? I mean, when you buy a house don't you have a title search and don't you have all kinds of prints and drawings and all that? I think that this is minimum relief. I'm in favor of this project. MR. FREER-Thanks, Ron. John? MR. HENKEL-I mean the patio and the deck are awfully close to the property and to the neighbors. They are going to put screening up you said? 16 ( u.ueenshu.ua y ZBA t,lleelJn 11 f 14 f 2(:18] MR. WHITE-Screening on the porch? MR. HENKEL-Well, no, screening as far as the, for the boundary line there. MR. WHITE-Natural screening. MR. HENKEL-Yes. MR. WHITE-Yes. We've been in discussion with them. We jointly took the down the trees that were there, and we're going to put some back up. MR. HENKEL-That would be my only concern, but, yes, I'm for the project. I'm kind of reserved a little bit on it, but I'm for the project as is. MR. FREER-Good. Thanks. Mike? MR. MC CABE-Yes, I'm impressed that the applicant sought approval of his neighbors and it's too bad that he found out that he needed a variance after the work. Sometimes that happens. So I'll support the project. MR. FREER-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in favor of the project. MR. FREER-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I'm in favor of the project, Mr. Chairman. We have some good neighbors who have commented who have no issues. It looks like a good project in the neighborhood. So I wish you all the best. MR. FREER Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-No problem with it. MR. FREER-I, too, support this application, aware of your neighborhood posse, and I, frankly, even though it's not one of the criteria that the State requires us to go over, I find it useful to have neighbors make comments, especially when they're in favor of the variance. So I support it and I'll close the public hearing and request a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Michael White. Applicant proposes to maintain already constructed 23 ft. by 12 ft. post and beam cover over an existing deck in the rear yard of the architectural entrance on Queens Lane. Relief requested from rear yard setback requirement of 20 ft. for SR-20 zoning district at the time of Planning Board approval April 16, 1985. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from rear yard setback requirement of 20 ft. for SR-20 zoning district at the time of Planning Board approval April 16, 1985. Current zoning is MDR. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements The applicant has constructed a 276 sq. ft. cover over a portion of an existing 602 sq. ft. deck. The deck was constructed without approvals by previous owners. The deck cover is 18.8 ft. from the rear property line and the deck is 5.8 ft. where a 20 ft. setback is required. SEAR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on November 14, 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: 17 ( u.ueenshu.ua y ZBA t,lleelJn 11/14/2(:18] 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because we believe that the project will improve the appearance of the house and property. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board but are not deemed possible at this particular time. 3. The requested variance, although it seems moderate, really isn't when you consider that the deck has existed 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, I suppose, is self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approvall the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-71-2018, MICHAEL WHITE, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: Duly adopted this 14" day of November 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. Good luck. Thanks. Okay. Next on the agenda is Area Variance No. 70- 2018, Melissa Freebern/Artisan Ink. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-70-2018 SEQRA TYPE 11 MELISSA FREEBERN/ARTISAN INK OWNER(S) MELISSA FREEBURN ZONING CM LOCATION 928 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF THE EXISTING PORCH WITH HANDICAP LIFT (113 SQ. FT. +/-) AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADA COMPLIANT HANDICAPPED RAMP (213 SQ. FT. +/-). RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CM ZONING DISTRICT. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED FOR MODIFICATION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN (SP 28-20091. CROSS REF SP 71-2018; AV 18-2009; SP 28- 2009 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 2018 LOT SIZE 0.34 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.13444 SECTION 179-4-080 MELISSA FREEBERN, PRESENT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-70-2018, Melissa Freebern/Artisan Ink, Meeting Date: November 14, 2018 "Project Location: 928 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes removal of the existing porch with handicap lift (113 sq. ft. +/-) and construction of a ADA compliant handicapped ramp (213 sq. ft. +/-). Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the CM zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from setback requirements of the Commercial Moderate zoning district. 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements The applicant proposes to modify the existing site plan with a new handicap ramp and landing to be located 22.5 ft. from Sweet Rd and 70 ft. from Route 9 where a 75 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 18 ( u.ueenshu.ua y ZBA t,lleelJn 11 f 14 f 201a8] 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 due to the location of the existing building, entryway and the lot is a corner lot. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief for Sweet Rd setback of 52.5 ft. and for Route 9 is 5 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to remove an existing handicap lift and landing area to replace with a handicap ramp and landing. The applicant has indicate the lift is inspected regularly but becomes inoperable during the severe weather conditions occurring recently. The applicants has also explained the customers have requested the ramp for access as they have indicated it is easier to use." MR. URRICO-Then the Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal,and that motion was carried on November 13', 2018 by a six to zero vote. MR. FREER-Okay. Welcome, and would you identify yourself and add anything else you'd like us to consider. MS. FREEBERN-My name is Melissa Freebern. I'm the owner of Artisan Ink, and this ramp is really a necessity. The lift doesn't work, and I need to be able to make sure that all of my clients can get into my business. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you, and any questions for the applicant from the Board? MR. URRICO-There's no other entrance to the building, to the business. Right? MS. FREEBERN-No. There's a back entrance but there's no walkway to it,and it's not really considered an entrance or an exit. Because it used to be a house and it got converted when it was changed over to Choo Choo's ice cream. So we're really kind of dealing with past variances from a previous owner. MR. URRICO-So the main entrance is Sweet Road. MS. FREEBERN-Yes. The proposed ramp that we want to build is a foot closer to the road. So there was a previous variance for the porch that's there now. So it is a foot wider. So that's it pretty much in a nutshell. MR. FREER-Okay. MR. HENKEL-I've got a Staff question. Isn't there some kind of Federal law that states that there has to be handicap? Doesn't that supersede any kind of law the Town has? MRS. MOORE-It's considered a structure so it does need to meet the local Code requirement. MR. HENKEL-Even though Federal law says it has to be handicap accessible? MR. MC DEVITT-ADA accessible. MRS. MOORE-Yes. 19 ( u.ueenshu.ua y ZBA t,lleelJn 11/14/2(:18] MR. HENKEL-Okay. So we still handle this as is. MRS. MOORE-As is, yes. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. FREER-Okay. Any other questions? We have a public hearing scheduled for this application. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to make a comment on this application? Seeing no one, Roy, are there any written comments? MR. URRICO-There are no written comments. MR. FREER-Okay. With that I'll poll the Board and start with John. MR. HENKEL-The lift that they have there has had serious problems in other places and a ramp you don't have to worry about any mechanical mechanism or anything like that during bad weather. So I think it's a no brainer. I'd be for it. MR. FREER-Okay. Mike? MR. MC CABE-Yes, I don't have a problem. I'll support the project. MR. FREER-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I think it's a needed thing. I'd be in favor of it. MR. FREER-Thank you. Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-Yes, I think this is about doing the right thing. So I'm in favor. MR. FREER-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It's a retrofit for an old building,you know, it pre-dates any zoning and no matter what you did you'd probably need relief. So I don't have a problem with it either. MR. FREER-And Mr. Ron? MR. KUHL-I agree with my Board members. I'm in favor of the project. MR. FREER-I, too, support this variance and John asked a relevant question about trying to make sure we comply with all these items. I just hope that the students don't think that we just sort of zip through all of these and approve them, but in any case, I'm going to close the public hearing and request a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. KUHL-Can I make that motion, Mr. Chairman? MR. FREER-Please. Thanks, Ron. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Melissa Freebern / Artisan Ink. Applicant proposes removal of the existing porch with handicap lift [113 sq. ft. +/-] and construction of an ADA compliant handicapped ramp [213 sq. ft. +/-]. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the CM zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from setback requirements of the Commercial Moderate zoning district. 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements The applicant proposes to modify the existing site plan with a new handicap ramp and landing to be located 22.5 ft. from Sweet Rd and 70 ft. from Route 9 where a 75 ft. setback is required. SEAR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on November 14, 2018; 20 ( u.ueenshu.ua y ZBA V°'1eelJn 11/14/2018] 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 as this is an improvement over the existing and will help handicap people access the business. 2. Feasible alternatives are really limited and this is kind of a minimum request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial for that five feet the client is asking for, it is not very substantial. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty, although you might suggest it's self-created, it is because it's an improvement and it will take care of the people that need the help. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approvall the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z- AV-70-2018 MELISSA FREEBERN / ARTISAN INK, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 14" day of November 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-There you go. MS. FREEBERN-Thank you. MR. FREER-Okay. Good luck. Okay. We're on to Area Variance 72-2018, and I'm not going to try to pronounce the name. VISION Engineering. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-72-2018 SEQRA TYPE II XIAO JUN LI & CAROL YANG AGENT(SJ VISION ENGINEERING, DAN RYAN OWNER(SJ XIAO JUN LI & CAROL YANG ZONING NR LOCATION 21 NATHAN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 22 FT. BY 16 FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO THE EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY HOME. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.24 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.64-46 SECTION 179-3-040 DAN RYAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. FREER-Roy, if you would read it into the record, please. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-70-2018, Xiao Jun Li & Carol Yang, Meeting Date: November 14, 2018 "Project Location: 21 Nathan Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 22 ft. by 16 ft. residential addition to the existing single-family home. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the NR zoning district. 21 ( u.ueenshu.ua y ZBA t,lleelJn 11 f 14 f 2(:18] Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from setback requirements of the Neighborhood Residential zoning district. 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements The applicant proposes construction of a 352 sq. ft. addition to be located 11.1 ft. on the west side of the home where a 15 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to the location of the existing home and the parcel is a corner lot. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 3.9 ft. on the west property line. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impacts to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct 352 sq. ft. addition to an existing 1,690 sq. ft. home. The parcel is located on a corner lot where the applicant can only place the addition on the west side. The applicant has indicated the septic is at the rear of the property also. The plans show the interior renovations to the home and elevation view of the new addition." MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. If you could identify yourself and add anything you'd like. MR. RYAN-Yes. Dan Ryan with VISION Engineering. I'm here on behalf of the applicant. Basically I'll go over everything real briefly. I know you have an extensive packet in front of you. You've probably reviewed it. There's a couple of points I'd like to make and I'll be happy to answer any questions that anyone has. This is a corner lot. So it is somewhat penalized by the zoning whereby there are two front yards and two rear yards. So in this zone most properties get to enjoy a zero side setback, but unfortunately this parcel has no side. So it only has fronts and rears. So ultimately while the neighbors get the opportunity to build right up to the property line this property is encumbered by that extra zoning restriction. Ultimately they're asking to build a 22 by 16 foot one story addition that's basically going to be a multi-purpose room for their personal needs. There is a septic system reported to be in the rear of the house. So that somewhat limits the ability to build towards the back and being that the left side is a front and the front is a front, we only have the one side, which is the west side, to ultimately build the addition. So that's what's being requested. The setback requirement is 15 feet. We're encroaching on that by 3.9 feet. So we would achieve an 11.1 foot approximate setback for that side. Ultimately the project seems somewhat minor in nature. We did ask for a couple of waivers, one being for the survey. We have an old survey. The house hasn't moved. So we figured that was accurate for the purposes of what's served here today as well as we did not provide a full developed site plan because all we're building is the addition with very limited site changes other than the addition itself. So we'd ask for waivers for those as needed. We did provide floor plans and elevations of the proposed project, and we do have one letter from neighbors, including the west side neighbor who obviously indicated no objection. So I'd be happy to have you read that into the record as well. I'd be happy to answer any question. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Any questions from the Board? MR. HENKEL-It's pretty straightforward. 22 ( u.ueenshu.ua y ZBA t,lleelJn 11 f 14 f 2(:18] MR. FREER-Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled and I'd like to open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to make a comment on this application? Seeing no one, it sounds like there's some written comment. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There's a petition of support from five neighbors and they live at 23 Nathan, 13 Mallory Ave., 12 Sunset Ave., 25 Mallory Ave., 22 Nathan St. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. I'm going to poll the Board and start with Mike. MR. MC CABE-Yes. Really what's being asked for is minimal compared to other properties that aren't too far away, and I think the applicant's done a nice job with the property and I would support them with their desire to expand the property. MR. FREER-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I think all things considered there's minimal relief that's being requested and I would be in favor of it. MR. FREER-Okay. Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-Mr. Chairman, like Mike and Roy, I agree. I believe the applicant has done a nice job with the property. I believe that the relief is minimal. Interesting how the property is situated with no side setback. The left side's the front, the front's the front. We're talking about one story, 22 by 16. 1 see it as minimal. The west side neighbor has no objection. So I'm in favor of the project. MR. FREER-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 don't have any problem with it, either. I think it's a .24 acre lot. So anything you wanted to add on would require some relief probably and because of where the septic is it's natural to put the addition where you propose it. So I'd be in favor of it. MR. FREER-1, too, am in favor, and I would like, if you can, or are you the applicants as well? Can you just pronounce your name because I'm sorry I didn't try to pronounce it better. MAN JUN Ll MR. LI-My name's Xian Jun Li. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. With that I'm going to close the public hearing and, John, I'm sorry. Ron. I skipped. MR. KUHL-Yes, you did. Yes, you did. But I agree with my Board members here that it's a good project. It's a good project. It's a minimal requirement, so I would be in favor of it, Mr. Chairman. MR. HENKEL-And also being a corner lot, it's very minimal. We're looking at 3.9 feet for relief. So I'd definitely be in favor of it also. MR. FREER-Okay. I obviously was studying from my embarrassment from not trying to pronounce the name and I apologize for that. With that 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 Xiao Jun Li & Carol Yang. Applicant proposes construction of a 22 ft. by 16 ft. residential addition to the existing single-family home. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the NR zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from setback requirements of the Neighborhood Residential zoning district. 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements 23 ( u.ueenshu.ua y ZBA V°'1eelJn 11 f 14 f 2(:18] The applicant proposes construction of a 352 sq. ft. addition to be located 11.1 ft. on the west side of the home where a 15 ft. setback is required. SEAR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on November 14, 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 we note that this is only a request for 3.9 feet of relief. All the neighbors that would be affected are in favor of this project also. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered. This is the only place that the addition can realistically be added on to the home. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because it is a very small lot and the request for this addition shows that it's a very minimal project. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. None are noted. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created because they want to put an addition on but it's a reasonable, small addition. It's not going to create any big change in the neighborhood. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approvall the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 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-72-2018 XIAO )UN LI & CAROL YANG, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 14" day of November 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. MR. RYAN-Thank you very much. MR. FREER-Okay. Next is Area Variance 73-2018, Curtis Dybas. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-73-2018 SEQRA TYPE 11 CURTIS D. DYBAS AGENT(SJ CURTIS D. DYBAS OWNER(SJ SARA N. KELLY ZONING WR LOCATION 17 CLIFF HOLLOW ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 711 SQ. FT. SINGLE-STORY RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO THE MAIN FLOOR FOR A NEW BEDROOM. ADJACENT TO THE NEW BEDROOM A 211 SQ. FT. ENCLOSED PORCH IS PROPOSED. ALTERATIONS TO HOME INCLUDE KITCHEN AREA EXPANSION (CONVERSION OF EXISTING MAIN BEDROOM TO A GREAT ROOM OFF KITCHEN AREA), SECOND FLOOR BEDROOM, CEILING TO BE RAISED AND REMOVAL OF TWO PORCH AREAS. STRUCTURE WILL REMAIN AS A 4-BEDROOM HOME. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS FOR THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING USE. CROSS REF SP 67-2018 WARREN COUNTY 21 ( u.ueenshu.ua y ZBA t,lleelJn 11/14/2018] PLANNING NOVEMBER 2018 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.3 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.184-32 SECTION 17943-040; 17943-010 LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; CURT DYBAS, PRESENT MR. FREER-And, Roy, do you want to go ahead. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-73-2018, Curtis D. Dybas, Meeting Date: November 14, 2018 "Project Location: 17 Cliff Hollow Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 711 sq. ft. single-story residential addition to the main floor for a new bedroom. Adjacent to the new bedroom a 211 sq. ft. enclosed porch is proposed. Alterations to home include kitchen area expansion (conversion of existing main bedroom to a great room off kitchen area), second floor bedroom, ceiling to be raised and removal of two porch areas. Structure will remain as a 4- bedroom home. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements and height restrictions for the WR zoning district. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for expansion of a nonconforming use. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the Waterfront Residential zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements The applicant proposes alterations to an existing home that includes a 211 sq. ft. enclosed porch that is to be 64.8 ft. from the shoreline where a 75 ft. setback is required. (Parcel is located in the APA Land Use district Rural Use —where a 75 ft. shoreline setback is required.) In addition, the roof area in the living room area is to be raised where it is to be 30 ft. 6 in where a 28 ft. maximum is allowed. The existing structure is currently 30 ft. 6 in. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to the location of the existing home on the parcel. The existing home is located 75 ft. from the shore and the existing deck is 64.8 ft. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. Relief requested for front setback to the deck is 10.2 ft., Relief for the height is 2.5 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. The project may be considered to have minimal impacts on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes alterations to an existing home for the exterior and interior. The plans show the addition to be at 2 levels of the home. The basement area expansion for storage area. The main floor is for the master bedroom area, adding a screened porch and expansion of the kitchen/dining area. The interior renovation also includes raising the living room ceiling on the west side. The west side of the building facing the shoreline exterior work is to include removal of the 3" level porch and reducing a main story porch size." MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was approved on November 13, 2018 by a six to zero vote. 25 ( u.ueenshu.ua y ZBA t,lleelJn 11 f 14 f 2(:18] MR. FREER-Thanks, Roy. If you guys could identify yourselves and add anything that you'd like. MR. DYBAS-Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, I'm Curt Dybas and Lucas Dobie representing Sara Kelly and her husband David. A little bit of background. The house was constructed in 1983 in its current location and what we're proposing is we're not changing the existing setbacks. It is 64.8 feet right down from the shoreline to the deck, the existing deck. We are using the existing footprint for all the addition, and staying within the confines of what is there. The one clarification is the existing ridge is 30 foot 6 inches and we're putting a dormer on the living room side and staying within that height restriction. I don't want it to sound like we're asking for a variance over the 28 foot height, and the 711 square foot addition does include the basement that is under the master bedroom. So it's basically half of that is what we are constructing, and of course the first floor master bedroom is to age in place. We're doing it. The bedroom is on the first floor. In fact the living room will become an audio room, part of the great room. That will balance out, we're taking away a bedroom, we're adding a bedroom. So we're staying as a four bedroom house. The footprint on the site has been reduced by 221 square feet which isn't a lot when you consider we're over an acre, but we are staying within the footprint. And with that, are there any questions? MR. FREER-So, question for Staff. Curt said that they weren't requesting a height variance. Do they have a variance? MRS. MOORE-It's still a variance. It's still a variance. It's new construction and still requires relief requested. So that's why it's still in there. MR. FREER-If it's 30.6 feet now, did they not have a variance before? Was that before we had that code? MRS. MOORE-1 don't know. MR. DYBAS-It was 35 years ago. I don't know. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because the APA rules were in effect then and it was 40 feet and I don't know if the Town was 40 feet back in those days either. MR. FREER-Okay. Any other questions for the applicant from the Board? Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-Mr. Chairman, Mr. Dybas, the dormer that you referenced, can you just explain that to me a little more? MR. DYBAS-On the right hand side, you see the three windows above the slider? MR. MC DEVITT-Yes. MR. DYBAS-That current roof comes right down low and in order to get more light in the room and the view from the loft, we raised that dormer up past the shed to get more light in the space. MR. MC DEVITT-Okay. MR. DYBAS-But the ridge height remains at the 30 foot 6. MR. MC DEVITT-Thirty foot six. Okay. Thanks. MR. FREER-Okay. Any other questions from the Board? Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled for this application. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to make a comment on this application? Seeing no one, Roy, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes, there is. "I would like you to know that I am very pleased with the planned proposed renovation and addition to my neighbors David & Sally Kelly, home at 17 Cliff Hollow. Hoping you will approve, I remain Very Truly Yours, John A Behrens 42 Dark Bay Lane" "We are the next door neighbors of Dr. David & Sally Kelly. After review and discussion about the plans they have for their residence we have no issue with what they propose to do to improve the house and land. Any variance they are requesting is completely acceptable to us. Sincerely, David and Gladys Prol" I don't see an address. That is 42 Dark Bay Lane. And "We have seen the plans that David and Sally Kelly are bringing forward for an addition and renovations to their existing structure. We fully support the project and hope the Board will grant a variance. Thank you for your consideration in 26 ( u.ueenshu.ua y ZBA t,lleelJn 11 f 14 f 2(:18] this matter. Sincerely, Michael and Jennifer Chase 40 Dark Bay Lane" And, "We are writing in response to the upcoming Zoning and Planning Board Meeting scheduled Nov. 14" and 27t". We would like to express our full support of plans for proposed addition and renovations to 17 Cliff Hollow. We feel this will enhance our neighborhood and are pleased with the Kelly's endeavor to do so. Sincerely, Michael and Laura Nigro" And that's 37 Dark Bay Lane. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks, Roy, and we're back to you for initial thoughts. MR. URRICO-1 don't have any. I'm in favor of the project. MR. FREER-You're in favor of the project. Okay. Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-Mr. Chairman, I'm in favor of the project. I think it looks great and fully support it. MR. FREER Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-The new proposed construction is only that little tiny wedgy piece of 14 feet long that's actually below the height of what's currently. So I don't really see that that would be. MR. DYBAS-Well the master bedroom addition, the peak that you see is really the master bedroom addition, and then the screened porch is the shaded part. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think there's extenuating circumstances by removing that deck up on that third level. That kind of minimizes the effect of having a third story that's accessible to, lessens the impact of it. MR. DYBAS-It's been there 35 years. MR. KUHL-I forgot to ask you a question. How much asphalt are you going to be cutting away? MR. DOBIE-Mr. Kuhl, Lucas Dobie with Hutchins for the record. Removing, I'm showing just over 400 square feet, which is something which is not necessary to have it on the side of the building anymore so we propose to do a little green space. MR. KUHL-Where are you increasing the parking spaces from three to four then? MR. DOBIE-That was a typo, a previous iteration design we had looked at. So that's not part of this proposal anymore. MR. KUHL-Thank you very much. I'd be in favor of the project, Mr. Chairman. MR. FREER John? MR. HENKEL-I think it's a nice looking piece of property. It's nice that they're trying to keep the front of the lake still like a campy look and the permeability is actually going up and they're above the 75% anyway and I think it's a great project. I'd be all for it. MR. FREER-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I'm impressed that the applicant got the full support of his neighbors and so I, too, will support the project. MR. FREER-Okay. I, too, support the project, and with that I'm going to close the public hearing and request a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application Curtis D. Dybas for Sara N. Kelly. Applicant proposes construction of a 711 sq. ft. single-story residential addition to the main floor for a new bedroom. Adjacent to the new bedroom a 211 sq. ft. enclosed porch is proposed. Alterations to home include kitchen area expansion (conversion of existing main bedroom to a great room off kitchen area), second floor bedroom, ceiling to be raised and removal of two porch areas. Structure will remain as a 4-bedroom home. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements and height restrictions for the WR zoning district. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for expansion of a nonconforming use. 27 ( u.ueenshu.ua y ZBA t,lleelJn 11 f 14 f 2(:18] Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the Waterfront Residential zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements The applicant proposes alterations to an existing home that includes a 211 sq. ft. enclosed porch that is to be 64.8 ft. from the shoreline where a 75 ft. setback is required. (Parcel is located in the APA Land Use district Rural Use —where a 75 ft. shoreline setback is required.) In addition, the roof area in the living room area is to be raised where it is to be 30 ft. 6 in where a 28 ft. maximum is allowed. The existing structure is currently 30ft 6 in. SEAR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on November 14, 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 we believe the project will enhance the view of the property and make it more acceptable. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not deemed relevant or possible at this particular time. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because the applicant has stayed within the existing clearances and existing footprint of the old property. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. In fact we feel that there'll be an improvement because of the increase in permeability. 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 (approvall the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z- AV-73-2018 CURTIS D. DYBAS FOR SARA N. KELLY, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: Duly adopted this 14" day of November 2018 by the following vote: MR. DOBIE-Mr. Chairman, could I make just one quick comment before you vote. As a matter of the record, this will be reviewed by the Adirondack Park Agency and I believe the Staff Notes said that this was the rural land use in the opening, what Mr. Urrico read. I believe this is the low intensity zone. I just wonder if we could check the zoning map. I just don't want any technicalities to come before the Park Agency when they review this. MRS. MOORE-Sure. MR. DOBIE-The lake setback is the same for the rural use and the low intensity, which is 75, so it so it doesn't matter, but just to clarify the record. MR. HENKEL-Plus they're farther back than their neighbors, too, aren't they on either side? 28 ( u.ueenshu.ua y ZBA V°'1eelJn 11 f 14 f 2(:18] MR. DOBIE-Further back than the easterly neighbor for sure. MRS. MOORE-Do you think that APA zoning. MR. DOBIE-There's a layer on the Warren County GIS. MRS. MOORE-Thanks. MR. DOBIE-1 don't think there's any lake frontage on Lake George that is rural use. MRS. MOORE-1 looked it up. MR. UNDERWOOD-It used to be one and three acre. MR. URRICO-As a parenthetic statement, too, it's not even part of the official request. MRS. MOORE-To me it's rural use. Is that not it? Or is it? You think it was low intensity? MR. DOBIE-1 thought it was. Along Dark Bay, if you could zoom in just a touch further, Laura. MRS. MOORE-That whole strip is. MR. DOBIE-Okay. Fair enough. I stand corrected. So thank you for checking. MRS. MOORE-That's all right. AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. DYBAS-Thank you. MR. FREER-Okay. I have a couple of administrative notes. You guys can all go. Thanks for coming. MRS. MOORE-Before they go, if there was a student that needed their sheet signed, you can come to me. MR. FREER-So November 28" shows up on our original calendar as a meeting date, but we're not having a meeting. Is that correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. FREER-Okay. We're done for November. The 18" of December. MR. URRICO-The next meeting is December 19tn MR. MC CABE-Whatever Wednesday is, either the 18" or the 19tn MRS. MOORE-December 19tn MR. FREER-And did everybody get, or was I the only one who got the 2019? MR. KUHL-We all got it. MR. MC DEVITT-We got it. The reason I ask, I'm out of town. I fly back on the 18t". I'm not sure what time I'm back. I may be here, but if other Board members are traveling or whatever that we have not enough people. That's the only reason I ask. MR. URRICO-It's December 19" for this year. MR. MC DEVITT-The 19tn MR. KUHL-The 19tn MR. FREER-In 2019, November 27t" that was on your schedule is the day before Thanksgiving. So we will in all likelihood not have a meeting on that day, either. 29 ( u.ueenshu.ua y ZBA t,lleelJn 11 f 14 f 2(:18] MR. MC DEVITT-This is in '19. MR. FREER-November 27" next year. Okay, and then finally I queried about the Appeal for the Freihofer I guess we're calling it, and Laura assures me that before we get put on the spot that we will get some coaching from the legal counsel on what the issues are and what their recommendations are. So I just wanted to confirm that and reassure everybody that we won't lose the bubble that we need help from Counsel when that thing comes back to us. MRS. MOORE-Okay. For your next meeting in December the opportunity exists for you to nominate your officers. MR. FREER-That was my next item. So finally we're getting towards the end of the year and if you guys want to fire any of us you're welcome to. So and that process, I think we collectively can or cannot make a recommendation to the Town Board to appoint the Chairman, and then we will elect a Vice Chairman and a Secretary. MR. KUHL-I think your predecessor said that us Board members did not elect him Chairman. He got elected from the Town Board. MR. FREER-Right. MR. KUHL-So you're in the Town Board's hands. MR. FREER-Yes, and I'm not sure whether the previous Board made a recommendation to the Town Board. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 just want to put on the record that John Salvador passed away, and I think that, you know, it's important that we recognize the many contributions he made to us. Even though he was a controversial figure, I think that over the decades that he appeared at Board meetings, I think that he provided us with a lot of information that gave us a better understanding of what our job was at certain times and places. MR. KUHL-When did he pass? MRS. MOORE-Just yesterday. MR. FREER-How old was John? MR. UNDERWOOD-He was in his eighties. MRS. MOORE-Nominations should occur in December. MR. KUHL-December? Okay. MR. FREER-Okay. We can be adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Harrison Freer, Chairman 30