Loading...
02-20-2019 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/2019) QUEENSBURYZONING BOARD OFAPPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY20, 2019 INDEX Notice of Appeal No. 1-2018 Charles C. Freihofer, III 1. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 239.18-1-27.1 & 27.2 Area Variance Z-AV-4-2019 DKC Holding, Inc. 2. Tax Map No. 309.9-1-58 Area Variance Z-AV-5-2019 Stewart's Shops Corp./Chris Potter 8. Tax Map No. 301.8-1-33 Sign Variance Z-SV-1-2019 Stewarts Shops Corp./Chris Potter 17. Tax Map No. 301.8-1-33 Area Variance Z-AV-6-2019 Rolf Ahlers 22. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-18 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH'S MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. I (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/2019) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 20, 2019 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT HARRISON FREER, CHAIRMAN MICHAEL MC CABE, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL JAMES UNDERWOOD MICHELLE HAYWARD BRENT MC DEVITT, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. FREER-Welcome, everyone. I'd like to call to order the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting of February 20t", 2019. For those who haven't been here in the past the process is actually quite simple. On the back table there is some information about the agenda and you're welcome to that. We'll call each applicant to the table. We'll read the application into the record, ask questions of the applicant, open a public hearing if there's a public hearing, poll the Board, make motions as applicable and then move on to the next application. We have a full Board this evening. So we're good with that. And we'll start with a couple of Administrative actions. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 16, 2019 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 16, 2019, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Duly adopted this 20t" day of February, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Freer MR. MC CABE-I'll make a motion that we Deny without Prejudice Area Variance Z-AV-28- 2017. MRS. MOORE-You don't need to. They actually sent you a letter that's included in your packet that says they withdraw. So there's no further action on that application. MR. MC CABE-Okay. And then could you explain the next one a little bit? Why are we tabling that? MRS. MOORE-So the attorneys as well as the attorney that's filing the Appeal has requested to extend it because they're still discussing how the Appeal will work. That's 2 about as far as I understand, and so that Appeal, and I apologize I don't have that letter in front of me or the e-mail that says that he'd like it to be tabled to March. MR. HENKEL-Are we going to be briefed, Laura, on this before? MRS. MOORE-Absolutely, and as I know when we get information in I remind Craig and Craig's well aware of it that you were looking for information from the Town Attorney and from Staff. So, yes, you will receive additional information. MR. MC CABE-All right. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: FURTHER TABLING NOTICE OF APPEAL NOA 1-2018 CHARLES C. FREIHOFER, III (AGENT: JOHN W. CAFFRY) FOR PROPERTY AT 3300 STATE ROUTE 9L RESOLUTION TO: Table Appeal No. 1-2018 , Charles C. Freihofer, III, Agent: John W. Caffry, Esq., regarding property owned by Dark Bay Properties, LLC & Lawrence A. Davis at 3300 State Route 9L, Tax Map No. 239.18-1-27.1 & 27.2; The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an Appeal application from Charles C. Freihofer, III; Agent: John W. Caffry, Esq. The Appellant is appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals relative to a June 26, 2018 form letter from the Zoning Administrator relative to the issuance of Site Plan Review approval 67-2017; Gregory Teresi. MOTION TO TABLE NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-2018 CHARLES C. FREIHOFER, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: Until the March meeting, with information to be submitted to the Town as soon as it's available. Duly adopted this 20t" day of February, 2019, by the following vote: MR. FREER-I think everyone's in consensus that we're going to need some help professionally before we get too deep into this. AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. So we're on to our first applicant, DKC Holding, Inc., Area Variance 4- 2019. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-4-2019 SEQRA TYPE II DKC HOLDING, INC. AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) DKC HOLDING, INC. ZONING NR LOCATION 50 CENTRAL AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO PLACE AN 840 SQ. FT. SINGLE-WIDE "MANUFACTURED" HOME ON A 4,500 SQ. FT. PARCEL THAT DOES NOT MEET THE NORTH-REAR PROPERTY LINE SETBACK REQUIREMENT AND THE EAST SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT WHERE THE ENTRYWAY STEPS WILL BE CONSTRUCTED. THE PROJECT INCLUDES RELOCATING THE EXISTING 144 SQ. FT. DRIVEWAY TO THE WEST OF THE CURRENT DRIVEWAY WHICH WILL LATER BE REMOVED. IN ADDITION, A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM WILL BE INSTALLED ON THE PARCEL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NR ZONING 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/2019) DISTRICT. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.11 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.9-1-58 SECTION 179-3-040 LARRY CLUTE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-4-2019, DKC Holding, Inc., Meeting Date: February 20, 2019 "Project Location: 50 Central Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to place an 840 sq. ft. single-wide "manufactured" home on a 4,500 sq. ft. parcel that does not meet the north-rear property line setback requirement and the east side setback requirement where the entryway steps will be constructed. The project includes relocating the existing 144 sq. ft. driveway to the west of the current driveway which will later be removed. In addition, a new septic system will be installed on the parcel. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the NR zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the NR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements The applicant proposes to place an 840 sq. ft. single wide home where the side setback is 7 ft. where a 10 ft. setback is required and to the rear the home would be 10 ft. 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. The project may be considered to have little 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 limited due to the lot size and location of the proposed septic. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minimal relevant to the code. 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 impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes placement of an 840 sq. ft. mobile home on an existing 4,500 sq. ft. parcel. The plans note the placement of the home. The driveway area on the plans indicate that it is to be relocated and the existing area is to be converted to lawn. The applicant has included photos of the mobile home to be placed on the parcel." MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks, Roy. Good evening. Please identify yourself and add anything else you'd like to the record. MR. CLUTE-I'm Larry Clute representing DKC. It's pretty straightforward. The lot is just a tad bit smaller than the average I guess in that neighborhood. Obviously other single wides are in there but this lot is just that much smaller and requiring the setback to place it on the site. MR. FREER-Okay. Any questions from the Board? MR. HENKEL-I've got a question. Was this a pre-existing lot? I mean has this been like this forever, this lot, or when was this created? MRS. MOORE-So the lot is existing. There's a footprint of the existing house on there that has been removed, and that was actually carried over to a lot that was adjacent to it. So it's a pre-existing lot. MR. HENKEL-Okay, because I was going to say, so how can you deny them if it's already considered a building lot or whatever? MRS. MOORE-The alternatives are is there a smaller mobile home out there. MR. HENKEL-Right. I realize he owns the property next door there, too, and we can't see you need to obviously add some more property to that. Right? MRS. MOORE-You can ask. I mean there's no reason you can't ask that question. MR. HENKEL-Because it is owned by the same. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. FREER-Okay. Michelle, you had a question? MRS. HAYWARD-That was my question. Would you consider a lot line adjustment to minimize the relief requested for this application? MR. CLUTE-We could do that. I only asked for the side yard setback, simply because I'm sitting here asking for the rear, and I have to ask for the rear no matter what I do with a corner lot. So could I get three foot from a corner lot? I don't honestly know. I haven't talked to Craig about that, as far as what's required in there, but I probably could get the three foot to offset the seven, but I'd still be asking for the ten rear, and to answer the question, I guess I could go smaller on this. This is a two bedroom single wide. The only way I could get smaller would be to go to a one bedroom, and I'd prefer not to do that. You just can't get use out of a one bedroom. So this is the smallest two bedroom I can get, 60 foot. MR. HENKEL-The density, now you're creating a problem with a small lot, more people. MR. FREER-Any other questions? MR. MC DEVITT-Mr. Clute, help me with one thing. The relocating of the existing driveway, and what's the plan? How's that going to look in terms of what you're going to do? MR. CLUTE-I'm still going to pave the driveway. I'm going to remove the existing paved driveway and move it off to the left, and the reason I would prefer not to lose the paved driveway that's in place, but the orientation of that particular single wide, that front door 5 is on that lot, so I didn't want to have them come around. So I simply re-located the driveway. MR. MC DEVITT-Okay, understood. Thank you, sir. MR. CLUTE-Another reason for that trying to come over to the right side, with a 50 foot lot, they're just difficult. Fifty foot lots are difficult no matter how you approach them, and that being said, I want to maximize just the usage. If you're going to go out and play in your yard, the one side is just really just egress purposes to accommodate that door. That's really all it's about is egress. The left side is more about usability, get as much function out of a 50 foot lot as you can. MRS. HAYWARD-I do notice that the porch you have planned is very small. It's nothing more than a landing. MR. CLUTE-Egress only, yes. MR. FREER-And you say you're going to upgrade the septic? MR. CLUTE-Brand new. MR. FREER-Is it done? Can you give me a quick explanation of how that's going to work? MR. CLUTE-It's right on the, to the left there if you see the single wide, you see the two lines. It's two 60 foot proposed leach lines, and that's dead center of that property, the lawn on the left. MR. FREER-Okay, any other questions? Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to make a comment about this? I see no one. Roy, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There's no written comment or heard. MR. FREER-So I'm going to poll the Board. And I'm going to start with Roy, if I may. MR. URRICO-Yes, I think Mr. Clute usually comes to us with some difficult applications. Usually they're on lots that are smaller than what we usually deal with and I think in this case he's done a good job of assessing the situation and coming up with some solutions that I think would fit the property and the neighborhood. So I would be in favor of the application. MR. FREER-Thank you. Mike? MR. MC CABE-Yes, I don't have a problem with the application. I think what we get is a new septic system and I think what we're giving is really two small setbacks. So I certainly would support the project as is. MR. FREER-Okay. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, since he's not creating a new lot, it's an existing lot, I guess there's not much you can do there. The setbacks aren't too bad there. So I'd be in favor of it as is. MR. FREER-Okay. I'm going to go out of turn. So do we expect on your lot next door there's going to be two more mobile homes? MR. CLUTE-The corner lot? MR. FREER-The one on the right. MR. CLUTE-That's a corner lot. That would stay one. You end up with the two front yard setbacks. So it kind of compresses that lot. MR. FREER-So I guess my thoughts are that I'm okay with the back variance, which is the one you need, but I would think that you could avoid giving the side variances by just doing a lot line change. That would be my recommendation. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in agreement with Chairman Freer. If it's not too much trouble I think that would solve a lot of trouble down the road as well. MR. FREER-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes when we look at the relief that's necessary here, there's seven feet when there's supposed to be ten. So that's only three feet of relief and mostly what the Code expects on that, and the fifteen foot setback you're only at ten feet. So you're two thirds of the way there, too, again on that one. So I think given the fact that that's a pre- existing, nonconforming lot, it's sort of like it is what it is. This is an improvement over what was pre-existing. So I think we should approve it. MR. FREER-Okay. Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-As Jim indicated, due to the fact that it's a pre-existing, nonconforming lot, the relief indicates three feet and due to the fact that a new septic system is installed, that's very, very important to me. When I look at projects on this Board, I get really concerned about septic. I get concerned about water. I get concerned about where things are going to end up long term in this Town. So when I see that I think this is well thought out. I'm in favor of the project. MR. FREER-Okay. So it looks like there's enough yes's to carry the project as submitted. Can I get a motion for approval of DKC Holdings, Area Variance 4-2019? The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from DKC Holding, Inc. Applicant proposes to place an 840 sq. ft. single-wide "manufactured" home on a 4,500 sq. ft. parcel that does not meet the north-rear property line setback requirement and the east side setback requirement where the entryway steps will be constructed. The project includes relocating the existing 144 sq. ft. driveway to the west of the current driveway which will later be removed. In addition, a new septic system will be installed on the parcel. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the NR zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the NR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements The applicant proposes to place an 840 sq. ft. single wide home where the side setback is 7 ft. where a 10 ft. setback is required and to the rear the home would be 10 ft. where a 15 ft. setback is required. Relief is going to be 3 feet and 5 feet on the two sides of the home. SEQR Type II - no further review required; (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/2019) A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, February 20, 2019; 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 understand that this was a previous nonconforming lot. This should bean improvement over what was previously existing on site. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board but due to the fact manufactured homes ae built to certain specifications and size, this is the minimum relief that would be necessary to site one on the property. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because it mostly meets the requirements of the Code. Three feet and five feet of relief from the fifteen foot and ten foot requirement. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. We do not note any. 5. The alleged difficulty is not self-created. It's really created by the small size of the lot. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; Even though it's going to be kind of shoe-horned in there, it's not out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. 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-4-2019 DKC HOLDING, INC., Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 20t" day of February 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Underwood NOES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Freer MR. FREER-Good luck. Thanks. MR. CLUTE-Thank you. MR. FREER-Okay. On to Stewart's, Area Variance 5-2019. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/2019) AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-5-2019 SEQRA TYPE II STEWART'S SHOPS CORP./CHRIS POTTER OWNER(S) STEWART'S SHOPS CORP. ZONING NC LOCATION 347 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING 4,935 SQ. FT. BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 3,855 SQ. FT. CONVENIENCE STORE (STEWART'S SHOP). PROJECT INCLUDES REMOVAL OF EXISTING FUEL CANOPY AND INSTALLATION OF A NEW 6,160 SQ. FT. FUEL CANOPY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NC ZONING DISTRICT. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED FOR NEW BUILDING AND FOR THE ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS. CROSS REF SP 7-2019; SV 1- 2019; AV 92-1993; SP 22-93, SP 17-93, SP 20-94, SP 24-99, SP 5-2006, SP 72-2010; SEVERAL PERMITS & SIGNS WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.04 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.8-1-33 SECTION 179-3-040 CHRIS POTTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-5-2019, Stewart's Shops Corp./Chris Potter., Meeting Date: February 20, 2019 "Project Location: 347 Aviation Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of the existing 4,935 sq. ft. building and construction of a new 3,855 sq. ft. convenience store (Stewart's Shop). Project includes removal of existing fuel canopy and installation of a new 2000 sq. ft. fuel canopy. Relief requested from minimum setback and permeability requirements for the NC zoning district. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for the new building and for the associated site improvements. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback and permeability requirements for the NC zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements The applicant proposes a new commercial building to be used as a convenience store at 3,855 sq. ft. where the building is to be located 5 ft. from the side property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. The project also includes construction of a new 2000 sq. ft. fuel canopy. The canopy is to be located 48 ft. from the front property line where a 50 ft. setback is required. The new project also requires a permeability variance where 27% is proposed and 30% is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited for setbacks for the building and fuel canopy due to the size of the parcel. The permeability may be reviewed to be compliant as the site is to have 30 parking spaces and only requires 25 spaces. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/2019) 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 will have minimal to no adverse effects or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to remove an existing commercial building that was used for a convenience store and other businesses to replace the building. The newer building is to be 3,855 sq. ft.with a fuel canopy of 2,000 sq. ft. The building is to be orientated perpendicular to the site with two separate entrances. The plans show the building and site work." MR. URRICO-And then the Queensbury Planning Board adopted a motion that based on its limited review has identified the following areas of concern: The truck movement in relation to the canopy specific to the variance request, and that motion was adopted unanimously on February 19t", 2019. MR. FREER-If you could identify yourself. MR. POTTER-Chris Potter from Stewart's. MR. FREER-Do you want to add anything to the record? MR. POTTER-Sure. As far as the variance goes for the green space requirements, we're required to have 25 spaces and we show 30. To go down to meet the green space requirements, that additional three percent, you would have to lose nine spaces to do so. So that would kick us down to 21 spaces, which would be below what we're required. We do feel that we need the 30 spaces that we're proposing, and as far as the building setback goes, building orientation with us keeping the store open during construction it really limits us on where the building can be placed, as well as just the overall width of the lot. So that's why I'd be requesting the five foot. If we were to decrease the size of the building to meet the setback, our building would be smaller than what we currently have. So it wouldn't be feasible for us to do a project to build a smaller building, and then as far as our signage. MR. FREER-Well we're going to get to signage in a separate one if that's okay. MR. POTTER-Sure. MR. FREER-Okay, any questions from the Board? MR. HENKEL-Yes. I think you could, you've got two storefronts there now, and you've got 25 spots. Now you're going to have one storefront and you're going to go up to about 30 spots. To get that permeability down, I mean I know you said you'd take nine spaces to get the permeability down, but if you, down to 25 spaces you still could get it closer to that permeability that needs to be where it's at. Even the store now, you don't see the cars stay there more than five, ten minutes. So you don't need 30 spots. Who stays there very long, other than the employees? It's not like where before you had a beauty salon there where those people are going to stay there longer. So you had less spots then than you're proposing now. MR. POTTER-Right. With the new building we have increased inside seating. We're expanding our food services as well as we're going to have, you know, a number of show, say 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/2019) six picnic tables outside. So we are expecting, with the expanded products, some people that would stay longer than they may stay now, but maybe reducing down a few to pick up a couple of percent. MR. HENKEL-It's more important to have that green space. Then we're just getting ridiculous with the amount of blacktop that we have. It's just polluting our area. It's a beautiful area we live in and we just keep on putting more and more blacktop. MR. POTTER-Does the Town allow for banked parking? Like if we were to. MRS. MOORE-It does allow for banked parking, but it still counts towards your permeability. So you could potentially bank them, yes, but you'd still be asking for permeability relief. MR. POTTER-Right. I'm just thinking if we went ahead and just asked for the full, that, you know, request relief but only constructed, you know, the 25 that was required, and then in the event we were at a point to where we needed them we would go in and construct them at that point, but, you know, right up front we would not construct them. MRS. MOORE-Okay. That's something the Board can consider. MR. FREER-Yes, so I guess my input is there's other ways to reduce the permeability. There's new technologies in terms of if we force the people over. MR. HENKEL-Permeable pavement. MR. FREER-Yes, so there's permeable paving. There's other things that you could look at to meet that requirement without just coming in and saying, hey, we want 30 blacktop spots. When Martha's came in with additional seating we didn't give them that permeability because they ended up coming back and saying they could put some permeable pavers to get credit. MR. POTTER-Permeable pavers are not an option for us because we're considered a hot spot by DEC. MR. FREER-Because of the gas station. Okay. MR. POTTER-Unfortunately. MR. FREER-Okay. Anymore questions from the Board? MR. UNDERWOOD-How does your permeability compare to what you have on site now? I mean it's got to be pretty similar. MR. POTTER-We're 36 now. MR. UNDERWOOD-So you're improving it. MR. HENKEL-No, they're decreasing it down to 27. MR. POTTER-Right. MR. FREER-Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to make remarks about this application? Please identify yourself for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/2019) RICHARD JONES MR. JONES-My name is Richard Jones, and I rent the office next door at 339 Aviation Road. Basically I've done a review of the documents that were submitted by Stewart's for the proposed re-development, and we have some major concerns and comments. We feel that Stewart's is overdeveloping the existing site, and that overdevelopment will have an undesirable change of character in the neighborhood. It will be a detriment to the nearby properties. The new building as they've proposed it is actually being constructed in a 25 foot wide access and parking easement along the west property line which I don't think they should be doing. Currently nothing exists other than parking and access drive in that area. The septic system that's proposed by the applicant is severely undersized. As he stated, they actually have foot processing in there, and when you go into the design standards for small commercial projects, which this is one, and it has food service, you not only have septic load for the toilets at 400 each, you have 25 gallons per seat. Interior they have 20 seats exterior I think they have 12. If they're four seating tables they have 24. Based on that, the septic system that they're proposing is undersized by 100%. MR. FREER-Okay. Just a point of order. I'll let you finish that, but as you may or may not know that's not the Zoning Board's authority. MR. JONES-No, but it impacts the site development and green space and everything else. That's where I'm going with this. Basically they also have nothing. They have two laterals as replacement. They're required to have 50% replacement for the field. So by the time they get done they would need 18 new laterals for that system, and currently they have I believe six or eight showing. With such an intense development of the site they have very limited snow storage areas. They currently are showing some along the north property line towards the Health Center at the rear of the property, and they're showing a couple on the east side of the property as well. One is actually located in a landscaped area. There's all kinds of shrubbery there, and the other is adjacent to their proposed septic system area. It also appears from plans that they're taking down the mature hemlock buffer that was created back when they, I want to say maybe 2005 when they had the Site Plan Review and these trees are probably 20 to 25 foot tall now and it looks like they're taking those hemlocks down along the north property line which is currently a buffer to the Health Center on the property on Manor Drive. The benefit sought by the applicant could be achieved by downsizing the proposed building and the canopy with the gas pumps. As I stated, they're definitely overdeveloping that site. With a smaller building, and I know they're looking to try and keep the building in operation while they're building the new one, but there's no conceivable way they could do that. If they downsize the building they could rotate the building so that it is perpendicular to Aviation Road. It would eliminate the need for that other variance for the sign. Plus it would allow them to have more green space and then they could develop the site appropriately for the size of the site. The site is a little over an acre and really what they're proposing is a site that they really need about an acre and a quarter to an acre and a half for that. The rotation, as I said, of the building would eliminate the variance for the other sign. It would only have one major fagade of that building. As far as the setback, the five foot that's proposed, that's a major requirement change from twenty feet. Seventy-five percent is a major difference, and with it being on the west property line, as I said there's an easement on that side, and with that five foot setback grades along that west property line are changing dramatically, and based on what I see on the plans it looks like there's about a two foot grade elevation above the parking lot for our driveway where my office is next door. The re-development as proposed would have adverse effects on the neighborhood. The intensity of the light levels that they're proposing under the canopy are almost three times the levels that are allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. The location of the underground fuel tanks, they're proposing that they re-locate them to the west drive side of the property, and adjacent that they have two drywells in the pavement area within 10 feet of the tank location. As a neighbor and Mountainview Commons who is the owner of the property, our concerns are if they have a spill, that spill is going to end up 2 in those drywells, and there's going to be contamination not only on their property but conceivably for the adjacent properties as well. Their erosion control plan that they had submitted, they had indicated there's a temporary construction drive on the east side. Where they're proposing to place that is in the middle of the detention basin for the existing stormwater system for the site. If they do that during construction there would be nothing to prohibit drainage from flowing off that site. Right now there's a collection basin for I think it's inlets, drain inlets, and they go to that low spot on the site. MR. FREER-Okay. I'm going to say time out here again for a couple of things. The first is snow removal did come up yesterday at the Planning Board which I sat in on. Not our purview, as well as grade, construction, lighting, all that comes next if and when they get the variance they requested and that's a planning review that's required of all commercial properties. So while I'm happy to let you tell the whole story, I just want everyone to be clear that our role is limited to the variances. MR. JONES-Right. MR. FREER-And secondly, as I mentioned to the applicant, the Sign Variance will be handled as a separate application. So you've said a lot and I appreciate your input. I just need to keep us on track in terms of staying in our lane and the fact that you mentioned the sign which we're going to get to next, but it's not part of this application. MR. JONES-I understand that. What I'm trying to demonstrate is the adverse impacts on the neighborhood. MR. FREER-And in that regard, if you have any last statements, because I've interrupted you a couple of times. MR. JONES-No, that's fine. The last thing I would say is the alleged difficulty is definitely self-created because they're overdeveloping the site. If they did not overdevelop the site, they wouldn't need all of the variances, setback and everything else. They really need to look at the site circulation. Right now with site circulation they've got issues with delivery trucks in the back of the building. I don't know how they're going to get that in and out. With that, we are adamantly opposed to the granting of any variances for the setback to the building. The canopy two foot differential we don't care. We think the canopy is oversized for the site. As far as the building itself, we would look forward to the new building on that site, but we want to see something that's sized appropriately for that site. MR. FREER-Thank you very much. MR. JONES-Thank you. MR. FREER-Anybody else want to comment on this application? Roy, any written comments? MR. URRICO-Yes, there is one letter. It may be related to this one, but I'm going to read it in anyway. "I noticed on the Town website that Stewart's is proposing the redevelopment of their Aviation Road site. I have several comments and questions: Were notices sent to adjoining land owners regarding their proposal and the Town meeting dates as Mountainview Commons, the neighbor to the west, has not yet received anything. Mountainview Commons is adamantly opposed to their proposed setback variance from the required 20' to 5' which is deemed to be excessive. Their intended overdevelopment of the site has resulted in their request for the side yard setback variance as well as their request for a variance from the permeability requirements. Their plans propose the removal of the large hemlock trees that form a buffer between the Stewart's site and the Health Center building to the north and no landscaping has been proposed to replace that buffer or to separate their parking from the Health Center site. With the reduction requested in the permeable area, the 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/2019) changes proposed to the grades along the property line and the new building being located within T of the west property line we have concerns regarding stormwater control for their site and the potential for runoff entering the adjoining site to the west. In close please convey my concerns to the Planning Board as Mountainview Commons is adamantly opposed to the planned redevelopment of the Stewart's site as proposed and to the referral by the Planning Board to the Zoning Board as there appears to be potential adverse impacts associated with the site redevelopment. Thank you, Barbara H. Jones, Mountainview Commons, LLC 33 Honey Hollow Road, Queensbury, NY 12804." That's it. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Would you like to rebut any of the, or make any comments on any of the issues that you've heard? MR. POTTER-Sure. I guess in regards to overdeveloping, we are actually decreasing the building size quite a bit. The current building on the site is 4,935 square feet, and we're going down to 3,855. So there is a substantial decrease in building size over what's there today. There are two rental units as well as a Stewart's store. So I would tend to disagree with overdevelopment. I don't know if you want me to get into more of the Planning Board side of things. MR. FREER-Okay. I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Mike. MR. MC CABE-Yes, I think what Stewart's is asking for is pretty common. They're under attack from a number of other like companies and so what they're proposing here is what other places are trying to do, try to increase their capabilities of offering products to the customers. I think what they're asking us for here is not very much. We've done a lot of five feet where twenty feet is required. So although you could make the argument that it's a big request, in terms of what we're used to, it's not a very big request. In terms of the size of the fuel canopy, I have no idea of what is really required there. I just know that most of the other projects that we've had, they've tried to add pumps so that can handle their traffic better so again I don't have a problem with that. So I guess I would favor the project. MR. FREER-Thanks, Mike. John? MR. HENKEL-I agree a lot with what Mike says, but the only problem that I have is definitely the neighbors have concerns and I think we need to address that and like I have said with the permeability, I really think they could do better with that. There's no doubt on that west side that just seems to be way too close to that west side. So I would not be in favor of the project quite as it is. MR. FREER-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in agreement with Mr. Henkel. My concern is the west side request. Seventy-five percent variance to the Code to me is substantial and I think I would be in favor of a project that was smaller in scope and more in line with the Code. MR. FREER-Thanks, Michelle. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think we're used to working with the applicants and, you know, and generally going along with the applicant's request, but at the same time that nearest neighbor who's affected has brought up some serious questions about the setback lines on the west side there. It's supposed to be 20 feet and they're only going to be 5 feet from the property line. I don't know, in a practical sense, how much more you could move the building away from the property line, you know, increasing it one or two feet if that's going to make any difference at all whatsoever. I think that there are constraints on this lot due to its small size, but at the same time, if we look at what currently exists versus what's been 4 proposed here, the canopy certainly doesn't really seem to strike me as being anything really substantial because you're going to be at 48 feet where 50 feet's required and I think that satisfies the intent of what the requirement is. MR. FREER-You're at 41 with the current canopy, right? MR. POTTER-Correct, yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-So you're going to be moved back, and I think if you look at the ergonomics of what currently exists there with the cars backing up from the building towards the pumps, it's very tight. It doesn't make sense. Moving the building back where you propose it does make a lot more sense. At the same time, I think that, you know, we could run this by the Planning Board. They may have some practical solution to appeasing the next door neighbors, shrinking it down just slightly or making the building just slightly smaller, but in general I'd be in favor of it at this time because I think that, you know, you're trying to make things better than what currently exists in there. The building is going to be smaller than what currently exists. So I think you're trying to make things better overall. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-Overall I'm in favor of the project. My issue, like Michelle, is the west side, okay, and Stewart's is a good corporation. The matters or the issues that the gentleman, the neighbor brought up I will say, and I heard you loud and clear and you recognized that many of those are Planning Board issues, okay, so our role as a Board and I know my role this evening is to look at a very, very defined slope of what you're looking for. I believe this project can come to fruition, but I cannot support it exactly as is. I need to feel a little more comfortable relative to that west side and that request that you're asking for. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, my only issue is the same issue as everybody's, the west side. I think there can be a reduction in the size of the building to bring the need for that amount of a setback back a little bit or more than a little bit. That just seems very close to the property line. I would also like to see something more done with the green space there, whether it's a reduction in the spaces or something that brings that together better for the neighborhood. I think we're dealing with a location that is, that needs the business to get along with the neighbors, and especially that would be a big step in doing that. MR. FREER-Okay. Is that it? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. FREER-So my concern is the permeability. I decided to listen to the Planning Board last night, and their biggest issue is how the tanker truck can get around and you spoke well about the delivery trucks, but correct me if I'm wrong. It's my understanding that part of the reason that you're here for this variance is you have to keep, it's your intent and desire to keep the current store functioning while you build this. Is that why you're here, one of the reasons we're here? MR. POTTER-Correct. MR. FREER-So if there was a blank space there you wouldn't need, you could build differently on the lot? MR. POTTER-That would be correct. Yes, that is a constraint. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/2019) MR. FREER-Okay. So I can support the variance in terms of the five foot, but I would like to see a better permeability situation, whether that's reducing the number of parking spots, finding some other solution, but I think we want to, the group is pretty adamant is trying to minimize that. Any other comments? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think that the question we would ask the Planning Board is when we talk about permeability, we talk about green space, and I think that part of the issue comes down to how much you can handle runoff on site, too. I think with the well-drained soils over on the west side there that's usually not a concern with the Planning Board at this point. So I think for us our comments to the Planning Board should address, you know, would they like to see more green space or is this a practical amount of green space that's been proposed? That's really the issue with the permeability I think comes down to what you can create to have some green there versus no green there at all. MR. FREER-Yes, there was some discussion about a fence, because there's really no room to put shrubs back, you know, on that west side. MR. UNDERWOOD-On the west side. MR. POTTER-It's pretty dense. There's some shrubs there currently. MR. UNDERWOOD-You've got that arborvitae hedge. MR. POTTER-Yes, there's that and some burning bushes, a mix of some stuff there currently. I don't believe it's on our property, but. MR. FREER-So you've got our input. You don't have enough votes. So do you have a recommendation of what you'd like to do? MR. UNDERWOOD-Table it and just think about what might appease the Board. MR. FREER-You've heard from the Board. MR. POTTER-I guess as far as permeability, if we lost the five spaces. MR. FREER-Yes, I mean you've heard what we've said. We're not going to design it here, but you're not going to get this Board to pass what you've submitted. MR. UNDERWOOD-Where your laterals are running along on the east side there, is that something you could put more vegetation over that area versus this mess with the trees? MR. POTTER-We would like to keep that. MR. UNDERWOOD-That's your primary dispersal end for your septic. MR. POTTER-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. FREER-Do you want to table, withdraw or have us vote" MR. POTTER-No, I think we'll table it. MR. FREER-Okay. Request from the applicant to table. Can I get a motion? 16) (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/2019) The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Stewart's Shop Corp. / Chris Potter. Applicant proposes demolition of the existing 4,935 sq. ft. building and construction of a new 3,855 sq. ft. convenience store (Stewart's Shop). Project includes removal of existing fuel canopy and installation of a new 2000 sq. ft. fuel canopy. Relief requested from minimum setback and permeability requirements for the NC zoning district. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for the new building and for the associated site improvements. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback and permeability requirements for the NC zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements The applicant proposes a new commercial building to be used as a convenience store at 3,855 sq. ft. where the building is to be located 5 ft. from the side property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. The project also includes construction of a new 2000 sq. ft. fuel canopy. The canopy is to be located 48 ft. from the front property line where a 50 ft. setback is required. The new project also requires a permeability variance where 27% is proposed and 30% is required. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-5-2019 STEWART'S SHOPS CORP//CHRIS POTTER, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Tabled until the first April meeting with information to be submitted by the middle of March. Duly adopted this 20t" day of February, 2019, by the following vote: MR. MC CABE-Do we want to table the Sign also? MR. FREER-No, I think we can probably do the Sign. MR. URRICO-Is there a chance the location of the sign would change? MR. POTTER-I don't believe so. There's really not another spot for it. MR. HENKEL-That freestanding sign couldn't go in the middle of the island that's in the middle of the place? MR. POTTER-It could, but it wouldn't meet the setback to the front yard, and the Planning Board had requested some sidewalks. MRS. MOORE-It wouldn't necessarily be less of a relief request. I actually think it would be more. MR. HENKEL-You've got a canopy there. Why does there need to be a sign there? With a canopy that big, that close to the road, why does there need to be another sign? MR. POTTER-For gas. MRS. MOORE-Sorry, so you're in the middle of a motion. MR. FREER-So can I get a second for tabling the Area Variance? 7 MRS. HAYWARD-I'll second. MR. FREER-Thanks, Michelle. MRS. MOORE-Before you call the vote, just to clarify that you're tabling the application so that you're getting information about the setback issues on the west side and for permeability. Any other guidance? MR. UNDERWOOD-Can we ask the Planning Board's help? We can't at this point. MRS. MOORE-No. Because that's a Planning Board issue. I mean that's an item that last evening, you now have the Planning Board recommendation. When they looked at it, they felt the concern was in reference to the access to the site with the fuel tanker and the canopy. So that was their direction. So they did look at it in reference to what you've asked for, but they may look at it when it comes back to them. MR. FREER-There is a Site Plan Review obviously. They actually mentioned snow but Chris said that they're probably going to haul it off site. It's their MO to not cover up one of their signs. MRS. MOORE-So I have the west side and permeability. MR. FREER-Correct. AYES: Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. We'll try to handle the Sign Variance since it's on the agenda. SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-1-2019 SEQRA TYPE II STEWART'S SHOPS CORP./CHRIS POTTER OWNER(S) STEWART'S SHOPS CORP. ZONING NC LOCATION 347 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF 2 WALLS AND A FREESTANDING SIGN ON THE PROPOSED RE-DEVELOPED STEWART'S SITE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR ADDITIONAL WALL SIGN WHERE ONLY ONE IS ALLOWED AND FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE FREESTANDING SIGN. CROSS REF SP 7-2019; Z-AV-5-2019; AV 92-1993, SP 22-03, SP 17-93, SP 20-94, SP 24-99, SP 5-2006, SP 72-2010; SEVERAL PERMITS & SIGNS WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.04 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.8-1-33 SECTION 140 CHRIS POTTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance Z-SV-1-2019, Stewart's Shops Corp./Chris Potter, Meeting Date: February 20, 2019 "Project Location: 347 Aviation Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes installation of 2 wall signs and a freestanding sign on the proposed re-developed Stewart's site. Relief requested for additional wall sign where only one is allowed and from minimum setback requirements for the freestanding sign. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for an additional wall sign where only one is allowed and from minimum setback requirements for the freestanding sign. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/2019) Section 140-6 Signs for which permits are required The applicant proposes two wall signs both to be 30 sq. ft., with the wording to be Stewart's Shops. Also, to be installed is a 42.5 sq. ft. freestanding sign that is to have the same wording but will also have fuel price space for gas and diesel that is to be located 5 ft. from the side property line where a 15 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this sign variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated as signs along the corridor are required to be compliant. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to adjust the number of signs. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal to moderate to relevant to the code. The relief requested for the number of wall signs is 2 and only 1 is allowed; then the free standing sign location relief is for 10 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 have minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the district. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes signage with the new proposed construction of a convenience store. The orientation of the building is perpendicular with the road and the applicant has requested two signs one facing south and one facing east to coincide with the two entrance points of the building. The freestanding sign location is also noted on the plans where the drive entrances have been increased from 20 ft. to 30 ft. where the previous freestanding sign was located in the new proposed drive aisle area. The plans show the location of the wall signs and the freestanding sign." MR. URRICO-And then this is the same motion by the Planning Board has based on its limited review identified the following areas of concern: The truck movement in relation to the canopy specific to the variance request, and that was adopted February 19t", 2019. MRS. MOORE-I do have one correction. I said the wall signs are 30 square feet and they're proposed at 17. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. FREER-So the 30 is the Code for the one. MRS. MOORE-Correct, yes. MR. FREER-Okay. Chris, do you want to add anything? MR. POTTER-Again I guess just the location of the freestanding sign. It was already mentioned moving it. The Planning Board, one of their comments last night was looking for the addition of sidewalks here. So moving the freestanding sign there would keep the sidewalks as well as the relief would be more than the five, ten feet for the side setback, and then as far as the building signs, we're requesting two just because of the two entrances having a sign on each. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Any questions from the Board? MR. HENKEL-There again, once you're in Stewart's do you really need to have big signs that say, underneath the doors, there's Stewart's? MR. FREER-So the discussion was why can't you make them 15, but 17, you're allowed to have a 30 foot sign. So they're having 17's. MR. HENKEL-Four feet over basically. MR. FREER-Well, but it's two versus one that we have to give him permission for. Any other comments or questions? Okay. John, thoughts? MR. HENKEL-I mean like Mike has said, they're a great company. They're great to the community. You hate to say no, but I'd like to see you, like I said once you're in there do you really need a big sign that says Stewart's? I'd like to see them a little bit smaller. I'm going to say no. MR. FREER-Okay. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I have to agree, again, with Mr. Henkel. I'd like to minimize the amount of signage as much as possible. So if you could minimize it and make it more in line with the Code, just like I said about the building itself, I'd be more in favor. MR. FREER-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it's important for us to reflect upon, you know, what's being proposed here as opposed to what's been proposed on some of the competitor's businesses in the area, and I think that, you know, when you look at Stewart's design of their signage it's very subtle in comparison to buildings where the whole building is signed, and I'm thinking of the one down on Corinth Road there, that big place right across the street from them down there. I think that, you know, like when you look at the differences in signage I think that we should always be concerned when they're proposing an extra sign on the side of the building, but at the same time, I think because of that small nature, it's a well-known, it's sort of like an iconic sign in our area, you know, with so many of the stores being around us, I think that we can overlook the fact that it's still going to be just slightly over the 30 square feet that would be allowed. So I think I would be in favor of the wall sign, and as far as the freestanding sign goes, I think the setbacks on that are dictated by where the building is and the relationship to Aviation Road there. The amount of relief that's necessary is no more or less than what currently exists. It hasn't been a problem. It's not going to be in the sight lines where it blocks the views of the cars that are coming and going from the station. So I'd be in favor of that, too. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I would basically echo Jim's sentiments. I'd be in favor as is. MR. FREER-Okay. Roy? 20 MR. URRICO-Yes, I think we need to reduce the wall signs to one. I'm okay with the freestanding sign. It's not an unknown company. They're already established a presence in that area. I don't think having an extra sign there is needed. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Mike? MR. MC CABE-I'll support the project as is. MR. FREER-Okay. MR. HENKEL-Just to clarify what I was saying. I don't have problems with the two signs. I'd just like to see the two signs equal thirty feet. I understand the two signs, one over each door, and I have no problem with the freestanding sign. I just thought it would be better to be 30 square feet total. That's all I'm saying. MR. FREER-Okay. Again, I had the advantage of listening to the discussion last night at the Planning Board for my own edification, and I can support this application. The variances are minimal and the criteria that we're supposed to use applies in my mind. With that, I think we have to do SEAR. MRS. MOORE-Actually you have to open up a public hearing. MR. FREER-I'm sorry. I'll open up a public hearing. Is there anybody in the audience that wants to speak about this Sign Variance? Seeing no one, I guess the gentleman previous did mention his concern about the sign. Is there any other written guidance, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There's no written comment. MR. FREER-Okay. So I can close the public hearing and do the SEAR. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-So this is the first SEQR that we've done in 2019. The SEQR laws have changed, but I don't think any of the changes, I think I understand them and none of them are affected by this SEAR. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-1-2019 STEWART'S SHOPS CORP./CHRIS POTTER, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: 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. Duly adopted this 20t" day of February 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you, and now could I get a motion for the Sign Variance? 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/2019) The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Stewart's Shops Corp. / Chris Potter for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes installation of 2 walls and a freestanding sign on the proposed re-developed Stewart's site. Relief requested for additional wall sign where only one is allowed and from minimum setback requirements for the freestanding sign. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for an additional wall sign where only one is allowed and from minimum setback requirements for the freestanding sign. Section 140-6 Signs for which permits are required The applicant proposes two wall signs both to be 17 sq. ft., with the wording to be Stewart's Shops. Also, to be installed is a 42.5 sq. ft. free standing sign that is to have the same wording but will also have fuel price space for gas and diesel that is to be located 5 ft. from the side property line where a 15 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type: Unlisted [Resolution / Action Required for SEAR] Motion regarding Sign Variance Z-SV-1-2019 Stewart's Shops Corp. / Chris Potter 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 20t" day of February 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, February 20, 2019; 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. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign variance? We do not see any undesirable change produced in the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties created by the granting of these variances. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? I guess we could go down to a single sign on the building but we decided that it's reasonable with the additional sign. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? It would be considered substantial because it's an extra sign but it's close enough to what the total square footage should be. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Yes, it is. The setbacks from the road variance, the five feet necessary there is basically set upon by the small size of the lot and the setbacks from Aviation Road. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/2019) 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-1-2019 STEWART'S SHOPS CORP./CHRIS POTTER, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: 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 201h day of February 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer NOES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico MR. FREER-Okay. We'll see you again soon. MR. POTTER-Thank you. MR. FREER-Okay. Next on the agenda is Area Variance 6-2019. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-6-2019 SEQRA TYPE II ROLF AHLERS AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) ROLF AHLERS ZONING WR LOCATION 105 KNOX ROAD APPLICANT COMPLETED HOUSING ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS AS PART OF 2002 AREA VARIANCE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WHERE THE BASEMENT AREA IMPROVEMENTS WERE NOT INCLUDED. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN A FLOOR AREA OF 33 PERCENT FOR THE BASEMENT AREA THAT WAS NOT PART OF THE 2002 AREA VARIANCE (AV 64-2002). THE 2002 AREA VARIANCE GRANTED SIDE AND SHORELINE SETBACK RELIEF. AN INSPECTION OF THE HOME BY TOWN STAFF AND REVIEW OF TOWN FILES INDICATES FLOOR AREA (FAR) FOR THE BASEMENT AREA WAS NOT INCLUDED DURING THE 2002 REVIEW. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/2019) REVIEW INDICATES PROJECT TO MAINTAIN FLOOR AREA WHICH REQUIRES RELIEF FROM THE FAR REQUIREMENTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) REQUIREMENTS TO MAINTAIN THE BASEMENT OF THE HOME AS LIVING SPACE. CROSS REF AV 73-2008; BP 2003-375; AV 64-2002; SP 58-96; SP 48-96; AV 81-1996; AV 60-1996 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2019 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.32 TAX MAP NO. 238.7-1-18 SECTION 179-3-040 JON LAPPER & DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-6-2019, Rolf Ahlers, Meeting Date: February 20, 2019 "Project Location: 105 Knox Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant completed housing alterations and additions as part of a 2002 Area Variance and Site Plan Review where the basement area improvements were not included. Applicant proposes to maintain a floor area of 33 percent for the basement area that was not part of the 2002 Area Variance (AV 64-2002). The 2002 Area Variance granted side and shoreline setback relief. An inspection of the home by Town Staff and review of Town files indicates Floor Area (FAR) for the basement area was not included during the 2002 review. Zoning Administrator review indicates project to maintain floor area which requires relief from FAR requirements. Relief requested from the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements to maintain the basement of the home as living space. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements to maintain the basement of the home as living space. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements The applicant has an existing 34% floor area where a 22% is required. The applicant requests to maintain the floor area that is part of the basement area of the home and was completed as part of AV 64-2002 but not part of the staff review at that time. The Zoning Administrator has required the applicant to seek relief for the floor area. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited as the renovated basement has existed since 2002. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested is substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested is 12% in excess. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/2019) 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant requests to maintain an existing floor area of 34% where 22% is the maximum allowed. Upon review of the files submitted during 2002 for planning, zoning and building the basement area floor plan was not part of the planning and zoning file. However, the building department had received floor plans for living space areas where the basement had included the pool and a mechanical room. Staff upon a more current review of the site found the site was not considered compliant as no relief was granted for the floor area. The plans submitted show the areas of living space highlighted for each floor." MR. FREER-Welcome. Could you identify yourselves for the record and add anything you'd like to the record. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. For the record Jon Lapper with Dennis MacElroy and Rolf and Luisa Ahlers are right behind us. This is an unusual factual history. So I just want to highlight a few things of how we got to this point, because it was certainly not intentional that they missed applying for a variance. They didn't know that they needed one. The Ahlers bought the property in '97, I'm sorry, excuse me, '77 and they were considerably younger at that point. It was a camp. In the mid 90's they lifted it up and put in the basement because it didn't have a basement, and then in 2002, as the Staff Notes indicated, they applied for variances to replace the upstairs, and received setback variances so they could do that. Nothing was on the plans for the basement at that time when they applied for it, but then a year later when they had submitted to the Town for the building permit, there was a built in pool in the basement that the basement plans included finished space in the basement. They received a building permit. It took then three years to do all of the work upstairs, and in 2006 they received a CO which included, Dave Hatin was in the basement inspecting because they made some changes. So nothing intentional. They didn't know that they needed relief. Obviously they did, but they got a building permit and a CO based upon finishing the basement space, and then I think what happened last year was that there was an Assessor came and looked at the house, the Town Assessor. Just the normal assessment. MR. UNDERWOOD-To do a walk-through of the whole building. MR. LAPPER-Yes, and they brought the Assessor in because they had no reason to believe that anything was in violation, and that's how we got here, but they've been on the property for over 40 years. They thought that they had received all the approvals that they needed and that's borne out by the plans in 2003 showing the basement and everything that's there now was there in 2006 when they got the CO. So it's unfortunate but this is not the case of people who were trying to avoid approvals. MR. FREER-So do Assessors routinely walk in houses? MRS. MOORE-I don't know what their process is. MR. LAPPER-So they knocked on the door and asked if they could come in and Mrs. Ahlers said yes. MR. HENKEL-Usually if you question the assessment MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. It was based on an inquiry that the owners had made about a shoreline issue. They came to the house. Rolf was out there. The Assessor's representative did go in the house and discovered the basement. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/2019) MR. FREER-So what about that shed on the lower left side that's so close to the property line? It's not on the property. Never mind. MR. HENKEL-So the whole thing about the second kitchen has been resolved. Right? MRS. MOORE-Correct. Yes, it's not considered a second dwelling unit there. No. MR. HENKEL-So you're saying that this initially was approved with that 1800 square feet above the FAR variance? Was that initially, that was all approved right, or is it greater now because of the? MRS. MOORE-So there was request for FAR relief, I believe, and I was at the County at the time. I don't know what the Planner thought here, but there wasn't information about the basement plans. So the assumption was that the FAR was addressing the whole site, and no discussion about what was occurring in the basement because most times in basements in the shoreline they're crawl spaces. So I don't think anybody even discussed what the basement was as a Planner. MR. HENKEL-So initially the 1880, whatever it was, 1800 square feet, that was addressed then saying, okay so you're saying that back in 2002 when they applied for the permit that was addressed, the 1800 above? MRS. MOORE-Well maybe I'm not saying it right, but there was a FAR issue at that time, and the applicant was tabled. They must have done some other refinement and the FAR issue went away at that point, without discussion about the basement. MR. HENKEL-It went away, so you're saying there was no variance for that. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. HENKEL-So now you're basically asking for a variance of 1800 square feet, 1844. That's a lot. MR. URRICO-But when he got the CO the basement was done. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. URRICO-So it was not noticed, nobody saw anything. Nobody asked for anything. MR. LAPPER-No, no, it was on the building permit application. MR. URRICO-It was on the building permit application. MRS. MOORE-Right, but those members of the Zoning Board or those members of the Planning Board at that time never questioned the basement, and I don't know the situation. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I recall, because I think Roy and I were on the Board at that time, there was some issue with the basement underneath the deck. That was part of an issue that we dealt with at the time. Maybe you recall. MR. MAC ELROY-Well I wasn't involved in 2002, 2003. You may be recalling something that was presented in 2007/8 that was ultimately tabled and withdrawn, and that involved that deck, building a solarium and that deck. That's what you might be recalling. MR. UNDERWOOD-That's the one that I was thinking of. 2(:) MR. FREER-You're a wealth of knowledge. Any other questions from the Board? 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, Roy, is there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes. "I am writing in support of Rolf Ahler Variance request. He and his wife have lived at 105 Knox Rd. for over 40 years. They have been my neighbors for over 30 years. They have been model neighbors. They have been fervently involved in maintaining the beauty and clarity of Lake George. Their proposed variance will not produce an undesirable change in character or a detriment to the neighborhood. I whole heartedly support their application for a variance. Respectfully, Stuart Rosenberg MD 73 Knox Rd. Assembly Pt. Lake George" "My wife and I are the Ahlers next door neighbors to the north and believe that the approval of the variance will not produce an undesirable change in character or detriment to the neighborhood. I am fortunate enough to have been enjoying Lake George since 1959 and during those 60 years have not known finer people than the Ahlers who care for the quality of the lake like they do. Thank you for your courtesy and consideration in this matter. Respectfully, Liz & Bob Schmidt 106 Knox Road" "I am the direct neighbor of Rolf and Luisa Ahler on Knox Rd. Assembly Point. I am writing in support of approving their requested variance to this property. The continued use of their basement will in NO WAY threaten the quality of Lake George. I have known Rolf and Luisa Ahlers since they acquired their home on Assembly Point. They live their life peacefully and in great respect of Lake George and their neighbors. Sincerely, Kelly M. Smith" And I don't see an address for this, but they're a direct neighbor according to their letter. There's another copy of the Rosenburg letter, and "The request for the Ahlers variance will in no way affect the neighborhood adversely. They are committed good neighbors who have taken seriously the responsibility in keeping their home area scrupulously in conformance with the standards of the neighborhood. My wish is that they be granted their variance. Roberta Kahan 61 Knox Rd. Lake George, NY 12845" And that's it. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks, and we'll poll the Board and start with Michelle. MRS. HAYWARD-I appreciate the input of you two gentlemen. I have to admit it changed my mind about the whole thing. I just appreciate the neighbors' support of the applicants and in looking at the criteria, I just don't see any benefit that would come of forcing the applicant to change their basement at this time. It's been existing for 16 years and they've been good stewards of the land. So I'm in support of the project. MR. FREER-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think because a Certificate of Occupancy was granted for the living space that included the cellar well over a decade ago, there's been no detriment noted, no environmental detriment that has been noted on the lake or anything like that at this time, I think it was probably an administrative error at the time that the Zoning Board and the Planning Board did not pick up and decide that no one was going to leave a space so undeveloped and I think it's an oversight on the part of ourselves and we can look the other way on this one. I don't think there's any detriments or negatives to approving the request. MR. FREER-Thanks. Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-As indicated by both Michelle and Jim I would agree. We have good folks here who have been quality neighbors, some neighbors for 40 years, and I think that's something to be proud of. This does not change the character of the neighborhood. A CO was granted. So I see no need to do anything other than grant this and thank you for coming in. 27 MR. FREER-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, since we're talking about 2002, there used to be a member of the Board who would refer to this as asking them to get a variance for or rectify the situation draconian he would describe it. That if we rolled this back in any way or made them do something they should have should have done in the 2000's, that would be draconian in my opinion. Plus we've had the opportunity to observe what actually took place and how they conducted themselves and how the property affected the neighborhood. It didn't. So I think we have the benefit of the rearview mirror in this case, and I would say we should support the variance. MR. FREER-Thanks. Mike? MR. MC CABE-I suppose after 17 years if there were any problems they would have surfaced by now. So I would support the request. MR. FREER-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I think if the CO was issued and it wasn't caught at that time, if it was caught at that time it would be a different story, but because the CO was issued, you know, they're good people and I'd be in support of this application. MR. FREER-I too can support this variance. It seems to be unusual but it makes sense, and that said, drive carefully home because of the weather, and with that I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. FREER-And seek a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Rolf Ahlers. Applicant completed housing alterations and additions as part of a 2002 Area Variance and Site Plan Review where the basement area improvements were not included. Applicant proposes to maintain a floor area of 33 percent for the basement area that was not part of the 2002 Area Variance (AV 64-2002). The 2002 Area Variance granted side and shoreline setback relief. An inspection of the home by Town Staff and review of Town files indicates Floor Area (FAR) for the basement area was not included during the 2002 review. Zoning Administrator review indicates project to maintain floor area which requires relief from FAR requirements. Relief requested from the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements to maintain the basement of the home as living space. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements to maintain the basement of the home as living space. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements The applicant has an existing 34% floor area where a 22% is required. The applicant requests to maintain the floor area that is part of the basement area of the home and was completed as part of AV 64-2002 but not part of the staff review at that time. The Zoning Administrator has required the applicant to seek relief for the floor area. SEQR Type II - no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, February 20, 2019; 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/2019) 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. This renovation was conducted in good faith and approved in 2002 and there has not been a problem in the years since. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered previously and they're really not applicable here today under the circumstances. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because this has been existing for several years. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Again, as this has been existing for many years without difficulty. 5. The alleged difficulty is not self-created because this was approved in 2002, and this is evidenced by the drawings that were presented as evidence for tonight's meeting. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-6-2019 ROLF AHLERS, Introduced by Michelle Hayward, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: Duly adopted this 20t" day of February 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Thanks. Okay. Thanks for coming. Drive safely. MR. MC CABE-I make a motion that we adjourn tonight's meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF FEBRUARY 20, 2019, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Duly adopted this 20t" day of February, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/2019) Mr. Freer On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Harrison Freer 30