Loading...
2011.01.26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2011) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 26, 2011 INDEX Area Variance No. 1-2011 Douglas & Muriel Cherry 1. Tax Map No. 289.14-1-7 Area Variance No. 2-2011 James Kalock 3. Tax Map No. 289.9-1-77 Area Variance No. 3-2011 Aftab (Sam) Bhatti 9. Tax Map No. 302.05-1-51, 52, 52.13 Area Variance No. 4-2011 Sean Quillinan 13. Tax Map No. 289.09-1-30 Area Variance No. 5-2011 Great Escape/First Aid Station 17. Tax Map No. 288.20-1-20 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. 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2011) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 26, 2011 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOYCE HUNT RONALD KUHL RICHARD GARRAND JAMES UNDERWOOD JOHN KOSKINAS, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Good evening, everyone. My name is Steve Jackoski, Chairperson for the Zoning Board of Appeals for the Town of Queensbury. Tonight is January 26, 2011. I’d like to call to order our meeting, and before we get started, I just want to go over some housekeeping and rules of our procedures and policies here. As we handle each application, I’ll call the application by name and number. Our Secretary, Roy Urrico, will read the pertinent parts of the application, the Staff Notes and Warren County Planning Board decision if it’s applicable to the record. Then we’ll ask the applicant to present any information that they may wish to do so. The Board will ask questions of the applicant, and then we’ll open the public hearing. The public hearing is intended to help us gather information and understand it about the issues at hand, and it functions to help the Board members to make a wise decision. It does not make the decision of the Board members. There will be a five minute limit on all speakers, subject to if it’s some major campaign, we may extend the courtesy to the public, if there’s something that they want to talk a little longer about, but in general we’ll limit it to five minutes, and then we will allow speakers to speak again, after everyone has had a chance to speak, but not for more than an additional three minutes and only if after listening to other speakers, and if the speaker believes that they may have new information to present to this Board. Following all the speakers, it’s been tradition to read any correspondence into the record, but I may request that, to help the speakers know what will be presented in that written comment, that maybe we could have the written responses prior to the speakers here in the audience. Board members will then discuss the variance request with the applicant. Following that, the Board members will have a chance to explain their own individual positions, a type of straw poll, if you will, regarding the application, and then the public hearing will be closed or left open depending on the situation, and finally, if appropriate, a motion will be made by one of my fellow Board members and voted upon. So, having taken care of some housekeeping, and the fact that we no minutes to approve this evening, we’ll start with Old Business, and we will begin with Douglas and Muriel Cherry. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-2011 SEQRA TYPE: II DOUGLAS & MURIEL CHERRY AGENT(S): VISION ENGINEERING, LLC – DAN RYAN OWNER(S): SAME ZONING: WR LOCATION: FITZGERALD ROAD – GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,052 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE. PENDING PB RECOMMENDATION. CROSS REF.: BOH 35, 2010, SP 5-2011 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.44 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.14-1-7 SECTION: §179-3-040 DAN RYAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-Yes. I think the Board should probably discuss this. I did speak to Dan prior. The Board of Health denied the conventional system and is requiring them to go on a holding tank at this point. MR. RYAN-Yes. At the Town Board meeting on Monday evening it was the Town Board of health’s preference to do a holding tank design, considering the constraints on the site. The client, our client, and the owner of the property is willing to accept that. It will, unfortunately, designate the property as seasonal, because holding tanks are only permissible for seasonal residences . So, accepting that as the criteria for this project, the owner is willing to move forward. What I would like to do is have you still consider the application, and I can certainly describe the minor changes that would occur as a result of a holding tank alternative that will 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2011) simplify the project a little bit, and if we could still move forward, we’d certainly appreciate that, but if it’s the Board’s decision to do otherwise, we’ll accept that as well. MR. JACKOSKI-So maybe what I’d like to do is just go down the table here and listen to what each Board member may have, and I can certainly start. It’s my opinion that we probably should table this and actually wait to get all of our ducks in a row. So, Roy, do you want to start? MR. URRICO-Yes. I think we should table this until we get a chance to review the project as it exists now. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I agree. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, table it. MR. JACKOSKI-Rich? MR. GARRAND-I think unduly segmenting our review wouldn’t be appropriate at this time. So I agree with tabling. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Ron? MR. KUHL-And we’re going to table it until what, we come out with a design for the holding tank, is that what we’re tabling it for, is that what the discussion here is? MR. RYAN-We would attempt to get at the next Town Board of Health meeting, assuming that that’s not full and their agenda’s not set for that, but we would try to get on the next meeting. So we would look for next month, next available meeting for the Zoning Board. MR. OBORNE-We’d have to get revised plans in. Next Town Board meeting, well, this is up to the Board. The next Town Board meeting, I believe, is the seventh, or do you know if you’re on that docket or you’re on that agenda? MR. RYAN-They simply requested that we revise the plans and re-submit them, and there was an indication that we wouldn’t be able to make that particular meeting. So that would certainly be our, our goal would be to be on that Town Board meeting for the seventh. thrd MR. OBORNE-Okay. So, I mean, I think what Dan is asking for is either the 16 or the 23, pending, of February, if the Board feels comfortable with that. If not, then push it out to March. MR. URRICO-That’s fine with me. MR. JACKOSKI-And, Dan, could you just identify yourself for the record? MR. RYAN-Yes, Dan Ryan with VISION Engineering, on behalf of Doug Cherry. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So I’m going to make a motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-2011 DOUGLAS & MURIEL CHERRY, Introduced by Steven Jackoski who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: th Fitzgerald Road – Glen Lake. Tabled to the February 16 meeting. th Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. RYAN-And what we would be doing is just providing one revised plan, which would be C-3. So we could submit that, when do you want it, next week? MR. OBORNE-Yes, as soon as possible, obviously, so we can get it in with the packets and out. Do you anticipate any changes to the plan as a result of this? In fact, it might be smaller there. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2011) MR. RYAN-It’s going to be a smaller disturbance area, and the holding tank will essentially be where the planned septic tank is. It won’t change the plan, ultimately. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. We’ll see you next month, then. AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-2011 SEQRA TYPE: II JAMES KALOCK AGENT(S): CURTIS D. DYBAS, RA OWNER(S): JAMES KALOCK ZONING: WR LOCATION: 336 GLEN LAKE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATIONS AND ADDITIONS TOTALING 1,602 SQ. FT. TO EXISTING 1,565 SQ. FT. THREE (3) BEDROOM SINGLE FAMILY HOME. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM PERMEABILITY, SIDE YARD AND SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. FURTHER, RELIEF REQUESTED FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE. PENDING PB RECOMMENDATION. CROSS REF.: SPR 69- 2010 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.36 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.9-1-77 SECTION: §179-3-040, § 179-13-010A CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 2-2011, James Kalock, Meeting Date: January 26, 2011, Project Location: 336 Glen Lake Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes renovations and additions totaling 1,602 sq. ft. to existing 1,565 sq. ft. three (3) bedroom single family home. Relief Required: Relief requested from permeability, side yard and shoreline setback requirements as per §179- 3. Further, relief requested for the expansion of a non-conforming structure as per §179-13. Relief is quantified as follows: ? Shoreline setback relief-Request for 20 feet or 40% relief from the 50 foot shoreline setback requirement for the WR zone as per §179-3. ? West side setback relief-Request for 16.8 feet or 84% relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement for the WR zone as per §179-3. ? Permeability relief-Request for 836 square feet or 35.6% permeability relief from the 30% maximum requirement for the WR zone as per §179-3. ? Relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure as per §179-13-010. 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 moderate impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated as the expansion would affect the neighbor to the west. 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 nature of the proposal and existing conditions. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 20 feet or 40% relief from the 50 foot shoreline setback requirement for the WR zone as per §179-3 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 16.8 feet or 84% relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement for the WR zone as per §179-3 may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. Additionally, the request for 836 square feet or 35.6% permeability relief from the 30% maximum requirement for the WR zone as per §179- 3 may be considered minor relative to the ordinance. Finally, relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure as per §179-13-010 must be approved by this board. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated as the proposal calls for a new wastewater system as well as E&S controls. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2011) Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2002-428 Single Family Dwelling Approved 1/14/05 Staff comments: The Planning Board has issued a recommendation concerning this proposal; please see handout. SEQR Status: Type II-no further review needed” MR. URRICO-Last night, the Planning Board met on this and they passed a motion making a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the Area Variance No. 2-2011 for James Kalock, it was Introduced by Steven Traver and seconded by Donald Krebs: “Whereas, the Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that the Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal through the Site Plan Review process.” And this was adopted unanimously. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Mr. Dybas, before you begin your presentation, I just want to have, in the interest of full disclosure, that I did participate in that Planning Board recommendation last Thursday. Welcome, and if you could, please introduce yourself. MR. DYBAS-Good evening. Curt Dybas, acting as agent for James Kalock. A little bit of history on this parcel. The original deed is dated 1904. I anticipate the original 24 by 24 two story structure that basically set up the setbacks was constructed probably around 1905, 1906, and primarily was probably a camp. The original owner owned this property for 45 years. It was sold in 1949 to an Evelyn George who owned it 37 years, and I believe it was Miss or Mrs. George that constructed the kitchen addition that is on the east side. It’s basically the kitchen, a small dining area, there’s a stairway to the basement. That particular wing has a full basement or I should say a six foot high basement under it, and there’s a bedroom above it. She also, I guess during ill health, constructed the, what I call the north addition, which is a 16 by 24 addition off the rear of the structure. It was a bedroom and a bathroom. There is no bathroom on the lower floor other than what is in that north wing, because of obviously gravity flow. There is a bathroom on the second floor. Mr. Kalock purchased the property from Mrs. George’s estate in November of 1986. He’s owned it obviously 25 years. He has not done anything to the exterior. He’s made some interior improvements, furnishings and that type of, you know, re-finishing, and minor stuff inside, but, you know, windows, he did some windows on the lakeside, and basically remains as is. He’s reaching the point that he’s looking at semi-retirement and wants to make this a more year round facility and came to me with a shopping list. He has, last Fall he put a new well in on the easterly part of the property and just off the parking lot. Part of this project, in trying to get it to the Board, was going through the septic reviews and stuff, and we have, I believe Keith can back me up. We have an approved septic system design which would be part of this project. We’re going to re-use the septic tank that was installed when the north addition was put on, but put a field in up closer to Glen Lake Road. He wishes to re-model the kitchen. It’s pretty much as it was from the 1950’s, and increase the size of the dining room, and part of that desire would be to construct a new basement stair, which what’s in there is basically hazardous, and that would be incorporated into an addition on the north side. He would like to eliminate, the entrance to this residence is on the side through the kitchen. If anyone visited the site, you park and you walk down five stairs and enter through the kitchen space. There’s also a very interesting drainage area that handles part of the north roof. In a sense this north floor has set down about three and a half feet from that driveway that you’re looking at there. Right in front of that car there’s a drainage, call it a trough, and no one knows where it goes to. I mean, it drains underneath the house, and I’ve looked, and I do not see any signs of discharge, and I’ve been there when it was raining. I don’t know where it goes to, and no one else, Mr. Kalock has no idea where it goes to. The roof on the original 24 by 24 structure doesn’t meet any Code. I mean, it’s framed in one by sixes, I think, and part of Mr. Kalock’s concern is he wants to make it more energy compliant and we’ll no longer have the advantage of snow melt. So part of the project would be re-build the roof of the main house completely, make it structurally up to Code and also energy code. Now the big thing is this north addition. Anyone who visited, the floor plates are below grade, and I did not do any exploring, but I can guarantee you, you know, they’re rotten. The roof is two by tens spanning 24 feet, and there’s a beautiful bowl right in the middle of it if you look up. It slants both ways. It’s one of those things built probably late 70’s or whatever, and we didn’t have the Code inspections and stuff that we had today, and things just happened. Basically, we looked at another requirement that he had was minimal disturbance to the lakefront. What you’re seeing right there, you’re just catching a glimpse of the view that he 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2011) has when you drive in. There’s 54 feet from the edge, from the left hand side of that building to the edge of the property line. You pull down the driveway and there’s this magnificent view across the lake. That is, it’s gorgeous, particularly in the sunset, and he said I don’t want to disturb it, but then he comes up with a program and he said, I want a two car garage, and originally he said detached, and I want a new entrance, and so we turned around and we said, okay, we’ll fix the roof of the main house. We’ll re-build the north addition, and we’ll incorporate a new entrance just in front of where that red car is parked for an entrance into the building, and we’ll have a detached garage. That was scheme one. I presented it to him. His immediate reaction was it blocks the view. You didn’t listen to me, he said, and besides, he said, in this climate, I don’t want to go outside when I go from the garage to the house. So I said, all right. I’ll go back to the drawing board and we made it an attached garage, moved it closer. Same thing. It obstructed the view, and he thought about it and he said, the view from the lake, all of a sudden it looks like I’m building a mansion. He said, I don’t want that, and he said rebuilding the north addition I don’t really need that space. The house right now is technically two bedrooms up, one you could call a bedroom but it doesn’t really comply to the dimensions. He said all I need is two bedrooms. He said that’s fine. He said, I can’t see spending the money to re-build the north addition. So I said, okay, what happens if we put the garage there, tear the addition down but re-use the west wall of the structure and we’ll make that garage in that garage and incorporate the new entrance approximately where that car is, and put a storage loft above the garage, accessible from the second floor, and it’s going to end up like a split. The existing building is down. This addition would be up. So I said, okay, so we went back and we sorted through the whole thing and basically we moved the north addition, built a garage, re-built the main roof. The advantage to this is there’s no disturbance to the shoreline. There are two retaining walls that run across the front of this driveway, and it’s terraced down, and it’s basically native plants. Both those drywells prevent any runoff going from the driveway down to the lake. There is a huge drywell in that driveway we’ll discuss later, and also minimal disturbance on the site. We get into a little bit of the parking area on the right hand side where the car is parked for an entrance into the garage, but basically the appearance from the road, once it’s done, I don’t think the volume is going to be appreciably different from what’s there. You will not see it from the lake. You will not see the addition from the lake at all. It will be all behind the house. One thing that, in the variance note was 1,000 613 square feet of addition. Yes, if you count everything, garage, loft porches, etc., it is 1613. The actual living area is about 318 square feet of actual added, but the way the Queensbury Ordinance reads, as far as determining FAR ratios, you have to include any covered porch and the lofts, and the loft it has an eight foot ridge and it drops off very quickly. There’s really no way that you’re ever going to develop any living space up in that upstairs because you’re down to five feet and it just doesn’t work. The setbacks, as I pointed out earlier, were basically established when the original camp was built. The 30 feet and 4.8 feet was established 100 years ago. There’s not much we can do about it. I mean, it’s there. I don’t know any way of softening that, and re-building the roof, we are going to change the orientation of the ridge. In the packet there is a profile sketches of the heights. We’re at I said conservatively 16 feet, 26 feet from the ridge on the lakeside, and Mr. Brown reviewed it all and he agreed with that. Permeable area, just a note that we are going to be handling most of the roof of the renovated and addition. Also, as I mentioned before, there’s a large drywell in that driveway right now, and by calculations, we are handling about 2500 square feet of non-permeable area right now, and if you go back, of course again, the way the non- permeable, permeable area calculations are made, there’s no exception, I believe, for having a drywell. So it’s hard surface, non-hard surface. So if you look at it, what we’re handling through the drywells already, we are around 20% non-permeable at this point, you know of actual, of site area, and fortunately, this is a very good sized parcel for Glen Lake. We have 110 feet of lakefront. It’s over 200 feet deep, and we have .36 acres, and I don’t think the, I think the addition and renovation is a modest request to the Board. There’s some question on the setbacks. I don’t know any way around that at this point, without major, major work, i.e. tear down, and I don’t think that’s part of the equation, as far as Mr. Kalock is concerned. He’s not looking for that. He’s looking for a place that he can enjoy, continue to enjoy as he did for 25 years. I open it for questions. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So before we open it up for public comment, do any of our Board members have any questions or discussion? MR. KUHL-You said that you put a new well in? MR. DYBAS-Yes. MR. KUHL-Where did the well go? Did it go up by the shed? MR. DYBAS-No, it’s down, I do believe. MR. KUHL-It’s over on the right by the retaining wall, is that where it is? 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2011) MR. DYBAS-Yes. I believe it is indicated on the sketch plan. This plan, that says existing well. MR. KUHL-Didn’t it have to, shouldn’t it have been 100 feet off the lake, the well, or, Keith? MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I think you’re talking your septic distance has got to be 110. MR. OBORNE-That’s the separation distance. MR. KUHL-Just the separation between the, okay, and the new septic field is going to go behind the tank that’s in there now? MR. DYBAS-No, the new septic field, I have the drawing, I can dig it out, it’s going up in this area by the road. MR. KUHL-You’re going to pump it up? MR. DYBAS-Well, believe it or not, we shot grades and this site is flat enough that I don’t think we’re going to have to pump it. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. DYBAS-If we have to pump, then we’ll have to, but right now the initial grade checks appear to be that we could do a gravity. MR. KUHL-And it’ll be more than 100 feet? MR. DYBAS-Yes. MR. GARRAND-And the septic will be sized for a three bedroom house? MR. DYBAS-Yes, it will. MR. KUHL-Are you going to maintain the gravel driveway? You’re not going to go to asphalt or stone, it’s going to stay gravel, the driveway? MR. DYBAS-To the best of my knowledge it’s staying gravel. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. KOSKINAS-Can I ask you, sir, about the drywell that exists on the, I guess now it’s going to be at the very west corner of your improvement, where the garage is going? MR. DYBAS-There are two drywells on the property. There is one in the driveway, and then there’s another one off the northwest corner of the existing north addition. Right now there is a roof gutter leader that picks up the water off that north addition, and obviously part of the existing house, and it discharges, you can see the leader go down and drop and it goes into that drywell. There was some indication, in one of the reports I noticed that the drywell could not be found. I’ve seen it. I haven’t dug into it, and we’re fully aware that once we get equipment on there, and part of the proposal to Keith was to investigate what these drywells truly are, and if they need to be upgraded to what the calculations are, they will be done. MR. KOSKINAS-Do you intend to run the roofs, the roof off the garage into this drywell on the northwest, well, I guess it’s just a straight west wall? MR. DYBAS-It will pick up the westward slope of the house and garage and run into that drywell. MR. KOSKINAS-And that’s just a few feet off the neighboring property, is that right? MR. DYBAS-That’s correct. MR. KOSKINAS-You don’t think it drains over there, do you? MR. DYBAS-I don’t think so. MR. KOSKINAS-Have you looked? MR. DYBAS-I have no, you’re talking about the water coming up out of the drywell? 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2011) MR. KOSKINAS-I’m talking about the water that you’re going to collect from this roof going into the drywell, and I’m just wondering, will there be any impact on the neighboring property when the drywell appears to be two feet off the property line? MR. DYBAS-There’s no indication right now that it’s discharging. In fact, if you walk the site, there is a created berm, like somebody dug down both sides right down the property line. There’s a berm with trees growing out of it, and it varies in height anywhere from six inches to two feet as you walk down that west property line. There’s no indication of water flowing over that berm at all and no indication of water discharging down the side of the house. So we have, you know, you have super percs there. I mean, this particular location around this lake is all glacial moraine. You almost can’t pour enough water on it to get a perc. MR. GARRAND-One of our concerns is we just don’t want to see the stormwater being deposited on the neighbor’s property. All the stormwater should be contained and treated on site. MR. DYBAS-It will. We can handle everything except the lakeside slopes of the existing building. They would still continue to drain down the way they have, they do right now. Now, I don’t really want to start guttering that. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, as part of the balancing, you’re not disturbing any of that lakefront section. MR. DYBAS-No. MR. JACKOSKI-So there would be no reason to want to try to. Good. Anyone else have any other comments? MRS. HUNT-I have a question. You say three bedrooms. Are you counting the study on the first floor or the bonus room on the second floor? MR. DYBAS-The house will end up two bedrooms. MRS. HUNT-Two bedroom? MR. DYBAS-It will end up two bedrooms. What you see on the second floor will be a master bedroom with a sitting area. MRS. HUNT-Yes, I saw that. MR. DYBAS-And then the other guest bedroom. Mr. Kalock is involved in the export business. The downstairs is his office. There will not be a bedroom above the garage. I can guarantee you that. The loft space above the garage, contrary to the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, does not meet the New York State Building Code for habitable space. It just can’t, you can’t do it, even with an eight foot ridge, but if you read it, it says minimum ceiling height is five feet, but 50% of that room has to be over seven feet. You can’t make it. It doesn’t work, and I can’t apply for a building permit if it’s in violation. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other Board member questions at this point? Okay. So I’d like to open the public hearing at this time, and if we could, are there any written comments to be read into the record? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There are no comments. MR. JACKOSKI-Then I would like to, at this point, open it up to anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this application. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to do so? Having seen no takers, we’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And then poll the Board members on their thoughts of the application. We’ll start at your end. MR. KOSKINAS-Fine. The salient issue for me, sir, would be that any expansion on an already non-conforming property wouldn’t further impact the adjoining property, and in this case I don’t see it does. So I think you’ve done the best you can do. So I’d have no problem with this. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2011) MR. KUHL-I like the fact that you’re updating the septic. I think that’s a good step for making improvements to the house, and I think it’s a viable plan. I think it’s laid out well, and I think you’ve taken care of any issues. There will be gutters on the house or no? MR. DYBAS-There will be gutters on the west side. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. DYBAS-I don’t like gutters. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-As long as we don’t have any impact on the property owner to the east side of this, that’s the west side, right? MR. DYBAS-Yes. MR. GARRAND-The short side, I don’t see any problems with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. We had no comment from either the affected neighbor, Sullivan or Johnson. I think the upgrade of the septic system, putting it way up by the road’s going to be a bonus, plus it’s going to be oversized for the house as it’s only going to be two bedrooms, it’s going to be for a three bedroom, and I think that the minimal disturbance you are going to do to put the footings in and things like that as you said is up on the flats up there. It’s not really going to impact the lake, and, you know, it can be dealt with at the time of construction, plus the Planning Board’s going to dial it in with their purview at some point to make sure it’s all polished up to what it needs to be. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I think the relief requested are pre-existing conditions. So I don’t have any problem with that, and I think the permeability is a minor increase. So I would be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-And Roy? MR. URRICO-And I’ll go along with the rest of my Board members and agree with them. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So would anyone care to take a shot at making a resolution on this project? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I can take it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Jim? Great. Thank you. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-2011 JAMES KALOCK, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Koskinas: 336 Glen Lake Road. The applicant is proposing renovations and additions totaling 1,602 square feet to an existing 1,565 square foot, three bedroom single family home. Relief is requested from the following things. Permeability, side yard and shoreline setback requirements, and further relief is requested for the expansion of a non-conforming structure. Having reviewed the request, the shoreline setback relief is essentially the same as what currently exists on site. Because there will be no disturbance on the shoreline side facing Glen Lake, we do not feel that there’s any further disturbance of the shoreline’s setback anticipated. The west side setback relief of 16.8 feet or 84% relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement for the Waterfront Residential zone is the same as what currently exists on site also. The only increase that we will see on site is the permeability relief request for 836 square feet or 35.6% permeability relief from the 30% maximum requirement for the Waterfront Residential zone, and again, the actual living space created I think as you said was about 300 square feet in addition. So that’s pretty minimal compared to what’s already on site there. Most of that will be because the garage addition is going to be built there, and I think we all recognize that the area over the garage, being only five foot tall, is probably not going to be considered living space in the true sense, even though the Town Code does say that it is. We do not anticipate any undesirable change to be created in the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. The benefit, I guess, could be sought or achieved by some other method, but this one seems to be the most, by the limited nature of the site and by what’s already there, it’s basically going to be a re-do of what’s already presently on site with the addition of the garage in the back. Whether the 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2011) requested Area Variance is substantial. Most of the relief is relief that’s already there, necessarily with the house present on site, and so there won’t be any real increase except for that as I mentioned before, the permeability relief will be the only thing that will be increasing, and as far as environmental conditions in the neighborhood, the upgrade of the wastewater system and the adequacy of the stormwater protection devices on site will be verified by the Planning Board and there is a new well also that will not be affected by the construction. So I would move for its approval. th Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. DYBAS-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-2011 SEQRA TYPE: II AFTAB (SAM) BHATTI AGENT(S): GARY HUGHES OWNER(S): AFTAB (SAM) BHATTI ZONING: HC INT LOCATION: 543 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT REQUESTS RELIEF AFTER THE FACT FOR A 10 FT. BY 12 FT. CANOPY CONSTRUCTED ADJACENT TO MOTEL OFFICE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT AND TRAVEL CORRIDOR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS. PENDING PB RECOMMENDATION CROSS REF.: SP 1- 2011, SP 12-2004, AV 29-2005 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 1/12/11 LOT SIZE: 2.19 & 0.83 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.05-1-51, 52, 52.13 SECTION: §179-3-040 GARY HUGHES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 3-2011, Aftab (Sam) Bhatti, Meeting Date: January 26, 2011 “Project Location: 543 Aviation Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant requests approval after the fact for the construction of a 120 square foot canopy at main office location. Relief Required: ? Travel Corridor relief-Request for 38.4 feet or 51% relief from the 75 foot Travel Corridor setback requirement for the CI zone as per §179-3. ? Front Setback relief-Request for 38.4 feet or 51% relief from the 75 foot Front setback requirement for the CI zone as per §179-3. ? FAR relief-Request for an additional 120 square feet for a total FAR of 42.90% from a previously existing FAR of 42.78%. ? Relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure as per §179-13-010. 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. The nature of the variance and lot limitations appears to preclude a feasible method for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 38.4 feet or 51% relief from the 75 foot Travel Corridor setback requirement for the CI zone as per §179-3 appears moderate relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 38.4 feet or 51% relief from the 75 foot Front setback requirement for the CI zone as per §179-3 appears moderate relative to the ordinance. Additionally, the request for an additional 120 square feet for a total FAR of 42.90% from a previously existing FAR of 42.78% appears moderate relative to the 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2011) ordinance. Finally, the relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure as per §179- 13-010 must be approved by this board. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 85-2002 Setback, parking, buffer zone, density, frontage Approved 11/20/02 SP 12-04 Mod #1 Parking, grading, lighting & landscaping modification Approved 6/05 SP 12-04 Mod #2 Stormwater, grading, parking & site improvement modifications Approved 2/28/06 BP 03-965: 16,200 S.F. Hotel S.P. 12-04 Site plan modification Approved 3/24/09 Staff comments: The applicant is under a stop work order for the construction of the canopy that is before the board tonight. There is some concern from the Fire Marshal’s office with regards to the height of the structure, please see attached comments. SEQR Status: Type II-no further review needed” MR. URRICO-And the Fire Marshal comments from Mike Palmer. “1) 503.2.1 Dimensions. Fire Apparatus roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet, except for the approved security gates in accordance with Section 503.6, and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Fire apparatus access roads shall also meet the width requirements of Section D103.1 and D105 of Appendix D. The drawing submitted and in Note M of Mr. Bhatti’s attachment, a clear height of 12’.0” is indicated. Therefore the structure is not in conformance with the above requirement from the NYSFC.” I also have a Planning Board th recommendation that was adopted on January 20 and the motion makes a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for this applicant, and whereas the Planning Board had briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief requested in the variance application, as well as the potential impacts of the project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that the Planning Board, based on its limited review, has identified the following area of concern: A. A letter from the Fire Marshal indicating that the height of the structure is inadequate and we feel that the applicant should further pursue discussions with the Fire Marshal in order to get a sign off on that issue, and that was passed seven zero by the Planning Board. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, Roy, and, Gary, just before you introduce yourself and comment to the project, in the interest of full disclosure, I also participated in this application with the Planning Board and this recommendation that was just read into the record. Okay. Go ahead. MR. HUGHES-My name is Gary Hughes, and I’m the agent for Sam Bhatti, d/b/a Econo Lodge. Mr. Bhatti had a misunderstanding with the Building Department. He went ahead and started to construct a canopy at the office, as shown in the pictures that we’ve presented. He was issued a Stop Work Order, and what I’m here to try to do is to try to step back and even though it has been started and the work order’s been stopped, to step back and try to take them in the right direction, you know, getting the necessary variances and making the thing right, and I’m open to any questions by the Board. MR. UNDERWOOD-Did we, I think some of us were on the Board when you guys did the earlier renovations here. Wasn’t there supposed to have been a canopy on there at that time? I recall that that was. MR. HUGHES-There is a canopy. If you look at the map on the, what I guess I’m going to call the newer building, there’s an entry canopy on that one, but this is in relation to the existing Econo Lodge. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but I do recall that there might have been a proposal for that prior to this also, or maybe not. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2011) MR. HUGHES-Not to my knowledge. Not to my knowledge. MR. URRICO-There was a covered walkway, I think. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I know we did the covered walkway in the back and put a roof over that. That was the last time. MR. OBORNE-It certainly wasn’t approved on that. MR. UNDERWOOD-No? Okay. MR. HUGHES-No. This is something that, as far as I know, was never approved. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. When I read the requirement from the Fire Marshal, it looks like you need an unobstructed lane 20 feet wide, and it looks like out in front you’ve got 27 feet from the canopy as you currently constructed it over to the nearest parking places there. So I would assume that the intent of the Fire Marshal’s Codebook there would be if you had to actually drive a fire truck underneath the canopy, you’d want to have it the regulation height to accommodate the height of the truck, but knowing some of our trucks in Town are probably much higher than that canopy, you could even set it. I’m wondering if the 27 feet, if you could use this, consider that to be the drive aisle out in front as opposed to, you know, it would be a semantic call on the part of, it would be probably something you would have to negotiate with the Fire Marshal. MR. HUGHES-I did, the morning I met with Michael, and we reached an agreement. He explained to me that basically what is required on the Sections D103.1 and D105 of Appendix D requires 26 feet of width. That being said, and I showed him a, we went over the map, and obviously the 27 feet is on the map, but the 26 they feel, there’s a 12 inch over, rake overhang on that, and what he thought the way out of this, or the solution to this problem was to cut 10 and a half inches off that rake overhang, in other words, that would become, instead of a 12 inch overhang, it would become a flush rake, correct, in other words, there’d be a two by sub rake aluminum facia over that. We’d cut the roof back, and we wouldn’t have to cut into the steel, and also under the front right corner of that canopy, he would want a white steel, painted white, four inch diameter column, four feet above grade, similar to what you have on commercial garages, fire stations and so on, and his reasoning was that if fire apparatus did come in there, especially at night or in stormy weather, or whatever, that they would see this and not veer over underneath that, and that would be an acceptable solution for him. He did not create a letter for me this morning. He mentioned to me to just bring it to your attention, and that he would, and I’m sure that he could produce a letter and hopefully get acceptance with a contingency that we do this part of the project to make that 26 foot width there that he’s requiring. MR. JACKOSKI-Keith, has Staff had any of those discussions with Mike? MR. OBORNE-I had a discussion with Mike yesterday about this, and with the exception of actually making it flush, we did discuss the potential for bollards. We scaled off the site plan and found it was 25, hence why they’re going to go to the flush. I have not spoken to him today, and I did not receive any letter from him today. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, and, Gary, what is the actual length of the parking space that’s there? MR. HUGHES-The parking spaces? Twenty feet, they’re nine by twenty’s. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any additional comments or questions from fellow Board members? MR. KUHL-The actual height from the asphalt to the lowest part is 12 feet? MR. HUGHES-Yes, that’s correct. MR. KUHL-All right. Do you know that if I drove my motor home under there, I’d rip off my air conditioner? My unit is 12, 2, and I have an average unit. MR. HUGHES-That’s very true. MR. KUHL-So the question would be for you, if you reach agreement with the Fire Marshal, then I have nothing against that because, that side, but from a practical standpoint, so you’re not calling your insurance person all the time, you know, I guess you can’t raise it because you’d still have that piece of steel, right? I mean, the canopy itself sits on that steel? MR. HUGHES-Yes. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2011) MR. KUHL-So even if you raised the canopy, you’d still be at 12 feet. MR. HUGHES-That’s correct. When I talked to the Fire Marshal, I had brought up the notion that maybe we could put up a clearance sign, which you’ll see at like you probably know this, like when you’re pulling in to a McDonalds or a bank, they sometimes will have a clearance sign that’s kind of flopping in the breeze that’s saying nine foot clearance, ten foot clearance, whatever, and I proposed that to him and he said that wouldn’t be a bad idea, and also Mr. Bhatti wants to do that because he’s had that situation where someone in the motel next door had bicycles on a van straight up and they, it knocked the bicycles over. So he wants to, you know, he’s aware of that problem. He’d like to do that. MR. KUHL-I’d suggest you put 11 foot 8 inches, and give the yahoo six inches. MR. HUGHES-Right, exactly. MR. KUHL-I’m just saying from a practical standpoint in the future, if you get motor home people coming in, look out. Anyway, I’ll say no more, but if the Fire Marshal, if you reached agreement with the Fire Marshal, I’ve got nothing against that. MR. HUGHES-And that’s, indeed, what he just, he told me. He said just mention our conversation at the meeting tonight because I told him that I had a meeting tonight and I think he was aware of it, and he said just mention it, and so I did. I’m just basically repeating our conversation that we had. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Well, then I guess we’ll open the public comment period and ask to have anything received in writing to be read into the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Nothing. MR. JACKOSKI-And having received no written comment, is there anyone in the audience who would like to address the application at this time? Having seen no one, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And ask for any additional discussion by my fellow Board members. Shall we just do a quick straw poll? Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m okay with it as long as that is contingent upon Fire Marshal having submitted a letter saying that it’s okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. Until I saw that letter I would not feel comfortable voting. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I don’t have any problems with it, either, and all the Travel Corridor relief request and front setback requests, I’ll remind everybody, that was because of Old Aviation Road used to go up through there that got cut off, and it’s still a right of way, but it’s not going to be ever used again as it is. So I think everybody recognizes that, you’re not going to be increasing any of those setbacks, because the building, the end of the building is much closer to Aviation Road anyway. So I’d be all for it. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-As long as the Fire Marshal signs off on it, I’d be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I agree. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. KOSKINAS-I have no reservations. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Do I have a motion from anyone here? 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2011) MR. KOSKINAS-I’ll take it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-2011 AFTAB (SAM) BHATTI, Introduced by John Koskinas whom moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 543 Aviation Road. The criteria for an Area Variance according to Town Code allows in this case a minor impact only to the neighborhood. Two, that the nature of the variance and lot limitations preclude feasible alternatives. That the relief requested for Travel Corridor front setback, Floor Area Ratio, is considered to be moderate, in recognizing this is an expansion of a non-conforming structure, and four, that minor impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated. This motion includes relief from Section 179-3, granting 38.4 feet relief from the 75 foot Travel Corridor setback, and 38.4 feet relief from the 75 foot front setback requirement, and an additional 120 square feet of previously existing Floor Area Ratio of 42.78%, that brings them to a 42.78% total FAR, and relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure per 179-13-010. This is conditioned upon receiving a letter with the Fire Marshal’s okay. I move for approval. th Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. HUGHES-Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. I appreciate it. Sammy, do you want the pictures? MR. OBORNE-You’ll need to provide four copies to the Department of Community Development to sign off on this. I mean, the only thing you’re going to need is your packet and then that letter, for sign off for the Area Variance portion of that. MR. HUGHES-Okay. Now, do I give that to you? MR. OBORNE-Well, when you’re ready to do that, you know, when you get the resolution all taken care of. MR. HUGHES-Okay. MR. OBORNE-You may want to pick them up. MR. HUGHES-Okay. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-2011 SEQRA TYPE: II SEAN QUILLINAN OWNER(S): SEAN QUILLINAN ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 4 SULLIVAN ROAD APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A DECK WITH A REAR YARD SETBACK OF 14.3 FT. IN LIEU OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AV 25-2009 OF 17.3 FT. FURTHER RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT. CROSS REF.: BP 2009-340; AV 25- 2009 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.41 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.09-1- 30 SECTION: §179-3-040 SEAN QUILLINAN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 4-2011, Sean Quillinan, Meeting Date: January 26, 2011 “Project Location: 4 Sullivan Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a deck with a rear yard setback of 14.3 ft. in lieu of the previously approved AV 25-2009 of 17.3 ft. Further relief requested from minimum rear yard setback requirement. Relief Required: Relief requested for 5.7 feet of relief from the 20 foot east rear setback requirement as per §179- 3-040 for the existing deck. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2011) 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. With the structure completed, feasible alternatives appear limited. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 5.7 feet or 28% relief from the 20 foot east rear setback requirement as per §179-3-040 for the existing deck may be considered minor to moderate relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): B.P. 2009-340 SFD Approved 9/2009 A.V. 25-2009 FAR, setback and height relief Approved 7/15/09 Staff comments: Area Variance 25-2009, dated 7/15/09 had given an east rear setback relief of 2.7 feet; applicant is requesting 5.7 feet or an additional 3 feet of relief from approved area variance (see attached resolution). SEQR Status: Type II-no further review needed” MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Good evening. If you could introduce yourself for the record, and do you have anything else to add? MR. QUILLINAN-Yes. I’m the agent for the adjacent property. I currently serve as the President of the Glen Lake Park Association which is the actual neighboring property that is closely impacted. So as the agent for the adjoining property, I have no issues. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. QUILLINAN-I did have, I was talking to Keith. There are no photos of the finished build of the house, where the deck is in relation to the property line, and a couple of the adjacent properties. I do have those if you want to take a quick look at them. Then it gives you guys a reference of what the deck looks like now relative to other properties. It’s up to you if you want to take a look at them. MR. JACKOSKI-I’m going to poll the Board, because I don’t know what your procedures are. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, usually you can just pass them out and we’ll pass them down the row so everybody gets a peek at them. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. QUILLINAN-Just to give you an idea of what it looks like. MR. KOSKINAS-Sir, you’re representing the adjacent property, is that correct? MR. QUILLINAN-Sort of. The Glen Lake Park, which is adjacent, is a private park that has been a neighborhood park for about, I think 40 to 50 years, and one of the stipulations with the Park is that one of the, a neighbor that lives in the Park has to serve as the President, and as it has 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2011) either been my grandfather, my father, and now it’s myself. So we actually take care of the Park, which is the closest thing to the deck. MR. KOSKINAS-But if I could understand your presence here, it’s to announce that you are the President, or do you have a grievance? MR. QUILLINAN-No. It’s just that I, as the party that’s impacted by it, I have no problems with it. MR. KOSKINAS-So you have no concerns about this? MR. QUILLINAN-No, not at all. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sean, so is that two by ten construction on there, a joist under there? MR. QUILLINAN-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-So just the foundation must have been? MR. QUILLINAN-Yes. What looks like what happened is that when they did the original elevation drawings, the elevation drawings show the top deck being 11 feet, and what I thought was going to be the foundation was ten by twenty. So when we did the original FAR references, and my point of reference for the variances is based on that 10 foot point coming out from the foundation, not realizing that they were going to measure for the upper point which is actually closer to the Park line. Then as they transferred the elevation drawings over to the foundation drawings, we realize, and there’s a picture there, it shows where the actual deck goes straight down, and they created an 11 foot wide porch, and so once you added that overhang for what is the porch, it wound up shifting everything by about two feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-It just cantilevers over the sonotube posts. MR. QUILLINAN-And it just, yes, cantilevers out, yes and then when the surveyors were out there they said the measuring point was actually the raised deck part of it, whereas initially we thought it was just going to be the foundation footprint, otherwise the original footprint would have been for the cantilevered, you know, deck. MR. JACKOSKI-Keith, has this been checked for structural integrity? MR. OBORNE-Yes. Absolutely. MR. JACKOSKI-That’s all I need to know. MR. OBORNE-I will say Sean’s here so he can get this matter taken care of so he can get his final CO. MR. URRICO-Just to place this in historical perspective, Sean, this is the house that was destroyed by fire and this is the final step? MR. QUILLINAN-Yes, this is it. Yes, it was two years ago Sunday. MR. JACKOSKI-Any further discussion? MR. URRICO-No. MR. OBORNE-That’s why I removed it from the screen up there. I apologize for that. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Well, at this point we’ll open up the public hearing. Is there any written record? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is nothing in the file that I can see. I’ll look again, but I don’t see any, no. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Knowing that, is there anyone in the audience who would like to address this application? Seeing no takers, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And I forgot which end of the table we want to start with. John? 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2011) MR. KOSKINAS-Really I think you’ve had enough in your life. I’m happy to make a motion as soon as they let me. MR. JACKOSKI-Great. Ron? MR. KUHL-Fine. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-Well, obviously, going through the balancing test, I don’t see how benefits can be achieved by other means. It’s not going to produce an undesirable change to the character of the nearby properties. I don’t think the request is substantial. There is no adverse physical or environmental effects. Is it self-created? I don’t think the applicant created this situation himself. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I don’t have any problems with it, either. I doubt we’d make you tear down your house or tear the deck off at this point after all the trauma you’ve been through already. So I don’t see that it’s a self-created thing, either. I mean, it’s just a matter of, you know, no one’s going to notice when they go by that it’s that much closer. So I’m all for it. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I remember when you came to us before with what you’ve been through, and I have no problem. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-We went to this Planning Conference today, and we learned that there’s no essential difference between the first application that was passed and this one. Therefore, I would be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, and I, too, if you were standing up on your porch today and you saw this black SUV driving around your neighborhood, that was me. MRS. HUNT-I’ll take the motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-2011 SEAN QUILLINAN, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: 4 Sullivan Road. The applicant has constructed a deck with a rear yard setback of 14.3 feet, in lieu of the previous approved Area Variance No. 25-2009 of 17.3 feet. Further relief requested from the minimum rear yard setback requirement. The applicant requests 5.7 feet of relief from the 20 foot east rear setback requirement, as per Section 179-3-040 for the existing deck. In making this determination, we shall consider whether an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties will occur, and I don’t think so. Whether the benefit could be achieved by any other means feasible to the applicant and I think that’s not possible. Whether the request is substantial. It seems to me it’s minimal. Whether the request will have adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood, I don’t think so, and I think, rather than being self-created, it was just an error in judgment. So I move that we approve Area Variance No. 4-2011. th Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want any of these surveys back, in case you want to add an addition? MR. QUILLINAN-I’m good. Thank you very much. MR. OBORNE-Sean, you will be required to supply four copies of the surveys, so you may want to take some back, instead of having to make copies. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2011) MR. QUILLINAN-Okay. AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2011 SEQRA TYPE: II GREAT ESCAPE/FIRST AID STATION AGENT(S): H. THOMAS JARRETT, JARRETT ENGINEERS, PLLC OWNER(S): SIX FLAGS, INC. ZONING: RC LOCATION: 1172 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES 665 SQ. FT. EXPANSION OF EXISTING 687 SQ. FT. FIRST AID BUILDING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. PENDING PB RECOMMENDATION. CROSS REF.: SP 2-2011, SEE STAFF FOR COMPLETE LIST WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 1/12/11 LOT SIZE: 237.64 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.20-1-20 SECTION: §179-3-040 BOB HOLMES AND BOB CULVER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. URRICO-Just in the interest of full disclosure, I’m one of the residents who received the notification about this meeting and I don’t see it creating a problem for me on this Board. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, and while we discuss those, I was part of the Planning Board recommendation vote last Thursday on this application. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 5-2011, Great Escape/First Aid Station, Meeting Date: January 26, 2011 “Project Location: 1172 State Route 9 Description of Proposed: Applicant proposes 665 sq. ft. expansion of existing 687 sq. ft. First Aid Building. Relief requested from side setback requirements and for the expansion of a non-conforming structure. Relief Required: This proposal will require an area variance as follows: ? Side setback relief-Request for 13 feet or 65% relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement for the RC zone as per §179-3. ? Relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure as per §179-13-010. 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 as a result of this proposal. 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 nature of the proposal and existing conditions. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 13 feet or 65% relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement as per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Expansion of a non-conforming structure must be approved by this board as per §179-13-010A. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may not be considered self created as the applicant has stated that Federal guideline must be followed thus necessitating this area variance (Please see narrative for additional information). Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): ? Site Plan 41-2008 192 foot tall thrill ride Approved10/21/08 ? Area Variance 81-2008 Travel Corridor relief Approved 12/17/08 ? Sign Variance 80-2008 number, size & height Approved 12/17/08 ? Multiple approvals prior to 2008 Staff comments: 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2011) The applicant proposes an expansion to the existing First Aid building in order to better comply with Federal guidelines (see applicant’s narrative). SEQR Status: Type II-no further review needed” th MR. URRICO-The Planning Board acted on this on January 20 and made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for this variance, and they found that they have not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal through Site Plan Review, and it was approved unanimously. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Good evening. If you could identify yourself for the record and do you have anything to add to the application? MR. HOLMES-Well, for the record, my name is Bob Holmes. I’m a project manager with Jarrett Engineers. I’m joined by Charlie Dumas from Lemery Greisler and with Bob Culver who is the project manager for The Great Escape. This was, I mentioned this to the Planning Board last week. In the grand scheme of things, with regards to The Great Escape, this is what we call a modest little project. We’ve certainly gone through much larger endeavors over the most recent years, and this is kind of small, and much of what Mr. Urrico had read out is really what the short and sweet of the project is. We’re just looking to basically double the size of our First Aid station to better comply with HIPPA requirements. So, Charlie, if you’ve got anything you want to add, go for it. CHARLIE DUMAS MR. DUMAS-The additional burden that additional facilities would place is diminimus. There’s no change in the impervious surface at all. No increase in stormwater, wastewater, no anticipate traffic impacts. So it really would be a diminimus addition. MR. HOLMES-This building expansion actually is in an area that was previously covered by an amusement ride until recently, which actually sat in one corner, not exactly in this location, but that much closer to the property line. You can actually see that from our plans. I mean, I actually had a dotted outline of where the plans actually sat. MR. DUMAS-The property next door, in the area where, as you come closest to the property line, there’s a detention area, stormwater detention area. So it’s not like there’s a structure close to the property line. It’s not like there’s likely to be a structure close to the property line in the future. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-The Mentors didn’t have any problem with it, I assume, the hotel up on the hill there? MR. HOLMES-We haven’t seen any correspondence, unless the ZBA has seen any. I don’t know, Keith, has anything shown up to the Staff? MR. OBORNE-There’s nothing. MR. DUMAS-They were duly notified, right? MR. JACKOSKI-Sure. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other comments or questions at this time from the Board? MR. KUHL-You’re talking about HIPPA requirements? MR. HOLMES-Yes. MR. KUHL-Is this going to get you where you need to be to meet that? MR. DUMAS-It has to do, as I understand it, with the privacy of the patient, that the previous facility was too close where people’s identity, their health conditions, couldn’t be properly shielded and protected from other patients, and that’s a federal requirement, that privacy 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2011) requirement, that came into effect a few years ago, but was not in effect at the time the First Aid station was initially built and structured. MR. CULVER-To answer your question, our health and safety people tell me, yes, this will. MR. KUHL-This will get you there? Okay. So it’s not like you’re going to be coming back and do another add? MR. CULVER-No. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. HOLMES-Unless the Federal government changes their mind sometime down the road. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other comments or questions at this time? Okay. So I’d like to open the public hearing. Do we have any written comments for the record? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No written comments. MR. JACKOSKI-Having none, I would like to ask anybody in the audience if they’d like to, seeing there’s no one in the audience, I guess we’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-Would anyone like to make a motion? MR. KUHL-Yes, I’ll make the motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2011 GREAT ESCAPE/FIRST AID STATION, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 1172 State Route 9. The applicant proposes a 665 square foot expansion on the existing 687 square foot first aid building. Relief requested from side setback requirements and for the expansion of a non-conforming structure. The relief required is side setback relief of 13 feet or 65% from the 20 foot side setback requirement for the RC zone as per 179-3. Relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure as per 179-13-010. For the balancing test, whether the benefit can be achieved by other means, not by the standards that they have to live to. I don’t think there’s any undesirable change to the neighborhood. The request is really not that substantial. Again, you’re living up to what the government requires you to do, and whether it’ll have any adverse effect on the environment, I don’t think so. For those reasons, I recommend we approve Area Variance No. 5-2011. th Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. HOLMES-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Do you want any of these plans back? MR. HOLMES-Yes, we’ll take them. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, before we entertain a motion to adjourn for the evening, does anyone have any new business they’d like bring up to the Board? MR. GARRAND-Do we have any minutes to approve? MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t think so. MR. JACKOSKI-I was told no. Okay. Do I have a motion to adjourn? 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2011) MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2011, Introduced Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: th Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you all. Have a good night. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steve Jackoski, Chairman 20