Loading...
05-16-2012 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 16, 2012 Area Variance No. 21-2012 David F. Brown (Voices of the Heart) 1. Tax Map No. 302.8-2-15 Area Variance No. 22-2012 Jared & Jessica Lendrum 4. Tax Map No. 289.8-1-58 Area Variance No. 23-2012 David H. Wilcox& Victoria T. Zeldin 7. Tax Map No. 226.19-1-42 Area Variance No. 24-2012 Kevin &Annie Dineen 20. Tax Map No. 289.17-1-46 Area Variance No. 25-2012 John & Pamela Cembrook 22. Tax Map No. 289.17-1-43 Area Variance No. 26-2012 San Souci of Cleverdale 31. Tax Map No. 226.12-1-43 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 16, 2012 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JAMES UNDERWOOD RICHARD GARRAND JOYCE HUNT RON KUHL BRIAN CLEMENTS LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Good evening everyone, welcome. I'd like to open the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for today, May 16th, here at the Town of Queensbury Center. For those of you who haven't been here in the past, there is a sheet on the back table with an agenda on it. There's also a brief review, on that back table, of how we conduct our meetings here. We will call each application up to the table here for presentation. The Board will ask some questions. We'll open a public hearing where appropriate. We'll continue the meeting, make motions as applicable and move on to the next agenda item. So if you'd like to grab that sheet in the back, please feel free to do so. The first item of business this evening will be the approval of meeting minutes for March 21St and I'd like to remind Board members that at that meeting the following members were present: Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, and Mr. Koskinas as an alternate. Can I have a motion, please? APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 21, 2012 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZBA MINUTES OF MARCH 21, 2012, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Under New Business, I'd like to make a notation in the record that we have received a resignation of Mr. Koskinas as the Alternate for this Zoning Board. Mr. Koskinas has been a great alternate. We greatly appreciate his service. I think we all have learned from his very concise motions and how well prepared he was for all of our meetings. So we thank him for his service. Okay. First application this evening is David F. Brown, Voices of the Heart. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2012 SEQRA TYPE II DAVID F. BROWN (VOICES OF THE HEART) AGENT(S) MATTHEW F. FULLER, ESQ. OWNER(S) DAVID F. BROWN ZONING CLI LOCATION 294 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 184 SQ. FT. HANDICAP RAMP. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE CLI ZONE. CROSS REF BP 2011-575, BP 2011-024, BP 2006- 394, BP 2006-021, SV 16-2006 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING YES LOT SIZE 0.23 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 302.8-2-15 SECTION 179-3-040 KARA LAIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 21-2012, David Brown (Voices of the Heart), Meeting Date: May 16, 2012 "Project Location: 294 Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 184 sq. ft. handicap ramp attached to the rear entrance oif exising office. Applicant seeks relief from side setback and travel corridor overlay setback requirements of the CLI zone. Further, relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure requested. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: 1. Side setback (North) - Request for 14 feet of side setback relief from the 30 foot requirement. 2. Side setback (South) - Request for 16.5 feet of side setback relief from the 30 foot requirement. 3. Travel Corridor - Request for 16 feet of travel corridor overlay relief from the 75 foot setback requirement. 4. Expansion of a non-conforming structure must be approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. 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 appear limited due to parcel limitations. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 14 feet of north side setback and 16.5 feet of south side setback relief or 47% and 55% respectively from the 30 foot side setback requirement for the CLI zone as per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. Request for 16 feet or 21.3% relief from the 75 foot travel corridor overlay setback as per §179-4-030C. Request for the expansion of a non-conforming structure must be approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self- created, however the applicant is attempting to become ADA compliant with the addition of the proposed handicap ramp. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, BP 11-575 Deck w/ ramp Pending BP 11-24 C/O for Non-profit Issued 2/8/11 BP 06-394 C/O for Financial service Issued 7/10/06 SV 16-06 Setback relief Approved 3/22/06 Staff comments: The existing building houses the Adirondack Financial and Planning Services office as well as Voices of the Heart, a non-profit agency. SEQR Status: Type II" MS. LAIS-Good evening. My name is Kara Lais. I'm here from the law firm of Fitzgerald Morris Baker Firth, and we represent Mr. Brown in this request for variances. As stated in our application, our request is fairly straightforward in that we're looking for variances in order to construct a wheelchair ramp in the rear entrance of the building. The small lot size makes it impossible for us to make any improvements without the variance requested. We feel that there won't be any adverse effects or characteristics made to the neighborhood or to the environment as a result of the construction of the wheelchair ramp. We're just trying to improve the access to the building for anyone needing that. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Do any Board members, at this time, have any questions? It seems pretty straightforward. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one present, I'll poll the Board. Ron? MR. KUHL-I have no problems. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm okay with it. I think it satisfies the criteria. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think it's a reflection of the fact that the building was put there before the Travel Corridor Overlay was laid on the Bay Road corridor there. So in this instance here it's on the back of the building. It's not going to have any impact because nothing's going to be built closer to the road. So I'm fine with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I think it won't be visible from the corridor, from the road, and I think it's needed. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-1 think the applicant has placed the ramp where the least relief is needed. So I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-1 have no problem with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Having no problem with anything, I will close the public hearing, and I'll ask for a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. GARRAND-I'll make a motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Rick. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2012 DAVID F. BROWN (VOICES OF THE HEART), Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 294 Bay Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 184 square foot handicap ramp attached to the rear entrance of the existing office. The applicant is seeking relief from side setback and Travel Corridor Overlay setback requirements of the CLI zone. Further he's also seeking relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure, The relief requested is as follows: Side setback north - request for 14 feet of side setback relief from the 30 foot requirement. Side setback on the south - request for 16.5 feet of side setback relief from the 30 foot requirement. Travel Corridor Overlay - request for 16 feet of Travel Corridor Overlay relief from the 75 foot setback requirement, and also the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. Given the parcel size, the building layout, the location of the ramp is the most logical place for it and it also requires the least amount of relief. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood. No change to the neighborhood whatsoever. Whether the requested relief is substantial. Given the fact that the zoning in this area has been changed since this house has been built, and this parcel's been laid out, this request should be deemed as moderate, given the pre-existing conditions. Will this variance have any adverse effects on the environment or impact on the environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Very minimal impacts. Whether the difficulty was self-created? I don't think the applicant created the requirements from the ADA, and so I deem it not self-created. So I move we approve Area Variance 21-2012. Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 2012, by the following vote: 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) MR. JACKOSKI-Just for the record we'll note that this is a Type II SEQRA. AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MS. LAIS-Thank you very much. MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations. AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-2012 SEQRA TYPE II JARED & JESSICA LENDRUM OWNER(S) JARED & JESSICA LENDRUM ZONING WR LOCATION 4 LAKEVIEW DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 576 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE GARAGES ON A PARCEL. CROSS REF BP 2000441 DECK, BP 97-510 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING YES LOT SIZE 0.76 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 289.8-1-58 SECTION 179-5-020D JARED LENDRUM, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 22-2012, Jared & Jessica Lendrum, Meeting Date: May 16, 2012 "Project Location: 4 Lakeview Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 576 sq. ft. detached garage and seeks relief from number of allowable garages on a parcel. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: 1. Proposal constitutes a second garage on parcel where only one is permissible. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives would be to expand the existing garage to the maximum allowable and erect compliant accessory structures to house equipment not requiring a garage door. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for an additional garage or 100% relief from the requirement of only one garage permitted per dwelling as per §179-5- 020D may be considered severe 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 or environmental conditions in 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, BP 2000-441 Deck Issued 6/21/01 BP 1997-510 SFD Issued 10/31/98 Staff comments: Side setbacks in Lake Sunnyside Estates are as follows: Sum 15 feet minimum / 5 feet on one side. Proposal calls for an 8 foot side setback. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) The Zoning Board may wish to ascertain if the asphalt drive will be extended to proposed garage. SEQR Status: Type 11" MR. JACKOSKI-If the applicant could introduce himself for the record. MR. LENDRUM-Hello. I'm Jared Lendrum at 4 Lakeview Drive. We are proposing a 24 by 24 garage at the end of the driveway to help alleviate some of the situations we have at our house. As you see we have a nice big lot, but we don't have any private area. So everything that we own needs to be stored indoors, wheelbarrow, I mean, everything right down to lawnmowers and such, as well as I have some old classic cars I'd like to be able to put inside, and I'd also like the ability to fit my truck inside. The house attached to the garage is a 20 by 20, which is, it's just big enough for a small sedan. The past, the right side of the garage currently has four bicycles and a freezer in it, and it's pretty much used up. So what I proposed was a single door garage at the end of the driveway, with a nice people door off to the left and some landscaping around it, colored to match the house, trim to match the house, even with a false gable on the front just to match the house and just to try to make it look as aesthetically pleasing as possible. You asked if I intended to extend the driveway. Yes, I do, to make it look nice and conform to the parcel. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. That seems pretty easy. Let's ask the Board if they have any questions at this time? MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, so what's the largest utility building they can put up on the property? MR. OBORNE-Accessory structure? I believe 750 square feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-So this is smaller than that. MR. JACKOSKI-It's because of the door itself that it triggers the garage designation. MR. OBORNE-It's always with a door, six foot or greater. MR. GARRAND-So he could build something bigger, just with a smaller door? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-And no variance. MR. OBORNE-With no variance. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other questions from Board members? MR. KUHL-The door you're putting in is going to be two cars wide or one? MR. LENDRUM-Just one. I attached a sketch, I believe. I just want it to be just wide enough to fit a truck in. The other side would be closed off. MR. GARRAND-Are you going to store anything along the edge, along your neighbor's property line? MR. LENDRUM-1 don't intend to. If I do, I'd put my wheelbarrow there or something, but maybe, but that's probably going to go indoors, and I'm only going to be eight feet off. I wasn't planning on parking anything there or putting anything large there. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one, is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-No, there is no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Poll the Board. This time I'll start with Brian. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) MR. CLEMENTS-1 understand about number of garages on pieces of property, but this is fairly small. You could actually put something larger up there without a garage door on it, and as I look at it in proportion to the lot it looks very nice. So I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-It's asking for 100% relief, but by the same token, I don't think the size of the garage is actually near what he could have erected here. It's a matter of semantics. It's a door in this situation. I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. Ordinarily I don't like the idea of two garages, but I understand that the ones you have a very small. I wish there were a different solution, but I would be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think I'll go along with the wishes of the rest of the Board members also. I mean, we could put up a 900 square foot building here. In this instance it's 700. We've gotten silly before and we put like a post in the middle of the wide open door so you couldn't drive a car in there, but, frankly speaking, if you're building under the size you could build, I don't care what you put in your garage . So I would say yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm going to agree with my fellow Board members. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-As long as this is the only other building you're going to put up on your property, I have no problem with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. After polling the Board, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-Any further discussion? Would someone like to make a motion? MRS. HUNT-I'll make a motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Joyce. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-2012 JARED & JESSICA LENDRUM, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: 4 Lakeview Drive. The applicant proposes construction of a 576 square foot detached garage and seeks relief from the number of allowable garages on a parcel. In determining this variance the Board will consider whether there will be an undesirable change in the character of nearby properties, and I don't think so. Whether the benefit could be achieved by any other means feasible to the applicant. We really went over that. It's kind of difficult to enlarge a garage that's in your home when it's too small. Whether the request is substantial. Well, two garages is 100% relief, but there are mitigating circumstances here, and whether the alleged difficulty is self-created. Only in the fact that the Lendrums want a place to put their truck, and the fact that he is asking for a smaller garage than would be allowed is also a plus. So I move that we approve Area Variance 22-2012. Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 2012, by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-Do we want to condition it on no other outbuildings or accessory structures? No? Okay. MR. KUHL-If he's going to build an outbuilding, then he's going to have to come in for a variance. MR. UNDERWOOD-He's only allowed one. MR. OBORNE-Well, he's allowed two up to 750 square feet. MR. JACKOSKI-So it would be pretty small. Okay. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Congratulations. MR. LENDRUM-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-2012 SEQRA TYPE II DAVID H. WILCOX & VICTORIA T. ZELDIN AGENT(S) MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR, ESQ., BRIAN THAYER, DENNIS MAC ELROY, PE OWNER(S) DAVID H. WILCOX & VICTORIA T. ZELDIN ZONING WR LOCATION 26 FOREST ROAD - ASSEMBLY POINT APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3,300 +/- SQ. FT. EXPANSION TO EXISTING 1,740 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING TO INCLUDE A SECOND GARAGE. REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM THE FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WR ZONE AS WELL AS RELIEF FOR A SECOND GARAGE. CROSS REF BP 2006-826 SFD, BP 2006-282 DEMOLITION OF SFD, BP 2006-160 SEPTIC ALT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING YES ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.42 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-42 SECTION 179-5-020D, 179-3-040 MICHAEL O'CONNOR & DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-In the interest of full disclosure, I'd like to note that this application, the applicants are using some agents that I have used in the past or may use in the future, and we just wanted to note that into the record. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 23-2012, David H. Wilcox & Victoria T. Zeldin, Meeting Date: May 18, 2012 "Project Location: 26 Forest Road - Assembly Point Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 3,300 +/- sq. ft. expansion to existing 1,740 sq. ft. single-family dwelling to include a second garage. Request for relief from the Floor Area Ratio requirements for the WR zone as well as relief for a second garage. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: • Floor Area Ratio - Request for 961 sq. ft. or a 5.1% increase above the 22% allowable FAR as per§179-3-040 may be considered minor to moderate relative to the code. • Second garage - Relief requested from number of allowable garages on a parcel as per §179-5-020D. 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 granting of relief for both requests at the same time could set precedence for future requests in the general vicinity. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives would be to construct a house within the FAR requirements and construct with one garage. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 961 square feet or 5.1% increase above the allowable 4,166 square feet for the FAR may be considered minor to moderate relative to the ordinance. The request for an additional garage or 100% relief from the requirement of only one garage permitted per dwelling as per §179-5-020D may be considered severe 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 or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2006-836 SFD Issued 12/1/2006 BP 2006-282 Demolition Issued 5/8/2006 BP 2006-160 Septic alteration Issued 4/6/2006 Staff comments: The Zoning Board may wish to consider a condition that New York State Standards and SpecifIcations for Erosion and Sediment Control, Appendix E titled Erosion and Sediment Control Plans for SmallHomesite Construction be utilized with the proposed expansion. SEQR Status: Type II" MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome. If you could identify yourself for the record, please. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. I'm representing the applicant. With me at the table is Dennis MacElroy who is the engineer for the project and immediately behind me is Mr. Wilcox and his wife Victoria. Basically I would begin, and I've talked to Staff about this before. Because we had some letters coming in from the neighbors late, this is in addition to the Sketch that you've got in your application packet. So I'll give you that. The yellow are the neighbors that have sent letters in saying that they have no objections to this. This is a piece of property that's on Assembly Point. Before you the parcels, the tax map parcels that are in yellow are neighbors who have indicated that they have no objection. They don't believe that what is proposed will be a change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the neighborhood. Mr. Wilcox's property, or the Wilcox's property, is Tax Map Parcel 42. I believe there's a circle around that. It's on Forest Road. We're here based upon circumstances and a regulation change, if you will. The Wilcox's bought this property, and intended, when they bought it, to remain using the camp that was on there, and then as they got nearer to retirement, to replace that with a year round home. I think we submitted to you a narrative which spells that out fairly clearly and there's some pictures of it. In 2005, I think it was, some trees came down and destroyed the camp. They then got permission from the Town to replace that with a travel trailer, and four months later some other trees came down and destroyed the travel trailer. So they were still not ready to retire, but they wanted to utilize the property, and what they did is build a single bedroom home, if you will, atop a two car garage, and some of you have been to the property and you saw construction, and you may have said, geez, this is already built. This is an after the fact application. It is not. That was permitted. It was fully compliant. In fact, when they built that, planned on building what they have before you today. They had designed and approved a septic system for a four bedroom home, and if they had asked for a building permit for what's before you today, at that time, it would have been granted. The big change here is the calculation change that was made in 2009, after they had installed the four bedroom septic system, and after they had built the one bedroom and the two car garage. In 2009, the calculation or the formula for calculating the Floor Area Ratio changed, and changed drastically for properties that are within a Waterfront Residential zone. Now, you have to count basically the basement if you have headroom in the basement of over five feet. If they had applied for all this in 2006 or 2007, they would not be here for that variance, but because we're trying to build this in stages, to accompany their retirement plans, they are here looking for a variance. I believe that the excess over the Floor Area Ratio is 961 feet. We have tried, purposely, to soften that, and we tried softening that by saying that we will assure you that a good portion of that will be used as a second garage. They have a summer car which they actually want to garage. They have two other cars that they drive in the wintertime. So they do need a garage door to put that car inside, but I know there's a lot of feeling about, you come in and you ask for an excess of the Floor Area Ratio and then five years from now all of a sudden it's living space, but we're trying to show to you that it's not. When we amended the plans to do that, and they weren't that way when we first looked at them. When we amended the plans to do that, we backed into another variance, because they already have one garage. So now they have to ask for a variance to have two garages, but those basically are the variances that are before you. One is the Floor Area Ratio and one is the second garage. There's another variance before you as to the separation of the stormwater infiltration device from the driveway, which Dennis can speak to, but if you go through the 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) packet, and I think they gave you a fairly decent packet, there's no impact on anyone. It's the same permeable area. It's the same non-permeable area, if they utilize what they're talking about. Because the footprint of the house would be the same. The question is whether or not they have a full garage or they don't, or full cellar height or they don't have a full cellar height. In fact, if you look at what we have shown, they're in excess of 961 feet of the Floor Area Ratio, but that's taken up by 709 feet of new basement, and 545 feet that's devoted to the second garage. So the area that's in excess of the Floor Area Ratio is actually less than the garage and the basement, and I think the idea of the Floor Area Ratio cap, if you will, was so that you wouldn't basically have McMansions, that you wouldn't have environmental impacts on very small lots that would affect either the neighborhood or the community, and here they would have the same stormwater configuration. They already have an up to Code compliant septic system for four bedrooms. They aren't asking for extra bedrooms in this. Actually there's three bedrooms that are planned in the total construction, although they've got a four bedroom septic system. So I don't think there's any undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties, and I don't think there's any alternatives that are feasible. They went into this in 2006, in good faith tried to accommodate their own lifestyle, their own life plans. Since we got involved in this, they did inquire of some of the neighbors as to whether or not there was available land that they could purchase from neighbors that would make them compliant, and there isn't. In fact, if you take a look at the map that we gave you, some of the adjoining property are used just for septic, for the lakefront lots. If you look at the map, the left hand side is the lake. There's a road there, and then on Tax Map Lot 69 and 70, and I believe even a land hook on Lot 58. Those three parcels are occupied just by septics. So from an open space appearance wise, there's really quite a bit of open space there, and those are never going to get built on. That's not going to change in the future, because they were needed for the septic for the properties on the lake. The house itself has a very filtered view of the lake. It's not something that's going to be visible from the lake. I think on that side Dennis has shown it's like 300 feet from the edge of the property to the lake, and the house is constructed also a little bit unique, a little bit different than others. It's built so that, it was built so that when you go into the house, you go up to the living area, over the garage, the existing part that's up there. The intention here was to still have that be a grand opening, and you would go in that garage, in that area. You would continue to go up to what has been the summer house, and now you would go up to what would be the more permanent house. The summer house, in fact, the summer portion of it, is not heated, and does not have water in the summertime, or in the wintertime. It's a combination of a summer portion and a winter portion. I don't really see where there's any alternatives. They already built the house with the idea that this is something that they would do and this is how it would be worked, and we just had to change the Ordinance. If you didn't have that change of Ordinance, you wouldn't be talking about the major variance that they're asking for. Is the request substantial? I think I agree with Staff's comments. They do not seem to think that it is substantial. I would argue even stronger that you don't necessarily just look at the mathematical variation. You look at what the impact is. You're still going to have the same footprint of the house, whether you have a basement underneath it or a garage underneath the living area. You're still going to have the same amount of non-permeable or permeable area, non-permeable area. It really is not of any significance in that sense. Will it have a physical or environmental condition detrimental to the neighborhood or adverse to the neighborhood? Again, we've taken care of septic. We're taking care of stormwater, and if you take a look at the letters, there are letters from a Mr. Mahoney at 36 Forest, Mr. McGillin at 20 Forest, a Mr. Tedeschi at 12 Forest, Tarana at 15 North Lane, Killeen at 15 Forest, Seaboldt at 222 Lake Parkway, Hodgkins, Brown and Leece. Brown and Leece are the ones that are immediately behind this parcel. None of them seem to think that this has any adverse impact upon their properties that are immediately adjacent to this. There are a couple of blanks that didn't sign, and we haven't filled them in, and they simply said thank you for giving us the information. I don't know if they're going to be here tonight or not. Some said they simply don't get involved in these things. So basically that's what we're talking about, and, Dennis, you want to touch on the separation? MR. MAC ELROY-Sure. Thank you, Mike. There is one variance requested from the stormwater setback. That falls upon the ZBA. It does fall under the Chapter 147, the stormwater ordinance. This being a minor stormwater project, there is still a requirement, a standard that runoff from vehicle surfaces would still, those infiltrated devices that receive that runoff, the standard is 100 feet from a well. In this case we have a proposed future well, which is in proximity to the stormwater shallow grass swale which would receive the runoff from the gravel driveway to the south side. So that's where we're seeking relief from that standard 100 feet required, 35 feet requested. MR. O'CONNOR-And that's from their own well. That's going to be a driven casing well, not a shallow well. So they aren't concerned about that. If you look at the floor plans, I think you'll probably better understand what I'm talking about. They've already planned this house, having the portion that's on the right hand side being the summer part and the permanent part or the year round place being on the left hand side. Mr. Wilcox and his wife are here if you have any 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) questions of them specifically, they'd be glad to try and answer them, but that's basically our presentation. We think we meet all the criteria for an Area Variance. We are in compliance, if I didn't say it, height wise and setbacks, even the new setbacks. They changed that.. They changed the layout of the house a little bit to make it compliant with the setbacks. MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, as far as new construction goes, it's all considered year round? There's no distinction made between summer use and other use? MR. OBORNE-1 think there is, but as far as the floor area ratio goes. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 mean, I do not recall that we've had this split deal where you say we're only going to use half the house and live in the wintertime or. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I think for floor area ratio purposes there's no distinction. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, and, Dennis, you're aware of the old requirements in the Shore Colony? They had original rules about what you could build up there on the Shore Colony as far as construction in that neighborhood. Because that issue's come up before us previously with other building projects in the area there, that they were supposed to be single story, and I think we've sort of gotten away from that over the years, and we've allowed people to expand and build actual homes up there over that period of time. MR. MAC ELROY-Would those have been covenants you're saying or they're not zoning requirements? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. They were in the original Shore Colony, and I think that came up early on like maybe about six years ago with a project that some neighbor brought it up because they didn't want somebody doing the conversion from, you know, summertime use to year round use. I think everybody was aware at the time. Were most of these places on lake water at the time? There was a pipe system to everybody at one point? MR. O'CONNOR-There is a community water system. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, there is now. Yes, perhaps its beginnings pre-dated Town ownership. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 know they go way back to the 50's or something like that. It's a long time ago. MR. O'CONNOR-There was no zoning requirement or no zoning restriction of that nature, though, that I'm aware of. MR. UNDERWOOD-No. We got into it on one of the previous projects because somebody wanted to push the issue. Just so you're aware of that. MR. OBORNE-1 have a question, if I may. You're seeking relief for stormwater infiltration, tonight, or is that at another time? MR. MAC ELROY-No, it's part of this application. MR. OBORNE-It wasn't part of any determination by the Zoning Administrator, but what we're here for tonight is FAR and garage relief. That's it. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, it's in our application package. We discussed it at pre-application. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. MAC ELROY-Relief for a stormwater infiltration device within 100 feet of the proposed future well, definitely. MR. OBORNE-Well, we're here tonight for FAR relief and garage relief only. MR. O'CONNOR-The application is for all three. MR. UNDERWOOD-Not on ours. MR. JACKOSKI-What was noticed? MR. OBORNE-Notice was FAR and garage relief. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So we're going with FAR and garage relief. MR. OBORNE-1 don't recall that, to be honest with you, and I'm not refuting that that wasn't part of our pre-application meeting. I would say that, you know, I've had many meetings since then. MR. URRICO-Is the Staff comments related to the same thing? MR. OBORNE-As far as? MR. URRICO-The Staff comments about the New York State standards and specifications. That's different? MR. OBORNE-No, that has to do with E&S, erosion and sedimentation. MR. O'CONNOR-On Page Six, the section on stormwater is set forth, 147-11(1)(2)(c). We went over that because we were making sure that we had the right section to quote at the, after the meeting. Look at Page Six. MR. OBORNE-No, I don't dispute that. What the problem is is it wasn't noticed, and I don't see it as part of Craig's determination. That's my only concern. MR. URRICO-So we can't vote on that. MR. OBORNE-1 would say no. MR. GARRAND-He hasn't made a determination on it. MR. JACKOSKI-Right. We're an appellate Board. So we cannot, there's nothing to appeal at this point. As far as the applicant is concerned, you can move forward, if there is a granting, but you'll have to come back and take care of that. Correct? MR. OBORNE-Yes, and I apologize for the inconvenience, if, in fact, it was an oversight, and unfortunately it was just noticed for those two items. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We have a letter to Craig also MR. JACKOSKI-Unfortunately because it wasn't noticed there's not much I can do. MR. UNDERWOOD-Why don't we deal with the issues at hand, just because we are ready to deal with that. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I would state that, if you are to give them approval or go through the process tonight for these two items that you have on, come back at another time. I'm reasonably certain the fee would be waived for that, because it's Staff oversight, but again, I don't have those powers, but you have to focus on the two that were noticed. That's it. MR. JACKOSKI-Would you like to move forward? Unfortunately, Mr. O'Connor, there's no date on that. So I can't even tell what the date is on that document. MR. O'CONNOR-There's a letter of Dennis, variance request, which says we're requesting Area Variances from the Floor Area Ratio, and then the number of garages, and then the bottom part. MR. JACKOSKI-Is that this document? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. That was part of the package that went in, that was part of the pre-filing application meeting. MR. JACKOSKI-I don't disagree, and unfortunately, because it's not noticed, we can try to move forward with this application as it is. MR. O'CONNOR-All right, and we have no problem with complying with what was suggested as far as erosion control. MR. OBORNE-1 think the stormwater is a relatively minor issue, to be honest with you. Your heavy lift is the FAR, or is what's before you today. MR. O'CONNOR-Probably for the record we should also mention that the Warren County Planning Department found No County Impact and filed a letter to that effect. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. At this point do any Board members have any questions on this application that they'd like to bring to the applicant's attention? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think we need to clarify with the applicants themselves, so why don't they come up to the mic and we can ask them a few questions. On your application you have the proposed project involves the construction of a main house structure to be connected to an existing garage apartment structure, constructed in 2007. So I'm asking you, is this a separate apartment that you're going to rent out in the summertime? DAVID WILCOX MR. WILCOX-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is this used by family members, or what's the status of it? Because I think we want to get into the facts, and as long as you're up front with that, you know, we don't want to get into a situation where, you know, you're benefitting with something extra that nobody else in your neighborhood has, and I think that's the key to it all. MR. WILCOX-Two things. Number One, we don't want to rent. We wouldn't rent. Of course if we have guests, that's the place to get them out from under foot. Right now they have to sleep on the couch in the living area. The area that Mike referred to will be seasonal, and it's the place where I get the best view of the lake. I would go up there and have my breakfast and that's how I intend to continue to use it. It's clearly not going to be rented. MR. OBORNE-1 believe you're also removing a kitchen that currently exists there out of there. Isn't that part of it? Or is there a kitchen there? MR. WILCOX-There's a kitchen in there now, and, you know, yes, we would not have a kitchen in there. MR. KUHL-Will the front door that services that area stay, that double door, or will that go away also? MR. WILCOX-We will have environmental door, it'll be an inside door. We'd get rid of the outside door so it'll have the, you know, you'll have a common entryway and then flow into the different living areas. MR. KUHL-As I read your application, you add that third garage to reduce floor area ratio. Is that right? MR. O'CONNOR-To guarantee that it's not going to be misused. MR. KUHL-Is that going to be a summer driveway? Is that going to be an asphalt driveway on that third garage? MR. WILCOX-The driveway would remain as it currently is. It was the original driveway on the property, which is gravel or crushed stone or whatever you guys call that. MR. KUHL-Did I recognize a well head that's right there? MR. WILCOX-There is a well head there which has not been used, and we've been told that we need to abandon that well and drill another one. MR. KUHL-That's what you're going to do? MR. MAC ELROY-Future well location shown on the plans. MR. WILCOX-There's a proposed. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. CLEMENTS-1 had just maybe a comment, I think some of it's been explained, because as I looked at this and added it together, you've got over 5,000 square foot of area here. However, if you take out the 709 square foot basement and a 575 foot garage, that takes off about, you know, another 1,000 square feet. So we're back down to 4,000 square feet, and I just wanted you to know, I'm a little bit concerned about that. I haven't made a decision yet, but that's a lot of square footage, for two people. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other comments at this time? 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) MR. WILCOX-May I address that? MR. JACKOSKI-Of course. MR. WILCOX-The two bedroom ranch style house that we're building to live in is the new addition. Underneath it is a full basement garage area, a lot of which has been mitigated, as Michael explained. On the existing spot there is the garage that you see with the small, 800 square foot apartment above it. So the living space is really only about 2400 square feet, 2500 square feet. We don't expect to have any outbuilding for storage of all our summer toys, the winter toys and so forth. My plan is to retire and live the rest of my life there. As I age, I need to be able to store things, not so that they're being piled up on top of each other, but need more floor space in the basement area to store things. So, that's part of the reason why we're concerned to make sure that we've got enough place to put the chairs, to put the canoes, to put the bicycles and so forth. MR. URRICO-Can I ask a question, Mr. Wilcox? You said there's going to be a common area, and then there's going to be two, you said the common entranceway, right? MR. WILCOX-Well, there is an entranceway. MR. URRICO-And there's going to be two entrances within the common entranceway? There's going to be access to another area within that little entranceway. Is that what you said? Could you explain that to me again? It sounds to me like there's a separate entrance to get into that second part of the building. MR. WILCOX-It's like a split level house. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. WILCOX-You go into the split level, you know, in a split level house and you go one direction to one part of the living area. You go another direction to another part of the living area. MR. URRICO-Is there a separate doorway for that? MR. WILCOX-Well, there are doors on them because one part will be unheated, and the other part will be heated. So we need to have the environmental, but it's not going to be like an outside door. MR. URRICO-Okay. VICKI ZELDIN MS. ZELDIN-And then there's one door that lets you into our house. MR. WILCOX-There's one front door. MR. O'CONNOR-It's the door immediately to the south, it would be the south, I believe, of the existing two car garage. That's there presently. This whole addition goes on that side of the house. MR. URRICO-So the purpose of having those doors there is to separate the heated from the unheated portions of the house? MR. WILCOX-Yes. You've got the southern portion, which is the two bedroom ranch. You've got the entryway which is like the split level entry on a, it'll have the elevator in it so that you'll, when we get to that point where we can't do the stairs, we'll have the elevator to get from one level to the other. MR. O'CONNOR-There is a sheet that shows that. MR. URRICO-Yes, I saw that. I just needed an explanation. MR. O'CONNOR-A good part of that is half of this thing is already up. MR. URRICO-Yes. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) MR. O'CONNOR-So to accommodate what's there, and we would have no problem indicating that this is not being treated as a separate apartment. It is to be treated as a single family home, if that's a concern. MR. JACKOSKI-Say that again? MR. O'CONNOR-We have no problem stipulating that this is, as is applied for, a single family home, not a single family home with a separate apartment. MR. JACKOSKI-And I will note for the record the language in the deed states no building or structure of any kind shall be erected or maintained on the premises unless it be adapted for and be used only as a dwelling house for one family or necessary outbuildings for service thereof. Only one such dwelling house shall be erected or maintained upon any lot shown on said map and a part thereof shall not be rented, but nothing herein shall prohibit or restrict the erection or maintenance of said dwellings for the renting of the entire dwelling. All dwellings, regardless of being one, one and a half or two story buildings shall have a ground floor area of at least 600 square feet. So I think that is addressed in the deed correctly. Number Two, as we're looking at the deed, Item Three notes in the deed, no garage, bar or out-building shall be erected or maintained within 60 feet of the street which the lot faces. I think we need to address that. MR. O'CONNOR-Apparently that's not something that has been abided by on a regular basis there. It's a restrictive covenant. MR. UNDERWOOD-You're 30 feet back from the edge of the road. MR. O'CONNOR-From the edge of the road, and the existing garage is of the same distance. They held the same distance on both. Mr. Wilcox says that you have to go back to probably 1957 or some time when that subdivision was done and those lots were 100 feet deep. This actually is three lots, or two and a half lots in that subdivision, and that's something that has not been, if you go down that street, that's not something that has been enforced that I'm aware of by anybody. In fact, if you go over to, and that's a restrictive covenant in any event. MR. OBORNE-The Zoning Board has no jurisdiction over the deeds anyway. MR. JACKOSKI-We understand. We're just making note into the record. That's all. MR. O'CONNOR-The other thing which maybe we should put in the record, too, is right now if you take a look at the plot plan there's a lean-to and a shed along the back line, and there are two temporary canopy type garages on the property. All those will be removed. There will be no outbuildings. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. O'Connor, could you also note, I believe you said before something that I'm concerned about as it relates to your letter of March 22nd . I note the letter states thirdly they wish to maintain the existing kitchen in addition to the proposed kitchen. MR. O'CONNOR-That has been withdrawn. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-They have tried, we've, he has been more than willing to try to make this as compliant as he could. We had discussions with Craig and I think with Keith on the kitchen. MR. OBORNE-Just Craig. MR. O'CONNOR-Just Craig, and we came away from that saying. MR. JACKOSKI-We just wanted to clarify the written record with your statement. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any other questions at this time? Seeing none, we do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'd like to open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board on this matter? Mr. Navitsky. Welcome. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. The Water Keeper has concerns about the negative impacts from possible variances regarding the Floor Area Ratio, since Floor Area Ratio is a design standard based on the capacity of the land to support and mitigate the impacts from development. It's our opinion the proposed development and disturbance may exceed the capacity for the land to support and mitigate these impacts. The requested variances are not the minimum possible for the applicant to achieve their intended use and may be considered substantial. There are alternatives which we request the Board to ask the applicant to look at to reduce the size of the proposed structure and reduce the number of garages. For example, to remove a garage would eliminate the need for a second driveway on the property, further reducing impervious cover as well as the FAR calculation. The requested variances may have potential negative impacts to the environment. The plans do not indicate the extent of disturbance or clearing required for the property, which may require the removal of existing trees and provide important stormwater management. A recent low impact development conference sponsored by the Water Keeper provided information regarding the important stormwater benefits of trees that on a half inch rainstorm can intercept 68% of the rainfall. The Water Keeper recommends the plan should specify trees that will remain and how they will be protected. Plans do not provide adequate information regarding the stormwater management. We do note that there is stormwater management noted. We'd recommend that that would be designed to include all existing impervious cover also. In addition we recommend the consideration of installing rain gardens with vegetation to improve stormwater treatment. Regarding the proposed development also the Zoning Board of Appeals should consider the possibility of a Site Plan Review by the Town of Queensbury Planning Board with projects located within the Critical Environmental Area. So in closing we would recommend the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to request the applicant to invest alternative to reduce the variances requested. If the Zoning Board of Appeals grants a variance, we'd recommend the following conditions: eliminate the new driveway, since it is just for storage, the second garage, which would eliminate impervious cover. Designate trees to remain on the site plan and provide protection details. Provide stormwater management for all impervious surfaces, including the existing, and require Site Plan Review. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to address the Board on this application? Seeing no one, is there any public written comment? MR. URRICO-There are two letters. Mr. O'Connor mentioned other letters besides the two that I have here. Were there others received by you? I'm just talking about the packet here. I have two letters. I have Mr. Killeen and Mr. Hodgkins. Okay. I'll read the two letters in here. "It is my understanding that my good neighbors Vicki Zeldin and Dave Wilcox will come before you for approvals to complete construction of their home. Six years ago they shared their plan to build the house in two phases to accommodate their retirement schedule. Because of the recent zoning changes the original plan now requires approvals not necessary in 2006. As the neighbor directly behind Vicki and Dave I find no issues with the planned construction. The size and intended use is consistent with our neighborhood. The new construction will be an improvement to the area and granting the necessary variances will not have a negative impact to the community, neighbors or the lake. I encourage the board to grant their request. Sincerely John L. Hodgkins 218 Lake Parkway" "Dear Mr. Brown: The purpose of this letter is to let you know that I have reviewed the rendering of a drawing done by Northern Design and Building Associates for the house being built by Dave Wilcox and Vicki Zeldin, on Forest Road, Lake George. Vicki and Dave will be applying for a variance. I wanted to let you know that their house will not negatively impact on our property or any other property in the area. I believe their house will be one of the most attractive homes in the Shore Colony portion of Assembly Point. I wanted to let you know that their variances should be approved. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Gerald A. Killeen" "As neighbors residing at 15 North Lane, we feel that the first phase of the construction was done well & we would expect the new proposed construction to also be the same. Sincerely, Richard & Linda Traina, Assembly Point" "We support you for Phase 2 of your retirement home construction on Forest Road, Assembly Point, Lake George, NY. The proposed structure is compatible with the neighborhood, and any additional variance will not negatively impact the neighborhood or the Lake. John M. McGillin neighbor, 20 Forest Road, Assembly Point, Lake George, NY" "To the Zoning Board of the Town of Queensbury: I am writing in support of the request by David Wilcox and Vicki Zeldin for variances for additional construction and the conversion of their camp on Forest Road to a year-round residence. My husband and I have owned a camp two doors down from Dave and Vicki for more than 25 years and have seen many changes on Assembly Point in the form of additions to summer camps and the construction of larger, year-round homes. The modifications Dave and Vicki propose are certainly in keeping with the kinds of changes that have been taking place over the years. Dave has shared these plans with us as they developed. I believe their retirement home and a camp-with-a-view for the summer months will have a positive impact on the appearance of the neighborhood and I'm looking forward to their long-time plan becoming a reality. Mary Ellen Tedeschi" 12 Forest Road. "Dear Members of The Board: As the owner of the home at 12 Forest Road, having spent more than 25 summers 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) at that camp located just "two doors down the street", I am very familiar with Assembly Point and the area in which the Wilcox-Zeldins are planning to build their permanent retirement home. I am writing in support of their application. I believe that the granting of the requested variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of, or be a detriment to, the neighborhood. I am familiar with the proposed plans for the second phase of the home to be built by our neighbors. Their plans were developed before the recent change in the zoning ordinance. Their plans are to add a modest size two bedroom winterized home to the carriage house style unheated structure only recently constructed to replace the camp that was destroyed in a storm. In my opinion, the completed structure would be significantly smaller than many of the recently built homes on Assembly Point, and the proposed addition when added to the existing structure would not produce an undesirable change in the character of, or be a detriment to, the neighborhood. The proposed use would not be a detriment to the health, safety or welfare of the neighborhood. The current septic system would not need to be expanded to meet the requirements of the proposed addition, and no additional services would be required to be provided by the Town. Therefore, there would be no impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Secondly, it is my understanding that the proposed addition does not involve intrusion into the front, side or rear yard setback requirements, nor would it exceed the restrictions on the height of a home. It appears that the change in the zoning ordinance that requires the proposed addition seek a variance is that the proposed addition includes a cellar. Elimination of the cellar does not appear to me to be a feasible alternative. It would not change the size or the shape of the structure, but it would make the home harder to heat in the winter. Elimination of the cellar would not make a significant change in the external appearance of the structure, because the foundation walls would still be needed to support the structure and the footing walls would have to be below the frost line. The relief requested, that is an increase in FAR from 22% to 28%, is not substantial with respect to the requirements of the ordinance and is consistent with the number of existing structures in the neighborhood. The relief requested is not to create a structure that would encroach on the setback requirements. Rather the relief requested is for the practical purpose of having a garage in which to park cars and a cellar to make the house more energy efficient. Both seem to me to be very good reasons for granting a variance. While many requests for variances could be considered as self-created, the variance request here is not for the purpose of creating additional living space that would exceed the requirements of the amended zoning ordinance. Rather it is for the purpose of maintaining a two-car garage and having a traditional cellar under the home. Therefore, the request should not be denied on the grounds of being self-created solely because elimination of a cellar is technically possible. For the reasons stated above, I urge that the request for a variance be granted. Respectfully submitted, Frederick C. Tedeschi 12 Forest Road Lake George, NY 12845" And I think that may be all of them. Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-These are ones that came in late. One is from Lou Leece, and one is from Mim Brown. These are the people that are immediately behind the property. MR. JACKOSKI-And they are the Iakeshore owners? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. URRICO-:Dear Mr. O'Connor: Dave Wilcox was just here observing, I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time reading this one. I have no objections to the height of his house and look forward to having him as a year round neighbor. I hope he gets the proposed approval of his proposed plans., and that's M. Brown, 214 Lake Parkway, and what was the other one? MR. O'CONNOR-Lou Leece. It's an exchange of e-mails. On the very top of the e-mail he simply says he has no objection to what has been proposed and he has reviewed it. He was actually sent a copy of the plans. MR. URRICO-Okay. Okay. I see it. "David, your plans look beautiful. I have no objection to your application. Good luck." Lou Leece, and that's, well, he has here his address 40 British American Boulevard, but he's the neighbor. MR. O'CONNOR-That's his office. He's an attorney in Albany. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-As to the comments that the Water Keeper made, that garage, or that driveway that he spoke of is an existing driveway. It served the temporary structures or the sheds that are there. It is used infrequently. If that would make a big difference to somebody, that can be removed and the area seeded and planted with grass. It will be used occasionally to bring stuff into that garage door, but it doesn't necessarily have to remain in the shape that it's in 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) now. It is already a gravel driveway, but if that is a bone of contention with someone, that can be removed, and, Dennis, you can maybe talk. This will require a minor stormwater permit, which will be submitted to the staff and will be reviewed as part of the building plans. Craig made the determination that this did not require Site Plan Review and there was discussion about that. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other questions from Board members at this time? MR. KUHL-Do you wish to comment about the Water Keeper's thought about trees? MR. O'CONNOR-I think, how many trees are coming down, David? MR. WILCOX-Three trees. MR. O'CONNOR-Three trees. MR. WILCOX-Well, that's not entirely true. There's three large trees and two relatively small trees. There are three trees that are threatening our existing property and the neighbor's property, and there are two or three small trees that are in the way of where the construction will be. As you can see, we've had a good time with trees. MR. KUHL-They have a bad history. MR. O'CONNOR-They aren't the best trees from what it looks like. MR. WILCOX-So we've had to mitigate that twice. MR. KUHL-What you're stating is you're going to remove a minimum amount of trees. MR. WILCOX-Yes. I like trees. I want to try and keep as many as we can. MR. O'CONNOR-A better way of saying it, maybe, we're going to remove them from the area needs to be disturbed for the construction. It's not an attempt to go in and clear cut the lot. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. At this time I think we'll poll the Board. The first one is going to be Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Well, I'd really like to hear what my fellow Board members have to say first. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Now you can go, Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. You wrote a letter describing the project to Craig on March 19th, and in your original request the present plans show 5,107 square feet that would be counted as living space on this project, and Staff Notes note that you're proposing 3,300 plus square foot expansion to an existing 1,740 square foot single family dwelling. Craig responded back to you, and the gist of his letter I will read the pertinent parts. It says "With regards to your inquiries regarding a second garage and second kitchen, I will reserve issuing a determination until I have seen the associated plans for those projects. My initial reaction is that an Area Variance for having a second garage as well as for the construction of a duplex will be needed, but again, I have not seen the proposed project plans." Although you have agreed to remove the kitchen, which would remove that duplex status of it, the fact that you're saying that you're not going to heat half this large, 5,000 square foot home, you're only going to use it in the summertime, speaks to me the fact that indeed it will be used for living space, and it could easily be converted to year round living space in the future with the addition of heat put in either as electric baseboard or off the initial heating system you're going to use in the new proposed part of the house. I'm not in favor of the garage, the second addition of the garage there. I think that this house, you could remove the connector part between the already constructed part of the house that you hope to construct, take that garage unit off the end of there, shove it in together and you could come up with a design that would look very well and fit together for the whole house, and the whole house should be considered to be contiguous with each other. There's no separation allowed for people to have parts of their house that they close and one part of the year you don't a tax write-off for that. It's going to be written up as a year round dwelling, as far as I'm concerned. So as your plans now indicate, I would not be in favor of any of the relief requested. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Rick? MR. GARRAND-I think Mr. Underwood made a nice summation there. In this Critical Environmental Area, I think this relief is very substantial, and I would also not be in favor of this. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in agreement. I think there is room to trim here, and this is far and above what we would normally even consider, a second garage plus the floor area ratio. I think we need to do some more scaling back of this project. MR. JACKOSKI-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I'm going to take a little bit different approach, I guess. I'd like to say the applicants have satisfied my concerns about the square footage. I think it's a good project. They have talked to all of the neighbors around there who have no problem with it. Looking at the open area around the rest of the, you know, within the rest of the housing area there, it's fairly wooded. So I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I think that Jim makes a good suggestion, but the way the plan is, it's over, I'm for it, but I think Jim's suggestion would be good. You could compress it. You could get it down, and you'd be well within, but I'm in favor of it the way it is. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce Part 11. MRS. HUNT-Yes, Part 11. Well, I'm against the second garage. I am not in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I think, because I'm trying to look at the neighborhood, I think the neighbors have made it clear that they're in favor of the project, so I'd be in favor. I do want to ask, though, the applicant is the Shore Colony organization or association have any jurisdiction over aesthetics, or is there any design criterion or anything else? MR. O'CONNOR-Not that I'm aware of. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, but at this point we seem to have. MR. O'CONNOR-Let me ask a question. We thought we were doing a benefit by creating the second garage. If we cut that back and make it just basement with probably a six foot door, as opposed to a garage door, does that make it a softer application, and I guess I ask Mrs. Hunt that directly, because I'm trying to figure out how we can satisfy the Board's concerns and still get a project that works. They tried to join closer to that existing structure than what they are, but there are so many different levels that are in to consideration that it's very difficult to do it and make it handicap accessible and what not. I didn't do that part of it. They did it with the designer. The 28 foot, this is in a Waterfront Residential area, so it's a 28 foot height restriction, and that's very difficult to work with. So, the idea of trying to join this or do away with that vestibule area, which is probably wasted space, as far as living space, but we get charged for it, is difficult. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 just can't believe that you want to build a 5100 square foot home for, you know, I mean, that's what you've got in essence, counting the office space down in the cellar at the same time, but nonetheless, I still think it could be shrunk back from what you have there and you could be compliant with the Floor Area Ratio. That's up to you. MR. O'CONNOR-If we eliminate the second garage, does that make it a different application? MR. JACKOSKI-So the applicant has requested that they remove the, I guess that would be the south garage, is that correct, the single garage? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-And remove the crush stone surface driveway to that and seed that. Correct? MR. O'CONNOR-Right. So I'll poll the Board again, if they make that change to the application, does that help the application? MR. URRICO-What does that do to the Floor Area Ratio? MR. UNDERWOOD-Nothing, it stays the same. MR. JACKOSKI-It stays the same, but it avoids the second garage. MR. URRICO-The wall is changing, though. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) MR. WILCOX-That was the way we had it originally designed was just as a basement. MR. JACKOSKI-But if it came to us as an application where it didn't have that garage, as Joyce mentioned, she was concerned about having two garages on properties, does that change it? I'll poll the Board again, and I've got to go in reverse order again. Ron? MR. KUHL-No, I was in favor of it the way it was before. If they want to, well, when you remove that garage, that increases the Floor Area Ratio. Right? MR. OBORNE-Garages are counted as part of the floor area. MR. UNDERWOOD-It stays the same. MR. O'CONNOR-It stays the same. The 5.1 is already included. That's counted. We're just saying it's not really living space. MR. KUHL-No, I'm in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. I'm still in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce Part 11, Part III. MRS. HUNT-No, I still think the Floor Area Ratio is too great. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I'm still against it. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-Still high on the Floor Area Ratio. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I'm still on the negative side. MR. JACKOSKI-And I'm obviously still for it. So we still have. MR. O'CONNOR-1 would ask you to table the application and let us take a look at what our options are. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. The applicant has requested a tabling of the application. Do I have a motion? MR. OBORNE-Let's talk about a date. MR. JACKOSKI-We will. MR. OBORNE-Either July18t" or July 25tH MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-2012 DAVID H. WILCOX & VICTORIA T. ZELDIN, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: 26 Forest Road -Assembly Point. Tabled until the July 25th meeting. Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. GARRAND-Counselor, you're also going to be talking with Staff in regards to the (lost words) for the next application? 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) MR. O'CONNOR-If we eliminate the second driveway, we don't need to have. MR. GARRAND-It's a non-issue. MR. O'CONNOR-Not necessary, right, Dennis? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. GARRAND-Okay. MR. OBORNE-June 15th would be the submittal date. MR. O'CONNOR-June 15th. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-2012 SEQRA TYPE II KEVIN & ANNIE DINEEN AGENT(S) ETHAN P. HALL, RUCINSKI/HALL ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) KEVIN & ANNIE DINEEN ZONING WR LOCATION 149 BIRDSALL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 96 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM PERMEABILITY, SHORELINE SETBACK AND EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE. CROSS REF SP 26-2012, SP 11-2007, AV 29-1997, SP 37-1992, AV 60-1992 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.62 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-46 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-13-010 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 24-2012, Kevin & Annie Dineen, Meeting Date: May 16, 2012 "Project Location: 149 Birdsall Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 96 sq. ft. residential addition to existing single-family dwelling. Applicant seeks relief from permeability, shoreline setback and expansion of a nonconforming structure requirements of the WR zone. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: 1. Permeability - Request for an additional 96 square feet of impermeable surfacing; existing permeability stands at 64.7%, proposed permeability reduced to 64.4%, code requirement is 75%. 2. Shoreline setback - Request for 4.2 feet of relief from the 50 foot shoreline setback requirement of the WR Zone. 3. Expansion of a Non-conforming structure - Any relief for the expansion of a non- conforming structure requires relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals 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. Concerning shoreline setback relief, feasible alternatives appear limited as any expansion of the dwelling will require an area variance. With regards to permeability relief, a feasible method by which to avoid this request would be to offer an equal or above like amount of impermeable surfacing removed from another location on the parcel. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Request for an additional 96 square feet or 0.3% increase to the existing permeability of 64.7% with a required minimum permeability of 75% as per §179-3-040 may be considered minor relative to existing conditions, however any increase of impermeable surfacing on this parcel could not be considered positive. Request for 4.2 feet or 8.4% relief from the shoreline setback of 50 feet 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) as per §179-3-040 may be considered minor relative to the ordinance. Request for the expansion of a non-conforming structure must be approved by the ZBA. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, SP 26-12 96 sq. ft. expansion Pending SP 11-07 Shoreline disturbance Approved 4/26/07 AV 29-97 Shoreline setback Approved 6/4/97 SP 37-92 168 sq. ft. addition Approved 7/21/92 AV 60-92 Shoreline setback Approved 7/20/92 Staff comments: The Zoning Board of Appeals may wish to consider, as a condition of approval, that an equal or above like amount of impermeable surfacing be removed from another location on the parcel. Tax Map Parcel # incorrect and should be denoted on application as 289.17-1-46 and not 289.16-1-46. SEQR Status: Type 11" MR. HALL-Good evening. My name is Ethan Hall. I'm principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture. MR. JACKOSKI-And, Ethan, just before you start, I do need to note that my wife has holdings within the vicinity of this property. We did receive notice on the application, but I do not feel that it's a conflict of interest for me to continue on with this Board. MR. HALL-Okay. Thanks. I'm here tonight representing Kevin & Ann Dineen. They are looking to put a master bedroom addition. The current house has one bedroom upstairs, two bedrooms downstairs. There is one bathroom that services all three bedrooms. What they're looking to add is just a master bathroom that will be attached directly to the master bedroom. We're coming right out the back of the building. We were with the Planning Board briefly last night and the issue of the swap of existing hard surfaces came up. We looked at it and the end of the existing driveway as it starts to go down the bank, we can take out an equal amount of hard surfacing on the end of that blacktop to equal the 96 square feet that we're going to add for the building addition. The reason that we need the Area Variance is the existing building is closer to the lake than would be allowed if it were built by today's standards. So the addition to this requires us to get that Area Variance. So that's what we're seeking. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone here on the Board who'd like to ask the applicant's agent any questions? Having none, there is a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing none, is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-No, sir. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll poll the Board. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think everybody recognizes the fact that this is an older structure that was built prior to any kind of zoning and things like that. At the same time, a lot of infrastructure work has occurred there in the past 10 years with all the patio work in the front, but I believe that that was done to deal with stormwater at the same time also, with the real steep bank on the front side. As far as the addition, 96 square feet is not a whole lot. It's like the size of a closet, a large closet in a lot of homes. So I don't really feel it's going to make or break the stormwater, and I think that, with some mitigation put in coming off the driveway and the long slope down on the back there, I think that that could probably have some positive impact. So I'd be for it. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Rick? MR. GARRAND-1 think that they should, as a condition, mitigate the effects of this expansion. MR. JACKOSKI-So do what Mr. Hall suggested. MR. OBORNE-They've offered it, for the record. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. HALL-Yes, we'll do that. MR. GARRAND-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-No, it's all been said. I have no problem with the project. It seems good. It seems like they're giving something back, so, yes, no problem. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I think it's a swap of impermeability, and I think it makes it okay with me. MR. JACKOSKI-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-1 agree with the rest of the Board members. It's a small addition. I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-1 think it's a very modest proposal, and I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-Do I have a motion? MR. UNDERWOOD-I'll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-2012 KEVIN & ANNIE DINEEN, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: 149 Birdsall Road. They're proposing a 96 square foot residential addition to an existing single family dwelling and that will simply be the addition of a master bath off the master bedroom. The parcel will require permeability and in regards to that they've agreed to remove 96 square feet of impermeable surfacing and trade for 96 creation down on the back of the house, as per the plan that Ethan described. Also we would be granting shoreline setback relief of 4.2 feet from the 50 foot shoreline setback requirement for the Waterfront Residential zone as well as expansion of a nonconforming structure because of the previously noted fact that this building was built prior to the setback area needed. Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr.. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. HALL-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2012 SEQRA TYPE II JOHN & PAMELA CEMBROOK AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS, PLLC OWNER(S) JOHN & PAMELA CEMBROOK ZONING WR LOCATION 121 BIRDSALL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF A 1,524 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE. PROJECTS IN AN AREA WITH SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 15% OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND FILLING AND/OR HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE OF GLEN LAKE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) APPROVAL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR SINGLE- FAMILY DWELLING AND HEIGHT RELIEF FOR PROPOSED DETACHED GARAGE. CROSS REF SP 27-2012, BP 2005-272 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.09 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-43 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM JARRETT & JEFF REDDICK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-And again, for the record, in the interest of full disclosure, my wife has received a notification of this project because she has holdings within close proximity to it, but I do not feel that it's necessary for me to recuse myself from this Board. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 25-2012, John & Pamela Cembrook, Meeting Date: May 16, 2012 "Project Location: 121 Birdsall Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of a 1,524 square foot SFD with 816 square foot detached garage and reconstruct a +/-6,646 square foot SFD with 858 square foot garage. Relief requested from side setback requirements for single-family dwelling and height relief for proposed detached garage. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: 1. Side setback (South) - Request for 6.75 feet of relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement for the WR zone. 2. Height - Request for 10 feet of relief from the 16 foot maximum height requirement for accessory structures in the WR zone. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives would include building the house in a compliant location to avoid the side setback relief requested. As far as the height relief, feasible alternatives would be to construct a garage that is 16 feet in height. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 6.75 feet or 34% relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement for the WR zone as per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. The request for 10 feet or 62% relief from the 16 foot maximum height requirement of 16 feet for accessory structures in the WR zone as per§179-3-040 may be considered moderate to severe 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 or environmental condition in 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, SP 27-12 SFD w/in 50 feet of 15% slopes and hard surfacing w/in 50 feet of shore Pending BP 06-272 Dock Approved 5/19/05 Staff comments: • The Zoning Board may wish to inquire about future plans for the dock and associated deck as in its current location the dock may be within the 20 foot setback from the extended property lines. • Stormwater and Erosion and Sediment control measures to be installed as well as an upgraded wastewater system. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) SEQR Status: Type 11" MR. URRICO-Also the Queensbury Planning Board met and recommended on their behalf, that based on its limited review has not identified any significant impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and this was adopted May 15th, and it was unanimous vote. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers, Pam Cembrook the owner and Jeff Redick, the landscape architect. We are here seeking two variances, as you see in our package, one the side line setback and one the garage height. The Cembrooks have spent many months working with their architect and working with Jeff and I to put together a package that meets their needs and one that they feel fits Town standards and does not impact the neighborhood. We think they have achieved that goal. The reason we seek side line variance setback is that we're tilting the house, we're angling the house a little bit northward to gain a better view of the lake based on the orientation of the lake with regard to the property, but just as importantly, we are gaining room for septic tanks along the northeast property line. Without this side line setback, we would need a wastewater setback variance, and we think that the two are either equivalent or the wastewater setback is possibly even more important. So we're seeking the side line zoning setback. With regard to the garage, the Cembrooks have worked with their architect for a long time trying to put together living space and storage space, especially storage space, that meets their needs. They're planning storage in the lower level of the main house and above the garage, and you'll notice from the architectural plans that the upper level of the house, the living space in the house, as well as the storage space in the garage are built into the roof. So essentially even though the house has three living, or three levels that have to be counted as floor area ratio, the basement is for storage, the main level is just that, a main level, and the upper level is built in to the roof. Likewise with the garage, the upper level of the garage, where the storage would be located, is in the roof, the gable of the roof. There is a dormer. Architecturally it's an excellent design. We think it fits with the neighborhood very well, but it's not obtrusive, in our opinion. Another argument is that the garage is actually the same height at the house so it would not be seen from the lake. It's actually shorter in height, in elevation, than the neighbor's house to the east. So it does not create any impacts in our opinion, to that neighbor. The total living area on the property is 2,000 square feet below what the Floor Area Ratio would allow in this zone. You have a large property that can support this structure. The living area is well within and well under the Floor Area Ratio that is allowed, and lastly, as a technicality, we really wouldn't need a height variance for this garage if we were to heat the breezeway between the garage and the main house, because then it would be an attached garage, but we feel that's a waste of energy. It's not really needed to be heated. We thought it was more prudent to come in and ask for the variance on height of the garage rather than heat the breezeway when it's not needed. Would you like to add any comments? MR. REDICK-1 think the comments that I would add are we strongly, we put a lot of effort into maintaining the integrity of the property between the house and the lake, by incorporating landscaped walls, a lot of additional plant material. We're also managing and maintaining a lot of the existing vegetation that's on site. So we're going to extensive efforts to manage that portion of the property because we understand the importance of the lake, and that's also a personal point to the Cembrooks that they, it's a goal of theirs to maintain the integrity of the lake, it's not just a, it is a goal of theirs. Additionally, through the use of additional plant materials that are going to be going into the site, we're disguising and hiding some of the roof lines and softening things from a lot of different vantage points, and I think thirdly, too, is the existing conditions with the septic field and what not are actually being bettered by moving them further away from the lake and closer to the road itself. PAM CEMBROOK MRS. CEMBROOK-We're also going to be incorporating more trees and shrubs in the back. A hill was taken down many years ago before we purchased the property, and there is nothing back there. The vegetation was taken away and it's a desert back there right now, and my husband and I always wanted to do something, but when we bought the house, we knew we were going to be building our retirement home here, and we didn't want to be planting anything there until we knew exactly what we were doing. We have several trees that will be going in in that area as well, which will make it very nice in the back. My family has spent many, many years up here. My parents have a house on Glen Lake, and my children love it. I worked at Storytown when I was 14, and my kids worked at The Great Escape as lifeguards and my daughter, again, is up here now working as an intern at Glens Falls Hospital. So my children love it. We spend a lot of time here. We love the outdoors, and as a result, we need to store the 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) outdoor equipment. We're building post and beam. So we won't have attic space, and I don't want to be storing my winter and summer clothing in the basement which can get musty. So I prefer it in the upper attic area of the garage, and I need it to be tall because my current attic at home is low and I bend over carrying all these totes and heavy things and my back is killing me. So I just prefer to have it tall, and if I'm going to build my retirement home, and I'm getting older, I would like it to be a little bit nicer so that I can store things easily and access them easily. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions, at this time, from Board members? MR. CLEMENTS-1 have one. Is the garage going to be heated? MRS. CEMBROOK-No. MR. KUHL-So you're saying the use of the space over the garage is strictly for storage? MRS. CEMBROOK-Yes. MR. GARRAND-That's what we were told by another resident in that neighborhood, and it's used as living space now. MRS. CEMBROOK-It will not be used as living space. First of all, the way we're building it, it's going to be tall enough for me to walk through, but it's not going to be tall enough to have a living space there. MR. JARRETT-We'll stipulate it on the plans, if that would help. MR. GARRAND-Yes. I think they did, too. Just there's been no enforcement action on it. MR. OBORNE-1 will state for the record, if there are any issues that people feel need an enforcement action, please contact my office and make a formal complaint. MR. KUHL-I gather that the shoreline will stay the way it is, the dock and everything? MRS. CEMBROOK-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-And again, this project's going to the Planning Board also, correct? MR. JARRETT-They looked at it last night and it's going back tomorrow night depending on which action you take. MR. JACKOSKI-They're going to go back tomorrow night for formal. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you going to have to take all your side line trees down because of the? MRS. CEMBROOK-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-You're going to try and keep all those oaks up? MRS. CEMBROOK-Actually we're going to be adding more. We will be incorporating more. MR. JARRETT-There's only really one large tree that has to come down, I think, for the reconstruction MR. UNDERWOOD-1 looked at it the other day trying to visualize. MRS. CEMBROOK-No, we're going to be adding more. MR. JARRETT-The question came up last night about that birch clump, and that's staying. MR. OBORNE-Yes, that was one of the questions in my Staff Notes, and it's above and beyond what I thought was going to stay. MR. UNDERWOOD-What about waterfront, you're not going to do any boathouse or anything like that on the waterfront, I assume, you're just going to have a dock down there? MRS. CEMBROOK-We currently have a dock there. MR. GARRAND-Now given the size of this house and all the hard surfacing, the garage and all that, there's going to be a significant amount of stormwater coming off of all this. What plans do 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) you have for all the stormwater? I mean, you've packed the whole project into one half of the parcel. The other half of the parcel's empty. MR. JARRETT-We are complying, well, when you say the other half is empty, you mean the southern half going toward Mud Pond? MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR. JARRETT-Okay. We have stormwater management for the entire impervious area on the property, and we meet Chapter 147. We have engineer's comments back and they're relatively minor, in my opinion. Keith can weigh in on that. There's no stormwater on the project right now. The existing house and garage is so old that there's no stormwater management at all and we're going to be complying with the Town standards for stormwater management with this new project. We're reducing driveway, actually. There's quite a wide driveway out there now, if you went out there to look at it. So that's being reduced significantly, but we're managing all the stormwater, and it will be a brand new wastewater system that is compliant as well. MR. GARRAND-And the wastewater system's going to be on the same side of the road as that also? MR. JARRETT-Yes. Keith's got one of the plans up right there, and it's back toward Birdsall Road Extension. If you go to the next plan, go backward, there you go, right next to Birdsall Road. That's all wastewater there. MR. GARRAND-Can you give us an idea where the stormwater's going to be going to? MR. JARRETT-I certainly can. We have, can you go to the, well, stay there for a second if you would. The driveway essentially is all draining to some pre-treatment swales right here along the driveway edge, and they overflow to drywells which are on the Mud Pond Road side or Mud Pond side, excuse me. Whereas the roof water goes into a rain garden there, and rain gardens in the front of the house. We also have some chambers underneath the driveway for the roof water from the garage. So it's a complex system. They have systems all throughout the property for stormwater. Does that help, or does that confuse you? MR. GARRAND-That helps. MR. JARRETT-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 called Craig to get a clarification because I was a little bit concerned about the waterfront, because, you know, I know that the intent of the Waterfront regulations is that our impact is, we consider on that side, and because we have a divide between two different waterfronts on this property, in essence, we have the road running through there, and I asked Craig, I said, well is it proper for us to consider the entire lot going both ways into both water bodies, in doing the Floor Area Ratio, and he said yes it was, but, you know, I still think that that's a key thing, and I'm glad that you're not maximizing out to your full advantage, because I think that would, you know, in essence I think we have to keep that and reflect upon the fact that you do have an impact on Glen Lake because everything's being done on that side. Round Pond isn't as affected by it, but I think in a sense with your rain gardens and things like that, I think it's well designed. MR. JARRETT-Well, we purposely brought stormwater from the driveway back away from Glen Lake. We thought this watershed, the Mud Pond watershed, could better handle that, better mitigate that, especially since we have a buffer of a significant wetland here between our property and Mud Pond surface water. So we've treated it, put all the driveway water right here and right here, and we have a significant buffer to Mud Pond. So we purposely did that and split the water between the two. MR. JACKOSKI-In the quit claim deed that the Hirsch family gave to the current owners, it says the right of way. Is that the right of way that used to be involved with the driveways, or is that the driveway that's supposed to be along the shoreline of the lake for access? MRS. CEMBROOK-No, that was the one that went across the back of our property to get to their house. MR. JACKOSKI-Where the hill used to be. MRS. CEMBROOK-Where the hill used to be. MR. UNDERWOOD-And that just dead ends at Vittengl's. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) MR. JARRETT-That's been extinguished, now. MRS. CEMBROOK-Right, we extinguished that. Once the hill came down, they no longer needed to come across our property to get to their properties. They go on Birdsall Road, and then they go right into their properties, and that gave us the ability to then be able to plant trees, put a septic system and do things that are better suited for our property. MR. JACKOSKI-What's the effect on the current plan on the shoreline walkway that's along the shore? MRS. CEMBROOK-There's nothing. We're not affecting that at all. MR. JARRETT-The walkway along the shore? MR. OBORNE-There's an easement, I believe. MR. JACKOSKI-Is it? MR. UNDERWOOD-That's going to remain as is. MRS. CEMBROOK-That's not changing. MR. JARRETT-That's not changing. I don't think it's actually used, is it? MRS. CEMBROOK-No, it's really not, but it's not changing. MR. OBORNE-That came up with the parcel next to the one that you used to own, I believe, and, you know, there's not a lot of information out there on that. MR. JACKOSKI-The Valenti house. MR. OBORNE-Right, the Valenti house. Right, but it did show on that. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, the Hirsch family definitely uses it. I mean, they've always maintained their right to walk across the shore. So I just wondered if that was what they gave up when they? MRS. CEMBROOK-No, no, no. They gave up the right of way in the back, so that they could drive to their house across the back. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other questions at this time from Board members? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to make comment to the Board? We do have someone in the audience. If you could come to the table please and state your name for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN MOOSBRUGGER MR. MOOSBRUGGER-Good evening. John Moosbrugger, 130 Birdsall Road. I'm directly behind Cembrook's property. My only concern, I think this is a good project. It's good. That house does need major renovation, and the septic looks excellent. This and that. My only problem is with the height of this garage. As stated earlier, other storage areas have been needed and they didn't really remain storage areas. So my idea is a little height over a garage for storage when a garage is the size that this garage is, how much storage does one need? I'm not against the project. I'm for the project, but I just think that this happens time, and time, and time again, and, you know, storage does not stay storage, and that's my concern, and, you know, a little extra height, fine. Ten feet, that's considerable amount of height to take into consideration. That's the second story of a home. So that's my concern. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to address the Board concerning this matter? Is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-There is not. MR. JACKOSKI-No written comment. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) MRS. CEMBROOK-1 have two letters for approval of two people, Colleen Beadleston and Frey Frejborg. MR. JACKOSKI-And I do note that the two letter writers are here. Do they need those letters read into the record? Yes, they would like those read into the record. MR. URRICO-Okay. I should say that these are both the same letter. So I'm going to read Colleen Beadleston and Frey Frejborg, and the letters read, 1, Frey Frejborg, approve of the side setback and height variance request by Pamela and John Cembrook for the construction of their new home at 121 Birdsall Rd., Queensbury, NY 12804. The new residence will improve the side setback of the existing residence significantly while maintaining a view of the lake similar to the existing home. By approving the side setback variance, Pam and John will not be required to get a septic variance. I also approve of their height variance request for their proposed garage structure as it does not cause any obstruction of views of the lake and will be similar or lower than neighboring garage structures which were also granted height variances. The construction of their new home will greatly improve the property and add value to the neighborhood and the neighboring properties. I fully support the construction of their new proposed residence and the variances requested." MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. JARRETT-I'd like to call your attention to the garage architecture, and you can see the roofline, it's a steeply pitched roof. Storage is underneath that upper level of the garage, but it's built in to the roofline. So there is a dormer here facing the driveway, but basically storage is underneath that roofline, and, to me, it's an architecturally beautiful structure, and I would hate to lower the roofline to get down to less than five feet in that center. I just wanted to call it to your attention. MR. JACKOSKI-And would you do that? Would you lower that roofline instead of enclosing the breezeway and heating it? MRS. CEMBROOK-No, I would enclose the breezeway and heat it, and then I could raise the roof. MR. JARRETT-We discussed that before the meeting, and they weighed that option and felt, no, that they need, architecturally they think it's superior this way, and they need that height for storage. MRS. CEMBROOK-What occurred, our architect is one that we used in New Jersey where we live at home and we just thought that was going to be a little bit more convenient for us because we don't get up here all that often, and he misunderstood the guideline and thought that the breezeway would be considered attached, and so we designed it as such, so that it would be storage, I would be able to get up the stairs with all the totes and whatever and store stuff. When we found out, after we came to meet with Keith, and they said, no, no, no, it's got to be a shared wall or heated, our thought was, oh boy, do we go back to the drawing board with our architect and redesign this so that then it's enclosed and heated and so on, because I still want that storage area, and that would be what we would wind up doing. MR. JACKOSKI-So you'll increase the square footage that's heated of the house, in order to keep and maintain the current proposed roofline. MR. JARRETT-And it would cost them more money and take more energy, yes. MRS. CEMBROOK-But the breezeway for us, was, you know, to get, again, all the paraphernalia down to the water. MR. JACKOSKI-We understand. MRS. CEMBROOK-To have access to the side yard. So, again, it was one of those things where we thought we were conforming and we were only going to have to go for a side setback variance so that we could get a better view of the lake, and again, we worked with the architect initially on the property to have it conforming. We were trying to conform with height variance on the front, lake setback variances, we wanted to conform to everything, for the most part, when we designed the house, and it wasn't until my husband and I stood on the property and realized that our property angles, because we're at the bay, we wind up looking, if we were to situate the house correctly with the 20 foot side setbacks, we'd be looking at the shoreline, and the previous owner built the current house and angled it, and now we see why. When my husband and I were standing in the current kitchen and he said, Pam, do you realize that we're not going to be seeing the water. We're going to be looking over at the houses on the shoreline. We need to 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) angle the house. So we already had it designed, and that's when we said, all right, let's angle it, and we're still improving the side setback, but we have to go for a variance so that we can get a better view down the lake. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. No, I think we're okay. I think we understand. Are there any other comments from Board members? DON MILNE MR. MILNE-Can I say something? I'm Pam's dad. MRS. CEMBROOK-Don Milne. I'm sorry. He lives on the lake, too, and he's also on the Glen Lake Association. MR. MILNE-I'd like to address the storage issue because it's come up and it's a serious issue, and I realize that there's property that's being misused. When we built our house, we didn't need to get a height requirement for the garage, and I have storage over the garage. MRS. CEMBROOK-Which is full. MR. MILNE-Right now I have 17 pairs of skis, 17 pairs of ski boots, etc., etc., and all the Christmas decorations, and the overflow is in her garage, over on Birdsall Road. So, when you have a post and beam house, you don't have room for a lot of that storage, including clothing. As I visited architects with Pam to consider this project, I came to the realization that what she was trying to do was eliminate the mistakes that I've put into our house, her father's house. MRS. CEMBROOK-That's not true. MR. MILNE-Eliminate her father's mistakes. MRS. CEMBROOK-1 really love the look of a post and beam, and because of that you don't get an attic. MR. MILNE-But among those is lack of closet space. So we do have, in our garage loft, and it's not enclosed, because when I went to Florida and stored a coat up there and came back a year later and we gave her a coat and there was a mouse in the pocket that had been living in the wool coat. Well, you have to enclose things, and we have tremendous problems with storage because we have seven grandchildren, and as some of you know that are Glen Lake residents, they all come up, and we've had as many as four living with us for the entire summer, and you have all of the associated clothing, and then the ski jackets in the wintertime. So this truly is a storage issue with this garage. It's not going to be living space, believe me. They've put the living space into the house. MR. JACKOSKI-We understand. MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I ask you a question, Keith? Can they seek a waiver from the heating requirements on the connector? MR. OBORNE-1 don't believe so. MR. UNDERWOOD-Why do they have that, I mean, is that just New York State Code or what? MR. OBORNE-It's not considered part of the house. If you attach it to the house in a Waterfront Residential you get that 28 foot? MR. OBORNE-It's detached. It's considered detached because of that breezeway, and it's not heated. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because I'm going to guess that after one winter you're going to want to close that breezeway in when that wind's whipping down the lake, you know, it would be nice to go from the garage. I don't see any reason why it would have to be heated, myself. I mean, my dog heats my connector between my garage and the house. MRS. CEMBROOK-Well, we have a door, right from the garage. We created it so that the door from the garage goes right to the door to the kitchen. So at least we won't have snow on us. MR. JACKOSKI-Why don't we poll the Board at this time. Okay. Roy? 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) MR. URRICO-Yes. I would say that I'm not bothered by the side setback at all. The height of the garage does bother me, and I'm always worried about changes in the character of the neighborhood when that happens because as we allow increases in the garage height, as we've done in the past, that tends to become the defacto standard for the area once we've applied it a number of times, but I'm satisfied with the explanation here, and the way it's going to look and the way it's going to fit into the character of the building and the neighborhood. I don't think it's going to be obtrusive. I think it'll work, and they also have an out. So either way they're going to get the same height, and I think I'd rather have it done the right way. So I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I'd be in favor of this with the stipulation that the garage not be used for living quarters. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes, I have no problem with it. I think that, you know, the fact that if it were heated it would be okay seems like a very small point. So I would be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I think from the lakeside you're not going to notice. I think it's a good project. I like the way it blends all in, and besides your neighbor told me I better say yes. MR. JACKOSKI-He's only kidding. He's only kidding. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I don't have a problem either. I think if you go around the lake and you look at the houses, how everybody sort of has their own angle, it individualizes your property, and it gives you the illusion that you're the only one there, and when you line them all up like ducks, it's really stupid, you know, because you're listening to the conversation of your neighbors on either side when they have guests over and things like that. So I don't have a problem with the side setback of 6.75, and the height variance on the garage, too, you know, the fact of the matter is it's six of one, half dozen of another. If you heated the connector, you wouldn't have to get any relief. MRS. CEMBROOK-Well, then I could go 28 feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. MRS. CEMBROOK-Which I didn't design it that way. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, and I think what you're trying to do is match the house, it's post and beam. It's got to match or it's going to look really stupid, like why did they do this, you know, so I don't have a problem, and I think that I would be in agreement that you're going to use it for storage, and, you know, hopefully that's not going to be an issue in the future. So that's it. MR. JACKOSKI-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-1 agree with the rest of the Board. I'm satisfied with the explanations and I think it's a good project, so I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-And 1, too, am in favor. So I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-Do I have a motion? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 can do it. MR. JACKOSKI-Go ahead, Jim. Thank you. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2012 JOHN & PAMELA CEMBROOK, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: 121 Birdsall Road. They're proposing demolition of a 1,524 square foot single family dwelling with an 816 square foot detached garage and reconstruction of a plus or minus 6,646 square foot single family dwelling with 858 square foot garage. Relief is requested from the side setback requirements for single family dwelling and height relief for the proposed detached garage. As far as the relief goes, they're requesting 6.75 feet of relief from the 20 foot side 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) setback requirement for the Waterfront Residential zone, as well as 10 feet of relief from the 16 foot maximum height requirement for the accessory structures, and that's the garage in the back. They've agreed that the garage will be used only for storage in the upper part of the garage. It will be post and beam to match the house, and we also recognize the fact that if they heated the breezeway in between then they wouldn't be here seeking that relief. As far as the impacts to the neighborhood, it should be an improvement because the old house is worn out and needs replacement, and at the same time all the infrastructure going in will bring it into compliance with the septic code as well as the runoff codes by the creation of water gardens and other things on the property. We do not consider the variance to be substantial for the side setback relief, and even though the garage is substantial at 10 feet, at the same time as recognized we said it would be allowed if he heated the connector. So I would move for its approval. Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 2012, by the following vote: MR. GARRAND-Any condition on the variance? MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I think they've agreed, they've agreed they were going to use it for storage purposes, the garage, as agreed. MR. JARRETT-We'll stipulate we'll put it on the plans, and then there's something there. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-So let the motion note that the applicant will stipulate such on the drawings. AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much. MRS. CEMBROOK-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-2012 SEQRA TYPE II SAN SOUCI OF CLEVERDALE AGENT(S) BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART AND RHODES, PC/NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAN SOUCI OF CLEVERDALE ZONING WR LOCATION 92 MASON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SITE MODIFICATION TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AREA VARIANCE AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM SIDE SETBACK, EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, AND FENCING REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION. CROSS REF SP 9-2012, SUP 45-2009; BOH 14-2009; AV 38-2009 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING YES ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.27 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-43 SECTION 179-5-070, 179-10; 179-3-040 STEFANIE BITTER & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-We should note that we do have some permeability concerns and I wonder, Keith, should we read the application into the record, or should we try to address the concerns we have on permeability and decide what we're going to do? MR. OBORNE-Yes. We could quickly go over them. I'm not sure if Tom got this e-mail from Sean today, at all, he's giving you 50% at this point. You will need to obviously re-crunch and re-calculate the numbers at this point in time. What I would suggest, if the Board is going to table, which I don't see any other option, to be honest with you, would be to table it to June, because I think we could turn this around pretty quickly, and move forward from there. So really the long and the short of it is, is that the engineer, depending on the design that Tom comes up with and shows and proves and whatever, he's going to give 50% permeability relief for what is designed. Now we need to figure out exactly what the number is at this point. MR. JACKOSKI-And so may I ask the applicant, maybe we could read the application into the record, maybe a very brief discussion from your side. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I would like to give people the opportunity to at least comment. I would like to leave the public hearing open if we do table the matter, but this way, you know, the public isn't inconvenienced because they sat here through this whole thing and had it tabled. I don't know how you feel about that. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) MS. BITTER-Right. We wouldn't have a problem with the tabling. We would just hope to hear from the Board members, just so that if there's any other things we should be looking at in the next month. MR. JACKOSKI-That's certainly reasonable. MR. OBORNE-And I agree with counsel, because there are some other issues on the property. MR. JACKOSKI-Great. So, I'm sorry, but read it into the record. MR. URRICO-I'm not going to get into the calculations because we're not sure of that right now. MR. OBORNE-That's correct. MR. URRICO-Okay. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 26-2012, San Souci of Cleverdale, Meeting Date: May 16, 2012 "Project Location: 92 Mason Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to modify approved site plan to include the removal of vegetation and the installation of "permeable" pavers on existing gravel parking spaces. Further, applicant seeks after the fact approval for the installation of a +/- 665 square foot patio with access deck and stairs to accommodate four tables as well as for the installation of a 6 foot tall, 112 foot long stockade fence along the south boundary. Variances: Relief from side setback, expansion of a nonconforming structure, fencing requirements and permeability. Relief Required: Nature of Area Variance: Parcel will require area variances as follows: 1. Side Setback - Request for 7.15 feet of south side setback relief after the fact for the installation of stairs and deck leading to unapproved patio. 2. Expansion of a non-conforming structure must be approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. 3. Front (west) fence height and style- Request, after the fact, for 2 feet of fence height and style along the 15.5 feet of architectural front placement of 6 foot tall vinyl stockade fence. 4. Front (east) fence height and style - Request, after the fact, for 2 feet of fence height and style along the 28 feet of architectural front placement of 6 foot tall vinyl stockade fence. 5. Permeability - The quantification of permeability will need to be verified by the applicant. Staff calculates additional hard surfacing at approximately 800 square feet. Note: This includes the new patio and pavers denoted to the northeast not previously approved. Lacking any opinion from the Town Engineer or project engineer, all hard surfacing, including "permeable pavers" are considered to be 100% impermeable. 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 any decrease to permeability could be considered detrimental. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives would be to build what was previously approved in 2009. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 7.15 feet or 36% relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement as per §179-3-040 for the deck and stairs associated with the patio may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Further, expansion of a non-conforming structure must be approved by the ZBA as per §179-13-010. The request for 2 feet of fence height or 33% relief as well as style relief along the 15.5 feet of front yard (west) placement of a 6 foot tall vinyl stockade fence as per§179-5-070 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Additionally, the request for 2 feet or 33% relief as well as style relief along the 28 feet of front yard (east) placement of a 6 foot tall 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) vinyl stockade fence as per §179-5-070 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Finally, request for 800 square feet of additional permeability relief when permeability was at 31.5% in 2009 may be considered severe relative to the ordinance; required permeability as per§179-3-040 is 75% in the WR Zone. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor additional impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated as the site is essentially built out as it exists. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty is self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, SP 9-12 Exp. of N/C structure in CEA and site plan modification Pending SUP 45-09 Exp. of N/C structure IN CEA and site improvements Approved 8/25/09 AV 39-09 Front setback, Exp. of n/c structure, FAR, Permeability, parking Approved 8/25/09 BOH 14-09 Holding tanks Approved 7/2009 Staff comments: The request for additional permeability relief due to the installation of the patio is also tied to the desire of the applicant to have the proposed "permeable" pavers installed in part to reduce the overall impermeable nature of the site. The Town Designated Engineer (TDE) has been asked to qualify and quantify the amount of relief that the proposed pavers may provide. Please note that the permeability relief stated above does not include any allowance for a reduction to impermeability that the pavers may or may not afford. SEQR Status: Type II" MR. URRICO-The Town of Queensbury did move on this last night, the Planning Board, and basically found in its limited review that they didn't identify any areas of concern, and that was a unanimous vote. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Would you like to add anything to the record at this time? MS. BITTER-Can I just be brief? We've highlighted this to kind of try and demonstrate for you exactly what the variances are that we're talking about. As all of you know, the patio in the back is the result of the side setback, the actual steps and the landing. The fence is this fence that goes along the southern property line that Mr. Blinstrub and Mrs. Blinstrub would be here to adamantly defend against, but unfortunately are out of town and will be here at next month's meeting, and will provide, but what we're requesting is to maintain this as six feet in height and not have it staggered down to four feet, and again, that's because of the neighbor's privacy, and their issue was with regards to the lights. This west side, there is arborvitae that's proposed, but as I understand it from Staff, it's still not staggered enough. It would have to be changed to four feet. The last being the permeability which obviously we know is at issue. The permeable grass parking areas are these two that we're proposing, with the permeable crushed stone parking area being this. So those are, in total, the ones that we're actually speaking of. MR. OBORNE-Can I address one thing? Just one thing is the patio, you're not here for relief for the patio. It's for the steps and the landing down to the patio. The patio is Site Plan Review. MS. BITTER-Right. I'm sorry. As all of you are aware, most of you were here when this was reviewed last, this is a super popular site. I mean, it's a community gathering area. There's multiple letters that have come in from the neighbors saying how they come here for meeting with friends, baby showers, everything, and it's a hot spot in the summertime, and Larry knows this. When Larry bought it he obviously upgraded it from what looked like kind of a warehouse type deal to kind of have more residential setting and fit more with the neighborhood, and he's made improvements which address the neighbor's concern, a lot of these, like the fence being one of them. The patio came into play for mere safety purposes. People, when they came there, they had to wait and they were waiting in the parking area. It was a popular space. So they were kind of just hanging out in the parking and Larry was concerned. So now what they're doing is they're going out on this patio area and they're waiting there. So they're more in a condensed space and they're not just kind of hanging out and hanging out in the streets. So he addressed it for safety purposes. Obviously the fences, I already talked about, was to help his neighbor out for privacy purposes. The permeability, I realize we're still discussing it, but overall, it's going to be a benefit. Whether or not it's taken as a 50% offset or a 0% offset, it's 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) going to do more than what the gravel is doing there, and I'll let Tom go into more detail as to that, if you'd like to discuss that tonight, but overall this is a (lost word). It's great for the area. It's great for the community, and we're just trying to make it better. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any Board members at this time who'd like to ask some questions on the project? I have a question. When will all of the construction finally be done? LARRY CLUTE MR. CLUTE-1 move and then I, how do I want to say, I didn't think. I was thinking for my clients, and when I don't think, I end up here in front of you explaining why I don't think, but hence that slows down my construction, because I end up being stopped. I created my own stoppage, and also the seasonal thing. I will not construct during the summer. MR. JACKOSKI-So these changes won't happen until after the summer season is over? MR. CLUTE-That's correct. Everything I do or everything about this store is about Cleverdale. I listen intently to anybody that comes through that door. So honestly that's what we do, the construction, I have a minimal 104 construction, and then with my own missteps I create even a tighter window, if that makes sense. MR. GARRAND-Yes, I remember last summer I was there in the springtime because somebody did some stuff in the off season that forced me to be there and then it stopped all of a sudden. MR. CLUTE-One misstep, and the site is so tight and so restrictive, and again, I didn't think with the patio. I'm a home builder, and so patios are never a thought. Typically there's no permit involved. Permeability isn't an issue, well, I know it is here, but I didn't think that way. I can quickly put a patio in. I can resolve, I didn't want, I personally pulled into the parking lot one night and I didn't like the kids running between the cars, and I said I have to come up with, and I went to Scott who manages the store, and so I came up with this patio, and didn't think, didn't think anything of permeability. So essentially I create my own issues. MR. UNDERWOOD-So you're not going to have drive-in pick up food and valet parking or anything like that? MR. JACKOSKI-I would love delivery. Delivery. Any other discussion? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board concerning this application? Mr. Navitsky? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. The Water Keeper is troubled with the failure of the applicant to implement stormwater improvement measures on the approved plans that were agreed in discussions. The ability of stormwater improvements to be implemented is further compromised by the continued and unpermitted expansion of the facility. We request the Zoning Board of Appeals apply the Town's regulations, specifically Article 8 Landscaping and Buffering Standards and the criteria for granting variances during your deliberations. The proposed after the fact expansion will increase the undersized parking provided, which will place an additional burden on the neighborhood. The proposed site plan should require tree planting as per Article 8 of Chapter 179, which would increase stormwater management and treatment. Trees provide important buffering, shading and water quality benefits and should be required. Stormwater management should be provided to the greatest extent practicable at this site. The applicant has continued to maximize the impervious cover on the site with disregard to previous conditions of approval. Additional stormwater management could be provided by retrofitting the non-parking areas along the side of the parking with rain gardens and tree planting, and soil restoration should be required in areas proposed for grass pavers to improve infiltration potential. I think this gets to the point of the discussion on what the actual permeability of the grass pavers is, is it 50%, is it 100%? If they've been parking on that for years, that's really like concrete. So you've really got to get in there and rip that soil up and amend that so they can go back to infiltrating. The Water Keeper recognizes the importance of the establishment to the Cleverdale community. However, we are frustrated with applicants that fail to comply with approved plans or appear to appease recommendations without any intent to implement. The reason I say that is, in minutes from approvals back in 2009, attorney Jon Lapper quoted by saying, we also added, after the Water Keeper spoke at the Zoning Board meeting, we agreed to put in some stone storage trench which is on the plans on the Cleverdale Road side, because everything flows downhill, and tonight we talked with the Water Keeper and 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) they suggested that if the arborvitae planting beds would not be raised it would help infiltration, and so we agreed to do that as well, and that was also a condition of the approval. Again, those have not been put in. So it gets frustrating. Without a greater commitment by the applicant to increase stormwater management and treatment through rain gardens and increased vegetative planting and trees, we recommend the Zoning Board of Appeals to deny the current after-the- fact variance due to the excessive impervious cover on the site. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Please? Welcome. ROSEMARY PUSATERI MRS. PUSATERI-Rosemary Pusateri, 75 Mason Road. We live four doors south of the San, as we call it with love. Certainly our family enjoys having the San Souci so close to our home. It's very convenient to be able to bring our visiting friends and relatives there for a congenial meal. I do have concerns about the application before you, concerns regarding the potential impact on Lake George, the lake we love. First of all, the San apparently doesn't seem to have implemented some of their previous approved variances and the approved site plan. Also, it seems to me, and I could be wrong, that the applicant has not upgraded the septic system as it was approved by the Queensbury Town Board. The holding tanks and the grease traps do not seem to have been installed, and also there have been stormwater management and plantings put in. I can see that they're not done. Second, the applicant, apparently without application to you, has expanded the impermeable area beyond their previously approved variance. With this application it appears even more expansion of impermeable area is being requested. Perhaps the limit has been reached already. I'm speaking as a neighbor, and someone who loves the lake, and strictly as a near neighbor, I might have another concern with this new outdoor patio. Is that going to contribute to increased nighttime noise and disturbance simply because it is an outdoor space? Thank you very much for your attention tonight. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anyone else? If you could come to the table, please. Welcome. ELIZABETH WARD MRS. WARD-Thank you. My name is Elizabeth Ward, and we live a short distance from San Souci, further out on the point. I have two items I'd like to kind of just bring up, and one is I don't understand why the work was done prior to seeking approvals. I'm very concerned when people do this, which we've seen done before and done right in the area where we live. They go ahead, they do it, and then, you know, it's hard to say you're going to have to tear it down. Secondly, I would like to see them finish the previous projects they've taken on. The east side of the building has not been finished. There's no siding on it, and this at least the second, if not the third summer that we have looked at the plywood, and I would like to see that completed before they take on additional projects. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anyone else this evening who'd like to address the Board? Is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-Yes. "The SANS cannot be measured by its worth to the community without considering its value to every person who may have walked through the door. It truly is a FAMILY of friends who meet, perhaps for the first time. The SANS is there supporting all - in good times and sad times. The SANS support and comfort our surrounding area fireman/woman after a disaster, and yet on a moment's notice can plan a terrific celebration for guests visiting the area. Always welcoming, always available. They continually support community fundraising requests even during the long winter months when other venues choose to close. It has the feeling of a clubhouse for local year round residents, yet a safe haven for families/seasonal guests. We support the additions requested as a much needed continued benefit to our area. It will be an investment to all who live here - and all future visitors who may have the pleasure of visiting the SANS sometime soon. Sincerely, The Conway Family Joe, Laura and Jordyn" This following letter has been written by several different people. "As residents and taxpayers in the Town of Queensbury we feel you should allow the Sans Souci to make improvements to the building. They have always had the concerns of their neighbors in mind. The quality of the construction and planning has also always been a priority with the neighbors in mind. The Sans Souci has been a long time local establishment with a history of bringing the community together. The Sans Souci provides a local place for friends, business acquaintances and families to have birthdays, anniversaries, firehouse meetings, auxiliary meetings. It is a place where friends and memories are made. It has offered great food and fun for many years. The Sans Souci history dates back several decades as a place where everyone is treated as a friend and neighbor. Many of us would not be as involved with the community if we had not made contacts with people at the Sans. No one is ever turned away because they are unable to afford a function. The owners work with the budget provided to 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) make any occasion special. It is a place where people of all ages become friends. It reminds me of Cheers, where everyone knows your name and makes you feel welcome. The Sans also employs many local people. These are people committed and very hard working. They appreciate their jobs and the working environment. The Sans is a local treasure and we should all support its warmth and hospitality." And this is signed by Michael Dawson and Gail Dawson. The same letter in here twice. "The SANS cannot be measured by its worth to the community without considering its value to every person who may have walked through the door. It truly is a FAMILY of friends who meet, perhaps for the first time. The SANS is there supporting all - in good times and sad times. The SANS support and comfort our surrounding area fireman/woman after a disaster, and yet on a moment's notice can plan a terrific celebration for guests visiting the area. Always welcoming, always available. They continually support community fundraising requests even during the long winter months when other venues choose to close. It has the feeling of a clubhouse for local year round residents, yet a safe haven for families/seasonal guests. We support the additions requested as a much needed continued benefit to our area. It will be an investment to all who live here - and all future visitors who may have the pleasure of visiting the SANS sometime soon. This is the same letter we heard earlier. This is from Jerilyn Howlett, or Scott Parker. I'm not sure which. I see Scott Parker's name on here. MR. CENTER-It was e-mailed to me. I forwarded it. MR. URRICO-Okay, and the same letter came from Tammy Aust, and this is from John and Tammy Aust as well. "The "Sans" as we prefer to call it is a local establishment where many gather to share friendship in a small community. I would like to borrow the following words from a fellow neighbor: "The SANS cannot be measured by its worth to the community without considering its value to every person who may have walked through the door. It truly is a FAMILY of friends who meet, perhaps for the first time. The SANS is there supporting all - in good times and sad times. The SANS support and comfort our surrounding area fireman/woman after a disaster, and yet on a moment's notice can plan a terrific celebration for guests visiting the area. Always welcoming, always available. They continually support community fundraising requests even during the long winter months when other venues choose to close. It has the feeling of a clubhouse for local year round residents, yet a safe haven for families/seasonal guests. We support the additions requested as a much needed continued benefit to our area. It will be an investment to all who live here - and all future visitors who may have the pleasure of visiting the SANS sometime soon."" Again, this is John and Tammy Aust, and another letter. "I am writing this letter in favor of the San Souci Restaurant. As a next door neighbor and long time resident of Cleverdale, I commend the establishment and its owners for the unity they bring to the community. This is the place folks have gathered to socialize and enjoy delicious meals together for generations. The San Souci adds greatly to the neighborhood that is a mix of seasonal and year-round homes with a few commercial businesses. The current owners keep the property looking good and are always friendly to neighbors and customers alike. I have attended many functions at the Sans including a wedding, baby showers, birthday parties and family reunions. The community comes together at the Sans to celebrate holidays throughout the year. Their door is always open to meet up with friends. The Sans Souci is the place to go where everybody knows your name. Please give consideration to their plans to further improve the property for the good of our neighborhood. Thank you. Kimberly Chamberlin" MR. JACKOSKI-And, Roy, we've kind of exceeded our public comment timeframe. So I think we could argue that the remainder of the letters are, etc. MR. URRICO-Pretty much. MR. OBORNE-They are all positive. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anything? They're all positive, for the record? MR. URRICO-Well, yes, I think there's one that is not. MS. BITTER-They're part of your application. MR. JACKOSKI-They are part of the application. They are available in the offices if somebody were to care to read them all. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-In the interest of time, and we do have a public comment period of 15 minutes. MS. BITTER-And it's tabled. So that's fine. 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So we got through some of that. MS. BITTER-Larry just wants to respond to some of the comments that were just made briefly, understanding that (lost words). MR. CLUTE-The construction is definitely lagging, but construction is one item accomplished previous to next item, so on and so forth, and so the stormwater has not been forgotten, but the foundation area and the area in which I've yet to finish, the Cleverdale Road side, you finish that work obviously before you could put anything in its path, finish that work and back up. So the Cleverdale Road side I am getting sided. I will have that completed. I'm actually there next week, Monday, starting that and moving that along. Once the building, we wrap the envelope of the building, then the common practice of construction is to move to the surrounding areas, such as the parking, such as the stormwater. That's why these things haven't been addressed. We haven't completed the building. So the exterior excavation gets put off 'til last, your final grades, your plantings, so on and so forth is always your last items. So apologies for what seems to be a dragging project, but again, timetables are fairly compressed with the operation of the store. MR. JACKOSKI-So, Larry, are you saying that maybe by the next meeting the siding and the building envelope will be wrapped up? MR. CLUTE-No. Cleverdale Road side only. One wall. Where you see the plywood, where the addition is. Otherwise it's, the side, the majority of the building hasn't been touched. It's fine. It's painted. The new part will be wrapped, will be completed. The whole building, no. I still have to address the foyer to the right side of the building, or the north side of the building. So I can't really re-side that with the new siding yet, because I have to expand that to handicap accessibility. I have to put in a concrete ramp so on and so forth. The front foyer, same thing. So I haven't even started that yet, and there's nothing wrong with that side. That's all painted. The concerns is the rough plywood. That will be done before the next meeting. No question. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-And you put your holding tanks in and your grease traps, that's been done? MR. CLUTE-1 have not. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Was there any time limitations on that, Keith, from you guys? MR. OBORNE-There was no sunset provision on that, no. MR. CLUTE-The provision was when the system failed. That's exactly, that's what the approval was, that we could have the holding tanks and that there wasn't a timeframe put on the holding tanks. It's when my system failed. I'm not waiting for the system to fail. If it fails tomorrow I'm putting holding tanks in. If it lasts until I can get this building done, well, I'm waiting until the building's done so I can do my dirt work, as I displayed. MR. UNDERWOOD-Would you anticipate doing it like in the near future like by the end of the year, by next spring? MR. CLUTE-My guesstimation is two years off. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. CLUTE-I'm going to be honest with you. I'm looking at a two year project. MR. JACKOSKI-I think what you're hearing from the Board is when you come back to this Board requesting these changes that there's going to be some significant concern about timing of completion, as part of what we're going to be looking at as offsets to what we're trying to accomplish with the project. MR. CLUTE-Stormwater we can address this season. Upper parking lot, which is the storage tank area, I understand, I do, and I'm hoping the Board understands, I really want to operate this store. The site is extremely tight and I don't want to close down the store. MS. BITTER-What we can suggest is a schedule of construction for the next meeting, so that you're aware of what his intentions are and the timing. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 mean, I would think the neighbors, the near neighbors who have put up with it for a long period of time, and I think you recognize that, too. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) MR. CLUTE-Yes, I do. MR. UNDERWOOD-When you go do your projects people like to have it done. MR. CLUTE-Yes, well, I would love to have it done, to be honest with you. I start a project. I turn homes very quickly, and again, some of the slowdown is simply because I hiccupped to myself and been stopped, construction has stopped, but I'm at a, I have great rapport with Dave Hatin at this point, and like I said, the addition, the exposed woods, all that's being covered. That's all being taken care of, all the stair work, which is the last thing that held me up on. They wanted my stairs commercial compliant, the pre-existing stairs. That killed me. So we concentrated on getting stair work. It sounds crazy, but we concentrated on getting stairs commercial compliant. MR. JACKOSKI-No, I mean, I think it's important, because I mean, if you come in to that site and you use it, it's dark back in there to get up those stairs from the Cleverdale Road side. MR. CLUTE-Yes, but by focusing on that, and that's honestly how things are happening, but it actually is coming quite well. Like I said, I'm working very tightly with Dave Hatin, and I really wanted the construction done. I would love to have this building wrapped. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is this more of a building permit deal, then, Keith, rather than Craig and you getting involved in it? MR. OBORNE-As far as what portion of the issues? MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, the general completion of all the anticipated improvements on the property. MR. OBORNE-Yes, there are, certainly anything that's outside the structure and footprint of itself would be planning. So there are obviously quite a bit. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 mean, I don't know, the suggestion of, you know, like a longer multi-year finality finish of all the anticipated things. Does it make sense to sit down with Craig, and Dave and you whoever down below in the office there and just sit down with the engineer and you and try and come up with a timetable, so, you know, rather than piecemeal saying we're going to do this like in the fall and then next fall we're going to do another piece of it? I mean, at some point in time there's a credibility thing involved there, too, and I understand where you're coming from, with trying to do and stay open at the same time, you know, it's a balancing act, but at the same time it seems to me like we should put some actual dates down and say by this date you will have accomplished this. MR. CLUTE-Absolutely. MR. UNDERWOOD-And you could sit down and work it out amongst yourselves. I don't think it's something that's unattainable. MR. OBORNE-1 mean, this has been going on since 2009. Putting dates on paper, I think, is an exercise in futility, to be honest with you. It has to come from the applicant and not from the Town and, you know, Larry's compassionate. I know what he's dealing with at this point in time, and to put something down with a timeframe, there's no guarantee that it's going to happen. What else could come up. MR. UNDERWOOD-But, I mean, like you really can't deal, I don't think you can really deal with runoff and things like that until you've put in infrastructure like tanks and stuff like that that have got to go in. It's a major undertaking to do it, and it's a financial burden to do it, too, but you've agreed to do it, but, I mean, everything could be done in a logical sequence. MR. CLUTE-Yes, sir. MR. UNDERWOOD-You do this, then you can do this, and then you can do this. So there's an actual follow through on it, but, I mean, that way, I think that, you know, everybody's been pretty understanding so far. I think we have to understand you want to get from A to Z, you know, and so you've got to keep jumping the alphabet letters to get there. MR. CLUTE-Right. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I don't believe that there's any impending stop work orders or any, I mean, you're still running under a permit and a CO. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) MR. CLUTE-1 would agree, I'd be careful how I word, I wouldn't say it's a stop work order. Dave Hatin is directing as to what, like I said, and I get it, and I am working with Dave Hatin, but essentially doing what he's asking me to do effects the overall schedule of this building. MR. URRICO-But just as a reminder, the reason we're here is not because of your timeline not being met. It's because some work was done that wasn't approved, and that's what triggered everything else. MR. CLUTE-Understand. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we want to give any indication of what being requested tonight? Do we want to deal with that? I mean, some of it we can deal with, just to alleviate the issue. MR. OBORNE-1 think that would be prudent. MR. CLUTE-I'd like that as well. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I don't like that, but if that's what the Board wants to do, I mean, I'd rather have a full and complete application and know all my numbers before I move forward on this. MR. UNDERWOOD-That's not how we're doing the project, though. We're doing it piecemeal. So, in other words. MR. JACKOSKI-All the more reason to get a complete project. I'm not excited about a piecemeal project. MR. UNDERWOOD-But if we can give our assent to things that have been done and say, this looks okay or this doesn't look okay. MR. JACKOSKI-But what happens if it looks okay now, but when we get the final numbers, it may not be okay because you do the balancing test and you start looking at stuff and you don't have all the information? MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I mean, I think you've got some stuff in there like you've got a fence. We could talk about that. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, we could give direction. I mean, the applicant's counsel has asked for input. We could certainly give that, but I don't think we can give assent. MR. CLUTE-Right. The fence is, since you brought it up, this is a fairly simple item, and I don't know if it's a misunderstanding or not. When we were last here, I understand vegetation has a certain stormwater value, but the main concentration at the meeting was a buffer between me and my neighbor, John, and John, very verbal about wanting his white fence. Our plan happened to show plantings, and the Board wished him that he would get his white fence, and so me and John took it that he gets his white fence. So I put this white fence in, thinking I resolved the buffer problem. I understand I still have stormwater issues, but the fence might be mine and the neighbor's misunderstanding of how we were communicating at this Board previously approved, because John was here at that meeting, very much for the project, but very much for, he preferred the white fence. That's how we ended up with the white fencing was me and him worked it out. MR. UNDERWOOD-So the requirement at the time was for arborvitae. Is that what it was? MR. OBORNE-Yes, arborvitae. I believe there was a four foot fence instead of a six foot fence. MR. CENTER-It was a six foot stockade fence, weave design, almost starting at the Mason Road corner of the building and ran all the way back to probably about looks like 25 feet off the Cleverdale property corner, and then it stepped down to a four foot high fence. That was what was on the approved drawing. What is there now is a six foot high fence that starts probably about 20 feet off the Mason Road side, and extends 112 feet all the way to the property corner at Cleverdale, but with a six foot section, I believe, as it steps down, as a reducer down to four. MR. CLUTE-As a reducer. MR. CENTER-And the neighbor next door is something that he worked out when they were doing this in regards to lights from vehicles and things going in and backing out. That also, that property corner is also 15 feet from the Cleverdale Road, you know, driveway road itself, so the 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) property isn't out into Town property, which is part of the road. So there's still not a sight distance issue much there. MR. CLEMENTS-I'd just like you to know that one of my concerns is stormwater and runoff. MR. CLUTE-Yes, sir. MR. CLEMENTS-1 understand that you have to do some things before you can do plantings, but there may be some spots that you could do some plantings now. MR. CLUTE-We were discussing that previous. We can bring some, which we intend on doing. We're going to do some arborvitaes, I think it's to the Mason Road side. So carry from say the telephone pole and then back over towards the building, bringing some arborvitaes to that area there, which happens to be our high side. So that would act as a stormwater buffer, and you're right, that would not affect my construction at all. You're right. I agree. MR. CENTER-We're also gaining some stormwater storage volume. MR. CLUTE-And I can get that done fairly quick, too. I could commit to that before June's meeting. MR. CENTER-We are, one of the reasons, when Larry (lost words) in regards to this, I saw it as an opportunity, like I explained to the Planning Board last night, it was an opportunity, on a re- development project, to bring in some of the green infrastructure techniques that they're putting out there for us during some of our stormwater conferences. This is one that was in one of the North Country conferences that was put on that they talk about, you know, permeable grass parking and permeable crushed stone parking. What we try to do is bring green back to the area. Unfortunately because everything's so close in there, trees that would gather that half inch rain as Chris had, that particular tree that would take that half inch storm is a 20 foot crown tree, 28 feet tall. You're talking about 20 foot between the property line and the building, and, you know, a gentleman that's got his house that's probably15 to 20 feet off of that property line, you really don't want to put a large tree like that in between those areas. So I saw the greater benefit of the permeable grass parking, because this thing, the facility is used in the evenings. It's used starting, you know, late in the afternoon during the summer season, you know, seven days a week, but in the off season they only use it four days a week in the evenings. So now we're trying to bring back some green to that area to the neighborhood by having the permeable grass parking areas, the opportunity to use some of that green, and that has a one foot snow storage for that area. Predominantly these areas are receiving water directly on them, some would be off the rear of (lost word) roof. There was no intent to not do the infiltration trench that was previously approved. It wasn't shown on this modification drawing because it would have gotten lost in what we were trying to show the permeable parking, but I've asked the engineer to take a look at that, because we're providing so much more than that small 25 foot, three and a half foot wide in those permeable parking areas. We may not need that, but these provide so much more (lost words) the old plan, we're way more than quadruple the volume in what we've proposed here. So there's a lot of stormwater. MR. CLEMENTS-1 just have one thing to say, the longer the project, the more runoff. That's just how it is. So it's just a concern. I just want you to think about that before you come back the next time. MR. KUHL-If I were in your place, Larry, I would sit down, being as how this goes back to 2009, and I'd sit down with your lawyer and say these are the timeframes we're going to do it, not Friday the 13th, but within January, within February, so that when you come back in here you present us with a road map that you're going to live with, that you made up, and then you live with it. Okay. MR. CLUTE-Yes, sir. MR. KUHL-That to me, I mean, that's going to show everybody that you want to get this back on track. MR. JACKOSKI-So we've gotten some people, but what I'll do, I think, is poll the Board for you, so that you can get direct comments, and Brian and Ron can certainly talk some more if they wish, but is that okay? Because we will do a tabling motion, but we'll try to give you some more guidance. MS. BITTER-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Brian, do you have anything to add? I'll start with you first. Sorry. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) MR. CLEMENTS-No, I think I've said all I need to say. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, thanks, and Ron as well? MR. KUHL-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-Implement what was promised in 2009, get that implemented as quickly as possible. That's all. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I think we're making some progress. One time I asked an applicant if they considered a green parking lot, and they thought I meant painting it green. So I think we've made some improvement, and so I think we're heading in the right direction, but I do wish that we would better explain how we got to where we are today, and not got to where we are today in other areas. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, you know, I think the fence may be appropriate in this instance because of the proximity to the neighbors, there, you know, but at the same time, you know, the green stuff that's got to go in, the arborvitaes and things like that, they're not going to eat up the whole green space or anything like that. You can get the tall growing ones and trim them back and you're still going to accomplish some green infrastructure on the property, and I think the key to all this is that, you know, we've been very understanding of the process and what's involved out there in trying to stay open at the same time, but maybe in the Fall, you know, maybe during hunting season, you know, when you get into November or something like that, maybe you could just shut down for two weeks and have at it and really bit the bullet and get the damn thing done finally, because, you know, it's one thing to say, you know, you can't do that, send your staff on vacation or whatever, you know, give them a little bonus by doing that and give them a break. MR. JACKOSKI-Right, paid vacation. MR. UNDERWOOD-And the other thing, too, is why don't you give a discount to people that ride their bikes or walk to get there. That would definitely. MR. JACKOSKI-There's a lot of walkers. MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm serious. Like if you advertised that, you know, you can save five percent or whatever off the top of your bill by doing this, I think that, you know, you may create a whole change in the way people perceive how they get there and not drive their cars every single time they go out, nearly 15 seconds away. MR. CLUTE-1 was just going over with Stefanie, this is, I'm going to do this prior to the June meeting. If we're being tabled until June, I will have the plantings to the Mason Road side. I'm going to put the arborvitaes on that front top side, wrap it right around from Mason Road, come around 90 degree to the front side of the patio area. I'm going to get those arborvitaes in. The Cleverdale Road side, the addition that I put on, the new construct, it will be completely faced. It will be done, and I will have, to the best of my ability, a schedule as you recommend, and this will be done for the June meeting. MR. GARRAND-1 understand how tough it is because you've got a limited earning season there, too. With that limited earning season, you've also got your other business to run. MR. CLUTE-I'll be honest with you, I've really been the worst culprit for the project. I can't say that enough. The business is restrictive, there's no question, but my missteps slowing it down, honestly has been the worst. Cleverdale should be done right now. Cleverdale Road side should be already done, but with the work that I've been doing in conjunction with Dave Hatin, I've had to put that off to focus on those spots, and again, this falls directly on my shoulders. MR. JACKOSKI-And I think if you show a sign of good faith to the neighborhood and the residents, because as we push the meeting closer and closer to all of them returning in June, at least they'll see that you've been making some improvements and you've cleaned up some things and that they can see progress, and if they do attend the June meeting, then they'll see some progress. 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) MR. UNDERWOOD-We'll give you a gold star every time you do something, put one on the sign. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So are you requesting a tabling? MS. BITTER-Yes. I'm sorry. I formally request a tabling. MR. OBORNE-I'd like to ask Tom how quickly we can get the calculations in? Can we get them in in a week, do you think? MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-The final agenda meeting is on the 24th. So I figure the 23rd, which would be a Wednesday. So if you could stipulate in your tabling, if you could table, what I would prefer would either be the 20th or the 27th of June, whichever the Board would prefer, I would go with the 20th because that's the first meeting. We've been only having one meeting a month recently. So I'd go with the 20th, with the stipulation that revised plans must be submitted by the 23rd of May. MR. JACKOSKI-Is that okay? Is the applicant okay with that, submission by May 23rd, with being on the 20tH. MR. CENTER-Submission by the 23rd? MR. OBORNE-Of May. MR. CENTER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-For revised plans. MR. CENTER-Yes, we can revise it by the 23rd. 1 guess the 27th there's a conflict that we have. I have another meeting. MR. JACKOSKI-We're talking about the 20tH MR. OBORNE-We're thinking the 20tH MR. JACKOSKI-The problem is we may not have one on the 27tH MS. BITTER-You don't have a meeting on the 27 th? MR. OBORNE-We might not. We don't know. MR. CENTER-Do you have an expected agenda on the 20tH. MR. OBORNE-1 will guarantee that you will be one of those items on the 20tH MR. JACKOSKI-Well, could we argue that they would be first? MR. CENTER-I'm going to be first on another meeting that was tabled that they didn't have a quorum this month, so we're first on that agenda with Kingsbury at 7 p.m. MR. JACKOSKI-So their problem became our problem. MR. CENTER-If we could be just moved to the end of that agenda. Could we do that, placed on the end of that agenda. MR. JACKOSKI-If you wish. MR. CENTER-That way at the minimum I could take care of what I need to do at Kingsbury first, and then I can leave that, hopefully turn it over to Mr. Nace. MR. JACKOSKI-If not, Ms. Bitter will take over for you. Don't worry. Okay. So do we have anyone to make a formal motion? MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-2012 SAN SOUCI OF CLEVERDALE, Introduced by Brian Clements who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/16/2012) 92 Mason Road. Tabled until June 20th. With a deadline date for revisions of May 23rd Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Is there any other business in front of the Board this evening? Seeing none, we have a motion by Mr. Underwood to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MAY 16, 2012, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 43