Loading...
09-19-2012 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/2012) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 19, 2012 INDEX Area Variance No. 35-2012 Blue Moose Tavern Daniel & Ellen Nichols 1. Tax Map No. 288.20-1-18 and 19 Area Variance No. 33-2012 Gregg Brown & Lizabeth Bitner 4. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-7 Area Variance No. 48-2012 NSB Hospitality, LLC d/b/a Rodeway Inn 5. Tax Map No. 288.00-1-56 Area Variance No. 45-2012 Thomas & Mary Beth Babcock 8. Tax Map No. 289.13-1-12 Area Variance No. 46-2012 Thomas & Mary Beth Babcock 12. Tax Map No. 289.13-1-12 Sign Variance No. 42-2012 Glens Falls Hospital 16. Tax Map No. 296.19-1-3 Area Variance No. 44-2012 Thomas Valentine & John Celeste 20. Tax Map No. 227.18-1-12 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/2012) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 19, 2012 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD JOYCE HUNT RICHARD GARRAND BRIAN CLEMENTS MEMBERS ABSENT RONALD KUHL ROY URRICO LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome everyone. I'd like to call to order this evening's meeting, September 19th, concerning the Zoning Board of Appeals agenda. This evening, for those of you who haven't been here in the past, there is a small information sheet on the back. It's quite simple. We'll call up each application. We'll read the application into the record. We'll ask the applicant to join us here at the small table. They can present any additional information they'd like. We'll open it up to the Board for discussion. When a public hearing has been advertised, we'll open the public hearing, and then we'll move forward accordingly. Some housekeeping to do this evening. Approval of meeting minutes for July 18th. Do I have a motion? APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 18, 2012 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 18, 2012, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 19th day of September, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. The next item is July 25th's minutes. Do I have a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 25, 2012, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: Duly adopted this 19th day of September, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. The first item on tonight's agenda is the Blue Moose Tavern. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2012 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED BLUE MOOSE TAVERN/DANIEL& ELLEN NICHOLS AGENT(S) J. LAPPER, ESQ. & S. BITTER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S) DANIEL & ELLEN NICHOLS ZONING Cl LOCATION 8 GLEN LAKE ROAD & 1300 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 400 SQ. FT. DINING ROOM EXPANSION TO AN (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/2012) EXISTING 3,465 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT AS WELL AS 2,500 SQ. FT. EXPANSION TO EXISTING DECK TO INCLUDE NEW BATHROOMS AND BAR. FURTHER, CONSTRUCTION OF A 4,500 SQ. FT. RETAIL BUILDING AND 10,770 SQ. FT. BANQUET FACILITY WITH 4 GUEST SUITES ON SECOND FLOOR IS PROPOSED. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK, TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY AND MAXIMUM HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS REQUIREMENTS OF THE Cl ZONE. FURTHER, RELIEF REQUESTED FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. ZBA MAY CONSIDER ACKNOWLEDGING THE PLANNING BOARD'S REQUEST TO ACT AS LEAD AGENT FOR SEAR PURPOSES. CROSS REF SP 42-2012; BP 2000-246 DEMO MOBILE HOME ON PARCEL 288.20-1-18. BP 92-789 SEPTIC ALT ON PARCEL 19. BP 2009-580 C/O BLUE MOOSE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING YES LOT SIZE 4.6 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.20-1-18 AND 19 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-4-030; 179-13-010 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 35-2012, Blue Moose Tavern/Daniel & Ellen Nichols, Meeting Date: September 19, 2012 "Project Location: 8 Glen Lake Road & 1300 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: The Zoning Board of Appeals to consider the Planning Board's request for Lead Agency on this project; please see attached resolution. Applicant proposes a 400 sq. ft. dining room expansion to existing 3,465 sq. ft. restaurant as well as 2,500 sq. ft. expansion to existing deck to include new bathrooms and bar. Further, construction of a 4,500 sq. ft. retail building and 10,770 sq. ft. banquet facility with 4 guest suites on second floor is proposed." Relief is requested from the minimum front yard setback, the Travel Corridor, and the maximum height restriction requirements of the Commercial Intensive zone. Further relief is requested for the expansion of a nonconforming structure and the ZBA may consider acknowledging the Planning Board's request to act as Lead Agency for SEAR purposes. I think we'll read everything in because we have not done that previously, to my knowledge. "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. No. This parcel is immediately adjacent to the Great Escape as well as on a busy section of NYS Route 9. The existing structure is already in the front setback and the height relief sought would not provide a negative impact. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Due to the current position of the existing building, any modification would require a front setback variance. In addition, the height variance will result in a preferable design for the banquet building. Whether the requested area variance is substantial? The setback variance should not be deemed substantial since the building already exists in that position. The height variance should not be deemed substantial due to the existing trees which will buffer most of the structure. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? No. The parcel is located immediately adjacent to The Great Escape and the new County building both of which have tall buildings. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created? It should not be deemed self-created. The Applicant is trying to achieve the most desirable result." Relief Required: "Parcel will require area variances as follows: New Entrance 1. Front yard setback - Request for 44 feet and 63.5 feet of relief from the 75 foot front setback requirements from Glen Lake Road and State Route 9 respectively. 2. Travel Corridor Overlay - Request for 63.5 feet of relief from the 75 foot Travel Corridor Overlay requirement of the CI Zone. Restaurant Expansion 1. Front yard setback - Request for 36 feet of relief from the 75 foot front setback requirement from Glen Lake Road for proposed expansion to the east to include proposed walk-in cooler. 2. Front yard setback - Request for 42.5 feet of relief from the 75 foot front setback requirement from State Route 9 for proposed restaurant expansion to the south to include proposed dining room expansion and proposed bar deck expansion. 3. Travel Corridor Overlay - Request for 36 feet and 42.5 feet of relief from the 75 foot Travel Corridor Overlay requirement for both the portion of the expansion to the north and south respectively. 4. Expansion of a non-conforming structure will require relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Banquet Hall 1. Height - Request for 15 feet of relief from the 40 foot maximum height allowed for structures in the CI zone. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/2012) 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. Moderate impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated as traffic patterns, stormwater and hard-surfacing changes are proposed. 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 to be limited concerning the restaurant as any expansion would require an area variance. Concerning the banquet hall proposal, design of a height compliant structure may be considered a feasible method by which to avoid an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. See attached. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor adverse 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 42-12 Commercial expansion Pending BP 09-580 C/O Blue Moose 2009 S.P. 28-92 Outdoor music and bungee jumping use Denied 6/16/92 Staff comments: Both parcels associated with this proposal are required to be merged in order to avoid additional area variances. SEAR Status: Unlisted due to commercial height relief request." MR. UNDERWOOD-As far as the relief requested, you want me to read that in all, or just accept it as on the form? MR. JACKOSKI-I'd accept it as on the form. We don't need to read it all in. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Okay. So all we're being requested to do tonight, you're going to give us a short introduction. MR. LAPPER-Yes. I wanted to just spend a few minutes and just explain, obviously, the cover letter and the application explain what we're doing, but just, you're here, procedurally, just to hopefully vote on Lead Agency status for the Planning Board. Dan Nichols is here, and I just wanted to very briefly explain what his concept is, just to familiarize yourselves, and hopefully we'll back here in a month or so to hear the variance after we have the SEAR completed, but this is obviously a very tired site where the building was built right at the corner many years ago. Dan didn't build it, he bought it, and his plan is to seriously upgrade it. Architecturally it's going to be log and stone, Adirondack style. All three buildings that are proposed would be the same, and it's just, it's about better utilizing this site. It would be nice if the building wasn't in the Travel Corridor Overlay. The only thing that he's making it worse than it is now is a very small double door entrance because you open now and the wind blows in. So it's just to have a little entrance way in the front corner of the restaurant. As the applicant stated, it's a very few square feet of expansion of the restaurant, but just to make it more efficient, to make the kitchen work better, just to clean up that building, really. The most exciting thing about the project is the banquet building, with four suites upstairs for a bridal party, if you will, and the only reason for the height variance is just to have that attractive cupola on top, and obviously if the Board said, no, you didn't want it, it can be built without it, but it's a design feature that allows light into the building and just makes it look like a more attractive building. So I hope that at the end of this process you'll agree to grant that, but in general, although there are a number of small items, we don't see this as a big deal in terms of what's requested. Obviously it's in the Travel Corridor (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/2012) Overlay, but that road's already three lanes, and we're not making it much worse, other than a couple of inches, in terms of how close it is to the road. So that's really it. I just wanted to introduce it and we'll go to the Planning Board for SEAR and then come back and talk details with you later on in the Fall. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions by Board members? I guess at this time we have to open the public hearing. MR. OBORNE-There's no public hearing required right at this point. MR. JACKOSKI-Isn't that nice. I love it. Okay. So we could just make a motion. MOTION TO NAME THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD LEAD AGENT FOR THE SEAR PROCESS AND WOULD ASK THAT THEY PAY PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO THE STORMWATER POTENTIAL WITH ALL THE HARD SURFACING GOING ON ON THIS PROJECT, REGARDING AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2012 BLUE MOOSE TAVERN/DANIEL & ELLEN NICHOLS., Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Duly adopted this 19th day of September, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico MR. JACKOSKI-And just for the applicant, the cupola with all the windows, I'm hoping we're not going to experience a similar advertising event with neon signs like we have across from Wal- Mart. So just be aware that we'll be paying attention to those windows. MR. LAPPER-No neon signs in any windows. MR. JACKOSKI-Good. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Thanks. AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-2012 SEQRA TYPE II GREGG BROWN & LIZABETH BITNER AGENT(S) ADIRONDACK DESIGN/J. LAPPER, ESQ. & S. BITTER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S) GREGG BROWN & LIZABETH BITNER ZONING WR LOCATION 31 KNOX ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATION TO EXISTING 1,076 SQ. FT. ONE BEDROOM BOATHOUSE TO INCLUDE INSTALLATION OF HIP ROOF AND RECONFIGURATION OF LIVING SPACE RESULTING IN A +/- 786 SQ. FT. STUDIO WITH +/- 290 SQ. FT. SUNDECK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT OF THE WR ZONE AS WELL AS RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF SP 40-2012; BP 2008-510 DIET GARAGE, PORCH; BP 2008-384 DEMO; BP 96-476 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING YES ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.63 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-7 SECTION 179-5-060; 179-13-010 MR. UNDERWOOD-I believe we read everything in previously on this one, and I think the request this evening. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 33-2012, Gregg Brown & Lizabeth Bitner, Meeting Date: September 19, 2012 "Project Location: 31 Knox Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes renovation to existing 1,076 sq. ft. one bedroom boathouse to include installation of hip roof and reconfiguration of living space resulting in a +/- 786 sq. ft. studio with +/- 290 sq. ft. sundeck. Relief requested from the height requirement of the WR zone as well as relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. We were to hear this this evening, but they have requested a postponement until next month. MR. LAPPER-Yes. We sent a letter in last week requesting a tabling because we submitted on Monday for the deadline for October some changes. At the last meeting some of the Board members had asked that the height be reduced so that it was no higher than the existing structure and the architect did make that change. Also at the last meeting there was some discussion during the public hearing about establishing the date of the construction for the grandfather. So we went into the Town tax records and were able to document that the boathouse was built in 1923, and we submitted that as part of the new submission this week for (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/2012) next month. We did get the APA non-jurisdiction letter and submitted that as well. So with new information being submitted, it wouldn't have been appropriate to be here without formally filing that before this deadline for next month. So that's why we're asking for it to be tabled. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you prepared also, are you going to the Park Commission or are you already there? MR. LAPPER-We went to the Park Commission, submitted it to them, and they said that we don't have to get a permit from them, and we submitted that information to the Zoning Board. These changes don't require a permit, but we wanted to document all that and then give the Board and the public a month to look at that and we'll come back in October to talk about it. MR. JACKOSKI-I have a question for Staff. Keith, it's my understanding that the Planning Board has actually talked about not hearing any dock applications going forward? Do you know anything about that? MR. OBORNE-That's not true. MR. JACKOSKI-They didn't have any discussions about that? MR. OBORNE-They may have had some discussions on it, but they're not in a position to make that call at this point. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Okay. So we do have a request from the applicant to table. Do we have a date specific? MR. LAPPER-Either meeting in October. MR. JACKOSKI-Does Staff care? MR. OBORNE-So you're looking at the 17th or the 24tH MR. JACKOSKI-17th okay with everyone? So can I have a motion, please. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-2012 GREGG BROWN & LIZABETH BITNER, Introduced by Brian Clements who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Tabled until October 17th Duly adopted this 19th day of September, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico MR. JACKOSKI-And, Mr. Lapper, just so you know, I did, as promised to the neighbor to the north, I guess it would be. They asked me to go do a site visit. I did get to do a site visit. I did go out on their boathouse. I did look at this, the view scape from their dock and how this additional height, if it were still in the application, would affect the mountain range. So I did do that. MR. LAPPER-That's why we knocked it down. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 48-2012 SEQRA TYPE II NSB HOSPITALITY, LLC d/b/a RODEWAY INN AGENT(S) GARY HUGHES OWNER(S) AFTAB BHATTI ZONING Cl LOCATION 1449 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 942 +/- SQ. FT. EXPANSION TO EXISTING OFFICE/LOBBY TO INCLUDE A 164 SQ. FT. HANDICAP RAMP AND 80 SQ. FT. CANOPY. FURTHER, APPLICANT PROPOSES 2,062 SQ. FT. OF DECKS AND LANDINGS TO EXISTING MOTEL BUILDING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT, SIDE AND TRAVEL CORRIDOR SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF THE COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE ZONE. CROSS REF SPR 54-2012; SP 19-09; AV 14-2009 (BOTH APPROVALS EXPIRED) WARREN COUNTY PLANNING YES LOT SIZE 1.01 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.00-1-56 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-4-030 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/2012) GARY HUGHES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-Question for Staff. Do you want the entire application read in again, since we've done this, approved it twice previously? MR. OBORNE-1 think so. It's under a new number. I think that would be prudent. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. All right. Project Applicant is Area Variance No. 48-2012. The project applicant is NSB Hospitality, LLC d/b/a the Rodeway Inn, and the Project Location is 1449 State Route 9. The following questions reflect the criteria for granting this type of variance. "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. No undesirable changes will be produced in the character of the neighborhood because what is being asked for is consistent with the CI area around. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. No. Due to changes over the years in setback & area requirements the only feasible thing to do is to ask for relief to be able to update and improve. Whether the requested area variance is substantial? No. The table of area requirements show a tightening of requirement which are more than that of 2 years ago. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? There will be no adverse effects because the proposed expansions/improvements will be built over existing non-permeable areas for the most part. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created? Yes, the alleged difficulty was self created." STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 48-2012, NSB Hospitality, LLC d/b/a Rodeway Inn, Meeting Date: September 19, 2012 "Project Location: 1449 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 942 sq. ft. expansion to existing office/lobby to include a 164 sq. ft. handicap ramp and 80 sq. ft. canopy. Further, applicant proposes 2,062 sq. ft. of decks and landings to existing motel. Relief Required: Relief requested from the front and side yard setback requirements as well as for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Additionally, applicant requests relief from Floor Area Ratio and Permeability requirements for the CI zone. Parcel will require area variances as follows: 1. Front Setback- Request for 54.4 feet of front setback relief from the 75 foot requirement for the proposed handicap ramp. 2. Front Setback- Request for 24.4 feet of front setback relief from the 75 foot requirement for the proposed office addition. 3. Travel Corridor - Request for both the quantified and qualified expansions listed above from the 75 foot Travel Corridor setback requirement for the upper Route 9 Travel Corridor Overlay District. 4. Side Setback- Request for 7.1 feet of side setback relief from the 20 foot requirement for the proposed northern deck expansion to the motel. 5. FAR - Request for 3,076 sq. ft. or 7.0% increase from the 30% requirement for all proposed expansions qualifying as floor area ration. 6. Permeability- Request for an additional 1,196 sq. ft. of impermeability or a total of 77.4% impermeable from the 70% allowable for the CI zone. Note: The amount of permeability relief is based on the greatest amount of relief requested, in this case 1,196 additional square feet. 7. Expansion of a non-conforming structure requires the approval of this board. 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 expansion in compliant locations to avoid some of the variances requested. However, with the overbuilt nature of the site relative to the code, feasible alternatives may be limited. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/2012) 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The totality of requests may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. Please see relief required above for quantifications. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. With the parcel's impermeable nature as well as topography, any additional impervious surface may have an adverse affect concerning stormwater. However, the deck portion of the expansion has stormwater controls proposed. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, SP 33-2011 Motel expansion Pending SP 19-09 Motel expansion Approved 5/28/09 AV 14-09 Setback, permeablilty relief/Exp of N/C structure Approved 3/25/09 SP 19-05 190 Sq. ft. deck expansion Approved 4/26/05 AV 22-05 Expansion of N/C structure Approved 3/23/05 Staff comments: The applicant proposes two distinct expansions to the property. The first involves expansion to the office/lobby and the second to what is designated motel building 3 to the rear of the parcel. This basic application was approved on March 25, 2009 with the subsequent site plan application approved on May 28, 2009. The applicant did not submit for a building permit within the one year time frame nor did the applicant request an extension for the area variance and site plan approvals for this project resulting in the lapse of approvals. The application was once again resurrected in 2011 but applicant, after receiving ZBA approval did not follow through with site plan approval. SEAR Status: Type I I - no further action required" MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Mr. Hughes, if you'd like to add anything, but I think that pretty well covered it. MR. HUGHES-Yes, you did. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Are there any questions from Board members at this time? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this matter? It has been in front of the Board a few times. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one here in the audience, is there any written comment? MR. UNDERWOOD-No. MR. JACKOSKI-So I'll go back to the Board and poll the Board. We'll start with Brian. MR. CLEMENTS-1 have no problem with this. This is the same variance we approved, I believe, in 2009. So I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-Given that this is identical to the variance we previously approved, I'd also be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I have to agree with my fellow Board members. I have no problem. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think we should just forward it on to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review and at this point we can dispense with it again. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/2012) MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-Can I have a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 48-2012 NSB HOSPITALITY, LLC d/b/a RODEWAY INN, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 1449 State Route 9. Having read this previously into the record, I see no reason to regurgitate it for the nth time. So I think that in making a determination the Board has carefully considered the request. Having previously given the go ahead for this request twice previously, I think that we can approve it for a third time and pass it on to the Planning Board. Duly adopted this 19th day of September, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. HUGHES-Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2012 SEAR TYPE II THOMAS & MARYBETH BABCOCK AGENT(S) ROBERT NAPOLI OWNER(S) THOMAS & MARYBETH BABCOCK ZONING WR LOCATION 15 CHESTNUT ROAD- GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 168 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK, PERMEABILITY, EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, AND FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS OF THE WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF SPR 55-2012; BP 91-379 DOCK; BP 88-832 SFD; BP 88-831 DEMO BLDG. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.17 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.13-1-12 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-13-010 THOMAS BABCOCK, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-Thomas & Marybeth Babcock. The project location is 15 Chestnut Road on Glen Lake. It's a .17 acre lot in a Waterfront Residential area and the applicant is proposing construction of a 168 square foot residential addition. Relief is requested from the side setback, permeability, expansion of a nonconforming structure as well as the Floor Area Ratio requirements of the Waterfront Residential zoning district. The following questions reflect the criteria for granting this type of variance. "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. Will have no effect on current character of the neighborhood. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. No. Whether the requested area variance is substantial? No. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? No. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created? No." STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 45-2012, Thomas & Marybeth Babcock, Meeting Date: September 19, 2012 "Project Location: 15 Chestnut Road - Glen Lake Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 168 sq. ft. addition to existing single family home. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: 1. Side Setback- Request for 13.8 feet of relief from the 15 foot side setback requirement. 2. FAR - Request for an additional 168 square feet of relief for a proposed total of 2,758 square feet from the maximum allowable FAR of 1615 square feet; existing FAR is 35.3%, proposed is 37.5%. 3. The expansion of a non-conforming structure must be approved by the ZBA. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/2012) 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 existing conditions, lot limitations and nature of the project. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 13.8 feet or 92% relief from the 15 foot minimum side setback as per §179-3-040 may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for an additional 168 square feet of FAR relief as described above may be considered minor to moderate relative to existing conditions. Finally, 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 to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, A.V. 46-2012 Dock setback relief Pending SP 55-2012 Exp. of a N/C structure in a CEA Pending AV 73-90 Setback relief for deck Approved 10/24/90 SP 35-88A Holding Tank Approved 10/18/08 Staff comments: The area to be expanded upon is currently a portion of an existing 253 square foot concrete patio. The applicant intends to cover 168 square feet of the patio adjacent to the northeast portion of the dwelling and remove the remaining 85 square feet in order to increase permeability on-site. Please note that permeability relief is not required for this application. SEAR Status: Type II" MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome. If you could state your name for the record. MR. BABCOCK-Yes. My name is Thomas Babcock, and my wife is also here, Mary Beth Babcock. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. Is there anything you'd like to add to the record? It's pretty detailed. MR. BABCOCK-Very, very detailed. I'm glad that we got it straight that we want to get rid of 85% of what the existing patio is right now. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Are there any questions from Board members at this time? Seeing none, I do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I'll open it up for public comment. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one, is there any written comment? Just for the record, the Planning Board did meet on this application and they passed a resolution on the 18th of September, according to the resolution prepared by Staff, the Planning Board based on a limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/2012) MR. UNDERWOOD-There is one letter on file. 1, Robert Napoli, residing at 13 Chestnut Road, Lake George, NY 12845, have no objection to Thomas and Mary Beth Babcock adding the addition to their property adjacent to mine located at 15 Chestnut Road, Lake George, NY 12845. 1 will also be the General Contractor overseeing this project. Robert Napoli" MR. JACKOSKI-Interesting. Thank you. At least he was honest. Okay. We do not have any additional written comment. I'll poll the Board. I'll start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. As far as it goes, I think that the question I would raise to Board members would be the Floor Area Ratio, and I think, again, we have to remember that this is a .17 acre lot, very small, very tight in there. Those of us that are familiar with many of the camps over in that area, realize that everybody is jammed in, one on top of each other. I do not believe at the present time you're suffering from any septic issues on site there. MR. BABCOCK-No, sir. We have a holding tank. MR. UNDERWOOD-They have a holding tank, and they, at the same time, I think that we formulated the Floor Area Ratio at 22% for a specific reason, that we were trying to keep a check, and because this is a retro, this is an old camp that pre-dated the FAR regulations, I'm sure that's the way it is. MR. BABCOCK-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-It is a slight increase so I think we should be concerned with any increase from FAR on site here. So I am not committed to granting the Floor Area Ratio relief requested at this time. I want to hear from other Board members and see what you guys think before I render my final decision. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-In an ideal world, you know, I'd like to see a 22% FAR here. The lot is overbuilt and I couldn't be in support of an application that goes all the way up to 37, 38% Floor Area Ratio. I think it's increasing to the Nth degree the amount of nonconformance of this structure. So I couldn't be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have to agree with Mr. Garrand on the FAR, too high. I would not be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-1 guess I'm going to have a little different outlook on this. I think that this would be a favorable change. I think you're going to have some more permeable area. They have said they're going to do some stormwater management which wasn't there, and you're looking at a 2.2% increase in the Floor Area Ratio, which I think is minor compared to the advantages you'll get from the stormwater management and the more permeable area. So I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-1, too, would be in favor of the application I think because the patio's already there, and the neighbors haven't complained about the increase in the size of the building, I just, they're going to take out some of the patio. I know it's only 85 square feet, but it just seems to me that this is a logical expansion of the property onto something that's already there, and it appears to me they don't even have a decent roofline to cover that door for weather, and entrance into the property. So I would suspect that with winter and stuff, that's got to be a pretty ice patio entranceway there. So I'd prefer to see that we move forward with the application, but given tonight we have five Board members, we need four. I guess. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 would recommend that you table for a full Board, you know, and if you've got a full Board of seven members you might gain enough votes to move forward, but at this point in time, I don't think, I'm still not convinced that this is absolutely necessary. I mean, I don't think it's going to make or break Glen Lake, but at the same time, I think that it's important for the Board to deliberate, you know, about whether this is going to be detrimental or not. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I mean, Joyce, I mean, you said you went along with the fellow Board members, would that be the fellow Board members, right now we've got two and one uncommitted. So where do you think your vote would be with? MRS. HUNT-No. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/2012) MR. JACKOSKI-No. Okay. MR. BABCOCK-Am I allowed to speak? MR. JACKOSKI-Of course. Absolutely. MR. BABCOCK-Okay. In reference to that, just to make sure that everybody's on the right page with this, that structure was there, okay, originally from going back `tit the, it's an old cobblestone foundation. I don't know back in the early 1900's. The reason for the request isn't just for more square footage on the property. The major reason for the request is, and if you could buzz in or zero in, you've been on the project, we have a major issue in terms of, because of the structure being where it is with the patio. The water falls off. There is rot that literally sits and swells in there, and is affecting the building, and we had thought about other possibilities with it, and by coming up with this, you know, covering the patio structure, in essence now we have the ability to be able to dissipate the water so it doesn't continue to erode. You can see it in there. I mean, there's serious damage, in terms of down the base, okay, of the building, okay, and then also as well as down where the chase is for the fireplace, and then into the corner. So the original proposal, all right, wasn't so much from a standpoint of solely being able to get more floor space, okay, within the house, it also was to address this issue as well, too, which would allow the runoff to come off the top of the roof down to the roof on the covered patio and in essence be able to dissipate it. The second thing is that it isn't, while I understand the square footage increase issue, but it isn't a major, in essence, addition. What we're trying to do there is that we are limited with the space inside. We have, you know, a family which is obviously growing. We don't spend, you know, full time up there. We're there during the summer and then also on the weekends. We've enjoyed it. We just feel that this will, in essence, address our major problem, concern with the runoff issue, and address the construction issues in terms of the house right now, and it will just give us a little bit more space from the standpoint to be able to separate ourselves, because our kitchen and our living area and our dining room is all combined into one. So we're looking for some type of separation there, but we had felt from the beginning that in essence it was something that we felt we could present a case in essence that would show that it would be a feasible addition. So hopefully I can gain more information, have the ears of other Board members. I appreciate you allowing us to present this to the Board, and I hope we can a more favorable outcome. MR. UNDERWOOD-The other suggestion I would make would be, you know, consider, you know, putting gutters on, you know, to remove the water that way, but I mean I think part of the problem results from the fact that it's impermeable down there on that patio, you know, and if you had eaves trenches and it wasn't all patio down there, you wouldn't need that back splash on your house. MR. BABCOCK-Yes, but then what we would have to do, we have done that, and that really doesn't solve the problem, Mr. Underwood. Because the water shifts off and then it just backs up. There's a lot of trees and a lot of leaves and stuff. We've already tried that process, and the reality of the fact is, is that it's a patio that was existing when we purchased the property, and then when we went through the renovations of the property, it's always been there. So it really, it's never come to us to make a decision, in essence, to take it off there. I mean, because we purchased that way. In essence, it's been there. The people have enjoyed, the neighbors, okay, we've been able to enjoy, have our family out there. All we're just basically trying to do, it's already taken the existing space up, you know, it's always been there. It's been on the property. As a matter of fact, I guess I don't want to reiterate what other Board members have said, but the point is that we're decreasing the amount of footage and space. We're not increasing. So I guess I'd just like to present it that way. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I had forgotten about the reasoning for your wanting to take care of this problem, and I would be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, Joyce. So now we have three and two. Jim or Rick, are you swayed at all now that the applicant has added a little bit more information to the record? MR. UNDERWOOD-Have you got to have a supermajority? MR. JACKOSKI-You have to have four. MR. UNDERWOOD-You've got to have four? MR. OBORNE-You have to have four. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/2012) MR. GARRAND-Not really. I think it's way overbuilt for the lot. The floor area is 23%, not 38%. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim, you started out wanting to listen to your fellow Board members. So now you have three and one. MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm going to make the recommendation that you consider some other alternatives and come back for a full Board vote. MR. OBORNE-If I could also add one thing for you is go ahead and memorialize what you just said, and submit that. MR. JACKOSKI-And again, it will be part of the public record that'll be transcribed into the minutes. So I suspect the applicant is requesting a tabling until another date. MR. BABCOCK-Yes, absolutely. I want to try to solve our dilemma there. So, it's been a pretty long process at this point. MR. JACKOSKI-I appreciate that. So the applicant has requested a tabling of this application, and the next submission deadline is the 15tH MR. OBORNE-I don't know if he's going to be making any changes to his submission. He's basically waiting for the Board to be full, at this point. MR. JACKOSKI-True, but Mr. Underwood has also requested that he look at alternatives. So certainly he can do that, and if he does have revisions to the application, then they would need to be submitted by when? MR. OBORNE-Well, they would need to be submitted by October 15th for a November meeting. MR. JACKOSKI-Is that a weekday? MR. OBORNE-That would be October 15tH MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Great. So October 15th is the submission deadline for any changes you might make to the application, otherwise we'll put it on the agenda for when? MR. OBORNE-You either have, you have November 22nd, wait a minute. You have November 28th as a Zoning Board meeting, and it looks like �ou also, you decided on the December 5th as your second meeting. That's right. November 28t would be the next. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So it would be November 28th that you would come back to the Board. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2012 THOMAS & MARYBETH BABCOCK, Introduced by Brian Clements who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Tabled until November 28th. The applicant will look into other feasible alternatives at this time. Duly adopted this 19th day of September, 2012, by the following vote: MR. OBORNE-I would ask that you amend that motion to include Jim's feasible alternative request. MR. JACKOSKI-So noted. We should amend the motion to include the applicant looking into other feasible alternatives at this time. AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-2012 SEQRA TYPE II THOMAS & MARYBETH BABCOCK AGENT(S) ROBERT NAPOLI OWNER(S) THOMAS & MARYBETH BABCOCK ZONING WR LOCATION 15 CHESTNUT ROAD - GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE EXISTING 156 SQ. FT. DOCK WITH A NEW 246 SQ. FT. DOCK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK AND WIDTH REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING CODE. CROSS REF SPR 55-2012; BP 91-379 DOCK; BP 88-832 SFD; BP 88-831 DEMO BLDG. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.17 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 289.13-1-12 SECTION 179-5-060 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/2012) THOMAS BABCOCK, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-Just for the record, I did leave the public hearing open for the previous application. MR. UNDERWOOD- Thomas & Marybeth Babcock. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 46-2012, Thomas & Marybeth Babcock, Meeting Date: September 19, 2012 "Project Location: 15 Chestnut Road - Glen Lake Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to replace existing 156 square foot stake dock with a new 246 square foot on Glen Lake Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: • Property line extension setback - Request for 12.4 feet of south adjacent property line setback relief as per§179-5-060(7). • Property line extension setback - Request for 6.5 feet of north adjacent property line setback relief as per§179-5-060(7). 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 to avoid an area variance appear limited due to the nature of measuring extended property setbacks and existing conditions. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 12.4 feet or 62% relief from the 20 foot extended side setback requirement may be considered moderate to severe relative to the code. The request for 6.5 feet or 32.5% relief from the 20 foot extended side setback requirement may be considered moderate relative to the code. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 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 55-2012 Exp. of a N/C structure in a CEA Pending SP 35-88A Holding Tank Approved 10/18/08 AV 73-90 Setback relief for deck Approved 10/24/90 Staff comments: Although the applicant is proposing to increase the overall size of the dock, the existing dock is non-compliant with regards to extended property line setbacks. SEAR Status: Type II" MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, and just, I believe, for the record, we should note again that the Planning Board met on September 18th and according to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board based on a limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/2012) be mitigated with the current project proposal. Welcome. If you could state your name for the record again, please. MR. BABCOCK-Thomas Babcock, and my wife Mary Beth Babcock is here as well. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. Is there anything you'd like to add to this application at this time? MR. BABCOCK-No. The dock has been in service and has treated us well for many a year. It was placed in service back about 23 years ago. The Town gave us the original permit to be able to replace an older dock that was there when we purchased the property. It's an old format wooden dock that we, a labor of love, constantly taking in and out in the Fall and also put back in the Spring, and it's seen it's years. So we'd like to replace it with a lighter dock which in essence would allow for a little bit less labor and more importantly will address the issues of my ability to be able to get back and forth on the dock as I get older. So we're requesting to be able to replace the existing dock that's there with a lighter more durable aluminum dock. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any further questions from Board members at this time? MR. CLEMENTS-I have one for Keith. As I'm looking at these extended property lines on here, that one that is, the one set that goes directly out, the property line is just extended, then you have another that are perpendicular to shore. MR. OBORNE-Let me get it out. MR. CLEMENTS-I guess my question is are we using the least amount of space so, I mean, it looks like that, from the variance that's being requested, you're looking at the least amount of space and that would be to the north side, it would be a line perpendicular to the shore, and on the south side it would be the property line extension. Is that correct? MR. OBORNE-I'm seeing specifically, and I'll start with the south. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Is the property line extension that's coming straight out, this 7.6 distance, that's what we're here for, okay, and what do my notes say? MR. JACKOSKI-And then the north it's the, that's correct. MR. CLEMENTS-Well, it says 13.5 feet. MR. OBORNE-Right, and that would be 6.5 feet of relief for that. So 7., you need 20 feet. So on the southern you would need 12.4 feet of relief. MR. CLEMENTS-And on the northern side? MR. OBORNE-You would need 6.5 feet of relief. MR. CLEMENTS-Because you're measuring to the line perpendicular to the shore. MR. OBORNE-It's perpendicular, the one that is the most egregious, so to speak. MR. CLEMENTS-Right. That was my question. MR. OBORNE-Yes, it's. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other additional questions? Having no other Board member questions at this time, we do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Are there any members in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ROBERT NAPOLI MR. NAPOLI-I'm Robert Napoli and I live directly next door to Tom. If you're looking at that picture, where the boat is parked, that's the closest to my property, and it does not affect me (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/2012) whatsoever. There's plenty of room there, and it's been like that since we've been there. What he's looking to do is go with the same size and length on that dock, but the increase in the walkway would be where the canoe is, and then that "L" at the end also there's a kayak out there, and that's where the most room is, and he wouldn't be affecting myself or the neighbor next door. That's why they're not even here to talk about it, but there's plenty of room there, and the aluminum dock that he's talking about I have in front of my home, and it would be an articulating dock so that he and his daughters who are getting older and aren't around all the time to help him, he doesn't need all these people to get in the water, to get this wood dock out come wintertime, or put it back in, but he would not be encroaching on anyone. I mean, there's not a problem there whatsoever at this point in time. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else who'd like to address the Board concerning this application in the audience? Is there any written comment? MR. UNDERWOOD-Just that first letter. MR. JACKOSKI-We'll just make note that the first letter probably also probably addressed this particular application as well, and that was in the previous application. I'll poll my Board members. Rick? MR. GARRAND-Certainly. Most of the cases we've deliberated on the lakefront with respect to docks, a lot of what we've done is made allowances for the contour of the shoreline and I think this is one of those cases where the shoreline goes one way and the property lines go another way. Given the amount of space between the south property and this proposed dock, I don't see a problem with this. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Rick. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-1 also don't see a problem. You're looking at the most restrictive from the property line, and the only neighbor that would be affected is the one to the south, not the one to the north. So I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. The present dock is already non-compliant, and if you look at the dock you can see it's a very narrow dock. It's nice to be able to walk by two people in two different directions and not push each other over the side. MR. BABCOCK-Thank you for acknowledging that fact. I'm getting a little wider as I get older. MR. UNDERWOOD-So even though it's an expansion and it's going to be more nonconforming, I don't see that it's any big deal. It's nice to be able to have something functional. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have no problem. I think it's a reasonable request and I would vote yes on it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. So at this time I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And request a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-2012 THOMAS & MARYBETH BABCOCK, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: 15 Chestnut Road - Glen Lake. The applicant proposes to replace the existing 156 square foot dock with a new 246 square foot dock on Glen Lake. Relief requested: Request for 12.4 feet for the south adjacent property line setback as per 179-5-060 Section 7; property line extension setback for 6.5 feet to the north adjacent property line as per 179-5-060. Whether benefits can be achieved by other means feasible. The property is rather narrow. Almost any dock on this property is going to require some relief. Will this produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood or character of nearby properties? I don't think it'll change anything whatsoever in the neighborhood. Is this request substantial? From a numerical standpoint it may be deemed substantial. From a visual and aesthetic standpoint it doesn't seem so. Will this request have adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood? None whatsoever. Is this difficulty self-created? It may be deemed self-created. So I move we approve Area Variance No. 46-2012. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/2012) Duly adopted this 19th day of September, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. BABCOCK-I'd like to thank all the Board members for allowing me to present this evening. I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-You're welcome. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 42-2012 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED GLENS FALLS HOSPITAL AGENT(S) QUAKER COUNTRY CLUB ASSOC., LLC OWNER(S) QUAKER COUNTRY CLUB, LLC - MIKE GRASSO, MEMBER ZONING Cl LOCATION 2 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF A 100 SQ. FT. SECOND WALL SIGN FACING QUAKER ROAD FOR SERVICES OFFERED BY GLENS FALLS HOSPITAL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF SIGNS FOR A TENANT WITHIN A BUSINESS COMPLEX. CROSS REF BP 2012-392 GF HOSP. 2ND WALL SIGN; BP 2012- 393 GF HOSP. 85 SQ. FT. WALL SIGN; BP 2012-194 GF HOSP COWL ALT; SP 40-2011 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING YES LOT SIZE 8.08 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.19-1-3 SECTION 140-6 MIKE GRASSO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-The following questions reflect the criteria for granting this type of variance. "Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this sign variance. Property located in commercial area with no nearby residential property, so there would be no undesirable change to a current neighborhood. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance. Signage requested is for the identification of 1 of 4 tenant areas. Signage is the only way to achieve this task. Business is utilized by elderly and this would assist in their direction. Whether the requested area variance is substantial? Signage would assist in tenant area identification. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? There would be no adverse effect to the surrounding as there isn't any residential area adjacent to this sign. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created? Only due to the necessity to identify this tenant area clearly." STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 42-2012, Glens Falls Hospital, Meeting Date: September 19, 2012 "Project Location: 2 Country Club Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes placement of a 100 square foot second wall sign facing Quaker Road for services offered by Glens Falls Hospital. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: • Number of allowable signs - Request for an additional wall sign within a business complex as per§ 140-613 Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this sign variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/2012) 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance. A feasible method would be to not install a second wall sign. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The request for an additional wall sign within a business complex or 100% relief 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 within the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The alleged difficulty may be considered self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, S.P. 40-2011 Health related facility Approved 7/19/12 S.P. 30-2004 Parking/lighting improvements related to a new office/retail use Approved 6/22/04 Staff comments: None SEAR Status: Unlisted" MR. UNDERWOOD-Again, it's an Unlisted action so we're going to have to do SEAR on this. Keith, are we considering that this has two fronts because it fronts on two, it's a corner lot? MR. OBORNE-Yes, but it's a business complex. MR. UNDERWOOD-But it is a business complex. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Welcome. If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. GRASSO-My name is Mike Grasso. I'm a managing member of Quaker Country Club Associates. I apologize, I have some pictures here that I think will help illustrate the problem. Unfortunately my secretary made four instead of seven complete sets. I do want to make a correction to what Mr. Underwood read. The sign that's allowed is on Quaker. So what we're talking about is a sign which would be physically on Country Club Road. If you look at the front, the very first picture is the Quaker Country Club, and where that banner is, that's where the permanent allowed sign is going to be. So then if you move on from there, the next picture shows coming up Country Club. Now this building, and for reference point, if you all remember the old Glens Falls Electric, that's this building. It's 41,000 square feet. It's about 365 feet long. So it's a very long building. As you say, it does front on Quaker and Country Club. We have no monument signs. Glens Falls Electric had three 100 foot signs on the building. We took them down. Cool Insuring has an 89 square foot lettered sign on the same side of Quaker. There are no signs on Country Club. Delcath, there's four suites there. Cool is one. Delcath is two and three, and the Hospital is the fourth suite, the larger portion of the building where you see the roof is raised over the other section. Delcath has no signs. Okay. That being said, as you proceed down Country Club, the Hospital has no other signs on the building, and it is a rehabilitation center. It is the same center that used to be in the Schermerhorn Properties building on Bay. We get about 150, well, the first day we had 150 appointments that day, and many of the people there are special needs and elderly rehab. Not all of the people, but, so many people come in and we made extra handicap spaces. So there's adequate parking, but there is a lot of confusion because of the number of people coming onto Country Club from Quaker, and we've had numerous problems with people coming into our agency for treatment and to Delcath Catheters for treatment. They design, they don't treat there, and so it's created a little bit of a confusion factor. What we want to do is, if you look at this picture right here, which I believe is the third picture, the very corner of that building, which would be the northwestern corner of the building, we propose to put another 100 square foot sign showing that it's the hearing center, rehabilitation center and wellness center for Glens Falls Hospital. That's where the sign is intended to go. We feel that will channel traffic to the back of the building where they'll see the canopy. Other than that, we haven't put any other signage up. Now, I mean, suppose we could put up two monument signs, one on Quaker and one on Country Club, which would clutter it even more, because we're allowed two monument signs, being on two roads. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/2012) We haven't done that. I don't like a lot of signs, either. I try to keep the building very clean. As you can see we've really upgraded this building from what it used to be. So that is what we propose to do. Did you want to add anything, Ron? RON ZIMMERMAN MR. ZIMMERMAN-Yes, thanks, Mike. I'm Ron Zimmerman. I'm with the Hospital. Just the other clarification from what Mike had already expressed is on the Quaker Road side of the building where he has a lettered sign now, ours, too, would be a lettered sign. So in terms of total square feet, it's about 84 or 85 square feet on the Quaker Road side, and then the signage on the Country Club side is, you know, it's a 100 foot sign that's been rendered in that last handout that you have from Wheeler Custom Signs. MR. GRASSO-Do you have that one? I gave you that, these are the two signs. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions from Board members at this time? MR. CLEMENTS-Yes, I had one. Is the only entrance in the back? MR. GRASSO-Yes MR. CLEMENTS-You don't have any other, there's no other entrances? MR. ZIMMERMAN-The only patient entrance is that canopy one in the back. There's two side entrances for staff. MR. CLEMENTS-And you can drive up both sides to get to the back? Okay. MR. ZIMMERMAN-We're only actually asking and directing patients to come in off the Country Club side, though. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-None. Do we have any written comment? MR. UNDERWOOD-No. MR. JACKOSKI-We do have to do SEAR tonight. MR. UNDERWOOD-Why don't you just poll the Board and see what people are thinking fist. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, that's fine. MR. GRASSO-I might make one more comment. Directly across from where this sign is going to be, we built the building on the other side of the street there. That was the old Cool Insuring building. Years ago, in the 80's, we built that. Behind that, and that building's on a three and a half acre parcel. The rear of that building that's adjacent to this has been designated wetlands, two acres. So nothing will ever be constructed there. So no one will ever be looking at that sign from another business standpoint or if somebody did choose to do something residential there. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. I don't see any problem with this at all. I think that, you know, as I drove down Quaker Road and looking at the sign that you have that's, you know, the poster that you have up there now on Quaker Road, it looked to me like you'd go off to the left of the building, as you're looking at it from Quaker Road, and I saw all the parking over there, and I assume that you would go in from that side. I don't know whether you want to put any kind of a directional thing on that one on the Quaker Road side, but that would be a suggestion. MR. GRASSO-We haven't had that problem because they're advertising the address as 2 Country Club. So all their directions to their patients, they send out a mailing to all their patients, and they give their patients this placard that tells them how to get there, and so we have not had anybody, believe it or not, that has had any problem coming in that back entrance, which, of course, we really don't want. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Joyce? 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/2012) MRS. HUNT-Yes. I go there every day, and I belong to a strength training class and there were eight of us and six of them I had the hardest time trying to explain it where it was. They kept say, well, Country Club, we have to go all the way down, is it in the Country Club? So I think you really need another sign to let people know where it is. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think that the new use is going to generate considerable traffic and it would be logical that you don't want people just roaming around like it's the beltway around the building and things like that. I mean, it makes perfect sense to do this. I mean, we don't like to give out excess signage, but at the same time, this is not offensive signage. It's daylight hours. It's not like it's going to be lit up like the Taj Mahal at nighttime or anything like that. So I would be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I think the signs are very tastefully done, and also given the size of this parcel and the size of the building, the signs are needed, not that I had any trouble finding the place, but I do think they're tastefully done. So I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Great. So I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-Can we have an affirmation of a Negative SEAR? MOTION THAT BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PRESENTED AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE INCLUDED INFORMATION AND ANY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION, THIS BOARD FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. 42-2012 GLENS FALLS HOSPITAL, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Duly adopted this 19th day of September, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Now can I have a motion for approval of the variance? MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 42-2012 GLENS FALLS HOSPITAL, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: 2 Country Club Road. The applicant is proposing placement of a 100 square foot second wall sign facing Quaker Road for services offered by Glens Falls Hospital. Under the relief required: The number of allowable signs request for an additional wall sign within a business complex as per Section 140-613. Having carefully considered the request, the Board does not find that there will be an undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood. Although it's a substantial request at 100% for an extra wall sign, the long length of the building and the busy nature and the new use within the building will result in substantial traffic and it would be important for people to see the thing when they approach it not after the fact and having to loop back around again. So as far as the alleged difficulty, it is self-created, but at the same time the Board understands the situation and I would imagine that at some point in time people will become more familiar with the location and won't be in such a quandary as to where it is. So I would move that we approve it. Duly adopted this 19th day of September, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/2012) MR. GRASSO-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 44-2012 SEQRA TYPE II THOMAS VALENTINE & JOHN CELESTE AGENT(S) MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR, ESQ. OWNER(S) THOMAS VALENTINE & JOHN CELESTE ZONING WR LOCATION 83C PILOT KNOB ROAD APPLICANT HAS RENOVATED AND VERTICALLY EXPANDED AN 852 SQ. FT. EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK AS WELL AS FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF 56-2012; BP 93-170 DOCK REBUILT WARREN COUNTY PLANNING YES ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.66 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.18-1-12 SECTION 179-13-010 MICHAEL O'CONNOR & BOB MANZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-The following questions reflect the criteria for granting this type of variance. "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. Building 3 is of the same nature and actually smaller than most camps in the neighborhood, not visible from lake or road. Will have no impact on the character of the neighborhood. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than area variance. No, due to pre-existing construction of Building 3, as same is set back (roof eave even closer); replacement of existing roof eliminates portion of flat roof, which was not structurally sound and leaked. Whether the requested area variance is substantial? No, construction is up but no closer to sideline - new roof edge is further away; to allow new improved roof to be compliant, structure would need to be moved. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? No, new septic system for Buildings 3, 2 & 1 is being installed compliant. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created? No, due to age of building, roof needed to be replaced and it only makes commonsense to remedy structural and leakage problems." STAFF INPUT Notes Area Variance No. 44-2012, Thomas Valentine & John Celeste, Meeting Date: September 19, 2012 "Project Location: 83C Pilot Knob Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has renovated and vertically expanded a +/- 852 sq. ft. existing residential structure and is seeking after the fact approval for expansion. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: 1. Side setback- Request for 12.8 feet of relief from the 15 foot minimum requirement. 2. Expansion of a non-conforming structure requires approval from 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, short of returning the roofline to its original height, appear limited. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 12.8 feet or 85% relief from the 15 foot side setback requirement of the WR zone as per §179-3-040 may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. Further, expansion of a non-conforming structure requires approval from 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. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/2012) Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): S.P. 56-2012 Expansion of a N/C structure in a CEA Pending BP 12-279: 852 sq ft residential alteration On-Hold BP 93-150: Rebuild existing dock 6/17/93 Staff comments: There is no change to the footprint of the structure and as such the setback relief is tied to the new roof configuration. SEAR Status: Type II" MR. JACKOSKI-And just for the record, the Planning Board did meet on September 18th and according to the resolution prepared by Staff, the Planning Board, based on limited review, had not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. Welcome. If you could identify yourself for the record, and if you'd like to add anything to that description, please feel free to do so. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Mike O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. I represent the applicants and with me is Bob Manz, who is the engineer for the project. I think we gave you a rather detailed letter as a cover letter, and we also included the narrative for the Planning Board with the application. So if you've gone through those, there isn't an awful lot that we would add to it. The pictures I think pretty much tell you what happened or what is happening. If you look at the picture that's up there, the area that is the new sheeting is the raising of the roof. It doesn't change the floor plan of the structure. It doesn't change the number of rooms of the structure. It basically raises the roof, and if you look at the far left of that picture, that's the flat roof that leaked. So by raising the top peak four feet, we're able to extend the roof as one sloped roof so that there's no, it will take care of the leaking of the roof, and that's basically it, and the other thing on that picture. The building to the right is not our building. That is the neighbor's building. These are old structures, probably built in the 1950's or so, and they were all built right on property lines, and we aren't increasing that at all. In fact, our eaves of our roof is back a little bit from the eaves of the pre-existing roof, and we left the board there to show that. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. MR. UNDERWOOD-Were these original cabins, then, on that? I mean, that was the original intent? MR. MANZ-My name's Bob Manz. I think Mike already introduced me. This was originally the main structure, the main house on the property, and sometime in the, I believe in the 60's, it was moved to back on the property a ways and a new main house, if you will, was constructed. MR. O'CONNOR-Keith, do you have the picture which shows the lawn chairs on it? Did you get that? MR. MANZ-No, I didn't send it. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. In your packet there's pictures from the lake that have lawn chairs in front. That building that you're looking at is not the building that we're changing. That is actually the front building on this project which we've labeled on the survey as Building Number Four. So this project or this roof is not visible from the lake. I doubt very much it's visible from the road. MR. MANZ-It is not. It's actually not visible, the only place that it's visible is on Brooks' property, at a very steep angle you can see through, between the trees, if you see, and the very close proximity of the picture there's a hedgerow there, and between those, that hedgerow and the other camp there's probably a 10 foot area there that you can actually see through, but I believe you have a letter from Brooks stating that he didn't have any problem with the, with raising the roof. MR. O'CONNOR-In your packet you have two letters, both of them are from the owners to the south. They're marked on the survey as Lands of Harris and Lands of Aurelio. I believe also this was presented to the County Planning Board and they had No County Impact. One benefit of the project, and probably a little bit to the extreme, because they did remodel this cabin and (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/2012) putting a brand new septic system in, they actually had the old septic system looked at, and everything was fine, but it wasn't built recently, so it's not up to Code. So they're going to abandon that system and they're going to hook Building One, Two, and Three into the new system, which will be Code compliant, and Keith has a full set of those plans which have been approved by the Town. MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, what's the general feeling of the Town with having multiple dwellings on a septic system? I mean, does this past muster or is this something that needs to be reviewed by the Planning Board? MR. OBORNE-1 can't speak, no. MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, the Zoning Board required the Takundewide organization to have multiple houses on a septic system. MR. OBORNE-Yes. My response to the question is I really have, I don't have a pulse on that to be honest with you. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 mean, this system is new that's just been put in, or is in the process of being put in? MR. O'CONNOR-It's going to be constructed, and this whole project goes to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-Including that septic system. MR. MANZ-The septic system is designed compliant with the New York State Code. MR. O'CONNOR-And it's per number of bedrooms. MR. MANZ-What you have here is really a couple of small camps that are used three months to four months out of the year. They're not heated. They're not insulated. They are strictly summer cabins. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one in the audience, is there any written comment that we should read into the record? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. We have those two previous letters, and I'll read those in. "I am an abutting property owner to 83C Pilot Knob Road. I am aware of the new roof constructed on the camp directly adjacent to me and I am not opposed to the construction of the new roof. The renovation work to the cabin improves the overall appearance of the structure and the property as a whole. Sincerely, Donald C. Harris 8 Fishing Hole Loop". "I am an abutting property owner to 83C Pilot Knob Road. I am aware of the new roof constructed on the camp directly adjacent to me and I am not opposed to the construction of the new roof. The renovation work to the cabin improves the overall appearance of the structure and the property as a whole. Sincerely, Brooks Teele 10 Fishing Hole Loop" And a third letter here. This is addressed to Mr. Steve Jackoski, Chairman of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals re: Valentine/Pilot Knob Road Area Variance No. 44-2012 "Dear Mr. Jackoski: The above referenced area variance application was personally reviewed in my capacity as a licensed professional engineer and the Lake George Waterkeeper. The Lake George Waterkeeper is not opposed to the requested variances for the expansion of the non-conforming structure and side yard setback. It is our opinion this is the opportunity to implement minor water quality improvements for Lake George to reduce nutrient inputs to Warner Bay. The Lake George Waterkeeper requests the Zoning Board of Appeals to apply the Town's regulations, specifically implementation of the conditions and §147 Stormwater Management, during your deliberations regarding the above referenced area variance application. Stormwater management plan should be required for the project. The proposed project would be exempt from stormwater management requirements. However, monitoring has indicated Warner Bay exhibits high nutrient levels and there should be an effort to reduce stormwater runoff and corresponding amounts of nutrients and pollutants that enter the lake. The Lake George Waterkeeper would recommend the variance be conditioned with the requirement for a minor stormwater project (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/2012) design. The Lake George Waterkeeper Program looks forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to defend the natural resources of Lake George and its watershed. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Christopher Navitsky, P.E. Lake George Waterkeeper" MR. JACKOSKI-Any additional written comment? MR. UNDERWOOD-No. Okay. So I'd like to poll the Board at this time. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. Considering that the neighbors have no problem with it, and that it's already up and done, I would have no problem with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Joyce. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-1 don't like approving Area Variances after the fact, but this looks like it's not substantial. It looks like the neighbors are fine with it. So I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think we should consider, you know, had you come in and requested this Area Variance previously, you know, from the Board, I think that we probably would have granted it. I don't think there's any real effect on the lake in this instance here. So I would not have a problem with granting the variance. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I'm just wondering who the contractor was that thought he could build without a permit. MR. MANZ-First of all, I was not involved in this until after the fact, okay. What it was was the two owners of the property who, unfortunately aren't here, one of them's in China and the other one is in Binghamton, are, that this had the flat roof which probably, had we had a normal winter, would have fallen in, it was really, you know, damaged in the heavy tropical storm that came through last year, which they were not aware of until they went to open up in the Spring. They had it rented, and they had a friend who was, who does roofs, and it was one of those where they tore the roof off and there's no way we're going to be able to get the angle right. So they had a guy from Saratoga actually design a roof consistent with the one on four that was there, and they didn't know, first of all they didn't know that they didn't have a compliant building, but, you know, obviously ignorance doesn't justify anything, but that's the facts of the, they were trying to race to put up a roof so that they had the tenant able to be in there, which was obviously not the case that occurred. MR. JACKOSKI-So, Rick, are you for or against? MR. GARRAND-I think denying this variance based on the simple fact that it's an after the fact variance isn't justified here. I don't see it as significant and I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-Can I have a motion? MR. UNDERWOOD-Just one question for you. Any eaves trenches or anything like that to absorb runoff from the roof, the roofline or anything on there? Has anybody been out to look at it or give it the okay as far as building? MR. OBORNE-Well, I don't think the applicant is offering eaves trenches at this point. I'm not sure what the foundation has right now. MR. JACKOSKI-But again, wouldn't that be a Planning Board matter? MR. O'CONNOR-We did cover that a little bit, Jim, in our application. It's back 270 feet from the lake. MR. MANZ-There's stone all the way around. MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm sure you must have something there, you didn't just like pour it onto the ground. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/2012) MR. MANZ-Right. There's a stone, there's a three or four foot wide stone bed around almost the entire cabin, except for what would be the, I guess the south side, which is not part of the roof side anyway. MR. UNDERWOOD-So that would adequately handle the runoff as suggested by the Water Keeper. I don't think anything in addition would be necessary then. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So do we have a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 44-2012 THOMAS VALENTINE & JOHN CELESTE, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: 83C Pilot Knob Road. The applicant has renovated and vertically expanded a plus or minus 852 square foot existing residential structure and is seeking after the fact approval for the expansion. As far as the relief required, they're requesting 12.8 feet of relief from the 15 foot minimum requirement and also for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. The applicant has also agreed that they will be updating the septic system, bringing it up to handle all the adjacent buildings. Buildings One, Two, and Three will be hooked up to a new system, and it's noted that this is over 200 feet back from Lake George. So we don't really have any problems, and we feel that the runoff created by the additional roof is not going to increase in any dramatic way, there will be no dramatic change in the amount of runoff. Having considered the request, even though it's after the fact and the Board frowns upon that, it's understandable with the damage incurred over the wintertime that they had to fix the roof at the time, and so at this time we will give our approval for it. Duly adopted this 19th day of September, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Clements, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Good luck. MR. MANZ-Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. I'd like to make a couple of comments if I can. This is the first of three Area Variances and then Site Plan. We have a separate Area Variance application, separate Site Plan application. We make up 15 copies of each one of those sheets for each one of those applications, and sometimes multiple number of sheets. I would like to have the Town put together an Area Variance/Site Plan application where you know it's going to go to Site Plan. And much of the information is the same. It just gets totally confusing. It takes a day, I put together, it took a girl a day to put together the last, it was two on one property, but it took her a day to put all that stuff together for submittal, and it's a waste of resources and it's a waste of people's money. The other comment I would make is the comment here was that this may be substantial or was substantial. We didn't increase the setback variance at all. We, in fact, improved it a little bit. It shouldn't always be a mathematical equation of what the relief is. It should be based upon what the impact is. There really was no impact by changing that side of the roof. The roof that was on the side was about the same pitch, maybe a little different pitch, and you got into that with somebody else earlier tonight, the guy with the patio. It's substantial because he's at 37%, but I think you hit the nail on the head. You're talking one percent or two percent over what he was now. It's the impact that is judgment of what is substantial or not substantial, and I'd offer that and suggest that if you disagree with me at all or have any thought about it, ask your counsel. I'm always the applicant's counsel by choice, and I think that he will agree with me. It's the impact. It's not the mathematical equation that determines whether or not an application is substantial. MR. GARRAND-I think what we're trying to get away from is these McMansions on these postage stamp size parcels of property that just overbuilding on pieces of property where the land, the building is exceeding the carrying capacity of the land. That's what Floor Area Ratio goes back to, and anything above 23% tends to exceed, with all the accessory stuff that people have on their properties between, you know, sheds and lawn furniture and everything else that they have on their property, I mean, it just clutters up the lakefronts. MR. O'CONNOR-But are you applying 23% or 22% I think it is. You're applying 22% with the standard which was applicable when the house was built. You're now drawing into that house 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/2012) the basement of the guy's basement, any space above the first floor that's got five foot. That wasn't in his Floor Area Ratio before. So you're taking two bites out of the apple. I don't think you have McMansions. I'll tell you, I do a lot of real estate and people are avoiding Queensbury lake frontage for the very reason that it is so restrictive, and that applies to Lake George, Glen Lake, anyplace. It really, you know, someday I'm going to do a chart. We're worse than the APA. The APA has always been the bad guy for restrictions. We're the only one that has this 28 foot. Whoever determined the 28 foot was the key, and now you double dip with the five foot in the basement and, I don't know, but 1, someday I'll do that and someday hopefully somebody will change some of the rules. It's very hard to go back up hill, unfortunately, but I think my point is you should be measuring things based upon impact not just upon mathematical determination. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, sir. We have had a request this evening from Mr. Salvador to address the Board for five minutes. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, John. Mr. Salvador. MR. SALVADOR-At the joint meeting that you held last week, I handed out a letter, a copy of a letter that I had addressed to Craig Brown on the subject of the jurisdiction on Lake George. In any case, I'd like to follow up on that letter. I hope you've all read it, but I've had another correspondence with Mr. Brown on another subject, but in that letter I've incorporated this comment pertaining to this jurisdictional matter. The Town's project records are replete with my comments insisting that the Town lacks zoning regulatory jurisdiction on the navigable waterways in general and Lake George in particular. In response to my comments before the Town Planning Board during a review of Site Plan application SP 39-2007, the then Town Attorney could not resist the opportunity marginalize my input by offering his legal advice. Quote, Mr. Fuller, as for the legal comment, until a court says otherwise, this Town regulates the docks along the shores of the Town of Queensbury. We are sure that you are aware that in recent months the courts have indeed said otherwise. I wanted to share that with you. That's in the record, and in my particular instance, I've been waiting, on my application, I've been waiting to further it, awaiting the decision on the Hoffman case, and I've been waiting since 2009. That hasn't come down yet. In the meantime these other cases have come down that substantiates my argument. So I'm just thinking that we should take that under advisement. The other thing I'll share with you is that a long time ago when this subject was being discussed as to jurisdiction on the waterway, there was a lot of confusion. We were required to get permits from the DEC, the towns, the Army Corps of Engineers, the OGS. Warren County Planning was in on it, and so the idea was to have one stop shopping on the lake. Go to one agency to get a permit for either docks or boathouses, and so the DEC undertook a program to foster this, and I'll read to you some of the comments that were submitted at an adjudicatory hearing administered by a chief administrative law judge, by our Planning Board Chairman at that time, and he said, this is a statement he submitted, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board finds that, there is an increased water quality problem in Lake George. The spirit and intent of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance is being increasingly violated by renting dock and mooring space on private lots. That is commercial establishments in a residential zone. I have tried to impress this on everyone that these Class B Marinas are commercial activities in a residential zone, and they're not regulated as such. There's no review by any of these Boards for Class B Marina. They're exempt. The Park Commission doesn't review. It's an administrative thing. They just give the permit providing the people pay the commercial dock rate, and so we have all over, 60 some Class B Marinas in the Town of Queensbury right now, and there's absolutely no regulation. He goes on to say that a lake wide ordinance administered by a State organization is best equip to solve these and future problems. This was in 1980. Goes on to say, early in the development of this control program, both the Lake George Park Commission and the Department of Environmental Conservation recognize that Lake George and its shoreline required lake wide treatment as a whole, as opposed to the patchwork effort of individual towns, groups, counties and so forth, and that's why we have the Park Commission in place to do this regulation. The towns, immediately after this program was put in place, the towns got out of the regulation of docks, wharfs, marinas, etc. That was back in 1982 our Zoning Ordinance was changed. Around late 1990's we crept back into it, and that's the confusion we have today. So, anyway, I wanted to share that with you, and the other problem we have in the Town of Queensbury is the jurisdictional boundaries. I mean, not only do you, as a Town, not have any jurisdiction on the navigable waterway, as the Town of Queensbury doesn't have any jurisdictional on Lake George. It's beyond your Town boundary, it's beyond your zoning jurisdiction. Your map says that, your zoning district boundary. So, thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. Can I have a motion to adjourn, please? 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/2012) MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 19, 2012, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: Duly adopted this 19th day of September, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 26