Loading...
10-17-2012 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/2012) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 17, 2012 INDEX Area Variance No. 41-2012 Jay & Patricia Cardinale 1. Tax Map No. 226.15-1-40 & 41 Area Variance No. 52-2102 LARIC Development 2. Tax Map No. 308.12-1-3 and 7.1 Area Variance No. 35-2012 Blue Moose Tavern/Daniel & Ellen Nichols 6. Tax Map No. 288.20-1-18 and 19 Area Variance No. 53-2012 Douglas McCall 7. Tax Map No. 239.15-1-8 Area Variance No. 54-2012 Edward Mastoloni 9. Tax Map No. 226.15-1-28 and 29 Area Variance No. 33-2012 Gregg Brown & Lizabeth Bitner 13. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-7 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 10/17/2012) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 17, 2012 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN RONALD KUHL JAMES UNDERWOOD RICHARD GARRAND JOYCE HUNT BRIAN CLEMENTS MEMBERS ABSENT ROY URRICO LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Good evening and welcome to the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting this evening, October 17, 2012. For those of you who haven't been here in the past, there is a sheet on the back table with the agenda on it. There's also a listing of the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, followed by a page that outlines the general process that we'll go through this evening. It's quite simple. We'll call each application to the forefront. We'll read it into the record. We'll ask the applicant for any additional comments. We will then open the public hearing when the public hearing was scheduled, and we'll take action from that point on. We have a fairly light agenda this evening, and we do have some housekeeping to attend to. So the first thing on the agenda this evening is to approve the minutes from August 22nd. Do I have a motion? APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 22, 2012 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 22, 2012, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Duly adopted this 17th day of October, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-And thank you to everyone. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-2012 SEQRA TYPE II JAY & PATRICIA CARDINALE AGENT(S) GARY HUGHES OWNER(S) JAY & PATRICIA CARDINALE ZONING WR LOCATION 10 CROSSOVER LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,064 SQ. FT. 3-CAR GARAGE WITH SECOND FLOOR STORAGE. APPLICANT REQUESTS RELIEF FROM REAR SETBACK, HEIGHT, FLOOR AREA RATIO, AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WR ZONE. CROSS REF BP 2006-791 SEPTIC ALT; BP 2005-670 ALT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING YES ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.14 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-40 &41 SECTION 179-3-040 MR. JACKOSKI-There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening, but it's my understanding that we're being asked to table this application. MR. OBORNE-Yes, you're being asked to table this application because the applicant did not submit revised plans in time for this meeting, but he has subsequently submitted plans for the November series of meetings. I would request that you table this to 11/28, and the Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,064 sq. ft. 3-car garage with second floor storage. Applicant requests relief from rear setback, height, floor area ratio, and permeability requirements for the WR zone. I will say that the plans that were submitted has reduced the (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/2012) size of the garage. It has reduced the amount of setbacks proposed. There have been other upgrades to permeability, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board, with the caveat that we're looking for an 11/28 tabling. MR. JACKOSKI-And so I recall that at the last meeting with the applicant there was some discussion about a front balcony and the front setback. Do you know if the applicant has addressed that matter in their current application? MR. OBORNE-The applicant has not, and I would respectfully ask the Board to place that as part of your condition of tabling, that they address that. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Given the recommendations of Staff and the request of the applicant, do I have a motion? MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-2012 JAY & PATRICIA CARDINALE, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: 10 Crossover Lane. Tabled to the November 28th meeting. We are requesting that the applicant confirm that the front yard setbacks are correct given the balcony and the as built condition of the building. Duly adopted this 17th day of October, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Urrico MR. JACKOSKI-And thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2012 SEQRA TYPE II LARIC DEVELOPMENT AGENT(S) J. LAPPER, ESQ. & S. BITTER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S) DKC HOLDINGS, INC. ZONING MDR LOCATION LUZERNE ROAD, OFF EXISTING BURNT HILLS SUBDIVISION APPLICANT PROPOSES A 36-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION WITH LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1 ACRE TO 2.52 ACRES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MDR ZONE. ZBA TO CONSIDER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE PLANNING BOARD'S REQUEST FOR LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR SEAR PURPOSES. CROSS REF SUB NO. 5-2012 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING YES LOT SIZE 58.8 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.12-1-3 AND 7.1 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-80-070 STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE- Applicant proposes a 36-lot residential subdivision with lots ranging in size from 1 acre to 2.52 acres. Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements for the MDR zone. Tonight the ZBA is to consider acknowledgement of the Planning Board's request for Lead Agency status for SEAR purposes. You should have in front of you the request by the Planning Board to Seek Lead Agency Status, and as such Staff is requesting that this Board acknowledge said request from the Planning Board. MR. JACKOSKI-And for the record, we do need to open a public hearing this evening? MR. OBORNE-You do need to open the public hearing. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Welcome. MS. BITTER-Good evening. If I could just give a brief presentation. I appreciate that you're only acknowledging Lead Agency Status, but if I could give you some information about the subdivision, and just, if I could, get your feedback, even if it's briefly. Like Keith mentioned, it's a 36 lot subdivision, and it's a continuation of the existing Burnt Hills subdivision that's along Sherman Avenue. As the Board is aware, this would provide a connection from Sherman Avenue to Luzerne Road that doesn't exist at this time. Obviously emergency services are very much in favor of this development occurring. The applicant is seeking a lot size variance because in that area two acre lots are required. We're requesting lots that range from 1 acre in size to 2.52 acres in size, which average about 1.73 acres. However, I'm sure all of you are familiar with that area, and these lots are very consistent with the other lots that are in the immediate vicinity, which we feel will definitely lessen any impact that may be deemed to exist with the variance. I'm looking for your feedback because a lot of the discussion that occurred at the Planning Board meeting last night was the Planning Board feels that a full subdivision (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/2012) application needs to be submitted for them to complete SEAR, which would incorporate additional topography work being completed, stormwater work being completed, a great deal of expense going into this project before a variance is granted, which that developer is obviously concerned about because if the variance is denied, then we have to start all over. So if we could get your feedback as to how you'd feel about the variance requested and any suggestions you might have, that would be helpful. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, Board members, do you have any comments or feedback as requested by the applicant's representative? MR. KUHL-I looked at this, and you know it's two acre zoning, and with 58 acres, if you would have come up with 29 lots, it would have been, I think, better seated. They still wouldn't be all two acres because of your roads, but you only have three lots on here that are greater than two acres. All the rest you have are much less, and I think you're asking for too much. MS. BITTER-Okay. MR. KUHL-I realize that the existing Burnt Hills subdivision has smaller lots, but, I mean, our Comprehensive Plan is what it is and it's now two acre zoning and I think it should be adjusted. MS. BITTER-Right, right, and obviously they're looking at the developments that exist in that vicinity. We're not only looking at Burnt Hills, but I know that they're, I believe is there a trailer park that's in the immediate vicinity, too. So they're taking that into consideration as to what would be an attractive lot in this area, as well as taking into consideration the boulevard, which obviously goes into the design. The configuration that Larry Clute helped to design was for the purposes of trying to slow down traffic, because obviously this'll be a connector road, but we don't want anybody speeding through there. We want the accessibility, but obviously the safety as well. MR. UNDERWOOD-Stephanie, is the boulevard just going to be at the entrance or is it all the way through? MS. BITTER-I believe the boulevard style is right at the entrance, the areas represented in those first few lots. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. My comments would be germane to the lot size, and, you know, the two acre zoning, when it was adopted by the Town, I understand that they adopted it, but I still am unsure why they adopted the two acre zoning, you know, and for us, you know, it kind of puts us in a tough place because if we're going to be strictly looking at the two acres, you know, it's obviously asking for an awful lot, as Ron said, but at the same time, we have to look at it in the context of what's already been done down there, and it seems that the original Burnt Hills subdivision hasn't produced any negative results that I've ever heard of in granting other things. I can't remember the last time we granted relief down there for a pool or anything like that or if we ever did, in fact, but these lots are on average going to be two or three times the size of what's already present in the area down there, and I don't know if the model of two acre zoning was intended for some other purpose other than huge sizes. I don't know very many lots in Town that are two acres anywhere in Queensbury, and so I'm wondering if we should go to the Town Board and ask them for a clarification. MR. OBORNE-There is a provision in the Code with MDR that if you have sewer and water you can bring it down to one acre. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Sure. MR. OBORNE-So I think that it was to relieve some of the pressure and burden that the property has to hold because of wastewater, I would imagine. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, but I mean, we're going to have Town water supply. There's going to be private septic on each lot. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-Essentially is what's proposed here. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MS. BITTER-Because if we bring the sewer down these lots are going to be expensive. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Sure. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/2012) MR. GARRAND-We have granted variances down there in the past for little things. The last one I remember in this subdivision was for a shed, and that was the guy's lot basically where he wanted the shed, his lot size wasn't all that great. I think, you know, bigger is better. There might be some room for some kind of consolidation in here like Mr. Kuhl said. MR. UNDERWOOD-The other thing I would point out, too, is that I can understand, with the current Burnt Hills subdivision, that there might be concerns about traffic flow because of the creation of all these new lots, they're going to have to pass through there, and I don't know if there's a sense or any value in assessing the other outlet not passing through the current Burnt Hills subdivision. Maybe that would relieve some of that concern for those people that are down in that area, you know, and I don't know if there's something that could be done with that property to the north there, you know, where you could have an entrance that went out separately from. MS. BITTER-Along Road B, is that what you're speaking of? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MS. BITTER-Okay. MR. GARRAND-Yes, a little bit further up the road they also had some issues with flooding, and I know, Keith, I'm not sure who the contract was that was involved with the next subdivision up. I know they had some trouble with the ground water in that area. MR. OBORNE-Further west on Luzerne? MR. GARRAN D-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Yes, because there is high water. There are wetlands down that way. MR. GARRAND-Yes, and also on the other side of Sherman Avenue you've got a really, really high water table. So I think in this situation you know larger lots may be better. MR. OBORNE-1 will say these are Oakville sandy Ioams. So they're deep and they're well drained, and I'm not trying to be an advocate for the applicant. MR. GARRAND-So are the lots on the other side of Sherman Avenue and they all flooded out on Ferris and Hampton Court. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. GARRAND-They were all sandy loam, too, and they had four to six feet of water in their basements. MR. UNDERWOOD-The waivers that were not granted last evening, were they concerned about, that they wanted a bigger, a more, picture, a greater picture of what was going to occur in the area, then, or were they concerned about water? MR. OBORNE-No, it was more of a protocol discussion than anything else, as far as what the application requirements were. It was very interesting. MR. GARRAND-Any other comments from Board members? MR. CLEMENTS-I'd also be in favor of consolidating these lots. You only have, it looks like you only have three on here that are two acres. The rest are under an acre. MR. UNDERWOOD-Was there any discussion amongst Staff about the two acre size as to why that? MR. OBORNE-Not any in-depth, I mean, as far as why it's part of the zoning. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. OBORNE-No. I think it's basically what I stated before. It's to relieve the burden on the land to a certain extent. Most of the land left in this Town is marginal at best, as you know, and I think that large lots were the idea, but I really, not having been part of the Comprehensive Plan discussions, I'm not sure what was going on there. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/2012) MR. JACKOSKI-Any other discussion? Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who would like to address this Board concerning this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. JACKOSKI-Having no one in the audience at this time, I believe we can close the public hearing, because the only motion is to approve Lead Agency status. MR. OBORNE-Right, but I would leave the public hearing open. MR. JACKOSKI-Leave it open? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. We'll leave the public hearing open. Okay. So, do we have a motion? MR. OBORNE-Let's discuss a time for tabling for this one getting back. Obviously at this point we're acknowledging Lead Agency. So that would be the first motion, and then the second would be potentially to table this following proper protocols. I don't know exactly how you'd want to go about that. Do you want a firm date or do you want a date that states when the application is ready? I'm not sure. MR. GARRAND-There's still a lot of preliminary work that has to be done, right? MR. OBORNE-Potentially. Yes, I believe you're going to have discussions with counsel. MR. GARRAND-Can we table it pending future, I mean? MR. OBORNE-Yes, following proper protocol, application protocols pretty much would be the way you'd look at it. We can handle that internally with the dates and all that, or, conversely, a date potentially would not be a bad idea to come back and re-visit to make sure that you have a status check also on the project, which would not be a bad idea. I'm looking at December 19tH potentially, that would be the date I would recommend, if you are to table to a specific date. MS. BITTER-So that would be either a status check or. MR. OBORNE-Or hopefully you'll have a recommendation in hand from the Planning Board. That's what my hope is. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So the first motion would be concerning Lead Agency status. MOTION THAT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACKNOWLEDGES THE PLANNING BOARD'S REQUEST FOR LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR SEAR FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2012 LARIC DEVELOPMENT LUZERNE ROAD OFF THE BURNT HILLS SUBDIVISION, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Duly adopted this 17th day of October, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Urrico MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. As for the tabling motion? MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2012 LARIC DEVELOPMENT, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: Luzerne Road off the Burnt Hills subdivision. This project will be tabled tentatively until December 19th Duly adopted this 17th day of October, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/2012) ABSENT: Mr. Urrico MS. BITTER-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. We're going to go a bit out of order concerning the agenda this evening. 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 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. 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 STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-This applicant is proposing a 400 square foot dining room expansion to existing 3,465 square foot restaurant as well as a 2500 square foot expansion to existing deck to include new bathrooms and bar. Further construction of a 4500 sq. ft. retail building and a 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 restriction requirements of the CI zone. Further, relief requested for the expansion of a non-conforming structure for the existing restaurant. Last night at the Planning Board, the Planning Board had to table this, they couldn't squeeze a recommendation out of themselves. What basically happened is DEC and the Department of Historic Preservation did not give signoff on endangered species and archeology respectively, and the Planning Board would have to commence SEAR in order to issue that recommendation. So they had to table that, and that's pretty much the long and the short of what's going on. What we're asking right now is for you to table that tonight and I'll get a firm date as to what would be appropriate. I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, and before we go forward with tabling the matter, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening which we will open. So, if you could identify yourself for the record and if you need to add anything to what's already been read in, we'd appreciate it. MS. BITTER-Sure. Stefanie Bitter. Most of the project was identified in the Staff Notes. As this Board is aware, Blue Moose was recently purchased by the Nichols' family and the restaurant is doing quite well. So with that they're seeking to expand the existing restaurant, obviously add on to a deck. The variances that are associated with this project are for the setbacks relative to that pre-existing, non-conforming restaurant location which obviously allows for the expansion as well as the enhancement to the entrance. The building's also in the travel corridor, which also brings us to the need for the variance. They're also seeking to construct two additional buildings, one for retail, which would be 4,000 square feet, and another banquet facility which would be about 10,000 square feet. The size of that banquet facility is proposed at 55, a height of 55 feet in height, and that would require a height variance. The variance application explains that although that is a decent variance that's being sought, there are obviously other high structures in that area that would be in conformity with that structure, obviously Six Flags is immediately in that vicinity, the Lodge is nearby and the Warren County Health building. That's really the bulk of our application, and then I'd just open it up for questions if you have any at this time. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Are there any questions from Board members at this time before I open the public hearing? Having none, I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience this evening who would like to address this Board concerning this application? Seeing no one in the audience, is there any written comment? MR. OBORNE-One moment, please. No. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/2012) MR. JACKOSKI-There's no comment. I'm going to leave the public hearing open. Can I have a motion? MR. OBORNE-Staff is requesting November 28tH MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2012 BLUE MOOSE TAVERN/DANIEL & ELLEN NICHOLS, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Tabled until November 28tH Duly adopted this 17th day of October, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Urrico NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 53-2012 SEQRA TYPE 11 DOUGLAS MC CALL AGENT(S) DOUGLAS MC CALL OWNER(S) PAUL KASSELMAN ZONING WR LOCATION 25 WILD TURKEY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO EXPAND AN EXISTING 5,546 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING BY 1,422 SQUARE FEET WITH A TWO STORY ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS IN THE WR ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE BP 2012-396; BP 90-420 SFD; BP 2010-339 BOATHOUSE; BP 2002-695 DOCK WARREN COUNTY PLANNING YES ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.93 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.15-1-8 SECTION 179-3-040 DOUGLAS MC CALL, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-The applicant proposes to expand an existing 5,546 sq. ft. single family dwelling by 1,422 square feet with a two story addition. Relief requested is from the maximum height restrictions in the WR zone. There was a snafu on Staff's part for this one, unfortunately. We do have pie in the face. This is an expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA which requires Site Plan Review. Initially we did not catch that, and as such we have requested the applicant to submit a Site Plan Review application, which has been submitted, and we're ready to go with that to the Planning Board. We did ask Doug to come on in and discuss the application to a certain extent about what's going on, potentially get some feedback from the Board, if the Board is so willing, and again, I shall get a date for tabling in a little bit. With that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome. MR. MC CALL-Thank you. My name's Doug McCall. I'm representing Paul and Becky Kasselman. They're requesting a variance from the height, the zoning to put on a two story addition off one side of the house. I'll go back into a little history just so you know the property. In the late 80's, mid to late 80's, Paul and Becky Kasselman bought this piece of property with an existing house on it. They wanted to expand the existing house. They came to the Board and weren't allowed to because it was a non-conforming structure. So they, in good faith, tore the house down, put the house back to all the specifications that the Town gave them and at that time it was a legal structure in the Town of Lake George, or Town of Queensbury. So now they're seeking to put an addition off and I'm here again. The idea of this is they want to have an office off their master bedroom on the second floor with a lake facing view, which in essence we would put over top of an existing screened porch. So in order to make that happen we would have to take off that screened porch, work it all the way up. So in that process we're going to add to the basement first floor and the second floor, and the other portion of this would be for a closet and a large bathroom, an exercise room. They would like to put, take off the garage roof, put a second floor over top of the garage and put that over there, which does not come under any height restrictions. That area would be all within the Town zoning laws, and that's where I stand. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any additional questions or comments from Board members? MR. GARRAND-Isn't there somewhere else they could put an office? I mean, eight feet is a lot on the lakefront of this property. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/2012) MR. MC CALL-They couldn't put it to get a lake view. MR. GARRAND-They could put it somewhere else. I mean, a lake view is not everything. MR. MC CALL-Paul's retiring. He's going to let go of his business a little bit, but he wants to have an office in his house. So he's going to work out of his house, and he would like to have an office, and this is, the height that I'm asking for is only to connect to the existing height. I'm not asking for anything above the existing height. There is nothing behind this house. They own the property all the way back to 9L. So there's no one behind it that they would be restricting view. It's taking up no more height than what's there, and they want, if you have a piece of property on the lake, typically you want a view. MR. KUHL-You're going to expand over the garage? MR. MC CALL-Yes. That would be for a, they have a small bathroom upstairs. They're looking for a larger bathroom, an exercise room, and a large closet, and all of that over top of the garage stays under the height restrictions. Everything else is within setbacks every direction. The only problem is the height on that area that goes over top of the office, just to make the roof lines work. MR. KUHL-That's where the porch is now? MR. MC CALL-There's a porch now on the first floor. We're proposing to put the office over top of that, adjacent to the master bedroom on the side. MR. KUHL-But that porch is coming down and you're going to do whole footing, whole foundation? MR. MC CALL-Yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other comments from Board members? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Mr. Water Keeper. Welcome. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. We do not oppose the requested variance but recognize that it's an opportunity to reduce the potential negativity impacts to water quality from development, and we request the Board to consider the imposition of conditions and also the application of New York State Department of Health regulations. The proposed project with requested variance may have adverse impacts to the environment and neighborhood. Based on the application is appears the proposed project will add potentially two bedrooms. I wasn't sure if bedroom number three was an existing or proposed, but it appears there's also going to be a den with a bath, but the application contains no information regarding existing components of the wastewater system. The Zoning Board of Appeals should require the applicant to submit an engineering certification of the system and that would be compliant with New York State Department of Health regulations, a fax sheet that we attached with our comment letter. Secondly, the Zoning Board of Appeals should consider the condition to provide water quality protection. The application fails to provide any information on existing stormwater management for the addition or existing impervious surfaces. They should require the applicant to consider stormwater management. In addition, consider installation of a shoreline buffer. There appears to be limited buffering on the property. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? Seeing no one else in the audience, is there any written comment? MR. OBORNE-No written comments. MR. JACKOSKI-No written comment. We are going to leave the public hearing open because we are going to be tabling the application. MR. MC CALL-Can I address any of that? MR. JACKOSKI-Sure. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/2012) MR. MC CALL-There is a shoreline buffer. We put that in two years ago. There was a boathouse on an existing dock that they had, and a condition of that that you guys gave me was shoreline buffer that has been done. MR. JACKOSKI-And again, that'll be addressed when they go in front of the Planning Board. MR. MC CALL-And as for the septic system, there's no bedrooms increased, and it on a holding tank system, which is what the Town of Queensbury asked for at the time when the house was built in the late 80's. So there should be no issues with the septic system since there really isn't. MR. GARRAND-The tank is sized for four bedrooms, for four bathrooms? MR. MC CALL-It's sized for bedrooms. There is no additional bedrooms in this house. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is that something Board of Health should be aware of because they're the ones that gave the variance for the holding tanks? MR. OBORNE-Well, the Board of Health, what, back in 1980, was it, 1990, somewhere in there, yes, late 80's, early 90's. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is there any sense that we should review the adequacy at this time, or it has not been an issue, I take it, at this point? MR. OBORNE-Yes. It has not, and there's a septic certification. They don't have a septic. So if the Planning Board feels it's necessary, I'm sure that they would require that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I mean, we don't require it, but I'm just thinking from your own good sense it might make sense to make sure that what you're going to do is going to pass muster. MR. MC CALL-Yes, I understand. They have a pretty (lost words) for pumping their system. They've done it for 25 years. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any additional discussion or comments or questions? Again, we left the public hearing open. Would anyone like to make a motion? MR. OBORNE-Staff is recommending a tabling date of 11/28. That's the next Planning Board meeting. You will have a recommendation in hand on that date. MR. JACKOSKI-I have a feeling we're going to have a full agenda on November 28tH MR. OBORNE-You will, yes, sir. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. How about a motion. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 53-2012 DOUGLAS MC CALL, Introduced by Brian Clements who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 25 Wild Turkey Lane. Until November 28tH Duly adopted this 17th day of October, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Urrico MR. MC CALL-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thanks, Doug. AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-2012 SEQRA TYPE 11 EDWARD MASTOLONI AGENT(S) MICHAEL STAFFORD, ESQ. OWNER(S) E AND J MASTOLONI, LLC ZONING WR LOCATION 50 BAY PARKWAY & 18 NEIGHBOR'S WAY APPLICANT PROPOSES A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT OF EXISTING 1.47 AND 0.49 ACRE LOTS RESULTING IN LOT SIZES OF 1.40 AND 0.56 ACRES RESPECTIVELY. RELIEF REQUEST FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE. CROSS REF BP 2010-214 DIET. GARAGE; (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/2012) BP 2004-856 ALT.; BP 2001-561 SEPTIC; BP 2000-853 REPAIR BOAT SHELTER; BP 95-032 BOAT SHELTER; BP 95-033 BOATHOUSE WITH DOCK; BP 2009-411 RES. ADDITION WARREN COUNTY PLANNING YES ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 1.47 AND 0.49 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-28 AND 29 SECTION 179-3-040 SUZANNE SPECTOR TOUGAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-This application proposes a boundary lot line adjustment of an existing 1.47 acre and 0.49 acre lots, resulting in lot sizes of 1.40 and 0.56 acres respectively. Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements for the WR zone, and that is specifically for the lot that's getting smaller, which would be the larger of the two lots. So the smaller of the two lots is getting larger and the larger of the two lots is getting smaller, but the focus is on the larger lot which is now becoming less compliant at this point in time, and that's really the long and the short of it in this case. MR. JACKOSKI-It seems like a pretty straightforward application, but hello, welcome. Would you like to identify yourself for the record and if you need to add anything to the record, we'd appreciate it. MS. TOUGAS-My name is Suzanne Spector Tougas from Stafford, Carr, and McNally, and the only thing I would add is the purpose of the boundary line would be to put the parking area and driveway for the smaller lot onto (lost words). MR. JACKOSKI-So that driveway and parking area is technically over the boundary line at this time? MS. TOUGAS-Correct. Thank you. Any comments from Board members? MR. CLEMENTS-I've just got a question. There's a right of way that runs, as I can see that, runs right up to those brick pavers right there. MS. TOUGAS-Correct. MR. CLEMENTS-So will that right of way now stop at the suggested tax parcel line? MS. TOUGAS-No, it would remain where it is. MR. CLEMENTS-It stays there? MS. TOUGAS-Correct. MR. CLEMENTS-The only person that would use that would be the person that would be on that lot? MS. TOUGAS-Yes. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Yes, the deed will be adjusted to reflect that, and he owns both parcels. MR. GARRAND-How come this wasn't done before? MS. TOUGAS-He only recently put in this, kind of extended the driveway area, and because he owns both parcels there was really no urgency to it. MR. GARRAND-Is he selling either one of them? MS. TOUGAS-He doesn't have any intentions at this point. MR. CLEMENTS-Didn't he just purchase this a couple of years ago, maybe three, five, I thought I saw this for a variance at one point? MR. GARRAND-Yes, it was before us. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MS. TOUGAS-Yes. He deeded from himself to the LLC recently. He bought 2007 the one. That was the larger lot, and 2008 was when he deeded it to the LLC. He originally had purchased that one, 2007. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/2012) MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other discussions or comments 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 particular application? Welcome. If you could state your name and your address for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED LORRAINE RUFFING MS. RUFFING-Yes. My name is Lorraine Ruffing and I live at 66 Bay Parkway, which is two lots over from the two lots that are in question. This morning we examined the map, in terms of how the property lines would be changed. We couldn't really find anything, you know, significant enough, in terms of the impact, if it's just to accommodate the driveway, the driveway that has been built. However, I guess I have a question, you know, for the Board. The fact that the smaller lot would be made larger, would that enable the present owner to build other structures on that or to put a septic system on that smaller lot. At the present, as you know, the existing septic system serves three houses, and is on the larger lot. I have just a question. MR. JACKOSKI-I understand. Does anyone want to answer that question for, I'm looking at Staff. MR. GARRAND-We're all looking at Staff. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would think as long as the present owner owns all the contiguous properties, it's not an issue. I suppose if they were going to subdivide it in the future then it would become an issue. MR. OBORNE-Yes, we had this conversation this morning, or this afternoon. I'm not sure which it was. Everything's just blurry. Obviously he has this approval from the Board of Health to do this. There's not, he would have to get approval from the Board of Health to put a septic system on that lot on the point, or holding tanks or whatever at this point, and there's no indication that he's going to be doing that. So I'm not sure. As far as another structure, that would be another variance for a second structure, too. MR. JACKOSKI-And I'm not sure that the point that this lot is at there's actually 100 feet going both ways to the center to even have a septic system without all kinds of variances. So I would suspect that the answer would be that they'd have to come back to the Boards to get the appropriate approvals, that they'd have to go through all kinds of applications all over again. MS. RUFFING-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-I suspect that. I don't know what they'll do. I mean, the Planning Board wasn't involved in the hard surfacing of this new driveway that they put in? MR. OBORNE-The Planning Board was involved. They had Site Plan Review on this, absolutely, but as far as the hard surfacing, there might have been existing hard surfacing, I'm not sure. MR. JACKOSKI-The applicant's agent stated that it was newly installed hard surfacing. MR. OBORNE-Right, but that was as part of the Site Plan Review back in '08. MR. JACKOSKI-And the Site Plan Review in '08 was on the approved hard surfacing on another lot? MR. OBORNE-Could very well be. I don't have the record in front of me, to be honest with you. So I can't answer that cogently. MS. RUFFING-I could say for the record that as long as I've lived there for 59 years there's never been any hard surfacing until, you know, this new, the new garage, the new structure was built. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. We can ask the applicant's agent to address that for us. MS. RUFFING-Thank you. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/2012) MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one else in the audience, is there any written comment? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment, I am going to leave the public hearing open for a bit. I would be interested in hearing about how the hard surfacing that was recently installed was part of the original site plan. MS. TOUGAS-I don't think I can answer that. I don't have the original site plan information in this file. MR. OBORNE-Keep in mind that there was a driveway leading up to this, and again, I'm not being an advocate for the applicant by any stretch of the imagination, that there was hard surfacing, a gravel drive leading up to that structure. That is considered hard surfacing. What the extent of that hard surfacing was at that point in time, I can't answer that, and I don't know how germane that is to this conversation, to be honest with you. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other questions or comments from Board members? I'm going to poll the Board. I'm going to start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think it's a simple lot line adjustment within an internal, you know, amalgamation of lots here, and I don't see it as any big change. Nothing's going to change other than it's going to accommodate the new pavers that have been put down in place of the gravel driveway. So I don't have any problem with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I agree with my other Board member, as Jim stated. I think that the neighbor's concern is just something that can't really happen with the distances required to do septic. That's just a what if. Like Jim, it's just a lot line adjustment. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I have to agree. It's a simple lot line adjustment and I have no problem with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I would have to be in agreement with the other Board members. I think that anything that's going to get done on this, almost any of these three lots is going to require a variance of one kind or another given the configuration of these lots and the layout of these properties. So I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-And Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I agree with the rest of the Board members. I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Hearing the opinions of the Board members, I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-Jim, I think you're ready to make a motion. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-2012 EDWARD MASTOLONI, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: 50 Bay Parkway & 18 Neighbor's Way. The applicant is proposing a boundary line adjustment of an existing 1.47 and .49 acre lots resulting in lot sizes of 1.40 and .56. In granting this relief, the Board will recognize that the larger lot will be shrinking and the smaller lot will be growing in amalgamation by a slight .6 acres, and in regards to the request, we do not find that the request will cause any substantial change within the neighborhood because it's internal and for amalgamated lots. So, therefore, even though it's self-created, we don't consider it to be anything that triggers any. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/2012) Duly adopted this 17th day of October, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Urrico MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Congratulations. 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 STEFANIE BITTER & MICHAEL BIRD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-This application has been before this Board in the past. There were public hearings on July 18th, September 19th, and this evening, October 17th. It is a Type II SEAR. I will turn it over to Staff to read in any additional notes to what's already been read into the record. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Project Description is as follows: Applicant proposes reconstruction of an 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. With that said, the Board did table this application seeking input from Adirondack Park Agency. That letter has been given to this Board and we have received that. There didn't appear to be too big of an issue with that from the Park Agency's point of view, at this point in time. Also the applicant has submitted revised plans which has reduced the height of the roof down to the original or existing height at this point in time, and I believe that was the only change that occurred as part of the revision. I think the Board is up to speed with what's going on here, and I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. JACKOSKI-Many thanks. Welcome. If you could identify yourselves for the record. MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter here with Gregg Brown and Michael Bird. Jon Lapper should be joining us momentarily. As was discussed in Staff's Notes, since the July meeting we did receive correspondence from the APA, both in a non-jurisdictional letter as well as a letter to Craig Brown, identifying this as an in kind replacement. We also in our submission had confirmed the pre-existing grandfathered nature of this structure as was represented at prior meetings. The construction date was verified as 1923 which that date was taken from actually the Queensbury Town Assessor's database, based upon the discussions that occurred with this Board, our architect did review the design and are now proposing a reduction in height as was represented by Staff, which would be to maintain the size of the structure as it is today, the height I should say. In doing that, though, we obviously are presenting a re-design which will reduce the wall area by 13% compared to the existing structure. The footprint will remain the same, as was discussed, but obviously the mass and scale of the structure will be reduced. The second floor will provide for an open exterior deck, obviously openin up the view shed. There'll be also open areas in the slip area, opening up the view shed, which are now currently blocked on the west end, and we'll also be reducing the length of the ridge which will obviously also be allowing for the veiw shed to be open. I'm going to turn it over to Michael Bird, now, to talk about the renovations that are proposed. MR. BIRD-In our last meeting you asked for an APA non-jurisdictional determination, which we did apply for. Just on the record, the APA would have allowed a 250 foot, square foot expansion to the rear of the structure, as well as an increase in height of two feet over the existing ridge. We did not ask for any expansion in the square footage and asked for an increase in the ridge height of one foot. That was approved. As per our last meeting, you asked us to drop the ridge down to meet the existing ridge, and we have done that. So I just wanted to make sure that the Board was well aware of what's happened so far. So probably the biggest change is when you look at the flat elevation from the north or the south, by eliminating the roof to the west and (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/2012) creating the open porch, and opening up the wall on the lower level, we've actually reduced the flat area square footage by 24%. So you can visually see through this structure much more readily than you can now. The character with the different roof planes will make it a much more interesting structure, and as I mentioned in our last hearing, make it more resemble the house, and therefore give it a more fitting appearance and more attractive appearance from both the water as well as the shoreline. There's approximately six feet of ridge that's at the existing ridgeline elevation, and the rest of the ridge then drops down from that. So this building will significantly, well, will be a reduction of the current view provided from both the north, the south, and the west. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Any questions or comments from Board members at this time? MR. KUHL-Would you just repeat what you talked about open area? Because I thought when you first came, the first level was all open. Did you change any of the open, those distances are are still the same? MR. BIRD-Yes, that's all the same. MR. KUHL-Okay. You just basically brought the roofline down. MR. BIRD-Yes, exactly. MR. KUHL-Okay. Thank you. MR. BIRD-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-So, any other questions or comments 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 matter? I do see a couple of hands in the audience, and if there are any students in the audience who I haven't yet signed anything like the agenda to prove your attendance, I'll sign it. Sorry, a little housekeeping. It'll just take me a second. Welcome. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JOHN COLLINS MR. COLLINS-Welcome. My name is John Collins. I live at 35 Knox Road, next to the Browns. I have a letter I want to read into the record. I also have copies for the Board, and I don't know procedure, whether I read it in and then give it to you. MR. JACKOSKI-Either way is fine. If you want to give it to us now and then you can read it, too, that's perfectly fine. MR. COLLINS-Sure. MR. KUHL-Are you next to them around the bend or before the bend? MR. COLLINS-Just north of the Brown property. "We respectfully request the ZBA deny the variance application for the "boathouse" of Gregg Brown and Lizabeth Bitner. The applicant is requesting relief for new construction of a 2-story dwelling on the waters of Lake George. We are fully opposed to any modification, expansion or extension of this "boathouse". We fully support the applicants' option to bring the non-conforming structure into conformity as a boathouse with a sundeck. The request for new construction of a dwelling would create a precedent which is in complete contradiction to the intent and purpose of existing regulations and the Town's Comprehensive Plan and would create undue health, environmental and neighborhood impacts. We would like to bring to your attention and request your review of conflicting and/or inadequate information submitted by the applicants to the Town. We also believe that is incumbent on the applicants to provide evidence that the "boathouse" kitchen and bathroom are currently existent, in use and lawfully functioning. (If not, removal of the bedroom, kitchen and bathroom would be an acceptable remedy.) In making a determination for use and area variances, we ask the Board to consider the following based upon supporting information: 1. The proposed changes are undesirable and would create a detriment to the neighbors and neighborhood. a) Increasing the density in a WR-1 creates an undesirable and unlawful change in the neighborhood. The relief requested is 84%. Density for Waterfront Residential requires 2 acres per dwelling unit. By definition a boathouse cannot have a bathroom or kitchen and cannot have lodging or residency. Therefore, as per the applicants' description, this would be considered a dwelling unit. A dwelling unit is a single unit providing complete, independent (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/2012) living facilities for one or more persons, including provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation. The proposed structure will also meet the definition of a dwelling unit. The property is only 0.63 acres and 2 dwellings require 4 acres. b) Upgrades to the kitchen and bathroom facilities the extended and raised ceiling heights in the areas of the dormers would substantially change and enhance the usability of the second floor. There is a conflict in testimony among the applicant's representatives regarding changes to be made to the floor plan. One representative stated the intention is to remove the existing bedroom closet and decrease the size of the great room. Another representative stated there will be kitchen, bathroom and great room. In the interest of full disclosure, the applicant should document and report the current and proposed floor plans, provide dimensions and function of each room. Dimensions should include room size, window sizes, window heights, and ceiling heights throughout the rooms." This will give you a better sense of the usability of the structure today and how it will be going forward. "c) A substantial increase in the flat surface area and volume of the structure would extend and create new living and floor space. As currently configured, the "boathouse" north side acts as a privacy barrier for the neighbors. The north and south sides are primarily solid walls with small windows on the second floor. One may consider the changes visually appealing if it was a main house, but it represents an undesirable and serious new imposition on the neighbors and the shoreline of Lake George. d) Substantially increasing the size of the windows would change the character, cause light pollution and decrease the privacy of the neighbors. At night, the larger windows will shed light and create an undesirable change in the character of the shoreline as active living facilities on the waters of Lake George would infringe on the rights of all others. Please note that we have owned our property since 2000 and have observed that the applicant does not currently use the second floor for much more than storage. We have not seen any lights on in the building. 2. That the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by designing a height compliant structure. 3. The requested variance is substantial. a) Relief requested is 53% to build a superstructure that is 376 square ft. above the existing code for maximum surface area of 700 square ft. b) Relief requested is 41% to build a superstructure which would be substantially higher than the current maximum allowable height of 16 feet. c) The applicants request relief for the newly created space would require a 41% relief at its maximum for extension of the current roofline for the addition of the dormers. The new extensions are significantly higher than the maximum allowable 16 feet as well as current roof line at those locations. Per the applicant, flat surface area requires relief of 28% and 19% at their minimum." That roofline change is going to significantly change the usability of the space and provide the ability to have much larger windows than the current structure. "d) Applicants representatives testified before the Planning Board that they intend to replace each board by board, every wall, floor and the roof. Further they will be adding structural steel. The applicant intends to drive steel caissons into the dock crib. Allowing steel to be installed in the superstructure and dock substantially changes the character of the structure and the nonconforming dock. As this is new construction, any changes to the structure should be done in conformity with current regulations. The applicants' representatives say they will only replace areas due to structural issues and dry rot." This building, as we just found out now, was built in 1923, I believe, over water, and it currently lists. "The building was constructed in the 1930's over water and currently lists. It is likely that most if not all of the structure will be replaced. e) Connecting a new bathroom and kitchen wastewater to the existing system would require setback relief of 100% for the horizontal separation of the effluent line from within 50 feet of the lake. 4. The variance will have an adverse effect and impact on the environment. a) The Town does not have documentation regarding the current working conditions of the kitchen and bathroom, nor does the Town have documentation of how and where wastewater is disposed of and treated. Disposal of the kitchen and bathroom waste from the "boathouse" were not disclosed in either the 1/24/97 "as built" septic plan signed by Mr. Dean Howland, Jr., or Paragon Engineering's certified and approved septic and site plan dated 7/1/2008. Yet, Mr. Lapper states in the 7/18/12 ZBA meeting minutes, the "boathouse" bathroom is connected to the septic system. This would mean there are currently 5 bedrooms connected to the septic system that may not adequately handle 4 bedrooms (see below). If this kitchen and bathroom existed, why were they not disclosed in the 2007 site plan review for the expansion of the current nonconforming house? Further, why weren't the bathroom and kitchen facilities disclosed in 1996 when the house received setback relief of 50%? b) The certification letter from Mr. Dickenson was based upon his review of the 12/31/96 Inspection report. The absorption field data in the inspection report indicated a length of 228 feet. Mr. O'Brien required an as-built plan since the system did not conform to the plot plan. Mr. Howland's as-built plan 1/24/97 only indicates a leach field of 216 feet and did not include any detailed dimensions or any percolation test results. c) Paragon Engineering, the applicant's engineer in their 2007 application, submitted a certified map to the town dated 7/2/08 that certifies that there are 5 laterals of 36 feet which total 180 feet. Given this confusion, it is important that the exact dimensions and location of the existing system be certified by field measurements. Connecting a 5t" bedroom would require between at least 275 and 306 feet of lateral. d) The conclusions in Mr. Dickenson's certification appear to be based on a percolation rate of 5 minutes or less. We can find no evidence of these test results. These rates conflict with Paragon Civil Engineering report dated 1/15/08 which details the results of their percolation test based on 5 test pits dated (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/2012) 1/15/08 which observed percolation rates of two at 7 minutes, one at 10 minutes, one at 1 hour, and an additional pit that was abandoned. As part of the field measurement to certify the existing system, there should be confirmation of the percolation rate of the soil within the system. With the above discrepancies resolved a reasonable determination can be made regarding the adequacy of the system." Because if that rate is above five minutes, you're going to need 275, to 306 to handle the five bedrooms, and even at four, you could be short as the existing system exists today. "e) At the Planning Board meeting, applicants' representatives indicated they intend to have a pump station that will grind and pump human and kitchen waste and pump it to the existing septic field. Is it lawful to put a grinder pump over the waters of Lake George? Does it jeopardize our drinking water? In event of a breakdown or spill we will be notified? Will drinking water be provided in the event of a spill? 5. The difficulty is self created. The applicant can bring the boathouse into conformity. Thank you for your consideration" Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to address the Board concerning this application? Mr. Navitsky. Welcome. CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. Some points were just discussed, and I'll just support those and won't repeat them. The Lake George Water Keeper has concerns about the potential impacts of the requested variance for the associated use, which appears to be for a second dwelling unit on the property. It is our opinion the proposed development exceeds the capacity of the land to support and mitigate these impacts and results in an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and impacts the resources of Lake George. The project results in an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and a detriment to nearby properties. The project will change the existing boathouse/dwelling by creating a residential structure facilitating living quarters over the waters of Lake George. The project is not compatible with the Town's Comprehensive Plan which promotes the protection of the natural resources in Critical Environmental Areas. I think this was best summarized by the Planning Board Chairman, Mr. Hunsinger, at an August 2011 meeting where he said, quote, creating a greater man-made appearance in a natural environment is not the direction of the Town. The undesirability of the project includes a structure well exceeding the maximum size over the water and with lighting over the water which can have ecological impacts and would be the only residential dwelling over the waters on Assembly Point. It was also just stated that this would, quote by the applicant's agent, more resemble a house, and this is not supposed to be a house over water. The structure should be considered a second dwelling on the property which violates the density regulations for the Waterfront Zoning District. the Queensbury Code defines a boathouse as an accessory structure which has direct access to a body of navigable water and does not have any bathroom or kitchen facilities and is not designed or used for lodging or residency. The existing structure does and will have kitchen and bathroom facilities and will be able to be used for lodging. Therefore, the structure should not be considered a boathouse but be considered as a dwelling. The definition is consistent with the APA regulations which defines a boathouse as covered structure with direct access to a navigable body of water which does not contain bathroom facilities, sanitary plumbing, or sanitary drain of any kind, does not contain kitchen facilities of any kind; does not contain a heating system of any kind; does not contain beds or sleeping quarters of any kind; and does not exceed a single story. Based on this information, it would appear the structure should be considered a dwelling, which would violate the density requirements for the Waterfront Zoning District, creating an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, and the proposed project with the requested variances will have adverse impacts to the environment and neighborhood. The application material is incomplete and fails to provide information regarding wastewater treatment for the existing/proposed dwelling. A lot of the information was covered by the previous SEAR. A certification provided by the engineer conflicts with the engineer providing information for the previous Site Plan. The information on the percolation rates, that's not substantiated. It should be noted that the existing on-site wastewater treatment system is non-conforming as determined by both the Town Engineer, Vision Engineering, in the December 13, 2007 letter and by the Town Attorney, which was representing the Town in a Memorandum of Law dated September 15, 2008 regarding litigation on the property. It should be noted that there should be no expansion or connections made to an existing nonconforming wastewater treatment system according to Town Code 136-7 and 136-12. Finally, any installation of water- tight piping and/or tanks within the 50 foot shoreline setback would require a variance from the Town of Queensbury Board of Health. So we would recommend that the Town Zoning Board deny the application as submitted and not approve dwellings or expansions within the shoreline setback and not exceed the allowable density in the Waterfront zoning district. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Navitsky, you did mention, sorry, if you don't mind, because I'm curious. You did mention in your letter that this is the only dwelling unit over the waters of Lake George on Assembly Point. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/2012) MR. NAVITSKY-To my knowledge. MR. JACKOSKI-Are there other dwelling units over the waters of Lake George in general, and if so, how many? MR. NAVITSKY-I know of one recent reconstruction in the Town of Bolton that received a variance, I think, in the Springtime. It was an old fishing lodge. MR. JACKOSKI-And the boathouse bed and breakfast, would that be considered one or no? MR. NAVITSKY-I would consider it to be a dwelling or structure, yes. That I know there is, up in Hague there's the, I don't know if the Dockside, is it Dockside Marina, just north of the Town beach in Hague. MR. GARRAND-Just north of Town, yes, on the right. MR. NAVITSKY-They had a, they were actually recently in front of the Town Board regarding a, more a deck extension for a restaurant than it was living dwellings, but those are the only ones that come to my mind right now. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? Seeing no one else in the audience, is there any written comment? MR. OBORNE-No written comments. MR. JACKOSKI-There's no additional comment. If the applicant would like to add anything or clarify anything that was brought up during public comment. JON LAPPER MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper. I'd like to apologize for getting here late. I was at the Wilton Planning Board and knew that your agenda was bigger and it got smaller, and I really apologize. This is really a much simpler application than it appears from the neighbors and Chris because since we were here last time, we were able to find from the Town's records, as Stefanie discussed, that the boathouse was actually built in 1923, rather than 1930. So everything that's there is permitted as a pre-existing use. Whether or not it could be built today is not what's before you because it's there, and they have every right to maintain it. Therefore we wouldn't come before this Board and ask for what we consider a minor change, which is just adding these two gables, without proposing to give something back, and that is to take off along the Iakeshore what is now interior space and create this outdoor deck space which we've demonstrated in the most recent submittal creates a building that's 13% smaller than what you have now in terms of the mass and scale. Keith pointed out in the Staff Notes that the square footage is the same because it goes from interior space to exterior space on the dock, which is correct, but in terms of the mass and scale of the building, what you would be looking at from a boat or from a neighbor's property, if you could see it, is the 13% smaller than what's there now, even with these two dormers. So the only thing that we're asking for to upgrade this is just to add these two dormers which, if you're looking at the roof of the house and again, Mr. Kuhl had asked that we not ask for the variance for one foot higher than it was. We've made that change after listening to the Board last time. So if you're looking at the dormers from the neighboring dock, because you certainly can't see it from the neighboring property, you'd be looking at roof anyway, and so now instead of looking at roof, you're looking at a gable, which we would argue and our architect has argued, that it's a much more interesting articulated roof because it's just upgraded from just the flat roof to have the gable, but that's all we're here really talking about. We're offering to give up the interior space on the lakefront, make it a smaller building, and modernize it and make it more attractive, but in terms of everything that's there, what Chris was saying that this is an undesirable change. It's not a change. Everything that's there, I mean, we're taking out a bedroom and it's going to be a living room, but everything that's there now, the kitchen, bathroom are there and they're legal, and it's on their, they're taxed. It's on the Town records that we submitted. They can stay there `tit the end of time. The building doesn't look great. The neighbors said that at the public hearing last time when we were here for the variances for the upgrades to the house. It could use to be upgraded. We think that it's a much more attractive structure that's being proposed. We hope that you think it's a much more attractive structure that's being proposed. It's not adding anything that isn't already there, except for these two dormers which we think is a visual upgrade. We've submitted what we have on the wastewater system that is designed for the bedrooms in the house as well as the bedroom, or if this was counted as a bedroom, in the boathouse. The system was, Chris has said something that there were studies from 2007 saying that the wastewater system was (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/2012) inadequate. Well, the wastewater system was replaced as part of the construction of the house. So there's an upgraded wastewater system and we're trying to upgrade, the house was upgraded and we're trying to now upgrade the boathouse to make it more attractive, and that's it. So in terms of, there's nothing that's an undesirable change. It's a positive change. There's nothing that's a change. We're not adding anything that wasn't already there, and it's just a very expensive project to make a boathouse that needs to be upgraded something much nicer. The question isn't could you build it today, it's knowing that this is grandfathered, are we asking for something that's reasonable in terms of the impact on the neighborhood, and we think at the end of the day this is going to be a much nicer structure and a somewhat smaller structure than what's there now. Finally, in terms of the neighbors talking about their view, you can't see this from their house, from their property, and I think the view of what we're showing from their dock is going to look a lot nicer, and of course that's subjective, but we're certainly not doing this to in any way harm them. We think it's going to help their view to make it more attractive and as always the applicant has come to you with a proposal, with something that he's proposed because he thinks it's going to be satisfactory to you to give you something more than what you have now, if he's asking for a little bit of relief, and that relief is really just for those two dormers. So, Gregg, do you want to add anything in response to the comments? Okay. If there is anything that the Board wants to see in terms of wastewater, or to have, you know, anything from Dave Hatin, I mean, we'll supply whatever you'd like, if you feel that you'd like anything more based upon the public comment, but we've submitted something saying that it is compliant. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Any comments or questions at this time from Board members before I poll the Board? MR. CLEMENTS-I have one question. Is the bathroom and kitchen currently functioning? GREGG BROWN MR. BROWN-Yes, it is, and it is maintained every year, because it's turned on and off with the seasons. It's a seasonal thing. So, yes. MR. CLEMENTS-I had one other. Is there heat or air conditioning in there now? MR. BROWN-There is heat in the building now, yes. It is a base board heat, electric heat, and that's not going to be continued in the structure. MR. CLEMENTS-Thank you. MR. KUHL-In the previous submittal, I don't remember a grinder system. I always thought you were talking about gravity coming out of that boathouse into the wastewater system. MR. BROWN-There is an existing grinder pump, and that would have to be continued in a more modern fashion. There is an existing system there. It has to lift it. MR. KUHL-But that pump is sitting in the boathouse. MR. BROWN-It's sitting in the bottom of the boathouse, yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. The other thing, Keith, they talk about a 2007 wastewater system. Do we have the drawings of that and know what was put in? MR. OBORNE-Yes, absolutely. MR. KUHL-And is that compliant with five bedrooms? MR. OBORNE-I do not know the answer to that. I don't have the documentation in front of me, but I will say that there is a requirement that you have to have a certification. MS. BITTER-That's what the certification was. MR. KUHL-Yes, but my point is, was it a new system in 2007, or was it just a certification of existence? MR. OBORNE-It was a new system, a totally new system to my knowledge. It's not? MR. BROWN-No, in 1997 it was a new system. MR. OBORNE-Okay, 1997, so 2008 was when. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/2012) MR. BROWN-2008 was a change in the garage and the landscaping. MR. OBORNE-And you didn't add any other laterals or anything? MR. BROWN-No. MR. LAPPER-I misspoke. I had forgotten that they had done the system years ago. MR. BROWN-In 1997, when the house was re-built, the system was upgraded, made fully certified. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Again, I cannot corroborate anything that's being said here, because I don't have the file in front of me. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other comments or questions before we poll the Board? Rick, I'm going to start with you. MR. GARRAND-Certainly. I'm really at a loss on this one. I mean, this place was built in 1923. It's been here forever. What kind of gets to me is they're saying it's a renovation. You're driving pilings in the building and doing all this work on the place. It's new construction, and that's kind of how I look at it is new construction. There's no way that much of this place at all is going to be remaining when all is said and done except for maybe the chimney. If it's a boathouse, like the Water Keeper said, it doesn't fit the definition of what a boathouse is. It fits the definition of what a second structure is, a second house on the property, in which case it should have its own septic system, and a compliant septic system. Also, when this was built back in the 20's, I don't think there was anywhere near the density of homes you have up on the lake now, nor were there nearly as many year round homes. I've got issues with one construction. When they go to construct this place, they're going to have all kinds of building materials dropping into the lake. There's been nothing said about what sort of booms might be in place or what they're going to do to clean up the nails that fall off the roof when they put new roofing tiles on. I mean, I didn't see anything about that. There's always stuff that falls off a house when you're building a house. There's always garbage. At this point, I can't be in favor of this. MR. JACKOSKI-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-Thank you. I think that at this point I am referring to the Adirondack Park Agency letter of July 31, 2012, and just one paragraph from that says although there's a vertical increase of one foot which has been mitigated since then, based on the information submitted, included plans dated 6/14/2012, the project does appear to fit the criteria for in kind replacement as applied by the Agency pursuant to 9NYCRR Section 575.5. There's no proposed increase in the occupancy, no additional bedrooms. There is one in there, but there will be no additional ones, and the new structure occupies the same approximate footprint. With that, as well as the, you know, the structure is certainly going to look much better, and I think it would be an upgrade, and since the bathroom and kitchen is currently functional, I would be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-I don't understand some of the comments from the neighbors about what's there. I think it's an improvement to what's there. I'm sorry. I think that I would prefer to see a newer building rather than an old one drooping and falling into the lake. I don't see any change or addition into what is there now, and I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I have to agree with Rich. I don't think that, I think that by allowing these dormers it's going to really create much more space than was really intended, and it could be more than it is now, and I would not be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think if we look at it primarily from a historical perspective, I think there was a time when we did have carte blanche to do whatever we wished to do on Waterfront Residential, you know, even before we considered it Waterfront Residential, and I know Mr. Bird has done many projects around the Adirondacks, and all of his designs are very tasteful and do fit the definition of what we think is acceptable on the Waterfront, but in this instance here, you know, there's two issues and two sides to the coin. The great camps that we find all over the Adirondacks, a lot of them have very large boathouses with living quarters in them, and they've existed for many years, and have done so in harmony with the waterfront, but I think Lake (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/2012) George, I think is an entirely different situation, and this is an entirely different situation than we usually deal with also. I think that we're looking at a very oversized boathouse with living quarters that currently exist here. However, having been built in the 1920's, I'm sure the usage of those living quarters are probably seasonal at best, and not on a regular basis, and I think that with the, even though what you've done here is very tasteful and I'm sure as a property owner, any of us would appreciate the effort and your design and everything, but at the same time, I think that there would be a significant expansion in the use of the property, the fact that, you know, it would be built to year round specifications because it is a dwelling in essence. Well, I won't argue the point. I mean, we can argue the point because, you know, you may own it, someone else may own it in the future, and the fact that it does contain living quarters in it. The current regulations specify that we do not allow for living quarters in boathouses anywhere in the Adirondack Park, and I think that, you know, it is appropriate for the comments that were made by both the Water Keeper and the next door neighbors, I think that we should be concerned. I'm a little bit troubled because I know you've gone to a lot of effort in what you're trying to do here, and I think that, you know, if you look at what's there currently, it's this monolithic structure with no character whatsoever that's tipping over into the lake. Certainly what you're proposing here is much more aesthetically pleasing and I understand what you're trying to do here, but I still think that we need to be careful, and I think that we need to do what's necessary and only that which is necessary, and I think that what you're doing here is much more than is necessary for the enjoyment of waterfront property on any property in the Adirondack Park, especially on Lake George. I mean, you will have currently something that no one else has, and I don't feel it would be appropriate for you to accentuate that usage and having something even more than most people on Lake George have, and I think that you could still go back to the drawing board and make this smaller. I think it's still very large. I mean, you haven't really shrunk the size down, which I asked you to do previously. Even though you've got a deck on the front of there, it's still going whole hog for the project, and I think, you know, if I were going to consider living quarters in there, I would like to see it very minimalist, you know, and very much smaller than what you propose. So at this point I don't think I could approve what you're asking for. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. We have three noes. I did get a chance, at the request of the neighbors, two meetings ago, to actually stand out on their dock, their boathouse dock roof. They weren't home that day, but I did get out there and I did stand out all the way. It was interesting to me to actually have that perspective from that boathouse, their boathouse, because what I saw was the ridgeline, off and over this boathouse, but there was a large tree which is to the south of this boathouse, that actually blocked the ridgeline, and if they were to cut off the front of the house as they've suggested or dwelling or boathouse, whatever this thing is, it actually opened up the view shed from the neighbor's boathouse of the mountains and the ridgeline. So I thought that was an interesting perspective that I didn't have before. So I appreciate the neighbors letting me get out onto their boathouse roof and see that. I think it is aesthetically pleasing. I think that if we can continue to work at making sure that, site plan wise, that this thing is buffered, stormwater is managed, I'm a little concerned about this grinder pump being over the water. If there was a way to engineer it that it was up on the land somehow. I think that I am very concerned about the neighbors bringing to our attention that the laterals and the number of required feet in the perc test, I do think we need to re-certify I guess the appropriate term, that the fifth bedroom, so to speak, could be handled by that facility. I know it's there now. I understand that. I'm suspect that it was missed as part of the other development projects on the property. I just don't have a comfortable feeling that that was the case, especially with all the information that we have that suggests maybe otherwise. I mean, certainly the applicant can correct me if I'm wrong in having that fear, but we do owe it to the lake to make sure that it can handle this dwelling unit. I think it's charming. I think the architecture's fantastic. I loved the idea of opening up the bottom section. I think with just a little bit of re-affirmation of the septic issue I would be in favor of the project. MR. LAPPER-I guess what we're hearing is that it's three-three with six people. So, and also certainly we'll provide some more documentation on the septic system, but our information is that it is now a compliant system with the new leach field because it was sized to accommodate this, but in any case, we would ask to table because it's three-three, and just one comment, hearing Jim, and I know Jim's always very protective of the lake, and I think your concern, because it exists, and maybe you're not giving them enough credit for the fact that they have the right to keep it there, and they really are trying to make it better, and I understand that they couldn't do it if it was new, but because it's there, they're trying to make it better for the neighbors and of course better for themselves. So I hope that one of you will change your mind when we come back because it would be a really nice project to replace the architecture that's there with some upgrade, and we'd ask you to table it since it's three-three tonight. MR. JACKOSKI-And, Jonathan, just to clarify, while you categorize it as three-three, I mean, I've been pretty specific about being concerned with the grinder pump being over the water, the stormwater management, the buffering and the laterals. So it may not be three-three. I'm just making sure you understand that. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/2012) MR. LAPPER-I understand. It may be, I'm not an engineer and it may be that there's no choice with the grinder pump, based upon the fact that, how that structure exists, but there may be an engineering solution to provide some sort of protection to make sure that, if anything happened, that, like you have with the shutoff on a holding tank, that, you know, some way to engineer a solution to address that, but we will address that. MR. BIRD-And I do think, excuse me, I do think that there may be a way to put the pump on shore and have the pipes run from the fixtures through the joist cavity system and into the grinder pump on shore instead of under the, sitting on the dock of the first floor. Part of it was that's just where it is now, so that's where we kept it, but. MR. JACKOSKI-And I'll mention, too, that I heard earlier that there was a concern that this dwelling unit should have its own septic system, but I think that if we think about this, we had an application here earlier tonight, there were three dwellings on one septic system on Neighbors Way, and there's lots of dwellings throughout the community that are on common systems or community systems. So I wasn't too concerned about that. I think there's a way to resolve some of this. MR. KUHL-Could I ask a question? MR. JACKOSKI-Of course. MR. KUHL-Is there a backup generator on the house now? MR. BROWN-On the main house, yes, there's a generator. MR. KUHL-If that grinder pump were on that system, that would take care of the backup. MR. BROWN-Yes. It's a whole house generator, it would take care of that. MR. KU H L-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Of course you probably couldn't use the septic system at that point because you couldn't pump water. You'd need electricity to have it in the boathouse, right? MR. BROWN-I would need electricity to get the water in, yes. MR. JACKOSKI-And out. MR. BROWN-And out, so you'd have to have it both ways. MR. LAPPER-But we'll look at moving it onto the land, the grinder pump, and hooking it up to the generator before we come back. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. I think one of the questions raised by the neighbors was this term light pollution. With the opening of the lower level of this structure, what kind of lighting is planned for inside that structure? I mean, that is a good point that, you know, it's interesting how we all notice the lights on the lake. MR. BIRD-I don't know that we've really talked specifically about what type of lighting, but I will tell you the same thing that I tell all my clients when I do boathouses is that you don't need a lot of light inside a boathouse because when you're coming at night, when it's pitch black, into a boathouse, you can get by with seven watt, 15 watt bulbs because the contrast between the pitch black and coming into a lit space does not require much light at all. MR. JACKOSKI-Tell my wife that when she turns on those 12 recessed cans over the water. What are you doing? Okay, but that certainly could be a concern. I understand concern from the neighbors. MR. LAPPER-Yes, and that can be addressed at site plan, but we certainly can minimize that. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. Okay. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. So we do have a request by the applicant for a tabling. The public hearing has been left open, and will continue to be left open. Would anyone like to make a motion? Rick? (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/2012) MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-2012 GREGG BROWN & LIZABETH BITNER, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: 31 Knox Road. As per Staff recommendation, I move we table this until the 19th of December. Duly adopted this 17th day of October, 2012, by the following vote: MR. GARRAND-Keith? MR. OBORNE-1 would recommend you table out to the 19th of December. AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Urrico MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any other information or request by any Board members to bring in front of the Board? Is there anyone in the public who'd like to address the Board? Mr. Salvador, if we could, we'd like to give you five minutes. By the way, I did not bring up your structure that was over the water at one time. Wasn't that nice of me? MR. GARRAND-You think 3,000 gallons is enough for some place like that, for a business? JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me, for what? MR. GARRAND-A 3,000 gallon holding tank, do you think that's enough for a business like that? MR. JACKOSKI-Well, let's hear what Mr. Salvador has to say. MR. SALVADOR-With regard to that letter that I just put on your desk. MR. JACKOSKI-And this is the letter of October 15th concerning the San Souci of Cleverdale? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. On Page Two, about the middle of the page, you'll see I talk about the Great Lakes law. That issue has come up, I think before this Board and the Planning Board as well, and the Town Board as well, and that issue, that Great Lakes law deals with the inter basin discharge transfer of water in the Great Lakes basin, and the question is, you know, are we subject to that. Some people say that because Lake Champlain is considered a Lake and we are in the Champlain basin, that it applies to us. Now I've got, obtained a copy of the most recent annual report of The Great Lakes Commission, Great Lakes Basin Commission, and there is in there this paragraph I refer to as Article Two, Paragraph H, talking about the diversion of waters from an into the Great Lakes basin, and I can't discern from that paragraph that we're a part of this. Now the present Chairman of that Commission is an Executive Director of our DEC in New York State here, and the DEC Commissioner is on the Board of Directors. So it seems to me we could get some answers, and I'll try to get them, okay. This is an important issue for us who rely on holding tanks, as to whether or not we can take them to Glens Falls, because we don't know how much longer the Village of Lake George is going to be able to accept it. MR. GARRAND-With the motel expansions proposed and all the stuff going on in the Village of Lake George, I think they're going to be at capacity within the next two years. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, I know, it's a problem. MR. UNDERWOOD-They'll have to deal with the issue at that point anyway, because then they're going to be going into the Hudson. MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 said they will be pumping, if they ever do have the pump go from Lake George Village to the Hudson River, you know, in Glens Falls, you know, then they would be subject to The Great Lakes Commission. I'm pretty sure they would be. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/2012) MR. SALVADOR-Yes. We don't know, Number One, if, Number One, we are in The Great Lakes basin. That's the first question. The second question is if we are in The Great Lakes Basin, does that prohibition on the inter-transfer of water apply to pump outs from holding tanks? Does that apply? And those are the questions we have to get answers to. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think that those rules were originally promulgated for drinking water purposes because they were talking about taking water from The Great Lakes to Arizona or some crazy idea like that, and that's when Canada and the U.S. formed the joint committee between the two countries to make sure that water wasn't removed from The Great Lakes basin. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. Two provinces of Canada are involved in this also, but I can't tell that that Lake Champlain is, it's not mentioned. Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-But it does flow north into the seaways. MR. SALVADOR-So, anyway, as we keep approving holding tanks, better find a way out. It's getting expensive to go to Lake George. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone else, this evening, who'd like to bring up any other matters? Can I have a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF OCTOBER 17, 2012, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Duly adopted this 17th day of October, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Urrico MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Goodnight. It's 8:38. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 23