Loading...
11-28-2012 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/28/2012) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 28, 2012 INDEX Area Variance No. 35-2012 Blue Moose Tavern/Daniel & Ellen Nichols 3. Tax Map No. 288.20-1-18 and 19 Area Variance No. 53-2012 Douglas McCall 4. Tax Map No. 239.15-1-8 Area Variance No. 45-2012 Thomas & Marybeth Babcock 8. Tax Map No. 289.13-1-12 Area Variance No. 41-2012 Jay & Patricia Cardinale 11. Tax Map No. 226.15-1-40 & 41 Area Variance No. 49-2012 Curtis & Tamara Carstensen 14. Tax Map No. 239.12-2-60 Area Variance No. 50-2012 Ronald Miller 18. Tax Map No. 227.9-1-5 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/28/2012) FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 28, 2012 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY RONALD KUHL JOYCE HUNT RICHARD GARRAND JAMES UNDERWOOD BRIAN CLEMENTS LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, everyone. Tonight the Zoning Board of Appeals here at the Town of Queensbury will be hearing the agenda that's out on the back table. For those of you who haven't been here before, there's a sheet on the back table explaining the process. It's quite easy. We'll call up each application. The applicant or their representatives will sit here at the table. We'll hear the application read into the record. We'll listen to it. We'll open up public comment for those items where public comment is advertised. We'll poll the Board. We'll continue the discussion and move forward with motions if applicable. So, we have some housekeeping to do first this evening, and the first thing on the agenda I'd like to do is the review and the approval of the 2013 calendar for the Zoning Board of Appeals meetings. DISCUSSION: REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF YEAR 2013 CALENDAR FOR ZBA MEETINGS MR. JACKOSKI-Staff, could you just briefly go through that with everyone. MR. OBORNE-Has the Board gone through it themselves? That would be my first question. This is pretty much developed every year as is by Staff. If there are any issues or any conflicts, please let us know. Or approve this as is. MR. JACKOSKI-Any issues at all? MR. CLEMENTS-Just a question, the main one for the assessment grievance day, Board of Assessment Review. MR. OBORNE-Yes, that's the fourth Wednesday. MR. CLEMENTS-1 thought it was the fourth Tuesday? MR. OBORNE-The fourth Wednesday. MR. CLEMENTS-It is? Okay. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Hence why, at this point, we had to leave it open. Aren't you on the assessment, are you on the assessment Board? MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. I thought it was the 14tH MR. OBORNE-1 shall look into that. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So other than that matter, is there anything else on the calendar that's of concern? So, Staff, do we have to have an actual motion? MR. OBORNE-Sure, if you'd like. MR. JACKOSKI-Would anyone like to make a motion, please? MOTION TO APPROVE THE YEAR 2013 CALENDAR , Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/28/2012) Duly adopted by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR YEAR 2013 MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. So again this year we need to also do the election of officers for the Year 2013. In my history here on the Board I've requested that we not make a recommendation to the Board concerning the Chairman's position, but it's certainly open for discussion. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I mean, the Board's not going to make any decisions until their organizational meeting in January. You still have another month if you want to chew on it, but, like you say, you know. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. I believe last year we did not make a recommendation. MR. OBORNE-Is that right? Okay. MR. GARRAND-I think it started with Chuck Abbate. MR. JACKOSKI-So moving forward, would we be able to get a motion to nominate the Vice Chairman and the Secretary? JOYCE HUNT MOVED TO APPROVE THE SAME OFFICERS AS YEAR 2012 FOR THE YEAR 2013; RICHARD GARRAND AS VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS YEAR 2013 AND ROY URRICO AS SECRETARY OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS YEAR 2013, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 28th day of November, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES:NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. One of the last matters under housekeeping this evening is the approval of the meeting minutes. Do we have to do these separately? MR. OBORNE-It depends what the attendance was. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Let's go ahead and move forward with it. Could I get a motion to approve the September 19, 2012 minutes as presented? APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 19, 2012 MOTION TO APPROVE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 19, 2012, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 28th day of November, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE September 26, 2012 MOTION TO APPROVE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2012, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/28/2012) Duly adopted this 28th day of November, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-And while I did say that was the last thing under housekeeping, I do want to remind folks that there are some openings for alternates to this Board. If anyone knows anyone who'd be interested in serving, if they wouldn't mind contacting the Town Board or Staff in making those connections for us, that sure would be appreciated. MR. OBORNE-If I could interject, please. We do have a handout there for the Planning/Zoning joint committee. We're looking for a December 12th date for that combined meeting for the Queensbury Partners. Alternately there's a December 6th date, if the 12th doesn't work. The Planning Board has already issued the 12th and/or the 6th, and it's up to you guys which one do you want to choose. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. The only one I was available for was the 12th, but I believe we filled out the list, and it looks to me like it's going to be the 12tH MR. UNDERWOOD-The 12th is good. MR. OBORNE-The 12th works for everybody? MR. JACKOSKI-The 12th works. MRS. HUNT-Thursday the 12th. Right? MR. OBORNE-It's Thursday the 12th? If I could have that in resolution form. MR. KU H L-Wednesday the 12tH MR. OBORNE-It's Wednesday. Thank you. MRS. HUNT-No, Wednesday is the 11th. Right? MR. URRICO-We have a Zoning Board meeting on that Wednesday. MR. OBORNE-That's right. Okay. What does the resolution say? MR. JAC KOSKI-Wednesday is the 12tH MRS. HUNT-Yes, Wednesday is the 12th. Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Can I have a resolution that we move forward with establishing that meeting for Wednesday, December 12th for Queensbury Partners? MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SETS THE DATE FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING WITH THE QUEENSBURY PARTNERS AND THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 12T", Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: Duly adopted this 28th day of November, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. On to the applications. Thank you for your patience. OLD BUSINESS: 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 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/28/2012) 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- 3-040 179-13-010 MR. JACKOSKI-It's my understanding that it's been requested that there be a tabling. Do we actually have to have a tabling motion? MR. OBORNE-I don't think it's even been opened yet at this point. MR. JACKOSKI-So therefore we don't even need to address it, correct? MR. OBORNE-I can't disagree with that, but I think just for the record, and for cleanliness, let's go ahead and do a motion. If you could open up the public hearing also. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So you want us to read the entire application into the record in order to conduct the public hearing? MR. OBORNE-No, I don't think it's necessary. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Is there anyone here, we're going to open the public hearing concerning Blue Moose Tavern, Daniel and Ellen Nichols, Area Variance No. 35-2012. Jonathan Lapper & Stefanie Bitter as agents for 8 Glen Lake Road and 1400 State Route 9. 4.6 acres in a Commercial Intensive zone. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening, and I will open the public hearing at this time. If there's anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this matter. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one here in the audience to address this Board, I will leave the public hearing open, and I will ask at this time for a motion to table this particular application to a date of. MR. OBORNE-I would suggest that you table it pending recommendation following established protocols. MR. JACKOSKI-Have you got that, Rick, because you're making the motion. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2012 BLUE MOOSE TAVERN / DANIEL & ELLEN NICHOLS PENDING PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 28th day of November, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE AREA VARIANCE NO. 53-2012 SEQRA TYPE II 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. FURTHER, RELIEF REQUESTED FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF SP 80-2012; BP 2012-396; BP 90-420 SFD; BP 2010-339; 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, 179-13-010 DOUG MC CALL, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. There was one also on tH October 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/28/2012) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 53-2012, Douglas McCall, Meeting Date: November 28, 2012 "Project Location: 25 Wild Turkey Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to expand an existing 5,546 sq. ft. Single Family Dwelling by 1,422 square feet with a two story addition. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: 1. Height - Relief requested from maximum height restrictions in the WR zone as per §179- 3-040. 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 to be limited due to the nature of the project and existing conditions. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 6 feet 2 inches or 22% relief from the 28 foot maximum allowable height for dwellings in the WR zone may be considered minor to 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 expected. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, BP 2012-396: 1,422 sq. ft. expansion Pending BP 2010-339: Boathouse Issued 2010 BP 2002-695: Dock Issued 2010 BP 90-420: Single family dwelling Issued 1990 Staff comments: Although relief sought is for height, clarification on the amount of square footage referenced in the FAR calculation should be sought. With the expansion over the garage at +/- 936 square feet and the addition of a mudroom, den, and office at +/- 624 square feet, the overall expansion approaches 1,560 square feet and not the referenced 1,422 square feet. Please note that the allowable size for a dwelling on this parcel is 11,500 square feet, the proposal is well within the allowable FAR. The Zoning Board of Appeals may wish to consider as a condition of approval that silt fencing be installed down slope along the contour adjacent to both the 12 x 12 addition and proposed carport. SEAR Status: Type II" MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome. If you could state your name for the record, please. MR. MC CALL-Thank you. I'm Doug McCall. I'm representing Paul and Vickie Kasselman. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/28/2012) MR. MC CALL-The last I told you. They're seeking a height variance, the Kasselmans. I'll give you the history again. They built this, they bought this property in '88, and then they came to the Town seeking to enlarge the existing house, and it was noncompliant. So they tore the house down and put it back to all the regulations that the Town of Queensbury wants, and now they want to put an addition off to the west side of the existing structure and have the rooflines match up so Paul can have an office off his master bedroom upstairs, and in order to do that, to tie the roofs together, I need match to the existing height. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions from Board members at this time concerning this particular application? Hearing none, is there anyone here in the audience this evening who would like to, I guess I need to re-open the public hearing, so I'll do that. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. JACKOSKI-Now is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? Seeing no one, is there any public comment? MR. URRICO-Yes, and I don't see him in attendance so I'm going to read it in. "The above referenced area variance application was personally reviewed in my capacity as a licensed professional engineer and the Lake George Water Keeper. The Lake George Water Keeper does not oppose the requested variance, but would like to reiterate our comments expressed at the October Zoning Board of Appeals meeting that have not been recognized. The Lake George Water Keeper requests that the Zoning Board of Appeals apply the Town's regulations, specifically § 179-14-050 Imposition of Conditions as well as application of New York State Department of Health requirements, during your deliberations regarding the above referenced area variance application. The proposed project with requested variance may have adverse impacts to the environment and neighborhood. Based on the application material, it appears the proposed addition will have two new potential bedrooms, Bedroom #3 and a den with a bathroom. But the application contains no information regarding the components or condition of the existing onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS) and whether it can adequate treat increased waste flow. At the October meeting, the applicant stated the OWTS has been in for 25 years and has been sufficient. It was recognized by a Zoning Board member that it would be in the interest of the applicant to have the system certified based on the age and potential increased flows. The Zoning Board of Appeals should require the applicant to submit a certification by a licensed professional that the existing OWTS is compliant to existing regulations and is designed to accommodate two additional bedrooms. This is a requirement of the New York State Department of Health as detailed on a Fact Sheet relating to the design of OWTS. (Copy attached) The Zoning Board of Appeals should consider conditions for water quality improvements for the project. The application fails to provide any information regarding stormwater management controls for the proposed addition or for the existing impervious surfaces. The Zoning Board of Appeals should require the applicant to provide stormwater management for the proposed addition as well as for all existing impervious surfaces. The Water Keeper would recommend the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals grant the requested variance with the imposition of the following conditions: 1) Require a certification by a licensed professional that the existing OWTS is compliant with existing regulations and can accommodate two additional bedrooms or require an engineered designed system; and, 2) Require stormwater management for all proposed and existing impervious surfaces. Thank you for your consideration of these comments and I look forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals in defending the natural resources of Lake George and its watershed. Sincerely, Christopher Navitsky, PE Lake George Water Keeper" MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. Is there any other written comment? MR. URRICO-That's all I have come across. There's one more, sorry. This was from October 16t". I think it was read in previously. Right? Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. That's all. That was quite a lengthy list from the Water Keeper. Have you folks seen that transmittal to the Board? Do you need time to take a look at it, or do you want to try to address some of the things that were covered in that letter? MR. MC CALL-Yes. I mean, I can address what's there. I mean, it's on holding tanks now. I don't understand where he's coming up with the two bedroom. It's the same amount of bedrooms. We're just adding bathrooms into the place. Holding tanks, they were certified when they were put in. I mean, if that's the least of my worries to get somebody to certify that. I've got all the drawings, if that's something that would make him happy, that doesn't matter to me. Stormwater, essentially, the only thing adding a roof to that side of the house, because the existing roof was already on. The portion there is a 12 by, I think it's 11 by 20 that's actually being added on. No, it's 12 by 16. That's the extent of more roof. You can see where the roof was and where the foundation was. As far stormwater, the lot is, it's almost going on a half acre (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/28/2012) lot. I thought we were pretty well within all the Town's requirements for permeability and everything to that in my original application. MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, is the stormwater going to be reviewed by Planning Board? MR. OBORNE-The stormwater request, waiver request. He does have his E&S, erosion and sedimentation, in the form of silt fence, down slope on the contour. So that's not an issue, but he has requested a waiver from stormwater. MR. UNDERWOOD-With the holding tanks, I mean, it's, obviously they're functional if they're still using them. MR. OBORNE-Yes, and I don't want to, you know, disregard what Chris is saying because it is semantics to a certain extent, you know, is this bonus room a bedroom, is the office a bedroom. I think the way it's designed, it's not. I didn't look at it as such. So I really did not focus all that much on the on site wastewater system. MR. UNDERWOOD-And it's well within the FAR? I mean, that's a pretty large lot. MR. OBORNE-Yes, absolutely. Yes, I think the (lost word) is like 9,000 square feet or something nutty. MR. JACKOSKI-And will the Planning Board be discussing shoreline buffering? MR. OBORNE-This project previously had a shoreline buffering installed with a boathouse, is the applicant's argument, and I guess (lost words). It's already been installed. There was already a requirement at one point in time, and if they plan on making it larger, they'll make it larger, but it has been brought up for discussion at the last Planning Board meeting. MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any other questions from Board members at this time? I'd like to poll the Board. I'll start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think, you know, our purview of the project is that we're concerned with the height relief that's requested, and the height relief requested is no more than already previously exists. So, I mean, I don't really see that that's any major change. It is an addition, but it's within the Floor Area Ratio guidelines. I don't think that we need to be concerned with this one. I think if the Planning Board wishes to, for more buffering on the waterfront, I think that could be within their review of the process. I'm okay with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I agree with Jim. It seems straightforward, and I have nothing against the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-1 agree. I don't have any problems with this. I'd vote for it. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-1 guess I'm going to take a contrary view. I do feel that six feet is six feet, and even though it's an extension of the house, I still believe that it's higher than it should be. So I would say no. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I don't see any problem with this. I think there are minor impacts on the neighborhood, and I would be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I'd have to also agree with Roy. I think the height variance could be eliminated with just elimination of the additional office. I realize that this is a seasonal residence, but eight feet above current height is a little excessive to me. So I wouldn't be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/28/2012) MR. JACKOSKI-Can I get a motion, Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 53-2012, DOUGLAS MC CALL FOR PAUL KASSELMAN, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt. Applicant proposes to expand an existing 5,546 sq. ft. Single Family Dwelling by 1,422 square feet with a two-story addition. Parcel will require area variances as follows: And, again this is for height. Relief is requested from the maximum height restrictions in the Waterfront Residential zone. The current height of the building will not be altered from what it already is and the requested Area Variance is substantial and because we do have a couple of Board members that seem to be still concerned with it; the request is for 6 ft. 2 in. or 22 percent relief from the 28 ft. maximum allowable height for dwellings in the Waterfront Residential zone. But most important, recognize the fact that the building will not be any higher than it already is. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be expected. We recognize that the current building structure has an adequate onsite wastewater treatment system with holding tanks and those will not be altered and they seem to have capacity and can handle any number of people staying there at any given time. As far as the alleged difficulty being self-created; it is indeed self-created but in this instance here, we don't feel that there would be a major change. Our recommendation would be for the Planning Board to review the waterfront to add additional plantings if necessary and modulation of the stormwater runoff from the new system that will be created. Duly adopted this 28th day of November, 2012 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico 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, AND FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS OF THE WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT. FURTHER, RELIEF REQUESTED FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF SP 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 TOM BABCOCK, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-There was a public hearing scheduled September 19th, and there is one scheduled for this evening as well, and I'll turn it over to be re-read into the record. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 45-2012, Thomas & Marybeth Babcock, Meeting Date: November 28, 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°/x. 3. The expansion of a non-conforming structure must be approved by the ZBA. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/28/2012) 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. This application was tabled at the request of the applicant on September 19, 2012. There have been no changes to the proposal as the applicant is seeking a full board for this review. SEAR Status: Type II MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome back. MR. BABCOCK-Thank you for having me. I want to thank, ahead of time, the Board for taking time out to hear my wife and my resubmission of a possible variance for our possible addition. I think the best thing I can do is just quickly read this. It's not too long, the reason why I'm back in front of the Board, first and foremost, is to probably do a better job of explaining why we want to put this addition on, and the second reason as well as I had the opportunity to be able to present it to the whole Board this evening. Once again, thank you for the opportunity. Dear Board Members: We are re-submitting the enclosed site plan application for review to determine the ability to add a 168 sq. ft. addition to our Glen Lake vacation property. At the September 15, 2012 Zoning Board meeting, we requested to table our application due to a partial attendance of Board members and a lack of a thorough explanation on why we're requesting this variance. My wife and I had the opportunity to purchase the camp over 25 years ago. Many years have passed since our purchase and our family has grown and we appreciate what the lake has to offer. Today we find the need for additional space to accommodate both our family and guests as well as structurally, more importantly than anything else, addressing the ongoing erosion and the underlying of our underlying foundation. Since the home was constructed in the early, I apologize, that's a typo. It's not 1800's, 1900's, the cobblestone foundation was used to support the structure. The patio of the existing structure over the years has sunken towards the foundation. It's forming a depression, which accumulates rainwater, and more importantly, the snow during the winter months. This patio has always been part of the original construction on the property. We had purchased this property with its original footprint and are now asking to decrease that footprint so we can increase green space for more permeability, and to address, okay, the water runoff issue by diverting water to the new roofline of the addition that we're proposing. The addition project would also allow us to rebuild the affected corner of the home's foundation by replacing it with a suitable concrete foundation. There would be no effects on the existing topography of the lot. Both neighbors on either side of our property have given their (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/28/2012) blessing to the project as well. We are requesting a waiver of stormwater, lighting, grading and landscaping review since the scope project is relatively small. We would hope that the enclosed data would be sufficient to secure the appropriate variances and allow both my wife and I to continue the planning review process. So I apologize. I just wanted to make sure that I was stating everything that in essence we're trying to consider, and from the standpoint, in terms of the property, I just quickly, right here is where the depression is, all right. I didn't have a chance to show this or discuss this at the last hearing. This slopes this way down into the property, and if you looked at several of the drawings that have been submitted to the Board, the cobblestone foundation is across the front and then underlying underneath the patio itself. So by doing the proposed addition, the rooflines, in essence, would allow the snow to fall off of the roof and then project out into this area over here, alleviating any of this problem of the continuing of the accumulation of water and more importantly snow. Second reason as well, too, is in doing that, this cobblestone foundation will be taken out, and when this section is propped up, there'll be a new foundation poured, in essence, in this footprint. The other point to be made, when I talk about increasing green space and permeability, this whole back section of the existing patio will be alleviate, in so doing, having the ability for the green space there, too. So hopefully you'll feel that the project's doable. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions from Board members at this time? MR. KUHL-Yes, I'm going to recuse myself for this. I have knowledge, I mean, the agent is a good friend of mine. I wouldn't want to seem biased. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, Ron. Thank you. Any comments from other 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 OPEN MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one in the audience, is there any additional written comment? MR. URRICO-No new comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. No new comment. At this time, I guess I'll poll the Board. Rick? MR. GARRAND-Given the fact that this is over 1100 square feet larger than the allowable FAR, I was against this in the first time around, and the new information presented still doesn't sway me. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I think there would be minor impacts on the neighborhood. I think it's a modest addition, and I think the feasible alternatives seem to be very limited. I don't think there'll be any physical or environmental impacts on the neighborhood and I would be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I also would be in favor. I think it's a favorable change. You're going to gain some permeable area. It's only 2.2% more as we looked at it before. So I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-I agree. I would be in favor of it. I think it's a modest proposal. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would agree with Rick that we have to be concerned because we're so far over the FAR, but we also have to be reasonable about what you're trying to achieve here, and it's not like you're trying to achieve some huge, grandiose, and I think obviously with the water issues you have, I mean, the only feasible alternative I can see is to remove all that structure outside the wall of the house there, put a permeable deck in with crushed stone underneath it, you know, which would help, as far as the drainage problems goes. I mean, I would see that as a feasible alternative, but the Board seems to be amenable to what you've proposed here. So I don't know at this point, you know, whether my saying I'm against the project would work or not. I mean, I don't know if that's something you would wish to consider or if you've already considered it. MR. BABCOCK-Well, I guess, in essence, is that I would be misleading to the Board, in essence, if I had sat here and said that, you know, we weren't looking for some additional living (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/28/2012) space as well, too, so, you know, I pride myself on being very upfront and, you know, we did, you know, Mr. Underwood, we did consider, okay, that as well, too, in this, but I guess the big issue is leaning back is that we can put this roofline on, you know, that additional space. We're going to be diverting, okay, that water front and back, versus having it still sit there. Now, granted, if we did address that to the extent that you just discussed, obviously we would address that issue of the dip. You can see it now. When (lost words) you can see that dip. We would address that, but we had thought that with the roofline on the addition, you know, that that would solve the problem, and I guess that's what we're still proposing. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, then I guess I would go along with your request. MR. BABCOCK-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. We do have, the public meeting is still open, I guess, at this point. We will close the public hearing, and I will look for a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CLEMENTS-I'll make a motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Brian. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2012, THOMAS AND MARYBETH BABCOCK, Introduced by Brian Clements, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 15 Chestnut Road - Glen Lake. 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. The relief requested is: Side Setback- Request for 13.8 feet of relief from the 15 foot side setback requirement. 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 1,615 square feet; existing FAR is 35.3%, proposed is 37.5°/x. The expansion of a non- conforming structure must be approved by the ZBA. In making a determination, the board shall consider: 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 may be anticipated. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. There are feasible alternatives but this one seems to be a favorable change. 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 Section 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. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Minor impacts may be anticipated. Whether the difficulty was self-created. I guess we could consider it self-created. Duly adopted this 28th day of November, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Garrand RECUSED: Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. BABCOCK-I just want to, once again, you probably don't hear this very often, but I know that you all have very difficult jobs to do, and as a property owner in the Town of Queensbury I appreciate the effort you put in. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Hughes, can you move forward or no? Yes? Do you want more time? We're going to move back on the agenda a bit. 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 1,677 SQ. FT. 3-CAR GARAGE WITH SECOND FLOOR STORAGE. APPLICANT REQUESTS RELIEF FROM REAR SETBACK, HEIGHT, FLOOR AREA RATIO, AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/28/2012) 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 GARY HUGHES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-There have been public hearings scheduled for August 22nd, October 17t", and again this evening, November 28t". I believe we can just do a summary into the record at this point, as soon as we're ready to roll, here. I'd turn it over. I apologize for going out of order. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 41-2012, Jay & Patricia Cardinale, Meeting Date: November 28, 2012 "Project Location: 10 Crossover Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,677 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. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: 1. Rear Setback- Request for 18 feet of relief from the 30 foot rear setback requirement for the WR Zone. 2. Height - Request for 7 feet, 2.5 inches of relief from the 16 foot maximum height requirement for accessory structures in the WR Zone. 3. Floor Area Ratio- Request for 894 square feet of relief from the maximum allowable FAR of 2,599 square feet for this parcel. Note: Total proposed floor area is 3,493 square feet which equates to a Floor Area Ratio of 29.6°/x. 4. Permeability - Request for 688 square feet of permeability relief from the maximum allowable impermeability of 2,953 square feet for this parcel. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives would be to reduce the size of the garage to lessen the severity of relief requested in regards to the FAR and height requirements. Concerning permeability, the applicant has reduced the size of the driveway from the previous submittal. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 18 feet or 60% relief from the 30 foot rear setback requirement as per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 7 feet, 2.5 inches or 45% relief from the 16 foot maximum allowable height for a detached garage in the WR zone as per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. Additionally, the request for 894 square feet of additional floor area above the allowable floor area of 2,599 square feet for a ratio of 29.6% as per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for 688 feet or an impermeable calculation of 31% from the 25% allowable permeability as per §179-3-040 may be considered minor to moderate relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts to 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, A.V. 40-2012 Setback relief for decks Approved 9/22/12 BP 06-791 Septic alteration Issued 11/6/2006 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/28/2012) BP 05-670 Residential alteration Issued 8/30/2005 Staff comments: The applicant has submitted a plan that reduces the size of the proposed garage by 261 square feet as well as a permeability reduction from the original plan of 386 square feet. Further, the original height request of 25.5 feet has been reduced to 22.2 feet and rear setback request from 22 feet to 18 feet. The Zoning Board of Appeals may wish to gauge the responsiveness to previous concerns; meeting minutes attached. SEAR Status: Type II" MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. If you could identify yourself for the record, and if you'd like to add anything to this, please do so. MR. HUGHES-Yes. My name is Gary Hughes. I'm the agent for Jay and Patricia Cardinale. There's been a little mix up tonight, and Jay's attorney is not here, and he has most of the preparation work to present what Jay wanted to say tonight. So I would ask, if it's possible, at this time, to be tabled, because we do not have counsel. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is there any chance he's going to show up at all? MR. HUGHES-We tried to call, and no response. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want to just wait, you could just wait until the end of the meeting and,just to make sure you haven't wasted your evening? MR. HUGHES-Well, Jay told me on the way, he was here tonight, he said, Gary, on the way out, he said, the way my day's been going, nothing's working for me, and he said if you can table it for me and we'll just do it next month, if you can. MR. JACKOSKI-I don't think we can do it next month. Correct? MR. OBORNE-Next month, yes. December, we have room for him in December. We have a very light schedule in December. MR. HUGHES-In fact, he said that was a problem, because he said, you know, whatever happens, if it were to be a positive response from the Board, that, you know, it's getting cold and he doesn't really, you know, he doesn't want to start digging in December or January. So, at this point, again, counsel's not here. MR. JACKOSKI-And with the dates of the December meetings we'll be able to do the appropriate notice for public hearing? Okay. So, if we table this, is there a specified date? MR. OBORNE-I would say the first meeting, which would be the 19tH MR. JACKOSKI-We do have one next week, right? MR. OBORNE-Yes, but that counts towards November. MR. JACKOSKI-November. So do I have a motion to table? MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-2012 JAY AND PATRICIA CARDINALE, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption, second by Joyce Hunt: Tabled to the December 19th meeting. Duly adopted this 28th day of November, 2012 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/28/2012) AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2012 SEQRA TYPE II CURTIS & TAMARA CARSTENSEN AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS, PLLC OWNER(S) CURTIS & TAMARA CARSTENSEN ZONING WR LOCATION 18 HOLLY LANE - ASSEMBLY POINT APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE WALK AND STAIRS AND REPLACE WITH NEW PATIO, STAIRS, AND DRY LAID STONEWALL RESULTING IN +/- 564 SQ. FT. OF NEW IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE SETBACK AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE. CROSS REF SP 58-2012 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING YES ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.17 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-60 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-There was a public hearing scheduled September 22nd. There is one again scheduled this evening. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 49-2012, Curtis & Tamara Carstensen, Meeting Date: November 28, 2012 "Project Location: 18 Holly Lane - Assembly Point Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove existing concrete walk and stairs and replace with new patio, stairs, and dry laid stone wall resulting in +/-564 sq. ft. of total impervious surface. Request for shoreline setback and permeability relief. Relief Required: Nature of Area Variance: Parcel will require area variances as follows: 1. Shoreline Setback - Request for 38 feet of shoreline setback relief from the 50 requirement for the WR zone as per§179-3-040. 2. Permeability-Request for an increase of 305 square feet of impermeable surfacing for an overall impermeability of 2,112 square feet or total site permeability of 71%; Minimum per code is 75% in the WR Zone. Note: Existing site permeability is 75.8°/x. 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 concerning setback relief appear limited due to lot constraints and the proposal offered, however, a feasible method by which to potentially reduce the variance request for permeability would be to offer permeable surfacing in lieu of impermeable flagstone pavers. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 38 feet or 76% relief from the 50 foot shoreline setback requirement for the WR zone as per §179-3-040 may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. The request for a decrease in permeability from 75.8% down to 71% may be considered minor to moderate relative to the ordinance. Please note that a 10% reduction to the impermeable surfacing proposed has been applied to the above percentage as per the TDE (Town Designated Engineer). 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Any increase of impermeable surfacing adjacent to the shoreline of Lake George should be discouraged on the basis of water quality. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, SP 58-2012 Hard surfacing w/in 50 feet of shoreline Pending Staff comments: (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/28/2012) • As the existing conditions are compliant with regards to permeability yet proposed are not, consideration should be given to installing permeable pavers instead of impervious fieldstone for proposed patio. Please see revised submission. • The potential to reduce the area variance request may be realized if permeable surfacing is used in lieu of impermeable surfacing. Please see revised submission. • The application was tabled due to concerns over permeability. As referred to above, the applicant has revised the proposal to include a permeable paver function that gives a 10% reduction overall. SEAR Status: Type II" MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. If you could identify yourself for the record, please. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers. MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome back. MR. JARRETT-Thank you. Except that you heard this application in September and I was not here, then, so I did not hear your comments first hand. So pardon me if I speak out of turn on anything that came up in September, but our application, essentially, is to put in a patio in front of the existing house, replacing existing concrete walkways, and as part of our application, we plan on putting in stormwater management underneath the patio. I understand your concern was that the patio was not permeable, of permeable construction, and my clients are concerned with the types of permeable pavers that are out there that provide stability or instability for tables and chairs. So they would like to stay with the flagstone patio that they originally proposed but we're now proposing open joints, basically joints that are permeable, which gives us a small credit, a permeable credit, as allowed by the Town Engineer, albeit not large, but I think it does move us in the right direction. Staff comments conclude that any increase in impermeability along the shoreline is undesirable. I would agree with that. However, the mitigating circumstances here are that the existing concrete walkways, right now, drain right into the lake. What we're going to do is capture the lakeside portion of the roof, the entire gable on the lakeside, as well as those concrete walkways and the new patio in our new stormwater system. So essentially all the water that runs to the lake right now would be captured in this new stormwater system. I'm hoping that our offering of going to the permeable joints and the stormwater system that we've designed for this project will sway you to think a little more positively about this. MR. UNDERWOOD-So is that under laid with pea gravel or anything so it has some absorptive capacity? MR. JARRETT-Actually if you look on the detail on the bottom of C-2, you'll see there are chambers underneath it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. JARRETT-And the chambers are surrounded with a course sand so that entire volume underneath the patio is retention volume for stormwater. MR. KUHL-The way the stormwater gets to it is through the cracks in the pavement? MR. JARRETT-Well, originally we designed an inlet system right along the backside of the support wall in the front. We were leaving that in place and now the cracks and the pavers will also introduce water to the subsurface. So we have two methods of entry into that system now. MR. KUHL-How are you maintaining the cracks, the spaces are the same thing you'd put in a (lost word)? MR. JARRETT-Like a pea stone or something. MR. KUHL-Okay, but it's not a measured device. It's not like a half inch space? MR. JARRETT-It's going to actually be a little larger than that, three quarters of an inch to an inch is what they're proposing. MR. KUHL-Okay. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/28/2012) MR. JARRETT-Originally they were going to use a polymeric sand which goes in tighter and it becomes more or less impermeable. Now they're going to go to a pea stone, which is a little less desirable, but you still have a stable patio. MR. CLEMENTS-Is this an example of what it's going to look like? MR. JARRETT-The stone joints, the actual flagstone, is a natural stone, but the stone joints are going to look like that. MR. CLEMENTS-So you're going to have pavers? MR. JARRETT-The same thing as pavers except they're natural stone. They're an uneven boundary, flagstone, but those joints, the open joints with the pea stone in between. That's what that picture was supposed to illustrate. MR. OBORNE-Not in a linear fashion, but it would follow the contours of. MR. JARRETT-Follow the contours of the stone with the pea stone around it. So it's a natural looking stone. It isn't a natural stone, but it has open joints around each stone. MR. JACKOSKI-And those large joints are more stable for patios and tables than the pavers? MR. JARRETT-The flagstone we think is, yes. MR. JACKOSKI-But what about all those wide joints? MR. JARRETT-Well, the joints are about so wide. So as long as they don't set a table leg directly on a joint, I think they're fine, and the pavers, or the stone itself is larger than those pavers, and often those pavers have a rounded surface so they don't feel they're as stable. So that's their argument. MR. JACKOSKI-And how much of a cascading or sheeting effect can that whole concept handle when we have a really major downpour? MR. JARRETT-You'll notice we have a little bit of a curb on the wall in the front. There's about a one inch reveal on the front to capture water. So that basically is a capture situation. MR. JACKOSKI-Are there 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 on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one, is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-Yes, there is. This is from the Water Keeper. "The above referenced area variance application was personally reviewed in my capacity as a licensed professional engineer and the Lake George Water Keeper. The Lake George Water Keeper continues to support the applicant's initiative to install stormwater management controls and landscaping which will provide water quality benefits. However, the Water Keeper cannot support the requested variance for a decrease in permeability for this small, lakefront parcel. In addition, the Water Keeper does not support the installation of a retaining wall within the shoreline setback to accommodate two additional patio areas. The Lake George Water Keeper requests the Zoning Board of Appeals to apply the Town's regulations, specifically § 179-14-080 Criteria, during your deliberations regarding the above referenced area variance application. The requested variance is not the minimum necessary for the applicant to achieve their intended use. The Water Keeper would recommend a zero decrease in permeability, at a minimum, for the project. This could be achieved by decreasing the proposed patio size (2 patios totaling 564 sf) or constructing with permeable surface. In addition, the shoreline setback variance required for the retaining wall could be reduced by eliminating portions of the patio since there is an existing large deck area over the dock complex. Thank you for your consideration of these comments and I look forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals in defending the natural resources of Lake George and its watershed. Sincerely, Christopher Navitsky, PE Lake George Water Keeper" MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Any additional written comment? MR. URRICO-No. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/28/2012) MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. The public hearing still is open. At this time, I'd like to let the applicant address anything in the letter. MR. JARRETT-Mr. Navitsky's taking, you know, an expected approach towards this application, but I wish to point out that the retaining wall that's proposed is a very low retaining wall. It's approximately a foot to a foot, eight inches, six inches high, merely to contain the elevated patio which accommodates the stormwater system. So it really falls in line. By providing stormwater management, we're raising the patio, and raising the patio requires some kind of a structure to contain the stormwater system. When he says we could put in permeable pavers and achieve no net increase in impermeability, we can't get that much credit from the Town Engineer on permeable pavers. So I don't see that argument being germane to this application. Again, we're mitigating the increase in impermeability by putting stormwater management in that not only handles that patio but handles the roof and the existing concrete walkways. I might point out that the juniper ground cover in front will largely stay intact, about 95% of it stays intact. We have to trim one corner of it to put in the patio, but all the rest stays intact. MR. URRICO-Keith, the permeable pavers, they only get a 10% reduction? MR. OBORNE-Ten percent. MR. URRICO-Why is that? MR. OBORNE-Well, because the paver itself is not permeable. It's the joints that are permeable. So, in reality, Sean has calculated that 10% is what he would be willing to give. MR. URRICO-Well, if you used crushed rock, crushed stone on a driveway, that's not considered permeable because over a period of time it becomes impermeable. MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. URRICO-Why isn't the pea stone considered the same? MR. OBORNE-Because it won't be compacted as (lost word) a driveway, and this is a larger stone they're going to be using, too. MR. JARRETT-Not only that, the stone around the pea stone provides structural support so the pea stone can't get compacted. So it's an interesting argument. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any additional comment? I'd like to poll the Board at this time. Ron? MR. KUHL-I think you've taken on the chore of taking care of stormwater. I like that approach. My concern is the spacing of your blocking, that's really going to be accurate, and going to be, you know, consistent. Is it going to stay open or is it going to move, you know, given the fact that it would stabilize and you'd have the openings. I don't know how you're going to guarantee that. You say you're putting pea stone in. MR. JARRETT-You feel it's too large or too small? MR. KUHL-No, no. I just want it to be consistent, the way you're showing the picture of a very organized structured block with even spacing, but how do you get even spacing with uneven stone. MR. JARRETT-I see your comment. Yes. I have the very same stone at my house, and the joints are remarkably uniform because they cut it to fit. MR. KUHL-Well, see, you never invited me to your house, so I don't know what it looks like, but honestly, given the fact that you're saying it's going to be stabilized and the spacing will be, I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-I spoke already. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have no problem with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Brian? 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/28/2012) MR. CLEMENTS-Yes, I'd be in favor. I agree with Ron. I think it would bean improvement, the permeability, so I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I think we asked you to try to achieve the same benefits by another means and I think you did that. You did as much as you possibly could with this, so I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think you could make the argument that you already have the deck on the waterfront there, that that would give you adequate outdoor place space, but I think that you've gone to the trouble to design something that's actually going to be functional as far as stormwater goes. So I'd vote along with it, too. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And could I have a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2012, CURTIS AND TAMARA CARSTENSEN, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Applicant proposes to remove existing concrete walk and stairs and replace with new patio, stairs, and dry laid stone wall resulting in +/-564 sq. ft. of total impervious surface. Request for shoreline setback and permeability relief. The relief required: Shoreline Setback for 38 feet of relief from the 50 requirement. Permeability - increase of 305 square feet of impermeable surfacing for an overall impermeability of 2,112 square feet and the total site permeability of 71%; Minimum per code is 75%. On the balancing test: Whether the benefits can be achieved by other means feasible. I think the applicant did that. Will this produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood? I don't think it will produce any at all. Is this request substantial? I would think it's moderate. Will it have an adverse physical or environmental effects? I think it will have zero effect on the environment. Is this difficulty self-created. It may be deemed self-created. Duly adopted this 28th day of November, 2012 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. JARRETT-Thank you much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 50-2012 SEQRA TYPE II RONALD MILLER AGENT(S) H. THOMAS JARRETT, P.E. OWNER(S) RONALD MILLER ZONING WR LOCATION 107 ROCKHURST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ELIMINATE A PORTION OF LAWN AND INSTALL TERRACED LANDSCAPING THAT INCLUDES DRY LAID STONE WALLS, CONSTRUCTION OF A +/- 200 SQ. FT. FLAGSTONE PATIO, AND VEGETATED RETENTION AREAS TO TREAT STORMWATER. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM PERMEABILITY AND SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF SPR 57-2012 WARREN CO. PLANNING YES ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.19 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.9-1-5 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-A public hearing was scheduled for September 26th and again for this evening, November 28th, and I'd turn it over to be read into the record. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 50-2012, Ronald Miller, Meeting Date: November 28, 2012 "Project Location: 107 Rockhurst Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to eliminate a portion of lawn and install terraced landscaping that includes dry laid stone walls, construction of a +/- 250 sq. ft.. flagstone patio, and vegetated retention areas to treat 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/28/2012) stormwater. Relief requested from minimum permeability and shoreline setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Relief Required: Nature of Area Variance: Parcel will require area variances as follows: 1. Permeability- Request for an additional 215 square feet of impermeable surfacing for an overall impermeability of 3,113 square feet or total site permeability of 65.6%; Minimum per code is 75% in the WR Zone. Note: Existing site permeability is 68%. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives would be to consider permeable materials to either eliminate or reduce the amount of permeability relief requested. Note: The applicant has offered to reduce the size of the patio from 250 square feet down to 200 square feet and install permeable (at the joints) flagstone pavers. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for a reduction of permeability of 215 square feet resulting in site permeability at 65.6% may be considered minor relative to the ordinance. Note: the revised permeability calculation has the 10% reduction applied. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Any decrease in permeability on Rockhurst should be strongly discouraged. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, SP 57-2012 Hard surfacing w/in 50 feet of shoreline Pending Staff comments: • The parking area to be removed and resurfaced with impermeable surfacing. Consideration should be given to installing permeable pavement or pavers to promote permeability. • The site has an existing boathouse with sundeck. • This application was tabled due to permeability issues and revisions have been offered. SEAR Status: Type II" MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. MR. JARRETT-Thank you, again, exactly the same situation as the last application. This was brought up in September. I was not here, but I understand your concerns were about the increase in impermeability on the site. Subsequently we've made some modifications and we think improvements to the project. We had a little more flexibility on this site than we did on the prior site, and the original application included stormwater management for virtually all of the impermeable surfaces on the project, including the driveway, which is being decreased, by the way, in size, as well as the house, which is being managed in rain gardens on either side, and the proposed patio is being managed by a rain garden, for the south of the patio. We also changed the joints on this one to open joints, the same as the last application, but further we were able to reduce the size of this patio by 500 square feet. We think the changes are positive. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/28/2012) We think the net benefit to the lake is positive, and Mr. Miller is here to answer any questions you might have. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions, at this time, from Board members? Having none at the moment, I'm going to open up the public hearing. Is there any public here this evening who'd like to address this Board on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing none, I'm going to ask for written comment. MR. URRICO-Yes, we do. From the Lake George Water Keeper. "The above referenced area variance application was personally reviewed in my capacity as a licensed professional engineer and the Lake George Water Keeper. The Lake George Water Keeper continues to support the applicant's initiative to reduce lawn cover and install stormwater management controls which will provide water quality benefits. In addition, the Water Keeper recognizes the 20% reduction in the patio sizes for the revised submission. However, the Water Keeper cannot support the requested variance for a decrease in permeability for this small, lakefront parcel. The Lake George Water Keeper requests the Zoning Board of Appeals to apply the Town's regulations, specifically § 179-14-080 Criteria, during your deliberations regarding the above referenced area variance application. The requested variances are not the minimum necessary for the applicant to achieve their intended use. The Water Keeper would recommend a zero decrease in permeability for the project. This could be achieved by a further reduction in existing impervious cover and the installation of permeable paving materials for the proposed patio, which will be a second outdoor patio. Thank you for your consideration of these comments and I look forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals in defending the natural resources of Lake George and its watershed. Sincerely, Christopher Navitsky, PE Lake George Water Keeper" MR. JACKOSKI-Any additional written comment? MR. URRICO-No, that's it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. At this time, would the applicant like to address anything? MR. JARRETT-Yes, we would. Frankly we have reduced impervious cover on the project site, including the parking area, which is typically the most contaminated stormwater coming off the site. We are managing all of the pervious areas with stormwater controls, and what I'd like you to do is imagine for a second that the tops of these landscaped walls are not impervious, and we did count those as impervious in our calculations, but if you do not, if you ignore those, then we're actually decreasing the impermeability on the project site by reducing the parking area. MR. UNDERWOOD-And in effect by creating those walls as you step down the wall, you're creating retention. MR. JARRETT-Capture area. MR. UNDERWOOD-As the water runs down. MR. JARRETT-And they're all going to be rain gardens. MR. UNDERWOOD-As opposed to now, where it just sheet flows down. MR. JARRETT-There's a lot of reduction in lawn area. There's a lot of capture area, and those are going to be landscaped to be rain gardens. MR. GARRAND-You're doing something for the parking area. MR. JARRETT-Right. You'll notice, on the upper portion of the site, there's a rain garden. Well, if you go to the parking area,just go to the parking area,just to the right of that. MR. OBORNE-The next one over? MR. JARRETT-Yes. Right in that area, there's pavement being reduced, and in the back here, toward the lake, pavement's being reduced, and we're putting in rain gardens right there to capture all this runoff that right now drains to the north. It's shown on the plan, although it's probably a little hard to see. MR. GARRAND-Yes, it's on this Drawing C-1. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/28/2012) MR. JARRETT-So that's our effort to try to maximize treatment and minimize impervious. MR. GARRAND-That should help with all the stuff coming off the cars. MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. At this time are there any additional questions or concerns by Board members before I poll the Board? Looks like I'm going to poll the Board. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. I'd be in favor of this variance. I think that the stormwater would be actually taken care of better, and I think it would be a good project. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I think this will be better than what's there now. I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think in essence what we're doing is we're de-suburbanizing the point out there and I think your attempts at these water retention basins with the gardens and things like that are a plus, you know, it's never going to be pristine like it once was when there were white pines growing down the whole point, but that hasn't been for many years now. So, this is going to help the situation as it exists. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes, I would be in favor. I think that this plan is an improvement over what you have now, and I'm in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-1 think it's a good plan. I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-I appreciate the picture. I have nothing against it. I'd be in favor. I think it's a good addition. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. After polling Board, I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And ask for a motion. MRS. HUNT-I'll make a motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Joyce. MOTION TO APPROVE, AREA VARIANCE NO. 50-2012, RONALD MILLER, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, second by Brian Clements: 107 Rockhurst Road. The applicant proposes to eliminate a portion of lawn and install terraced landscaping that includes dry laid stone walls, construction of a +/- 250 sq. ft.. flagstone patio, and vegetated retention areas to treat stormwater. Relief requested from minimum permeability and shoreline setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Relief required - Permeability. Request for an additional 215 square feet of impermeable surfacing for an overall impermeability of 3,113 square feet or total site permeability of 65.6%; Minimum per code is 75% in the WR zone. The existing permeability is 68%. In making a determination, there will be minor impacts in the neighborhood. Feasible alternatives would be to consider using impermeable materials which was not found to be feasible. The applicant has offered to reduce the size of the patio and there will be permeable joints in the flagstone pavers. While the request is minor and the applicant has a plan which would probably be better than what is existing now. The alleged difficulty may be considered self-created. I move that we approve Area Variance No. 50-2012. Duly adopted this 28th day of November, 2012 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/28/2012) Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations, thank you, sir. MR. JARRETT-Thanks. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any additional information or matters to be brought before this Board this evening? Can I have a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF NOVEMBER 28, 2012, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 28th day of November, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 22