Loading...
01-16-2013 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 16, 2013 INDEX Area Variance No. 35-2012 Blue Moose Tavern - Daniel & Ellen Nichols 1. Tax Map No. 288.20-1-18 and 19 Area Variance No. 61-2012 Steve and Jennifer Kitchen 2. Tax Map No. 226.19-1-39 Area Variance No. 52-2012 LARIC Development 27. Tax Map No. 308.12-1-3 and 7.1 Area Variance No. 01-2013 Lori and David Florian 28. Tax Map No. 289.7-2-7, 10, 15, 16, 1, 24 Area Variance No. 02-2013 Hayes and Hayes 33. Tax Map No. 302.14-1-79.2 Area Variance No. 03-2013 Sam Maranville 42. Tax Map No. 315.6-2-13 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 01/16/2013) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 16, 2013 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY RICHARD GARRAND JOYCE HUNT RONALD KUHL BRIAN CLEMENTS ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, everyone. Tonight I'd like to call to order the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting January 16th here in the Town building. We have a relatively easy process here. On the back table there is a brief, one page document, double sided, that kind of explains the process. We'll call each application and then have it read into the record. The applicant will join us here at the table. We'll listen to the applicant, ask questions, open a public hearing when a public hearing has been advertised, bring the applicant back to the table to discuss public comment, poll the Board when necessary, do SEAR, make motions, and move forward as such. I'd like to remind everyone that generally this Board has a four minute limit on public comment. We do try to adhere to that. For situations wherein additional time may be needed, it will be up to the Board to make a decision regarding that, but we are going to try to limit public comment to four minutes per commenter. So also I'd like to address this evening that one of the items here on the agenda is LARIC Development. It's on Luzerne Road off of existing Burnt Hills subdivision. It is a 36 lot residential subdivision. We will be opening the public hearing tonight, but we will not be taking any action, and that is because the application is being delayed until March for this Board. So if you're here for that application, just so you know, we won't be taking any action concerning that matter. It is going to get tabled. Okay. First thing on the agenda this evening, and welcome everybody to our first meeting of 2013, November 28th, 2012 minutes need approval. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 28, 2012 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 28, 2012, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: Duly adopted this 16th day of January, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Next item is December 5th meeting minutes. Can I have a motion for approval? December 5, 2012 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 5, 2012, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: Duly adopted this 16th day of January, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2012 BLUE MOOSE TAVERN - DANIEL& ELLEN NICHOLS (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) MR. JACKOSKI-Request for further tabling, and does Staff have a recommended date? MR. BROWN-The Planning Board tabled it to their March 19th meeting. So March 20 would work okay for you guys. MR. JACKOSKI-And do we have to establish a submission deadline of any kind, if there is one? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-The normal submission deadline? MR. BROWN-The normal submission, yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So with the normal submission deadline for the March 20th meeting for our Board, can I have a motion to table this matter, please? MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2012 DANIEL & ELLEN NICHOLS BLUE MOOSE TAVERN, Introduced by Brian Clements who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Tabled to the March 20, 2013 meeting with a submission date of February 15th Duly adopted this 16th day of January, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Under Old Business, the first application this evening is Area Variance No. 61-2012. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2012 SEQRA TYPE 11 STEVE AND JENNIFER KITCHEN AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) LINDA S. DE LAURA ZONING WR LOCATION END OF FOREST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STORY DWELLING WITH ATTACHED GARAGE TOTALING 3,171 SQ. FT.; ASSOCIATED WASTEWATER AND STORMWATER SYSTEMS PLANNED. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM INFILTRATION OF DRIVEWAY STORMWATER WITHIN 100 FT. OF A SHORELINE. CROSS REF SP 48-2012; FWW 3-2012; SP 28-10; BP 10-556 (TEST PIT) WARREN COUNTY PLANNING YES ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.34 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-39 SECTION 147-11 JON LAPPER & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-There was a public hearing scheduled on December 5th. We did open the public hearing. We are continuing that public hearing this evening, and I'd turn it over to be read, should we read it more into the record, Roy? Or did we read it in before? MR. URRICO-1 would suggest re-reading it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. We're going to re-read it into the record. Welcome, everyone. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 61-2012, Steve & Jennifer Kitchen, Meeting Date: January 16, 2013 "Project Location: End of Forest Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a two story dwelling with attached garage totaling 3,171 sq. ft.; associated wastewater and stormwater systems planned. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: • 90' of relief from the 100' requirement for the rain garden to wetland setback • 64' of relief from the 100' requirement for the septic system to the stone trench setback • 50' of relief from the 100' requirement for the rain garden to the well setback • 46' of relief from the 100' requirement for the stone trench to the wetland setback • 30' of relief from the 100' requirement for the stone trench to the well setback (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) • 15 of relief from the 3' vertical separation requirement for the stone trench and rain garden • Relief for the construction of stone trench and rain garden without any infiltration below the frost level 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 may include a smaller driveway area which may allow the rain garden to be located further from the wetland. 3. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. The requested horizontal separation requests for 90, 64, 50, 46, and 30 percent range from substantial to moderate relative to the 100' requirement. The 50% relief request from the 3' vertical separation requirement may be viewed as significant. The 100% relief for having no infiltration below frost may be viewed as substantial. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, SP 48-2012 & FW 3-2012: Pending SP 28-2010: 3,085 sq. ft. sfd w/attached garage. Disturbance within 100 feet of a wetland requires both SPR & FW by the PB No Action BP 10-556: Test pit 11-23-11 Staff comments: Please see the attached Planning Board recommendation which was issued on December 20, 2012. SEAR Status: Type II" MR. URRICO-And there was a Planning Board recommendation which we read in on December 20th. Right and it's a Type 11 SEAR. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay and that Planning Board recommendation was that there was no significant impact that the Planning Board thought they couldn't mitigate with Site Plan Review. Is that correct? MR. BROWN-That's correct. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Welcome. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with Tom Center and Jennifer Kitchen. Steve is traveling on business out of the country. I'd like to make some general comments and then Tom will go through some of the technical issues. To start with, I think that this is really a very simple and straightforward application, even though it's somewhat taken on a little bit of a life of its own. This is a pre-existing lot, and what the Kitchens are proposing is a very modest house. Roy read in the Staff Notes that it's characterized as a 3100 square foot house, but it's a 1620 square foot basement, not a walk-out basement, not a finished basement. So it's a 1620 square foot house with a basement, really modest. What's most important about that, and about this application, is that, and compared to a previous application that another purchaser had proposed for this site, this is a house that fits within the setback. It (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) doesn't require any setback variances whatsoever for the house, for height. A lot of what you see on the lake require variances for proposed large houses on small lots because most of the lots were approved at a different time, but all of the house setbacks are compliant. The size of the house is compliant and modest, and even more important than that, the septic system is in a compliant location, both design and in terms of the setback. So, what we're here talking about is stormwater infiltration, because the Town Code has changed in the last few years, so the definition of shoreline now applies to the shoreline of a wetland where originally it was lakes and streams. So Nace Engineering has gone out of their way to try and design this and to change the design, in consultation with the Town Engineer, to minimize the setbacks, minimize the variances, but what we're talking about are a series of rain gardens to infiltrate the stormwater, treat the stormwater. There's a lot of other treatments besides infiltration that's going on, before it gets to the edge of the wetland. Now the wetland itself is a very large wetland in the center of Assembly Point, which is a great distance from the lake. The wetland, of course, acts as a filter. So it's being filtered before it gets to the wetland. It's only stormwater. A lot of the stormwater that we're talking about is roof stormwater, because there aren't really a lot of impervious surfaces that are proposed. Roof stormwater is considered very clean, and that's treated separately as well. Tom will go through the details, but we think that even though this has been characterized as some dramatic variances, they're very minimal, and it's just about getting the stormwater infiltrated before it gets near the boundary of the wetland. If you go to the list that Roy read of what the seven variances that are described, Number Three and Number Five have been eliminated, and Craig can verify that now, because as a result of comments from the Town Engineer, the well was moved to the very rear of, southwest corner of the property, so that that setback now complies. So those two are not necessary. We don't have to talk about that, and in addition to that, the second one, the 64 foot of relief from the 100 foot requirement for the septic system to the stone trench, yes, we're requesting that, but the septic system is up gradient so there's no issue. The stone trench is down gradient. So water not traveling up, it can't effect the septic system. So even though, yes, that's on the list, I mean, that's easy to explain. Tom will go through the rest, just because they're more technical, but in general the whole design here was to get the stormwater into the ground, and to build the smallest house that they could live with on this lot and not ask for too much. Another interesting component of this is the small expansion of the road the Town Highway Department has agreed to do. The length of that, 65 feet long. So it's on a right of way, a Town right of way, and it's just about expanding the Town road 16 feet by 65 feet to get to create a driveway for this property. There's a letter in the file from Mike Travis, the Highway Superintendent. He's reviewed the plans and he's in agreement with that. Someone characterized this as a $10 to $20,000 improvement, and I think Mike said it was $1800, just a normal part of the Highway Department budget. So, you know, I think when we go through this in detail you'll see that it's really, these are minimum variances just to make this lot developable. It's always been a building lot, and certainly there's not going to be an impact on the wetland or on the neighborhood. Just a modest proposal, a modest house with good infiltration devices to handle the stormwater. Let me turn it over to Tom, at this point, to go over some details. MR. CENTER-Craig, can you just run the PowerPoint real quick. You can go right to the first slide. As Jon stated, throughout this process we've worked with the Staff in the Planning Office. We've worked with the Town Supervisor, or the Town Highway Supervisor, and we've worked with the Town Engineer to try to incorporate items into our project that have been used on previous shorefront, Lake George shoreline projects, on these small lots, and those include the rain gardens, using low impact design techniques including the rain gardens, which, you know, treat the stormwater as a resource, not the waste, clean the stormwater, filter it, and then allow it to disperse back into the ground. We've used a drivable grass driveway, which is permeable in and of itself, but we've treated it conservatively as an impervious surface, but it's a drivable grass. It will, it's not an asphalt. It will have some filtering capacity. It doesn't have any permeable capacity because of the slope that it's on, but again, it's another green infrastructure project, another green infrastructure technique that we've used to try to enhance this, knowing that we are close to the wetland boundary. We've also re-directed the rain water, stormwater, from impervious surfaces to the permeable areas. We've separated the stormwater from the roof, and taken it to its own separate device. Now the roof water is generally a clean stormwater type of water. We've taken it to its very own device, to a stone trench that takes it down to a lower stone storage area and a ponding area for the larger storms. This is another green infrastructure practice where they talk about separating stormwater. In normal days, when we first started doing this, we'd send it all to one device. Here we're trying to separate it and treat smaller amounts closer to where they're created. The rain garden at the end of the driveway that treats the entire runoff from, most of the driveway except a small portion where it goes toward the road as in any device, any land that's developed on a slope, it's difficult to capture everything. We've attempted to capture all of it. We've worked with the Town Engineer to do this, and we've captured, I'd say, about 90% of the stormwater, maybe even a little bit more, and directed it to the rain garden. We've designed both the stone storage and the rain garden to treat and hold the 25 year design volume. So we've kind of gone a little bit over the design and not included a factor of safety in the exfiltration rate, which is even more conservative because (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) of the volumes to go up, but we've met our points in having to do the 10 year volume and the 25 year runoff rate. We've also provided some vegetation. We're going to allow the lawn to grow back up. It's not going to be a grass lawn. The client has the option to let it grow back into a New England style lawn where it's more maybe brush hogged once or twice a year, but left to grow back up. They're not looking at this lot as some place to have the grass lawn that would sheet flow much faster. It's going to be more of a natural sort of state. We've tried to reduce some of the site impacts by going with a smaller house footprint and going vertical and up. We have used the Elgin septic system, as Jon mentioned, for the septic system, back in the northwest corner, and brought it into compliance with the Town and DOH regulations, and we've also tried to reduce, you know, using the long contours of the house to reduce disturbance as much as possible and keep the house within that box of the approved setbacks. One of the reasons the house isn't moving too much left or right is because we're stuck with trying to reduce the driveway by keeping the house as much to the north as possible, but we can't go any closer than 20 feet to the wastewater system. The wastewater system has to be 10 feet off the property line. So that's kind of a fixed point where we've moved it as far to the north as possible to reduce the asphalt for the Town road, and working with Highway and explaining those things. As far as the size of the driveway, we've done our best to reduce the size of the driveway so that we can back out and pull out and go out the driveway exit, and probably do a three point turn to get out of the most south driveway area. We've worked, as you can see, the value for the community and the tax base, it's going to go from $50,000 to probably somewhere $300,000. We've provided stormwater for the Town will put the snow that they currently now just plow off the end of the road, they're going to use the rain garden as a place to push the snow into, and use it for filtration and then as Jon said, the $1800 to $2,000 for the extension of the road. Could you go to the next slide, please? This is what the house looks like. The gray at the bottom is actually basement that will be, or foundation wall that will be sunk into the ground, and that's the layout of the first floor, or the second floor, the first floor would be mostly the storage area and to get to the first floor unfinished storage areas. Go to the next slide, please. As you can see, what we've done here, in trying to do this, this entire area here is all permeable grass driveway, will shed right down to here. This would be the only section that wouldn't, you know, we're trying to capture it. Because we're stuck with the Town road elevations, we won't be able to capture all of it into the rain garden. The roof gutters will drain down and be piped to the stone storage trench that will start here, and we have not calculated, the Hydro Cad calculations, any of the storage volume of the stone from this point down to down in here. We've only calculated a small section of the stone storage, and then the small ponded area above it, and then of course we have the septic system, like you said, in the northwest corner. You can go to the next slide. This is just a quick review of, you know, some folks that we documented support, some folks that have come out against the project, and kind of give you an idea of where this project is located. You can go to the next slide. Again, these are all, the Lake George Water Keeper, these are things that we, you know, I attend a lot of his functions. The permeable grass driveways, the rain gardens. These are all designs that, you know, we've developed with them and to use on projects just like this, and we try to do those things to enhance the treatment, knowing that, you know, variances are going to be required, what's the best we can do to protect the environment, but yet still be able to construct the project for the applicant. You can go to the next one. This is just a look at the end of Forest Road, looking down out into the site. The area in question where the rain garden would be built is right in here, off the edge of this. The bottom, the site is actually going to be raised up slightly with fill. We're building on the existing grade and then building a berm out in this area over there. This is the property corner right here. At the end of this tree, where the tree, there's a tree that's fallen. You can see it a little bit better, is the other property corner. So this actually kind of goes at an angle right there. If you go to the next slide. This, again, is looking a little bit closer, standing on the Town right of way looking out, the property corner is down here, and this is just looking out to the far property line over in here. Go to the next slide. This is a picture I just took today. Again, this is the area where the rain garden will be constructed. A berm will be built down in here. That's the corner here. The property line kind of comes in this way and we're using the natural grade, building up. The bottom of the pond will be at the existing grade, and then will be built out with fill and the toe of the slope will be down, going in this direction. Next slide. This photo is, again, looking a little bit closer, standing closer to where the pond would be, again, right in this area, looking out. There's the property corner right there, and the pond would be built in this area. Next slide, please. This is looking from the property line looking back towards, that's Forest Road. The pond would be built, again, berm a little bit in this area, pond built up in this area. This is standing on the property corner looking back up towards Forest Road. This right here is the other property line, coming down in here. So, again, berm would be up in front of us, in here, built up with the rain garden in there. This is looking up from the wetland boundary up toward the parcel where the rain garden would be built in this area, right in front of us, and then the driveway would be up that way, and again, this is just another view looking at the very end of Forest Road out. This is where the wetland boundary kind of goes off the page and up again. It's just to kind of give you an idea, looking out that way, and again, the same view as previous. I think there's one more, and then this is standing up in the driveway area looking down at the pond would be in this area right here. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) MR. LAPPER-Any questions? MR. JACKOSKI-No, just a couple of comments. When you mentioned that you didn't make those calculations to the north of the driveway area; that was just taking the conservative approach, not that the application was incomplete. MR. CENTER-I didn't take credit in the Hydro Cad calculations for that. It's more or less; it's like a pipe getting the water down to the stone, the lower stone storage. MR. LAPPER-You treated it like a pipe. MR. CENTER-I treated it like a pipe, but it's not a pipe. It's not calculated in the storage volume for that device. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I just wanted to clarify that it was a conservative, more conservative approach than just not finishing the work, and, Number Two, I just want to understand the designation between a wetland boundary and a wetland buffer boundary, because they are significantly different, so that when everyone's speaking they make that differentiation between the buffer line and the actual wetland line. I mean, when we have public comment, there's pictures of that. MR. CENTER-Yes, that is the wetland boundary line. MR. JAC KOSKI-Correct. Okay, any questions from Board members at this time? MR. URRICO-Yes, I do. I just want to make sure I understand. The 50 feet of relief from the 100 foot requirement from the rain garden to the well setback, that's off the table? MR. CENTER-Yes, that's off the table. If you can go back to that slide. MR. BROWN-Yes, I saw the slide. Yes, it matches the spot on my map that I had drawn with a question mark. MR. CENTER-The well has been re-located to this corner, with all of the separation distances provided, 100 feet from the rain garden to the well, 100 feet from the stone storage trench to the well, 100 feet to the proposed septic system here, and 100 feet from the neighbor's septic system to the wetland. MR. URRICO-And then also the 30 foot, 30 feet of relief from the 100 requirement is also off the table. MR. CENTER-Correct, yes. MR. URRICO-And what was the 64 feet of relief. There was some question about, that would be Number Two. MR. CENTER-The 64 is from the septic system, and the stormwater design manual, and in the supplemental regulations in the Town of Queensbury, requires 100 feet of separation between the septic system and the stone storage trench. What it also says in the supplementary regulations, it can be closer if adverse impacts, if there's no adverse impacts to the wastewater system from the infiltration device, and since the infiltration device is down gradient from the septic system, there can be no adverse, the infiltration can't go up the slope to impact the absorption system, and that's been a generally accepted, the engineer has reviewed that and that has not been an additional comment since we discussed it. MR. CLEMENTS-So that map that you have up there right now does not match this one that we have here? MR. CENTER-The two minor changes are this ponded area is slightly larger in this direction, and this well is moved from there to here, and that was because of two comments with the Town Engineer in working through their stormwater design. MR. LAPPER-And Craig's been included in all those back and forth with the engineer. MR. CLEMENTS-Thank you. MR. GARRAND-I've got a question for Staff. Craig, this correspondence we received from Lavelle & Finn, have you gone over that? (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) MR. BROWN-I have. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Can we go through this item by item? MR. BROWN-We can maybe at the public hearing when the author may want to discuss it or, we can do it now if you want to, but. MR. GARRAND-No, we can wait until public comment, because I'd like to get these out of the way. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-We'll wait until public comment. MR. LAPPER-We wouldn't mind talking about it, if Craig wants to go through it. MR. JACKOSKI-Why don't we, do you want to read it? MR. GARRAND-I'll read them. (lost words) correspondence from Lavelle & Finn, "APPLICATION NOT COMPLETE...... a. Town Code Section 179-4-010-G(4)(c)[a] prohibits removing more than 30% of vegetation from the site. The current proposal requires removal of 90% of the vegetation" MR. JACKOSKI-Go ahead and keep reading. MR. LAPPER-Well, we could do one at a time. MR. JACKOSKI-Is that all right? Craig, isn't there, isn't that contradictory to Code that you can clear up to one acre? MR. BROWN-Yes, that's exactly right. There's another section of the Code, I think it's in Article Five, that talks about, you can clear up to an acre without needing any Town approval, and in the history that I have, any time there's any sort of conflict in the Zoning Ordinance, typically that's going to be found to be in favor of the property owner. So I'm not going to call him out on needing a variance, if I'm going to lose that battle. So it's not something you need a variance from. MR. GARRAND-"The soils test performed by the applicant failed to conform to the requirements of Town Code 147, Schedule B or the NYSDEC SMDM, Appendix D. No soil tests were performed in the presence of a Town designated engineer". MR. CENTER-I can respond to that. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, in their own appendix, I believe it's F, qualifies a registered professional engineer to perform soil testing for stormwater management design. I'm a registered professional engineer. I performed all the soil tests and the percolation tests. The confusion may come in with the Town Code for wastewater systems. The Town Code for wastewater systems has a time limit, time of year. Under 136, outside of that timeframe the test pit needs to be witnessed by the Town Engineer. On this site the test pit for the wastewater system was done outside that timeframe, and it was witnessed by Paragon Engineering who was the Town Engineer at the time. The other additional test pits that were performed at the request of the Town Designated Engineer during the stormwater process we followed the stormwater design manual for those. MR. GARRAND-Neighbor's septic system. "Applicant has failed to identify and request a variance from the separation distance required between applicant's infiltration device" and their own. MR. CENTER-Okay. That's the same one we talked about the 64 feet between the wastewater system here and here. That would be this distance from here to here. Again, we have no adverse impact from the infiltration device that we're proposing to the up gradient neighbor's septic system. There's a, about a four foot rise from here to here, where this is on higher ground. The influence from the infiltration device cannot affect. MR. GARRAND-And that's measured from the septic tank and not from the neighbor's? MR. CENTER-That dimension is measured from the absorption system, whatever it may be, whether it's a bed or it's trenches. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) MR. GARRAND-Okay, and then it's got one here, I didn't see on the drawing where this one was. "Applicant has failed to identify and request a variance from the shoreline setback requirement of 50 feet, where the proposed shoreline setback is 46.1 feet. I didn't see that on the drawing. MR. CENTER-Okay. That was an error in the input of the application. It should read, I believe it's 51 feet, in earlier versions. It didn't get picked up in earlier versions we had a deck over the line. I didn't realize the deck needed to be behind the setback line. We corrected that. I just did not make the correction on the shoreline setback for that corner on the application page. That's it. So it does meet, as you can see on the plan, that would be down in here in the southeast corner of the deck, you can see the dashed line that's just outside the deck above. That is the setback line, and our deck, and the entire building is behind it. That was an error on my part, and we will correct that. It's actually 51 feet, I believe, from the, pretty much the corner of the parcel to that corner of the deck is approximately 51 feet. MR. CLEMENTS-Is that the one that's labeled 30 feet, or 30.60 feet right now? MR. CENTER-No, it's labeled 31.30 off the property line. We're 31 feet 30. That's more from this corner right here to this corner of the deck. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. MR. CENTER-That would be the dimension. MR. GARRAND-Okay. This one, I'm not sure where they're getting their measurements from on where site clearance is going to be relative to the wetlands, but on here they have "Applicant has failed to identify or seek a relief from the Sections of the Town Code that prohibit removal of vegetation within 15 feet and 35 feet of designated wetlands". I don't see what they're referring to on the drawing. MR. BROWN-It's probably the clearing if you look at where the, I guess the overflow trench comes out of the rain garden towards the wetland. You can see the proposed clearing line is about, I think it's labeled some place, 10 feet to the edge of the wetland. Typically that's a, and the way that it's written in the Code, it's not completely written out here in this letter, but that's a buffer requirement, a shoreline buffer requirements, and all buffer requirements and waivers are dealt with by the Planning Board. It's not a variance requirement. It's a buffer requirement that's dealt with at Site Plan Review. MR. CENTER-And we have filed the appropriate wetland permit application for that work with the Planning Board. MR. GARRAND-Okay. The next one, did you guys have a copy of this? MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Thank you. Go to Item F., which prohibiting the treatment of roadway runoff with a rain garden. MR. LAPPER-That's a Highway Superintendent issue. MR. CENTER-Well, no, I believe that what you're looking at there is rain gardens are used for treating runoff from residential driveways and in this application, that's what it's used for. What I believe the lawyer and Mr. Klein are referring to is the use of plowing some of the Town road into the rain garden device, and stormwater management design manual generally says for large commercial applications, this is not an accepted practice because of the larger volumes of stormwater and things and the filter device itself. This is not a larger commercial application. As a matter of fact, the Lake George Water Keeper uses a rain garden to treat the entire volume of his commercial parking lot, and it says in their annual report that it works fine. This application is much smaller than that. There's a small amount of roadway that's going to be plowed and used towards the end. It's on the very fine line with the stormwater design manual, but as a generally accepted practice, and it says, in the rain garden design portion of the stormwater design manual, rain gardens are used to treat driveway water, hard impervious surface, and roof water. MR. GARRAND-Item G., I don't know if that even applies to us here, depth of the rain garden. MR. CENTER-Again, it does say generally it should be six inches, but most rain gardens, and in these applications, we do go over what that means, is when we talk to the applicant about the plants that are used in the rain garden, we make sure we get water tolerant plants, depending on the elevations, based on our Hydro Cad results, how deep is it going to get, what are going to (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) be the more tolerant plants versus the less tolerant plants. That's something that's, over the years, as they maintain these things, they work to get the right plants in place. We design it for the worst case scenario is stormwater. That may not see that same amount because of the conservative design. So they may have to start playing around with plants to get the right ones. That may be what we have conservatively designed, you know, may be too dry or not wet enough and they may have to start moving plants around, over time, to see, you know, what works for them, but generally that's the generally accepted of how we plant when we do plant it. MR. GARRAND-Earlier in the season it was ferns. I saw a bunch of ferns in there. Sunday it was pretty muddy down there. I didn't see any ferns. Item H, "infiltration trench and basin on areas with natural slopes of 25% and 72% respectively". MR. CENTER-Again, this is application of the stormwater design manual for smaller uses. It does have a 15% slope requirement within there. We have treated, that small area is going to be leveled. There's a natural slope underneath there that may be 10, 15%, but with that said, the stormwater design manual, if you were to take this to DEC and ask them, are we in compliance with everything, they would tell you that the stormwater design manual is written for disturbances greater than an acre and not residential sites, and we've been to the DEC and they say, you know, the Town of Queensbury does bring it in. We understand that, but there's going to be certain aspects of this that it doesn't apply to third acre lots. They do have, in order to get to the stormwater design manual with DEC, you have to have a disturbance greater than an acre, some other criteria, and then not be of residential design, a single family home. It's got to be something larger, in the commercial realm, things like that, and that's why some of these distances are so large, some of the separations are larger than the supplemental regulations that are in the Town of Queensbury. MR. LAPPER-And the Town Engineer has reviewed that. MR. CENTER-And the Town Engineer has reviewed that, also. MR. GARRAND-Rain garden maintenance, Item 1. MR. CENTER-We believe we've answered all of the Town Engineer's questions in regards to that. We did enhance some of the stormwater management language within the report, and that is not an open item in his latest comment letter. MR. GARRAND-Okay, and on to Item J. "While the latest proposal has significantly changed the storm water management facilities, applicant has not yet submitted a revised storm water report for review by the Town designated engineer." I imagine you've probably done. MR. CENTER-We've been working back and forth, and that's probably the more open item. We've talked with him today, Craig talked with him. We believe we have our understanding. It will be firmed up for Site Plan Review, but it didn't seem to be any large outstanding item. More engineering long between the two of us to come up to agreement that we're on the same page of the Hydro Cad calculations and then bring them in the stormwater report. MR. JACKOSKI-And as far as Staff can guide us, that isn't really a Zoning Board issue at this time. That is for our Planning Board. Correct? MR. BROWN-Item J? Yes, absolutely. There's, probably every item, E through J there, I have written on here as N/A, they're not applicable. MR. JACKOSKI-To us. MR. BROWN-To the Zoning Board, right. MR. JACKOSKI-They may, certainly can be dealt with at the Planning Board stage. MR. BROWN-Yes, clearly part of the Site Plan Review when they do the stormwater review there. MR. JACKOSKI-But certainly good information for us to also understand. MR. GARRAND-That's it for the items. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? Okay. We are going to continue the public hearing at this time, and again I'd like to remind folks that we are going to limit conversation to four minutes per speaker. I do want to note that we did open the public hearing last time that it was advertised, and we would appreciate it that if you hear some of your (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) comments already addressed, that you really don't need to spend more of your time talking with us on that matter because we've already heard it, but certainly we understand if you wish to address it again. We do have quite a bit of written comment this evening. If you have sent in a letter and you will speak this evening and don't need us to read your letter in to the record, that would be great. Just let us know that and we'll try to minimize the time for everyone. So, again, the four minute clock will be set. What we'll do is set it for three minutes, so that when you hear the alarm, you'll know you have about a minute to wrap up. Right, Roy? MR. URRICO-Right. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. I know the Water Keeper is here. I'm sure he's going to want to speak. Are there other people here who'd like to address the Board this evening? Sir? If you could just state your name for the record, and your connection with the project, that would be great. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN ARKLEY MASTRO MR. MASTRO-My name is Arkley Mastro. I'm the author of the January 11th, Lavelle and Finn letter that was referenced earlier. I've been engaged by four clients that live in close proximity to this project, and I would hope that I would be able to speak four times the four minute limit, but if I go over my initial four minutes, I'm sure you'll let me know. Simply put, based on a review of the application, this is a project that I don't believe should be built. It's been very difficult to review and analyze the application because it's been a moving target. In fact, we heard tonight the application is not final yet, as of a few days ago. The application that I initially reviewed had changed. So it's very difficult to comment on that. I think it's difficult for this Board to finalize the public hearing and certainly take it to a vote because the application's not final as yet. Ultimately this Board will have to use the balancing test that's set forth in the Town Ordinance which says that you have to balance the benefit to the applicant for the variance against the detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood, which includes Lake George. Lake George provides drinking water to most of the residents around the lake, certainly those in the Dunham's Bay and Assembly Point area, and most of the seven variances that have been identified in the application relate to proximity to the wetlands, which is essentially a filter for runoff before it gets to Lake George. Separate and apart from the seven applications for variances, there are 10 other items that the Board just addressed, and by the way, I would waive the reading of my letter into the record in detail, to save some time. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. MASTRO-But the only thing that's modest about this project is the size of the lot. It's about a third of an acre, but it has a substantial number of variances that are required. Those are variances that are required not only from the Town Code, but from State health codes as well. The variances that have been asked for are far from modest. They're outrageously substantial. How often do you see applications for Area Variances that are 90% and 50% and 36%, and the Board can't look at each one of those variances independently? You have to look at the cumulative effect of all seven of those variances, plus the other 10 items that I mention in my letter, the cumulative effect of all of those deviations from the Codes, which protect the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood and the lake. The cumulative effect of those will have nothing but a detrimental effect on the wetlands and the lake itself, and I don't have to tell this Board what the effect of the lake is on the Town of Queensbury. Most towns that I'm aware of, when there has to be construction of a road to service a single site make the developer pay for the cost of that road. I don't know that this Board or the Planning Board has the authority to authorize an applicant to appropriate the use of that road for a private driveway. I think only the Town Board has the authority to do that, and if the Town Board has the authority to do that, I think it's subject to a Town referendum that the taxpayers have a right to weigh in on. This lot is so small and the variances requested are so substantial that they've located one of the rain gardens on Town property off the front of the property at the end of Forest Road. That's an impermissible use, I believe, of Town property that only a Town Board can weigh in on. In addition to the violations of various Town Ordinances and health ordinances and I know it's not within the purview of this Board, but the application, as it sits now, is in violation of some of the restrictive covenants of the subdivision, the Shore Colony subdivision that was adopted by the Town in 1957. Just one of those restrictive covenants prevents construction of any structure or garage within 60 feet of the roadway. The last proposal that I saw, unless it's been modified yet again, puts the garage 39 feet from the road. It's a violation of the setback rules established as a restrictive covenant for all of the subdivision properties in Shore Colony. This Board, no Board has the authority to approve that variance. That'll be dealt with by the other homeowners who relied on it when they bought their lot in the subdivision. My review of the application, since we heard tonight that it's still going to be amended again, and we pulled a couple of variance (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) applications off the application because that's been changed, I don't think the application's complete, and if it's not complete, you can't close the public hearing, and you can't take a vote on the application. I think if you balance the potential benefit to the applicant, this applicant I suspect, and this is supposition on my part, but I believe they don't own the property yet, but they have a contract to buy it, conditioned on their getting the necessary approvals from this Board and the Planning Board, and probably the Town Board. If they don't get those approvals, they can cancel the contract and receive their deposit back and they don't have to buy it. Everything that's before this Board is a self-imposed hardship. It doesn't have to happen. It may be, I will agree it's a modest lot, but it's a substantial house requiring substantial variances, I suspect variances that you don't see very often, and I would ask that the Board determine that this application is not complete. It's not right for a vote as yet. The engineer who does some work for my clients hasn't had a chance to see the latest application yet. So you can't really make final comment because it's a moving target. Once it comes before your Board and you've completed the public hearing, and I think you'll hear from the Water Keeper tonight as to the effect of the wetlands will have on Lake George. I think it would be incumbent upon the Board to deny the application because the potential benefit to this applicant is grossly outweighed by the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood, the character of the neighborhood, the wetlands and potential water quality of Lake George. That's my comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Sir, Mr. Klein? And again, we probably have about another four minutes, if you don't mind. DAVE KLEIN MR. KLEIN-If you don't mind I'd like to pass around a handout. MR. JACKOSKI-And do you have one for the applicant, as well? MR. KLEIN-Yes. I'd like to comment on a couple of things that were said earlier, and if the Board wants to go through the letter that Lavelle & Finn wrote, we can do that, too, but I'm not going to be able to get it all in in four minutes. First off, the section through the retaining wall on the application calls for 12 inches of impervious fill underneath the pervious pavers. So I don't know how it can be impervious fill and still be permeable. So I would classify the grass pavers as being impervious surface. Second off, the applicant said the road's going to be extended 65 feet; it's about 20 feet wide. That's about 1300 square feet. Where are you going to get even the asphalt for 1300 square feet for $1800? We have a quote from a highway construction company that said that if they paved it and put a sub-base in, it would be around $10,000. If they had to provide, excuse me, Craig, could you put the overhead up? MR. BROWN-Which one? MR. KLEIN-This surface right here is just grading directly into the wetlands. There's no stormwater treatment for it. If they had to put some stormwater treatment in for that impervious surface, it would be another $10,000. So, I don't think they can buy the asphalt for $1800. I'd like to go through the compounding effect of all the relief that's requested on this property. Both the, we have five separate regulations, the Town stormwater code, the New York State Residential Building Code that's applicable to single family residences, the New York State Health Department Appendix 513, the Lake George Park Commission Stormwater Regulations, and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation stormwater management design manual. All require that infiltration devices, this one right here, that's servicing vehicle traffic, have a 100 foot separation from a proposed, from a well or a wetland. They're asking for a 90% variance for the separation distance to the wetland. They moved the well. So, you know, I haven't had an opportunity to take a look at that, but they were looking at a 50% variance there. Five agencies have this very important requirement because it's necessary to provide the biological, physical, and chemical treatment through adequate contact with usable soil. When I say usable soil, that's dry soil. It's not soil that's subject to seasonal high groundwater. It's not soil that's subject to surcharge from stormwater. It's dry soil. As the nutrients and pollutants travel through this dry soil, they attract to the particles of soil and the soil has a limited capability to attract and attach these nutrients and pollutants to them. When you reduce the separation, the vertical separation distance, they're asking for more relief, and I'm not sure if they really have a foot and a half of usable soil, but they're asking for 50% relief in (lost word) usable soil underneath this infiltration device. So that's another 50% relief. So when you're asking for 90% relief here, and then you're asking for another 50% relief, you know, you're asking, they're actually providing 5%, if you take 10% times 50%, you end up with 5%. They're asking for 5% of what is required by Code. That's a 95% variance. MR. JACKOSKI-How about one more. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) MR. KLEIN-Well, I've got quite a few more. Let's see. I try to address the requirement. The Code clearly states that the separation distance between an infiltration device and this infiltration device starts right there. That trench is an infiltration device. It says it's supposed to be 100 foot away from a wastewater system. Okay. The reason that they have this requirement is the hydrology of this property; everything slopes down to the wetlands. It slopes from up here. They've got a large wastewater treatment system here. We have a large parking lot up on this property here, and all the runoff from a surcharge, you know, a high event storm is going to come down this 27% slope. The applicant did install a ditch on the uphill side of this wastewater treatment system, but this soil is supposed to be treating the effluent from this wastewater treatment system. Now it's got to treat the effluent from this wastewater treatment system. Then you've got a surcharge of stormwater into that soil. It's going to saturate the soil and push that effluent faster down into the wetlands. Then it's going to have another surcharge at this rain garden, and that's going to push it faster down into the wetlands. So you're actually reducing the filtering effect of the stormwater. Another quick thing. I have several others, but I will try and wrap it up. The applicant installed this drainage ditch. MR. JACKOSKI-Sorry, but time's up, but, Mr. Klein, let me ask you, you said that the western property owner's parking lot and wastewater treatment system, they aren't managing their own stormwater on their own property, it's actually flowing onto this person's property? MR. KLEIN-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-So they're not managing their own stormwater? MR. KLEIN-Stormwater, correct. There's no stormwater controls off that parking lot, and that's a 27% slope coming down there. MR. JACKOSKI-Could they actually install stormwater management controls on their own property? MR. KLEIN-They probably could, but there's no, I don't know that. I haven't evaluated the property, but there's no onus for them to install stormwater. They're not doing anything. That property has been that way for many years, and the parking lot gets full. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm just thinking of car fluids and things like that that are polluting from that other property. MR. KLEIN-Yes, that is where I'm heading. So now we have this steep slope. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I would hope that that neighbor wouldn't be polluting their neighbor's property, but we'll keep moving. Go ahead. MR. KLEIN-The property is, there's actually two homes on the Iakeshore side of that property. It's an extended family that owns it. They have, you know, family get togethers and that parking lot gets full. They rent out the cabins when they're not, or the camp or the homes when they're not available, and that property gets, that parking lot gets used fairly regularly. This ditch that they installed, okay, their intent was to intercept the stormwater before it saturated the septic system, but inadvertently it comes down here and when they took out the rain garden that was in behind the house, the ditch actually falls and actually discharges on the neighbor's property. So all the runoff off this on the back part of their property is going to go into that ditch. You're going to have stormwater that's, there's no filtering effect from this parking lot, and it's only 14 foot from their well. The State Health Department regulations, which are required under the residential code, say you have to have a 25 foot setback between a drainage ditch and a well. You know in this situation, you might have a 200 foot setback to that well because you're picking up pollutants from other properties. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? Mr. Navitsky. Mr. Klein used two of your four minutes, so you're down to two. CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Well, I figured if you read my letter, that's five minutes. MR. JACKOSKI-Do we need to read your letter into the record? MR. NAVITSKY-I'll grant you relief from that. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) MR. NAVITSKY-Sorry to see you're down a Board member. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. We have concerns about the extent of the requested variances and potential negative impacts to the environment. First of all, we do believe the application is incomplete and important information is lacking necessary to determine the adequacy of the stormwater system. The stormwater management report is missing. Although you note that that's not part of your review, it clearly is because you're reviewing variances on stormwater controls, and if you don't know the extent of those, either that can't be determined if they're adequate without that stormwater report. So it is an incomplete application. The requested variances will produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. Currently a substantial protective buffer is present along the large wetland complex within Assembly Point providing important ecological and water quality benefits such as removing pollutants from runoff, maintaining infiltration, providing habitat and diversity and corridors. The placement of the rain garden and a road in close proximity removes these important protective measures. Also we do feel that the 30% clearing limit in Waterfront Residential district was set there for a reason, for water quality protection. I don't think the Town encourages clearing of one acre within a Waterfront Residential district. So I think that's a clearly, a misinterpretation. Also, I did not know the Planning Board can grant relief from items in the Zoning Code, such as a 15 foot buffer. That is Section 179-4-010-G.4.c.6. Again, I don't know if the Planning Board can grant relief from Zoning Code measures. The requested variances are not the minimum necessary for the applicant to achieve their intended use and can be considered substantial. There are alternatives that were referenced. So those have not been discussed. It should be noted 90% relief is substantial and indicates that site constraints should restrict the development on this site. It also should be noted the project was determined to be a major stormwater management project to provide an increased level of water quality protection because it's in a Critical Environmental Area. This application reduces all water quality protect measures that are required. So, again, we think that that's going the opposite way. Variances will have a negative impact to the environment and the neighborhood. First, the shoreline setback for infiltration is necessary for biological, physical, and chemical treatment through contact with the subsurface soils. When you decrease that required length of treatment, you're reducing treatment. Second, the design will impact water quality by failure to capture and treat runoff from impervious surfaces as required by Town Code. It should be noted the Lake George Park Commission has Memorandum of Understandings with all Town Highway Departments that states Highway Departments "shall design stormwater management provisions for all new Town highways". There is no stormwater provision for this. This is part of the project. They're using it as a driveway. You can't segment that out. Third, without the submission of a Stormwater Management Report, it cannot be determined if these devices actually are the minimum necessary and if you need to encroach more into that setback that they're already taking 90% from. Fourth, the reduction in the required vertical separation will impact water quality through decreased treatment. Finally, the infiltration requirement for the separation or the extent into the frost layer is very important, because we see that there's a lot more rain events during the wintertime, and that's why you have that extent into the frost layer so that when we have these rain events, the ground's frozen, the water can get in there. So they are proposing to have none of that. So, again, we think, in closing, we're concerned about the granting of these variances and the impact that it will have in the Critical Environmental Area and feel that there is more information that is required and necessary, and that the application is incomplete. I'd like to note a couple of things, since we were given some publicity here. We appreciate that applicants and consultants look at that. However, one of our first fact sheets on low impact development is the protection of natural resources, and that would be protecting the buffers. That was not referenced. There was also an erroneous note about the rain garden on our office property. It doesn't take our entire property. It only takes half of a parcel that is just under one acre. So, again, that is irrelevant to this discussion. Regarding roof is clean water, if you compare runoff from forest to runoff from roof surfaces; you get 15 times the amount of nutrients that come out of that. So it's not clean water. It may not have hydrocarbons, but it's not clean. You're not reducing the nutrients. Wastewater systems can influence stormwater systems. Clearly that will happen and saturate the system, and, you know, regarding the stormwater, New York State stormwater management manual, that was set up to create the uniform standards throughout New York State. So, again, it was set up for a reason, and it's clearly, it's written in the preface that the manual is set up to have standards throughout New York State for stormwater devices. So, with that, if you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer them. MR. JACKOSKI-I have one, Mr. Navitsky. Given the third acre size, do you think that this lot is unbuildable? MR. NAVITSKY-1 think it's very difficult. I think you have to grant the minimum variances possible. I don't think that you're there yet. It is a lot, so you have to give it every effort to try and minimize those variances. I don't think they are right now. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to address the Board? Ma'am. Welcome. BEVERLY POZZI MS. POZZI-Thank you. I'm Beverly Pozzi and I live on Assembly Point, and my family has been there for about 60 years. I've written this, and I'll read it to you and then hand it over. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MS. POZZI-It's addressed to everyone. It has come to my attention that the referenced applicant is requesting that they be allowed to build in close proximity of wetlands on a small lot of one third acre, the size of which would require clear cutting the property. In addition, the Town has agreed to extend asphalt pavement to accommodate the applicant. The applicant has proposed to use town property for stormwater management. I cite two properties where clear cutting has led either to damage to the home and or increased water which leads to runoff. Following clear cutting of the ridge on Assembly Point, a home, below the ridge suffered a flooded finished basement. This home has existed since the 1950's and was remodeled in subsequent years and never before was there any leakage into the basement. The second case is on Bay Pkwy, adjacent to the wooded Otyokwa property. Many trees were downed in that area during Hurricane Irene. The Otyokwa Directors then ruled that they would be removed, however, additional standing trees were also removed, and the land was literally torn apart by the equipment. The Directors refused the residents' request to voluntarily replant deep rooted trees. As a result of this clear cutting, residents' are experiencing water on their property as never before. Two of these families have planted several deciduous trees on their own properties. All of this has educated many property owners of this fragile peninsula to the fact that disturbing wetlands leads to a negative impact on Lake George. The removal of trees, whose water absorption is critical to stemming erosion and stormwater runoff will further damage this area. Increasing the coverage of asphalt on the land decreases water absorption. I ask that the Board adhere to their Zoning regulations so that there is no further damage to the wetlands, the lake, and possibly other homeowners' properties. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate it. Is there anyone else here this evening? Ma'am, if you would, please. Thank you. LISA ADAMSON MRS. ADAMSON-Yes. Lisa Adamson. I'm also from Assembly Point, and I see at least seven of our Assembly Point water quality awareness committee members here tonight, and I've also received a number of e-mails and phone calls from people on Assembly Point who are very concerned, and this is because we've, those who are out walking and driving on and off the peninsula see the effects of what Beverly was talking about with the denuding from storms and clear cutting and we see the properties that have been built on the jurisdictional wetlands, which, in my opinion, shouldn't have been built there, as if they've sprung a leak in the past couple of years, and I know most of you know because I've been in front of the Board before, that Assembly Point Road is tilted towards the lake, and so when these properties get excessive water on it, then the water just goes right into the lake. So that's what we're seeing currently now, and I'm very concerned that this property being discussed and the variances could result in, I don't think there's any guarantee that what's being presented would prevent negative impacts on the wetlands from lack of effective infiltration, and basically my question would be, I mean, if we know that the lake is all under these stresses, not just stormwater, not just septic, you know, invasives has a high profile, and if, I mean, some of us question whether the ordinances that we have to date are even strict enough, much less not being enforced thoroughly. Why would we grant variances in a time when, this is a time when we need to be very, really adhere to the letter of the laws that we've made. We've made them for a reason. I'd also like to speak on behalf of a friend of mine who's on the water quality committee, Dr. Lorraine Ruffing, who questions why the Town would even consider extending the road to this piece of property. We've all lived with roads that, you know, aren't; don't need to be paved on Assembly Point for years until recently. So, that's it, and I just urge you to consider going with the letter of the law in this case. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mrs. Adamson. Is there anyone else here? KATHLEEN MALONEY MS. MALONEY-Other people have said things so that perhaps I don't have to repeat what they said, since I only have four minutes. MR. JACKOSKI-Sorry. Thank you. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) MS. MALONEY-Good evening. MR. JACKOSKI-Good evening. MS. MALONEY-I'm Kathleen Maloney and I'm here tonight to speak against the area variances requested by Steven and Jennifer Kitchen on Forest Road. Since 1959, my family has owned 36 Forest Road, the abutting property, and the impact that it will have on my family's property, I feel, is substantial. They're asking for a 90% variance, separation from the wetland, and based on the computation, the calculations that were done, and the engineer and everything, it's a 95% separation distance variance that they're requesting, truly, based on everything. The fact that they're building the rain garden in Town, on Town property, because they can't put it on their property and stormwater management devices should be on the property in which they're servicing. I find that is also very bad. In addition, the stone trench now has a pond, and unfortunately because the latest plans we haven't seen and there's no really, on the plan, prior plan that I saw, there weren't even dimensions on there. The stormwater management report was last updated, revised in September of 2012. You haven't even seen it. The stormwater management report that they submitted to you, for your review along with all these requests for stormwater, variances for stormwater management devices, is from September. It doesn't even have any of the new changed devices that they're requesting in different locations. Now to stone trench on the property which is near the edge, there's a pond around that. Water can sit in that. We don't know how long it's going to be in there. It could become stagnant, and then we would have an issue with potential mosquitoes an West Nile. We have a rain garden that's going to be getting the road, the supposedly only the additional paved part, the 65 additional feet that they want to pave, the water will runoff from that into that rain garden. The water will runoff from the pavers which are grass, with an impervious surface underneath, so there's more water running there. In addition, from the rest of, that doesn't mean there's not water coming from the upper end of Forest Road, it's gone down there for years. It comes down very fast. So we have all that. In addition to the fact that the back of the property where the septic system will be put, there's going to be a trench, and everything, the water can go around. We might end up having some other issues there. I really feel very strongly that the laws should be, they were created for a reason, and the New York State stormwater management manual was created and it should be kept in effect for this property. It's not, oh, because it's a smaller property, no, it was made to be in effect for all of New York State to be applied equally to every property, and it should be applied to this property. That's what laws are for. They're there to be reviewed. They're there to be enforced, and there to be used appropriately. I don't know what else I can say. I am not an engineer, but I do understand how to understand and read statues and regulations and rules. That's what I do for a living. So you have to cross reference different rules and regulations, but if something is put in place for all of New York State, I don't believe it should not be applied in this particular. I also believe that this, as other speakers have said, this is not a complete application, and we haven't had an opportunity, as part of the public, to be able to read and review something that was changed as of maybe this morning, and in order to be able to comment on something like that, we should have the opportunity to review all the documents, and that's not been given to us. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-You're welcome. Thank you. Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this matter? I see no one. We're going to leave the public hearing open. We have a lot of correspondence. The applicant can re-join us at the table. Roy, do you need help in reading all this in, or are you going to? MR. URRICO-I'm ready. MR. JACKOSKI-When you get hoarse and we can't hear your voice anymore, we'll take over. MR. URRICO-"Gentlemen: I'm writing this letter as an adjacent landowner to the referenced property and in opposition to the Kitchen Area Variance Requests. My property is immediately south of the subject property. It is evident by the number and magnitude of variances needed to make this property code compliant, that it should not be developed. In addition to the numerous non-conformities identified by others, this proposal impacts my property as follows: • The current grading plan calls for construction of a drainage swale that starts on the northwest corner of the subject property (between two wastewater disposal systems), travels completely across the property and discharges all of the runoff onto my property. I object to altering the drainage path to concentrate stormwater and potentially wastewater onto my property. • My property is a portion of the Shore Colony Subdivision with a Forest Road address and has historically been assessed a water system tax. Construction of Applicant's stormwater management system on the Town road prohibits connection to the Shore Colony water system and access to Forest Road. (There is a 6' discrepancy in our survey and the Tax Map that affords us access to Forest Road). I question the Town's authority to allow the Applicant to construct a stormwater management system on public property. Tropical Storm Irene damaged (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) much of the vegetation that surrounds and protects the wetlands that abut the subject property as well as my property. Removal of additional vegetation and depositing snow containing sand, salt and other contaminants, so close to the wetlands, would only have a detrimental effect on the wetlands, water quality of Lake George, and our neighborhood. For the reasons outlined above, I oppose granting any area variance as it will have a negative effect on the environment, neighborhood and my property. Respectfully submitted, George R. Hearst III" And he's at 240 and 244 Lake Parkway, Assembly Point. I'm trying to sift through the ones that have already spoken. Okay. I am in receipt of a letter from Mr. David M. Klein of North Country Engineering, opposing the application of Steven and Jennifer Kitchen for a variance to build a small one family home on a lot at the end of our street. The letter says North Country Engineering represents several of our neighbors. Since I am unable to attend the January 16th meeting I ask that it be determined whether the company is offering its services pro bono to help the planning and zoning boards, or is it being paid, in which case I ask that these neighbors be identified. We consider the beauty of Lake George to be a treasure. The Kitchens are proposing to use an approved building lot in an environmentally sensitive way and we look forward to being able to share our love of and respect for the lake with them. Please approve their application. I am including a letter I wrote to Craig Brown in support of the Kitchen's application and ask that it be read into the record. Sincerely, Mary Ellen Tedeschi 12 Forest Road, Lake George, NY 12845" "This letter is in opposition to the granting of variances for the property on Forest Lane on Assembly Point. Lake George has been my address since 1949. 1 have witnessed this lake change over the years, and, not always for the good. We all are the stewards today so those in the future will have the opportunity to enjoy this exceptional clean, clear, fragile treasure as we do. Queensbury has accepted the challenge, and I write tonight to tell you not to weaken the strong codes our Town has put into place. If we compromise those codes that protect water that ultimately enters Lake George, we turn our backs on today and the future. The consequences of a compromise expand with every drop of rain, and every downpour we often experience. This is a relatively small lot; this is not what I would consider a "moderate" house. With the number of variances requested, it becomes obvious that the requirements for this structure do not fit this site. The particular codes considered here are not limited to only the neighborhood, they reach much farther. It is not the place or the requirement for the codes to adjust to the builder; it is up to the builder to adjust to the codes. Again, it is obvious this building plan is not appropriate for this lot. I ask you to deny the Kitchen's their variances because it is our duty as a town to protect our wetlands and ultimately Lake George and uphold the codes this Town made to do so. Odd, people come here because the lake is a treasure; they just don't seem to know how to preserve it. We as a town have the opportunity to educate them and direct them. Florence E. Connor 6 Holly Lane, Lake George, NY 12845" Do you want me to read in letter in from the New York State Department of Health? MR. JACKOSKI-I think you need to read the Ahlers letter before that. MR. URRICO-Okay. That's after that. "We have been immediate neighbors of the proposed Kitchen property since 1977. My wife and I are alarmed by the proposal and wish to express our opposition to it. The property is only 0.34 acres small, too low and too close to the wetlands to be developed. The variances, ranging from 90% to only 30% of required zoning values make the proposal quite unacceptable. The property, as also other properties in the immediate vicinity has lost a significant number of trees during the last few years. That loss has been accentuated by the massive tree loss during Hurricane Irene. Trees, especially close to wetlands, form an intimate symbiosis with them. The general area has seen far too much development during the last few years. Part of that development is the proposed extension of Forest Road. Tax payers would have to foot the bill for the extension of the public Forest Road, as well as its maintenance. Related to such unacceptable development and its negative impact on the wetland is the construction of the proposed stormwater-water pond on public property. We have codes to protect the health and welfare of the residents and the environment. Wetlands are a precious resource not only for the wildlife they support, but also because they act as the "lungs" of the lake into which the wetland waters flow. The codes which bind the Zoning Board exist to protect precious public wetlands and the lake. Please resist the development of this property. Sincerely, Rolf and Luise Ahlers 105 Knox Road" "Dear Sirs: /request that the contents of this letter be read into the record of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting scheduled for January le, 2013, or any other such meeting dealing with the proposed construction of a dwelling, modification of the land areas in and around Forest Lane, Shore Colony, Assembly Point, Lake George, New York. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I have served as a Professional Geologist and Naval Oceanographer for more than 40 years. Although I am currently a resident of Maryland, I am a native New Yorker and a graduate of Columbia University in the City of New York. Together with my brother, I am the second generation co- owner of 6 Pine Tree Lane, Assembly Point, Lake George, New York. This property has been in our family for over 50 years. I have been a seasonal resident of Lake George for over 60 years. The continuing protection of Lake George and its associated watershed is a stewardship responsibility and an absolute trust that my brother and I have gratefully and fervently carried out during our entire adult lives. We will continue to safeguard this trust to ensure it is passed (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) on inviolate to our succeeding generations. Please note—We have not surrendered our proxies and we do not need a self-appointed gadfly and dilettante, who alleges that he is our (community) spokesman, to articular our desire to protect the future water quality of Lake George. His hearsay and specious comments are misrepresentations and are not ours. I hereby appoint and give my proxy actually and in kind to Ms. Kathleen Maloney Esq., or persons determined to be her representative in these matters. In her absence I surrender my proxy to any member of my family who attends the meeting. I do speak for my brother and our respective families by stating that we are emphatically opposed to any action which would adversely affect Lake George or its contiguous wet/ands. The superb water quality of Lake George that the public continues to enjoy cannot be compromised by the intervention of an individual or corporate entity. The proposed deforestation and development of the Forest Lane lot will have an adverse affect on the Assembly Point wetlands and the Lake George watershed. Mr. Kitchen et a/ have already acknowledged this adverse affect and his proposed multiple mitigations can only hope to alleviate the de facto damage to the environment. The untested and un-validated compensatory strategies for the multiple requests for variances proposed by Mr. Kitchen might possibly minimize the impact of the known environmental effects that the proposed dwelling and the Forest Lane road extension will have on the wetlands/watershed. Mr. S. Kitchen, et al. cannotguarantee with absolute cenaintythat the potential contrivances he suggests will not, of and in themselves, adversely affect the impacted wetlands and the Lake George watershed. With the local ground water table so high and the groundwater geology of the wetlands in jeopardy, will the effluent generated by the proposed large septic system overpower the leach field/mitigating measures and cause e col/, heavy metals and other toxic waste to be transmitted to the drainage ditch, the wetlands, and ultimately Lake George drinking water? Your attention is again invited to re-read into the records, the cogent comments and relevant statements by the Lake George Water Keeper, (Mr. Christopher Navitsky, P.E.) in his letter to you, dated September 17th, 2012. You are also requested to review any input from the Lake George Park Commission and their Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Town of Queensbury Highway Department with respect to storm water management. Why take the chance on negatively impacting "the Queen of American Lakes?" As diligent stewards and guardians of the public trust you should not be willing to take that chance. This Critical Environmental Area must be protected. Our moral obligation requires us as prudent custodians of the natural resources to be ever vigilant to protect those precious resources entrusted to our stewardship. Your collective mandate absolutely compels the prudent decision to err on the side of caution and protect the fragile watershed environment. Exercising your wisdom and good judgment as arbiters, honest brokers, and representatives of the will of the people who have empowered you. l respectfully,pet/t/on, that without further delay, you deny all requests for variances as described in the above reference. Sincerely yours, Gregory S. Bodenhorn" "It's a shame something like this even comes to question. We were told years ago we could not build a garage on our parking lot which borders the said property because it was considered wetlands. That someone would even consider trying to break code, use town management and taxpayer money to do something that will impact our precious wetland property is beyond comprehension. We are totally against this project. It breaks laws on the books. Who enforces the law? It seems folks just do as they feel with regard to code or law. Please read this letter into the record. Evelyn Jaeger and Shirley Mockel 230 Lake Parkway Lake George, NY 12845" And I have several letters that say the same thing. I'll read one of them. I'll mention the other names. MR. JACKOSKI-Is this the Bodenhorn letter? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Ms. Maloney, do you want those two letters also read in? MS. MALONEY-Yes, I do. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. URRICO-"Dear Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, I am writing to you as a lifelong, second generation resident of Shore Colony, Assembly Point, Lake George, NY at 6 Pine Tree Lane, and on behalf of my children and grandchildren, also lifelong residents at 9 Pine Tree Lane, as second, third and fourth generation residents of Shore Colony, Assembly Point and third, fourth, and fifth generation of seasonal visitors of Lake George dating back to the very early 1900's on my grandparent's part, I am particularly concerned about an issue presented to you for decision referenced as Kitchen AV 61-2012, SP 48-2012 & FW 3-2012. I would like to be read into the record of meeting on January 16th, 2013 and/or any appropriate meeting of particular, relating to these issues. This is a precedent setting case before you. The environmental impact of this case can be the precedent for all future zoning appeals for generations not yet born. We are custodians of the environment, Queensbury wetlands, Lake George watershed, Lake George proper, the Adirondack Park, and New York State as a whole. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) All of these organizations and other New York State agencies (DEC, APA) have rules and regulations in place to follow for good concern. As custodians we must act for the benefit of not only the present generation, but for future generations long after we are gone. Persona like Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, John Muir, and the Rockefeller family are a short list of the visionaries of the environment we now live in at Lake George. I ask you to join that list of public servants and protect our fragile environment on Assembly Point and vote no on any appeal or variance request which directly or indirectly impacts our water shed, water tables, wetland areas, or our beloved Lake George. Consider the needs of not just an individual seeking wealth at the expense of the environment and others, but consider the wealth of the environment for all others. I would also like to state for the record, on behalf of all members of my family, that I rebuke any statements made on our behalf by David Wilcox of Forest Lane, Assembly Point, Lake George, NY, and any other known addresses. He is not now, or has ever been, my representative or acting on my or my families behalf. His fictitious representation of any "snowbirds" of Shore Colony is contemptuous at the very least. I hereby appoint and given my right of voting on this matter as referenced above to my proxy actually, and in kind, to Kathleen Maloney, Esq., or anyone deemed to be her representative in this matter. Thank you. Russell Bodenhorn 6 Pine Tree Lane, Lake George, NY 12845, also 6 North Fourth Street, New Hyde Park, NY 11040" "Dear Members of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, I am writing to you as a lifelong, third generation resident of Shore Colony, Assembly Point, Lake George, NY on behalf of myself and my children, also lifelong residents at 9 Pine Tree Lane, as third and fourth generation residents of Shore Colony, Assembly Point and fourth and fifth generation of seasonal visitors of Lake George dating back to the very early 1900's on my great grandparent's part, I am particularly concerned about an issue presented to you for decision referenced as Kitchen AV 61-2012, SP 48-2012 & FW 3-2012. 1 would like to be read into the record of meeting on January 16th, 2013 and/or any appropriate meeting of particular, relating to these issues. As an environmental community we need to have rules and regulations which are steadfast. We must have certain unchangeable structural codes and regulations which stand up to not only nature, but the test of time. I ask you to consider the impact of buffer zones and correct setbacks of any run off in future storms (i.e. Storm Sandy of 2012). 1 ask you to protect our fragile environment on Assembly Point and vote no on any appeal or variance request which directly or indirectly impacts our water shed, water tables, wetland areas, or our beloved Lake George and its environs. I would also like to state for the record, on behalf of all members of my family, that I rebuke any statements made on our behalf by David Wilcox of Forest Lane, Assembly Point, Lake George, NY, and any other known addresses. He is not now, or has ever been, my representative or acting on my or my families behalf. His fictitious representation of any "snowbirds" of Shore Colony is contemptuous at the very least. I hereby appoint and given my right of voting on this matter as referenced above to my proxy actually, and in kind, to Kathleen Maloney, Esq., or anyone deemed to be her representative in this matter. Thank you. Jonathan Bodenhorn 9 Pine Tree Lane, Lake George, NY 12845" "Our family has owned our property on Assembly Point for 42 years and I am speaking in opposition to this project. The property is too small, too low, and too close to the wetlands to be developed. They require too many significant variances which I do not support. I adamantly object to the extension of the road at the taxpayer's expense and construction of the stormwater pond on public property, and so close to the wetlands. We have codes to protect the health and welfare of the residents and the environment. The codes should be adhered to. Approval of these variances would have an adverse effect on the environment and the neighborhood. We need to do everything we can to protect the wetlands and the water quality of Lake George. Sincerely, Peter Brothers" And I don't have his address. It's Forest Lane. I don't have an exact address for him. MR. JACKOSKI-I believe he's Old Assembly Point Road. MR. URRICO-Yes. "We have reviewed the application along with the associated details relative to the variance request that will be the subject of a hearing held by the Board of Zoning Appeals on Wednesday, January 16, 2013. We have determined that the variance request described by the applicants has merit and should be approved forthwith. Thomas and Kristen Louis 17 Chestnut Lane Assembly Point, Lake George, NY 12845 and 143 Devils Lane Ballston Spa NY 12020" I'm not sure about this next one here. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Klein, this is a string of e-mails that you sent, Brian Tollison and Mailroom, and Dave Hatin, Craig Brown. MR. KLEIN-Would you like me to summarize? MR. LAPPER-That had to do with the well which has now been re-located. MR. JACKOSKI-I know, but it is public record. So I need to, if you wouldn't mind paraphrasing, that would be great. Can you grab the microphone? I apologize. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) MR. KLEIN-The New York State Residential Building Code requires that any well be installed, well, first off they preface if you're on a public water system, they prefer you to connect to the public water system and Shore Colony was established to have a public water system back in 1957, because of the small lots. Every time somebody puts a well in, you impact, you have impacts. It could impact the neighbors' ability to put a septic system, which is a matter of law because it's a filed map, but anyhow, going back to the string of e-mails, the Department of State says there's no exception to conforming to 10NYCRR Appendix 5, yes, 513, which requires a certain separation distance between a well and an infiltration device that's taking contaminants off the road, and it also has setback requirements with the ditch, as I was talking about earlier. You have to be 25 foot away from the well with the ditch. Thank you, sir. MR. JACKOSKI-The next one is the Wilcox? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. URRICO-"To members of the Zoning Board of Appeals and of the Planning Board: As neighbors at 26 Forest Rd. of the lot at the end of our street that the Kitchen family proposes to develop, please accept our comments in support of their endeavor. At prior meetings we submitted written comments and made an oral presentation in support of their project. The proposal has been revised subsequent to our submission of those comments. To make it clear that after reviewing the current proposal, for the reasons stated previously, we continue to support the Kitchen's proposal. The Kitchen's have addressed significant design concerns with reasonable solutions that not only protect the Lake, but also provide a reasonable option for development of an approved building lot. Accordingly, we encourage the members of the ZBA, and the Planning Board, to approve the requested variance. Dave Wilcox Vicki Zeldin 26 Forest Road Assembly Point, L.G. "I am writing in support of the application of Steven and Jennifer Kitchen for the development of a single family home at 38 Forest Road on Assembly Point. We have been enjoying our camp on Forest Road for over 25 years and would be happy to have this new addition to our community. The Kitchens have shared their site plan and house design with us and I believe their seasonal residence would be an improvement to our neighborhood. I'm very pleased with the environmental features incorporated in the design; especially the permeable concrete and grass driveway grid system and rain gardens to filter water back to the ground. I hope you will approve the application. Sincerely, Mary Ellen Tedeschi 12 Forest Road" MR. JACKOSKI-I do believe that is all the current public comment that we have. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address the Board one last time? We're going to keep the public hearing open and we're going to talk with the applicant a little more, and then probably poll the Board. Sir, if you don't mind, Jonathan. Sorry. WILLIAM MALONEY MR. MALONEY-I'm William Maloney. I don't know do you have this one up there? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. MR. MALONEY-That's it, there. Kathleen's my sister. So we grew up there all these years, and the only thing that I have a concern about, everything everybody talked about, I'm not an engineer, and I do understand the water going downhill, but nobody has addressed, from Wilcox's house all the way down to ours the pitch, and if you stand there in a rainstorm, it's a river, and it all ends up right where the want the rain garden, in the corner right there. Every bit of the water from the entire street ends up there, and somebody up here, I don't remember who it was, said that it's muddy there at times. That's the reason why. Every bit of that runs right into the wetlands. That's the only thing I would like to hear addressed because I don't believe, what did you say your property is 25 degree pitch on it? 27. MR. MALONEY-Twenty-seven, okay. Well, ours is similar to that, and all the way down to Wilcox, I mean, it slows down a bit across the street, and every bit of that water that comes off of everybody's property goes onto the street and runs down, right to where he has the rain garden. MR. JACKOSKI-We will have the applicant address that for you. MR. MALONEY-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-We will certainly look at that. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) MR. MALONEY-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, and again, to everyone here in the audience, we have granted a bit of latitude because there's obviously a lot of information on this project that we need to get through. So thank you for those of you who are waiting for other applications for being patient with us. We do want to get as much information on the project as possible before we have to render our decision. So, again, thank you. Mr. Lapper. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Yes. Just to put this in perspective, the vast majority of the lots in Shore Colony and the neighbors who have registered concerns were built a while ago and they have no stormwater facilities whatsoever. This lot is a double lot. The Maloney lot next door is half the size of this lot, also on a pitch, as was described, and the water flows from their property into the wetland untreated because it was built before stormwater regulations were in place. This application is a way to design stormwater facilities that comply as much as possible with the new laws, based upon the fact that you have a sloping lot that ends near a wetland. So there is infiltration and there is treatment, and the only thing here, because it's a hill and because it flows downhill, the proximity of the lowest treatment to the wetland is close to the wetland, but it is being treated and it is being infiltrated before it goes into the wetland, and ultimately, as we've discussed, the wetland is a filter, and people have made these generalized comments, of course it's easy to say protect Lake George, but Tom has measured, and this area of the wetland is 881 feet from the outfall to Lake George, so that no one has said or could say that there's a detriment to the wetland or to the lake with this project there. It's designed by the engineers to comply as much as possible with the regulations, seeking variances for the areas that it can't comply, changed to make it comply again and the only change, the only recent change to relocate the well, which was a suggestion of the Town Engineer, and a good change, but comparing this to all the other properties that don't have stormwater devices at all, stormwater infiltration, of course that's why you have a wetland because it's running downhill from those properties into the wetland, but this is a way to design it as well as you can under these regulations that weren't around when the neighbors were there, and again, double size of the neighbor's lot and of many of the other lots in Shore Colony. So, taking a pre-existing building lot and trying to adapt it with the new, the current regulations, and I think Tom's done a good job, and the Kitchens haven't asked for too big a house and haven't asked for too much impervious surfaces. So that's what this is really about. Would you like to comment? MR. CENTER-Any questions in particular that you folks have, we'll go over. If there's anything that came up in the public comment section that you have additional. MR. JACKOSKI-The Zoning Board members want to start or do you want me to start? MR. URRICO-I guess the first question I have is whether this needs to be re-advertised, because this project continues to evolve, and where we looked at, even what we looked at as far as this application, has changed. Two of the variances are no longer on the table. One of them may have shifted slightly, and I'm not really sure where we are with this. I wonder if the public needs to hear, get a chance to see the application as it exists today, rather than how it existed when it was advertised. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, it's my understanding from Staff that the entire packet that we had was in place at the Town when this was publicly advertised. Correct, Craig? MR. BROWN-That's correct, and if you read the agenda description, which is the same description that is put in the public hearing notice. The relief requested from the separation distance is required for infiltration devices. There's no specific, and we write these agenda descriptions and public hearing notices on purpose that way, so that don't ask for specific, request reliefs, so we don't have to re-advertise if something gets tweaked, either, certainly if they're asking for more relief, you have to re-advertise that. If they're asking for less relief, then there's really no need to advertise for less. So, to answer your question, in my opinion do you need to re-advertise this for the changes that have been presented tonight? My opinion is no, you don't. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-I think one of the biggest questions that are lingering here, folks, is this extension of the road on Town property, and it's my understanding that that is the purview of the Highway Superintendent for the Town of Queensbury, just like when the road was first paved back to where it is now. I guess you could argue the same argument, that that road was put in place then as an extension of the driveways that went nowhere. It stops there just before this lot. So my question is this. Can you complete this project without that extension of macadam? 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) MR. BROWN-I guess that would kind of put it back into a question Roy just asked. If the road isn't extended, they don't have the minimum required road frontage on a public highway. They would need to seek a variance from that minimum road frontage requirement. That takes away some asphalt, takes away some impervious surfaces that may drain in this direction. They'd still be here with relief requests, and maybe adding one to have a lot without frontage on a public highway. MR. JACKOSKI-And a public highway must be paved. MR. BROWN-It has to be constructed to Town standards. Yes. MR. GARRAND-What are Town standards? MR. BROWN-That's a specific question you'd want to ask the Highway Superintendent. If he's reviewed this plan, he's accepted. MR. GARRAND-If so, it becomes a $20,000 piece of road. MR. BROWN-Well, that's up to the Highway Superintendent to determine. MR. LAPPER-Well, I think there was, didn't you get a communication? I thought that the Highway Superintendent had addressed that with you. MR. BROWN-If it is, it's in the file. The only letter I know of from the Highway Superintendent in the file says he's seen the plan. He's willing to extend the road to give them the frontage that they need. I can tell you from personal experience in dealing with the Highway Superintendent; it's not the first time that this has occurred. That's what the Highway Superintendent does. He provides public highways to lots in the Town. I mean, that's what they do. MR. JACKOSKI-And this is Town property. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Part of it is just that in the Town Highway budget there's always improvements every year. I think 65 feet of road for another house is pretty minimal, but in terms of the, you know, the cost, it's part of the Town Highway budget and they've got Town employees and materials and I think it's just part of what the Highway Department does. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Center, what percentage of the rain garden pond storm control device at the end of the quote unquote road on Town property is necessary for this project versus how much of it is actually there helping the Town with its runoff? MR. CENTER-It is, the rain garden is 100% for the driveway. We've over designed it with the storage volume. There's additional storage volume there. It is the wishes of the Highway Superintendent to plow; they look at it as a benefit to plow some of the snow into it to use it as a buffer and not plowing it directly into the wetland. So it's not designed, and I don't think there's anything that, we've never been required to design stormwater design devices for offsite runoff that we had that aren't on our parcel. It's down at the bottom of the slope in order to capture all the runoff coming off our property as close as possible. It is, we've worked with the Highway Superintendent, and we had a couple of options. This was the one he felt most comfortable with. This was the one that required the least amount of work for him to extend the road, and with the way you see it now, he did not want to change the grade, the pitch. He's going to, you know, match it, pave it to the end, and allow us to build a rain garden within the right of way, similar to, you know, how you would have drywells and the wing swale, then it would capture stormwater runoff from any driveway that slopes going down. Most houses in the subdivision sit up higher than the road. Obviously there's only one place for that stormwater to go, down in the bottom of that driveway, and those devices are designed to capture that stormwater runoff. So that's similar, in a sense, to this structure and what we're trying to do with it. MR. JACKOSKI-In public comment, there was a discussion about the impermeable surface under the permeable surface. If that could be addressed. MR. CENTER-Yes. That's a standard detail on the design. We will change that. The grass, permeable grass pavers, if you look on Drawing Number Two, has a stabilization fabric underneath that's part of that drivable pavement device that stabilizes the soil. It has certain compaction requirements, certain design requirements. We will change that note on that drawing. It's not, it was an oversight when we put that detail on there, but we will correct that, and again, just to clarify, we have not put this in the calculations as permeable surface. We (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) have treated this the entire time as an impervious surface similar to asphalt. So, you know, it is being treated as an impervious surface, but yet it's designed as a permeable grass driveway. MR. JACKOSKI-Can you meet the criterion if you were to go back and do those calculations and not be that conservative and not have that rain garden ponds, whatever it is on Town property? MR. CENTER-Because of the slope you can't get capture in that permeable pavement. So that's, again, does it slow down the runoff rate coming down? Yes, it does have some effect on that. It's not the smooth surface as asphalt. It will get, on the smaller storms, it will get some capture, but, you know, overall, it's more of the pollutant removal and the filtering factor that you get out of a permeable grass driveway, which then, that stormwater ends, as you see at the very bottom of the driveway, right along the edge, there's a stone level spreader, which again filters the stormwater, takes it and spreads it out so it's not a point discharge directly into the pond, and then allows it to spill over into the rain garden. So we've got a couple of things going on before the stormwater coming off that driveway even gets to the rain garden, and then it gets to the rain garden, and when it gets to the rain garden, you've got the plant life that has some uptake of nutrients and things out of the stormwater. You have a filter media that it goes through before it gets to the final layer which is the infiltration portion or dispersal for the water out through the soil. So really it's kind of got three types of treatment in the pond itself, and then there's two other things that are occurring prior to the stormwater getting to the pond, and knowing that, we have these variances that we were going for, you know, we went for the most treatment as possible before it got to that pond. So, you know, the treatment train is quite long before it gets to the rain garden, knowing that we would have these variance issues to deal with. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board members like to address the applicant at this time? MR. KUHL-How about the drainage ditch that you pitched around the house. MR. CENTER-Can you call up that, Craig, on the PowerPoint real quick? Okay. Whenever you design stormwater, the stormwater is overland flow. That is a drainage swale. It's not a ditch. The ditch line that has traditionally been in the Appendix 5B that we've treated in the DOH section, is for the ditch line alongside of the road that is getting impervious surface that is running to it. Up here, on the Lands of Maynard here, he has some grading that goes around his, the septic system here. There's a small depression right here that captures some of the drainage that goes around, but there is no obvious drainage path coming down and over that, as if it were overtopping and putting material, stormwater material down the slope and coming down and eroding down the house. We looked at that. I purposely brought the Town Engineer up there to show him that, that the area that's upgradient really there is no overflow that comes down here and comes down this way. We've been conservative in the approach and included the entire area for one of the subcatchments to include all of this area that comes off here. I have not; I've been up there several times during rain events. There's been several heavy storms in the recent past. There's no obvious flow, stream, if you will, or anything that comes down over this area out of this small depression that's on the backside of this gentleman's septic system, but in essence when we build the septic system, you take overland flow, anything that would come off this slope and down here, and you'd direct it around the devices. It's grass, it's going to be brush, New England style lawn that's allowed to grow up. It's not going to be a mowed type surface where it's a smoother grass type that'll get channelized flow, but it's meant to keep stormwater that comes down these slopes away from the house, channel it around any well. The new well location to this swale is greater than 25 feet, as Mr. Klein requested the lower one, even though we feel it's not, there's no impervious, polluted water going through that ditch line, but we still kept the 25 feet with the new location of the well, and then it goes down and follows the natural path as it does now. Anything that comes down this slope follows the natural path down in this direction and off the site. MR. JACKOSKI-Craig, the public comment had a bit to do with was perceived as the incomplete application, in particular the stormwater management plan itself, our ability to reference that. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. JACKOSKI-What is your? MR. BROWN-What is my opinion on whether the application is complete with regards to whether you guys have the stormwater report or not? MR. JACKOSKI-Right. MR. BROWN-The stormwater report is reviewed by the Town Engineer. I'm not sure if anybody on the Board's reviewed a stormwater report, but probably 90% of that report is just a bunch of math that really talks about all the types of flows, the volumes, the watershed areas, and there's (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) really not a lot of, in my opinion, a lot of benefit from the stormwater report that you get from all that math. I think this map is a better indication of what they're doing on the site with regards to how they're going to control the stormwater and the structures and features they're using. I don't think you get any benefit from reading the stormwater report that you don't get from this plan. MR. JACKOSKI-And historically we've relied upon our Planning Board and Site Plan Review to more thoroughly review all of that detail. MR. BROWN-Absolutely. There really isn't anything in a stormwater report that you need variances from or if you don't have the report you need a variance for not having a report. There's really, it's typically not a document that's provided to the Zoning Board. There's really no information there for the Board. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other comments from the Board members at this time? MR. KUHL-Yes. The rain garden you're building outside the property, why didn't you move that closer to the house? MR. CENTER-You're talking this one right here? MR. KUHL-Yes, if you were just capturing your driveway. MR. CENTER-Because, we're capturing the driveway. We are, you know, everything slopes down to the end of the driveway. We're held to their back end to this point to the setback from the septic system. We have to provide some turn around capacity to get in and out of the residence there and capturing everything at the bottom was the easiest way to gather the stormwater to treat it through a filter. It's a more level location. We are actually building higher than the grade, and it was something that we sat down with the Highway Supervisor and said how we want to do this. We had something different that we first proposed. He did not like it. He was going to keep the elevation of the road, the existing elevation of the road the way it was. He asked us, you know, how can we treat this differently, and we ended up with coming at the end of the road, which actually gives a benefit to both parties for the snow that gets pushed off. MR. KUHL-Well, what about the volume of water that would come down from the road in heavy rains? MR. LAPPER-That's coming down anyway. MR. CENTER-That's coming down anyway, and it will be deflected out into here. We haven't designed it to capture this trench and take it into this pond. This is actually higher, on higher grade. It's built on the parcel, upslope. Any stormwater that would come down would actually, instead of coming out and going down this way, is actually going to go through this larger area of where the wetland is further back into the backside, or off the page, if you will. MR. LAPPER-We can't treat the neighbor's stormwater, but we can treat the Kitchens' stormwater. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I think it's time to poll the Board. MR. LAPPER-Jennifer just wanted to make a comment. JENNIFER KITCHEN MRS. KITCHEN-Yes, I would like to make a couple of comments. You know, it's been a year journey, frankly, on this property. The design you see is many iterations down the road. Taking into account multiple public comments and thoughts from around the neighborhood. I'm an engineer. My husband's an engineer. We do this for a living. We're both in regulatory compliance for extremely complex projects globally. This is what we do for a living. When we saw this parcel, we were aware of the neighbor and the neighbor's desire to cross that parcel to get into their own. We understand the politics on this particular parcel. We believe, you know, we could come up with an environmental solution to this parcel, meeting today's, actually it's above and beyond. These requirements are really meant for commercial and larger size developments. When I look at what we're trying to achieve here, I think we're very proud of what we're putting in front of you. Is it perfect, no lots are? That's why this one's a challenge, but it's doable. When you really look at Assembly Point and you look at all the houses along the road, water just sheds right directly into the lake. There's no buffer, there's no, right now salt's running right into the lake. They're plowing right into the lake. We're actually in a really unique spot. I know we want to treat the wetland. It's very important. It's critical. I think you can see 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) we're very serious about putting money and time and effort into this lot to do the right thing, but we can't be held to such extreme standards that nobody else complies with. So I would like you to look at the merit of the job, look at what we're trying to do, and really understand it's all been in good faith, and I understand and I share the same the same sentiments as the neighbor's do, but I think we're above and beyond. I'm working with the Town, the Town Engineers, working with the, you know, the Town Superintendent of roads and the DEC and the laundry list goes wild. It's been a year, and I think we really have done the homework, and I'm really proud of our team to do that, and I just wanted to say, you know, I appreciate the time and, you know, I appreciate everybody's comments, but you do, rubber has to meet the road eventually. So we can have public comment as long as we want and everybody's feelings about it, but really we have to look at it on its technical merits. So that's all I asked is that the ability to go through the various process with just as much protection of me as the applicant as we do with everybody else. So that's all I ask for is some fairness. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mrs. Kitchen. So I know Joyce doesn't want to go first. MRS. HUNT-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick, would you like to go first? MR. GARRAND-No, but I will. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. GARRAND-This is a really tough one. In such cases I like to look at the balancing test on this. I think the engineer's done a fabulous job on stormwater mitigation here, but at the same time we've got to look at one thing, this lot is going to be pretty much de-vegetated, and that vegetation is what soaks up a lot of the water in this area. It does have the potential to have harmful impacts on the neighborhood. The Staff here has quite eloquently stated that the relief is substantial to moderate for what they're requesting here. Also I'm looking at the fact that the infiltration, whereas it's supposed to be down to the frost level, isn't, but all in all, looking at the project, it's a tossup. Can benefits be achieved by other means feasible? The Water Keeper seems to think we can do that, that there are ways that benefits can be achieved. I'd like to know from him. Maybe he could get together with the applicant and find some way to reduce the level of variances that he thinks can be reduced. Will it produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood? None whatsoever. Is it substantial? Yes, as outlined by Staff. Will it have adverse environmental effects? It quite possibly could. At this point, with the de-vegetation of the property, I think we could run into a situation where we could have erosion in areas we never had it before. We could have groundwater, higher seasonal groundwater than we've ever had on the neighboring properties in this area. Is it self-created? Given what they have on this lot, I honestly don't think it's self-created. Looking at the balancing test, it's three out of five negative. MR. JACKOSKI-And? MR. GARRAND-Well, given it's three out of five negative, at this point I can't be in favor of it. I mean, it's close, but they've done a lot of mitigation here, a real lot of mitigation. I think they've done a really fabulous job of working with what they've got. MR. JACKOSKI-Do you believe the lot is buildable? MR. GARRAND-Actually, yes, I do think the lot is buildable. I just think that, you know, they're going overboard using Town property to mitigate some of what has to be done to make this a buildable lot. I mean, should the taxpayers be paying for, you know, a road? I mean, if the Highway Superintendent thinks the Town standards is two inches of top as they have outlined on that drawing, I mean, you know, that's a pretty substandard road. Also you figure that two inches of top, ten by ten area, is about a ton of material at about $95 a ton for materials. So the length of that road, do the math. It's quite a bit of money, but it's a lot less if he's going to build it to those standards. They've done a great job here designing this. I mean, they've got this stuff crammed in here. They've done everything they can to make this work for this size house. I just think the Water Keeper was right. It might, there might be a way to get this smaller. If not, we could be doing irreparable damage to this area. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-Thank you. This is difficult. I do think that this is a buildable lot. My first concern, I guess, was the size of the house, but you're not asking for a floor area ratio variance. So you're in compliance with that. You have taken away two of the variances that you were looking for. So it looks like you made some positive changes. I think you've done your due 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) diligence, as Rick said also, and I think you've done some service for the neighbors, and even for the Highway Department. Even though you're going to be working on some of that property, I think it's going to be to their benefit also. I think that what we have here is the rights of the property owner versus the concerns of the neighbors and the environmentalists, and in looking at the plan that you have, the length of time that you've taken to put this together, the answers that you've given to a lot of the questions and a lot of the questions that the neighbors had, at this point, I might like to see the house a little bit smaller, but I would say that I would vote in favor of this with the house with that size. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Thank you. I think your first request and your last, the next to last one, one and the foot and a half relief for the three feet vertical separation are too great, and the fact of using the right of way to capture, if the Water Keeper's got a better idea, that's where you should go. I'm not in favor of it the way it is now. I think it's a buildable lot. I think the house is a good size. It's just capturing the runoff. So I'm really not in favor of it the way it is. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I just want to back up a little bit and say something about why we're here, because we've heard a lot of comments made regarding the Code and following the Code and, you know, what we should be doing, and the ZBA, the Zoning Board of Appeals, exists as sort of a safety valve to make sure that we're not so, the Code's not so onerous that a property owner doesn't have a right to develop their property. At the same time, we have to be careful that we don't allow variances to exist that will do injury down the road, and I think when you're dealing with an area like this, I think we, yes, there are five variances that I count, still on the table. Some of them are substantial, as defined by Staff, and I think in this case we have to be extra careful and make sure we're making the right decision. Because once we go down this path, we could be doing irreparable damage to the area. So I would, I think you've come a long way. I know it's been a long process, but I think we have a little further to go on it, and that's where I would be at this point. I'm sort of neutral on it, but I would say, if I had to vote tonight, I would vote no, but I think there's room to approve this. MR. JACKOSKI-In your opinion it is a buildable lot? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I'm torn myself. I really listened to what the Water Keeper said, and I wonder if it is a buildable lot, and I would not be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay and I emphasize when we suggest that it's a buildable lot, that maybe it's a buildable lot, depending on each individual application. So I have concerns about the water management system being on Town property. I think I need some more clarification from Town that we can actually do that, that we can actually let an individual property owner actually locate on the Town property. I brought that to Staff's attention earlier today. I do have a concern with that. MR. LAPPER-We will get that documented. MR. JACKOSKI-As far as, I think it's great that the Highway Superintendent has found a way to work with you to try to capture some of that runoff coming off of that road. I think that that's a really important matter. That would certainly benefit that area. In general I think the lot, I think there's something that can be done there. I do appreciate your efforts in putting this together. It is a process. We're all trying to get through that process. I agree with Brian that we are here to be that check valve. That's what we're here for. We are the appellate board because the Code can't possibly apply to every single parcel in the Town, and that's why we're here, because we have that authority to take an individual look at properties when it's a unique situation. This is clearly unique. That water system that Shore Colony has there, the Town of Queensbury manages. That is a seasonal water supply. So that water is not available to this property year round. So I understand the need for the well, but I, too, am like Brian. I'm going to stay open on this, because my instinct is that you're going to come back to us with something that can maybe try and address the ownership issues with that particular water control device. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Does anyone on the Board want to add anything at this time? 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) MR. KUHL-Can I just ask a question? Somebody brought up 1954 or 1962 covenants that says you have to be 60 feet off the road. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. KUHL-Could we go through this whole process and then you get? MR. LAPPER-Well, here's my legal answer on that. The declaration of covenants is a private property matter. So it's not a Town matter, but we've counted that there are five other garages that are within 60 feet. So once a covenant is not enforced against somebody, the case law is that it's not going to be enforced against everybody because it hasn't been. MR. GARRAND-It's enforceable by the HOA, right? MR. LAPPER-Yes, but it's just not something that a court's going to enforce. Even if it's not enforced by the Town, but I believe, as a matter of law, that it wouldn't be enforced by the HOA, by a court, because other people have done it for many years, and in fact somebody's constructing one right now. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, we addressed this as Board months ago with Wilcox, and I think the argument was made, I don't remember by whom, that that garage language was intended for a standalone garage structure. What would the applicant like us to do at this time? MR. LAPPER-We would ask to table. We'll take all your comments into consideration, and we'll certainly get something documented about the use of the drainage within the Town right of way and we'll do what we can to tweak this and make this a little bit better. MR. JACKOSKI-And I think if you could address, if the turnaround on the property isn't necessary, if that is a way to reduce the driveway area. MR. LAPPER-We'll look at that. MR. JACKOSKI-Because this is a dead end road. You have to wonder if we really need to, I understand, maybe, is backing onto a highway illegal? MR. BROWN-Well, it's not a violation of Town Code, but it's probably a violation of DOT. MR. JACKOSKI-I don't know that answer. I assume the fire trucks, when they go down that end, have to back up the road, too, and I assume that the plow has to back up. MR. LAPPER-We might be able to back in to the driveway. We will certainly look at making this, maximizing the design to minimize the stormwater treatment. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Can I get a motion, please, to table this matter? MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2012 STEVE AND JENNIFER KITCHEN, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Tabled to the March 27th meeting with a deadline of February 15th before close of business for submissions. To allow the applicant to explore alternative site layout and to allow the applicant to document the allowability of use of the right of way for stormwater. Duly adopted this 16th day of January, 2013, by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-Is there a particular date, month, time, Jonathan? MR. LAPPER-I guess we would look to submit, what are the meeting dates in March? MR. BROWN-20th and 27tH MR. LAPPER-Could we schedule for the 27th MR. JACKOSKI-I can't tell you, Mr. Klein, if it will be complete, but I will tell you that the normal submission deadline is, Craig? MR. BROWN-The submission deadline is always the 15th of the month. MR. JACKOSKI-Is the 15th of February a weekend? 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) MR. BROWN-It's a Friday. MR. JACKOSKI-Friday, February 15th before the close of business here at the Town Center. Two questions by Mr. Brown. MR. BROWN-Do you want to get a second before you discuss it? Just two conditions that you probably want to put on it. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. So why don't we hear what you want to add and then we'll get a second to the amendment. MR. BROWN-I guess just to clarify the two conditions, to allow the applicant to, I guess, explore alternative site layout and to allow the applicant to document the allowability of use of the right of way for stormwater. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So we do have a motion. We do have the clarification that Staff has provided for us. Do I have a second? MRS. HUNT-Second. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Joyce. Any further discussion? Please call the vote. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-And, again, everyone, thank you for all of you who have attended. It's been a long evening, a long application hearing, but we greatly appreciate your time and energy on the matter. We're going to move right along, please, to the next application. AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2012 SEQRA TYPE I LARIC DEVELOPMENT AGENT(S) J. LAPPER, ESQ. & S. BITTER, ESQ. Bartlett Pontiff Stewart & Rhodes 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. 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 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-This matter is going to be tabled. We will open the public hearing, and do you want to read a short version into the record? Did we already read it into the record? Yes, twice, October and December. MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-So we're not going to necessarily read this application again into the record. Is there anyone here this evening, I have the public comment continuing open. Is there anyone here this evening who's here to address this Board concerning this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one here, I'll leave the public hearing open. We do have a request to table this matter to March 20th with an application deadline of February 15th. Can I have a motion to table? MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2012 LARIC DEVELOPMENT, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Tabled to March 20th with an application deadline of February 15th Duly adopted this 16th day of January, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Kuhl (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) MR. JACKOSKI-New Business. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 01-2013 SEQRA TYPE II LORI AND DAVID FLORIAN AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) LORI AND DAVID FLORIAN ZONING RR-3A/MDR LOCATION EAST SIDE OF TEE HILL ROAD, 0.5 MILES FROM BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES LOT LINE CHANGES TO SIX (6) EXISTING CONTIGUOUS PARCELS ON TEE HILL ROAD. PROPOSAL IS FOR A CLUSTER LAYOUT WITH ACCESS BY A NEW PRIVATE ROAD. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM LOT SIZE, WIDTH, DENSITY AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE RR-3A ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF SPR 1-2013 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 2013 LOT SIZE 17.44 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.7-2-7, 10, 15, 16, 1, 24 SECTION 179-4-030 MATT STEVES & LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 01-2013, Lori and David Florian, Meeting Date: January 16, 2013 "Project Location: East side of Tee Hill Road, 0.5 miles from Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes lot line changes to six (6) existing contiguous parcels on Tee Hill Road. Proposal is for a residential cluster development with access by a new private road. Relief Required: Lot 1 No relief necessary Lot 2 Lot width: 275' vs. 400' requirement Lot size: 2.08 ac vs. 3 ac requirement Lot 3 Lot width: 275' vs. 400' requirement Lot size: 2.00 ac vs. 3 ac requirement Lot 4 Lot width: 365' vs. 400' requirement Road frontage 0' vs. 400' requirement Lot 5 Lot width: 200' vs. 400' requirement Road frontage 0' vs. 400' requirement Lot 6 Lot width: 230' vs. 400' requirement Road frontage 0' vs. 400' requirement 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 are somewhat limited. The existing lot configurations would require similar variances to develop the lots. 3. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. The requested variances may be considered to be moderate requests 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. The current proposal for this property is roughly consistent with the 2010 Site Plan Review which called for the clearing and re-grading of these properties in order to develop in the future. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, SP 51-2010 Clearing and Grading of land in excess of'/ acre Approved 9/28/2010 SP 1-2013 Development within 50 ft of 15% slopes PB recommendation Pending 1/15/2013 Staff comments: The Rural Residential development; per Section: 179-4-010, D, (1), (b), [4] promotes the use of a shared driveway layout for subdivision development. While this is not a subdivision, an argument may be made that the use of a private drive to "increase flexibility of design" is a 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) reasonable proposal with this plan. The planned lot line changes seem to be a logical design to provide access to the existing, otherwise "landlocked" parcels. Planning Board recommendation will be provided at the meeting. SEAR Status: Type II-no further review required" MR. URRICO-And there was a Planning Board recommendation that said that, based on its limited review, that they have not identified any significant adverse effects that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was adopted on January 15, 2013, and it was a unanimous vote. MR. STEVES-Thank you. Matt Steves with VanDusen and Steves, for the record, representing Lori and David Florian, and Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering. As Staff has stated, this is property on the east side of Tee Hill Road, encompassing 17.44 acres. There was an existing six tax parcels, and the proposal is to basically reconfigure those tax parcels, as Staff Notes has stated, to a more usable, desirable (lost words) access and accommodate these lots. If you look at the lower drawing on the easel, that is the existing configurations of the six parcels, and the upper one would be the proposed configuration. There would be the existing house that is located on the south westerly corner will remain and would be increased on that lot to include the tax parcel up just to the north of it, to increase that existing home, and then create a private drive to access five new building sites, or five building sites that currently exist but in a new configuration. The access road would be in the, I'll let Luke speak to that a little bit. It would be 18 foot wide, and the rural character, it does have the turnaround provided for the fire access at 500 feet. It allows the lots to be developed. In particular, the way they currently exist, if you were to build on those lots, all but two would need setback variances, not only the road frontage variances because they're not on the road frontage, but they would also need setback variances. Just the two large ones in the back would be able to accommodate the current setback requirements, but with the new lot line reconfiguration, only two out of the five are going to require any type of a building setback variance. So the three larger lots in the back are going to be able to comply with the setback requirements of the zone, and again, the Planning Board didn't have any particular issues with it last night, but I would leave it open for any comments from this Board, and I'm here to answer any questions you may have. MR. JACKOSKI-It seems pretty straightforward, but any comments from Board members at this time? I see a lot of shaking heads. There's no comments? MR. GARRAND-The DEC submission, this information should not be substituted for onsite surveys that may be required. Has anybody done a survey of this property to see if there are any endangered species on this property? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. GARRAND-Le. Kamer blue butterfly, because the DEC says it cannot provide definitive stating the presence or absence of rare State listed species, natural or communities or other significant natural communities on this site. MR. JACKOSKI-Is this a typical habitat for the Kamer blue? MR. STEVES-Not that I'm aware of. MR. DOBIE-Not that I'm aware of, Mr. Chairman. I don't have the DEC letter with me, per se. As I understand the language, that's their typical, their attorney language, if you will, and the second half I believe, doesn't the first paragraph say that it's to have essentially no impact on known habitats? Is that what it says? MR. GARRAND-I've got it here. As per your e-mail August 19, 2011, 1 performed an endangered and threatened species determination for the above parcels off Tee Hill Road in the Town of Queensbury, Warren County. According to New York State Natural Heritage database, there are no known occurrences of rare or listed species, but nobody's done an actual survey out there? MR. STEVES-No. They typically don't do the surveys. This is probably Jed Hayden from DEC. MR. GARRAN D-Yes. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) MR. STEVES-Just like we had done on the DKC when we came in for the variance on the DKC project, the industrial park, on Carey Road, if they don't have any. MR. GARRAND-So they don't actually physically go out there at all? MR. STEVES-Not unless it's a known area for it, like along the power lines, against, like the properties on Sherman Avenue. MR. GARRAND-Yes, like where our appeal is for tonight. MR. STEVES-Where they know that there are existing habitats, and here what they do is they have, they went through in the Town years ago did an analysis with Marilyn Ryba of all the areas that had known existing habitat and existing Karner blue, not only habitat but actually the species involved, and that wasn't, and the entire Town was documented, and this was an area that was not identified as active habitat. So they keep it that way. That's just, as Lucas has stated, the typical disclaimer because of the fact that, you know, one could fly over the land there, you know, the next day and then they say we did the analysis but it wasn't there and today it is, they always put that in there. MR. GARRAND-Okay. I'm just not sure, because it's one of those few areas around Glen Lake I've never been to, and they didn't have the lupine or anything in there? MR. STEVES-No. It's not conducive pine barren like it is in the western portions of Queensbury, and I agree with you, but that is, I've talked to Jed Hayden numerous times on this and that's their standard letter for an area that has not had any type of habitat, never been identified as having the actual species in that area. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. MR. STEVES-Not a problem, and while we're on that subject as well, there was also the SHPO signoff on that, on this parcel as well at the time they came in for the grading plan for the site plan to re-grade this site, and with the current proposal, the grading plan actually stays fairly consistent with that, but actually it's reduced slightly and considerably against the southerly border, so that it ends up with a lot more of a buffer area that will not be graded during the subdivision grading plan, as compared to the original grading plan that was approved. MR. GARRAND-Topography must have cost you a fortune. MR. KUHL-Matt, this S-3, is this the way it is today, your S-3 print, it's the topography map, after you split it up? MR. STEVES-The S-3 is the topography with the proposed layout. MR. KUHL-So that's not the way I looked at it today? MR. STEVES-That is the way you looked at it today. That's the existing. MR. KUHL-Isn't the SP-2 with the houses on it. MR. STEVES-That's with the grading plan, yes. MR. KUHL-The grades are different, right? MR. STEVES-Yes, that's the proposed grading. MR. KUHL-Okay. What's in between? MR. DOBIE-The topography, sir, on Sheet S-3 is as it sits today. MR. KUHL-Right, well, shouldn't there be one the way you're going to lay it out before you build the houses? MR. STEVES-You mean the grading plan before the houses? MR. KUHL-Yes. MR. STEVES-No. With a subdivision, we like to do the grading plan that's going to be consistent with the structures that are going to be placed on these lots, because there's really a site specific location for these houses and septics. So it's really a grading plan that lends itself 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) to do it at the same time, and you're required, under your Planning Board review, to have a grading and drainage plan for subdivisions, and in this instance with the larger lots and the varying topography on the site, you really have to have a grading plan in place for the particular lots. MR. KUHL-I have a question, Craig. Does that inspector go out and look at that before they start building, our inspector? MR. BROWN-Typically not, we do inspections throughout development of the project at certain times. At certain times if there's key things that are going to be, you know, covered up or buried or installed on the ground, we want to inspect before they cover them up. Typically the project engineer is going to go out and do that, too. Just for clarification, this isn't a subdivision. So there isn't going to be a subdivision plan or, you know, anything submitted or reviewed by the Planning Board. This project will require coverage under the New York State SPDES because they're going to be disturbing more than an acre, and part of that plan they'll have to develop erosion control stormwater devices. They'll have to develop that plan and get coverage to do that. So, they're going to do those things. MR. KUHL-But effectively they could do it lot by lot and not the whole in total before they start. MR. BROWN-That's correct, yes, and I would anticipate that's what they're going to do. MR. STEVES-Not entirely. The proposal, because of the common driveway, it's really a private road. So a substantial amount of grading would be done at the time that the driveway is put in, and during the stormwater requirements from DEC, as you had stated, there would be continuing weekly inspections during construction by the design engineer that have to be met and by DEC to be met and like I say Luke can talk more about that as the design engineer on the project, but a substantial amount of this grading will be done during the construction of the private road, and the private road will be completed before the houses are built, or the lots are built on. MR. KUHL-You're saying the driveway which is the road you're calling private road is it called a driveway by the documentation? MR. STEVES-It's called a private road. MR. KUHL-A private road, is that what you're going to call it? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. KUHL-That'll be done first, is what you're saying? MR. GARRAND-You're going to plow it and everything? MR. DOBIE-Yes, sir. MR. GARRAND-A lot of people don't do that, plow their driveways. They call them driveways but they're roads, and they don't plow them. MR. STEVES-No, this will be maintained by the five lot owners and then divvied up accordingly and then there'd be a maintenance agreement for that private road. Absolutely. We'll put it out to bid if anybody here would be willing to plow. MR. JACKOSKI-We're going to continue the public hearing. I'd like to continue the public hearing that was advertised for this evening. Is there anyone here this evening who would like to address this Board concerning this particular application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one, is there any additional written comment, Roy? MR. URRICO-No. MR. JACKOSKI-No additional public comment. At this time we'll poll the Board, and we'll start with Roy. MR. URRICO-Yes. I think it's been explained very well. I think the application has explained everything that needs to be explained. I would be in favor of it. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I think using your balancing test, the benefit, whether it could be achieved by some other means, I guess it could, but there will be no undesirable change in the neighborhood character or properties. The request is substantial but it's not out of line with what the Burnt Hills subdivision is, and it's self-created only in the fact they want to develop the property. I would be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Joyce. Rick? MR. GARRAND-This project, I don't think in any way, shape or form changes the character of the neighborhood, and that's one of the most important things this Board should consider when we consider any project. We do not want to change the character of a neighborhood. I mean, if they came in here and proposed something with a lot more density that would change the character of the neighborhood. This will not. I'm with Joyce on this. I'm in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I'd also be in favor. I think that the layout here that they have for the lots, those are, most of them, they're much larger than most of the other lots around there. I think it's a good application. So I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I think it's a good use of the land. I'm in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm in agreement with my fellow Board members. So would anyone like to put forth a motion for us? I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. HUNT-I'll make a motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Joyce. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-2013 LORI AND DAVID FLORIAN, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: East side of Tee Hill Road, 0.5 miles from Bay Road. The applicant proposes lot line changes to six existing contiguous parcels on Tee Hill Road. Proposal is for a cluster development with access by a new private road. The relief required: Lot One, no relief; Lot Two, lot width is 275 versus the 400 requirement; Lot Three, lot width 275 versus the 400 requirement; Lot Four, lot width 365 versus the 400 foot requirement; Lot Five, lot width 200 versus 400 foot requirement; Lot Six, lot width 230 versus 400 foot requirement. Lot size: Lot One, 2.08 versus 3 acre requirement; Lot Two, two acre versus the three acre requirement; Lot Four, road frontage zero versus 400 requirement; Lot Five, road frontage zero versus the 400 requirement; and Lot Six road frontage zero versus the 400 requirement. In making the determination, the Board shall consider whether an undesirable change will be produced and minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. Feasible alternatives are somewhat limited. The existing lot configurations would require small variances to develop lots. The requested variances may be considered moderate relative to the Code. The current proposal for this property is roughly consistent with the 2010 site plan review which called for clearing and re-grading of these properties in order to develop them in the future. The difficulty may be considered self-created. I move that we approve Area Variance No. 1-2013. Duly adopted this 16th day of January, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Thank you very much. MR. STEVES-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 02-2013 SEQRA TYPE II HAYES AND HAYES AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) HAYES & HAYES, LLC ZONING NR LOCATION DIXON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A RESIDENTIAL THREE-LOT SUBDIVISION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF EITHER DUPLEXES OR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS. RELIEF (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) REQUESTED FROM THE REQUIRED 500 FT. SETBACK OF T HE IHOD (INTERSTATE HIGHWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT). CROSS REF SUB 1-2013; SPR 80-2010 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 2013 LOT SIZE 8.47 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.14-1-79.2 SECTION 179-4-035C JON LAPPER & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. GARRAND-Due to a potential conflict of interest, I'm going to recuse myself. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 02-2013, Hayes and Hayes, Meeting Date: January 16, 2013 "Project Location: Dixon Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a residential 3-lot subdivision for construction of single family dwellings. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Relief requested from the required 500 foot setback of the IHOD-Interstate Highway Overlay District. The entire project site is within this overlay district. 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. The proposed lots appear to be consistent with existing single family parcels in the immediate area. 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 for subdivision are limited. Alternatives to developing the land in question may include the construction of an additional duplex. 3. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. The closest point of the proposed lots is the southwesterly corner of lot 2 which is approximately 170 ft. from the limits of 1-87. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minimal impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood are anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. The adoption of the Interstate Highway Overlay District was after the applicant's purchase of the property and during the approval of the duplex project currently existing on the site. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, SUB 1-2013: 3 lot residential subdivision Planning Board recommendation scheduled 1/15/13 SP 80-2010: 7 duplexes. Land disturbance in excess of 0.25 +/- acres in the NR zone requires Planning Board review and approval 5-17-11 Staff comments: The proposed subdivision to create two single family dwellings on the frontage along Dixon Road does not appear to be inconsistent with the existing residential development in this area. Planning Board recommendation will be provided to the Board at the meeting. SEAR Status: Type I I-no further review required" MR. URRICO-The Planning Board recommendation, based on its limited review, they did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) proposal, and that was adopted January 15, 2013. AYES were Mr. Ferone, Schonewolf, Traver, Krebs, Magowan, and Hunsinger and NOES was Mr. Sipp. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, and welcome. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, again, with Tom Center, again, and Mickie Hayes. MR. JACKOSKI-And, Mr. Lapper, if I just might, I'm not sure that the record picked up, but Mr. Garrand has recused himself due to a conflict of interest, and he has stated as such. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Thank you. This project site was the subject of a lengthy review at the Planning Board when the Hayes built the seven duplex units that exist now to the south of what's proposed, and at that time we discussed and disclosed that the density for this property allowed for two more units, and in those hearings the issue with the neighbors was primarily that that were concerned about the change in the character of the neighborhood for rental units rather than single family ownership units. We were able to convince the Planning Board and I think ultimately most of the neighbors that this site was well buffered, that it was set back and that the Hayes were going to build high end units that would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, and it was approved, but we did hear, in those public comments, that people talked about the Dixon Road frontage, the fact that Dixon Road is single family homes, and what we heard was that there was a preference that if something was going to be built on Dixon Road, it should be single family rather than rental. What's proposed are two single family homes which would be for sale, rather than the, building a duplex which would be kept by the Hayes and rented, which is in the back. We felt when we applied that if there was a lot of neighborhood opposition, there's nothing wrong with them building duplexes. They would have eight instead of seven, but the proposal is to do two single family houses. That requires the three lot subdivision, the two lots to develop and sell, and then the remaining lot in the back which wouldn't change, in terms of the configuration that's already there. One of the comments in Staff Notes was whether this was self-imposed. Our argument is that because they purchased this in 2002, before the 500 foot interstate overlay, that it isn't self-imposed because they bought it before that was the law, but that law doesn't prohibit residential development. It prohibits subdivision. So, it doesn't say that they can't build a duplex. It just says that they can't subdivide. So we're seeking relief from that provision with the argument that it's better for the character of the neighborhood to build as proposed two single family homes rather than one duplex which doesn't require a variance, and that's really the whole story. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. KUHL-When you went through all that (lost words) duplexes, you stated that you were going to build a duplex up there. Right? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. So my memory is right. MR. LAPPER-And do you have a building permit or, no? No, but we did discuss it. MR. KU H L-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-And during that discussion there was no restrictions put on subdividing the larger parcel, correct? Well there's nothing in the Planning Board, there was no restrictions at all on what would happen up front, but the restriction is under the new Town Code. MR. JACKOSKI-So that's part of that mutual? MR. LAPPER-Yes, there's not a restriction in the approval from the Planning Board. MR. BROWN-Yes, there was a condition put on that Planning Board approval, but it said if it's going to be subdivided in the future that they have to go through the approval process, which is what they're doing right now. MR. JACKOSKI-Any discussion with Board members? MR. URRICO-1 have a question for Staff. When we look at the criteria and we see difficulty may be considered self-created, but the property, the adoption of the New York State Highway Overlay District was after they purchased it. So why would it be considered self-created? 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) MR. BROWN-I guess I may have left a word out there. Not. Sorry, I didn't proofread my work very well. I meant, obviously if you read the rest of the comment there, it leads you to believe that it's probably not self-created. So, yes, there's words missing there. MR. LAPPER-Thanks for clarifying. MR. KUHL-Mr. Hayes, what size houses are you going to build on this property? MR. HAYES-What I would consider moderate, and I think moderate is probably a little smaller than what moderate was five or six years ago. So it's probably in the neighborhood of 15 to 18, 1900 square foot price range. The market seems to uptick a little bit to be honest with you, but it's still not great, but Kensington School District is a draw. The locations, a draw, so I'd probably say that $200,000 to the $240,000 class would be the house that would go on these lots, and we've had some people that have expressed interest, which kind of brought this up at this time. They'd showed inclinations to want to maybe do a house on one of these lots, which in the old days I would put that as money in the bank, but now with the mortgage stuff, nothing's guaranteed if somebody says they want, it's a harder process to get people to the finish line, to be honest with you. So housing is still sketchy. (Lost words) as far as the rental, we have a waiting list. It's a good place to live, Dixon Road. So to be honest with you, I think it'll be very, the houses would be attractive. They're not, these aren't luxury houses by any stretch, but they're not starter homes either. They're probably something in between. MR. KUHL-What are you saying, 15 to 1700 square feet? MR. HAYES-Yes, maybe 18. One of the people we were talking, they were looking at 18. I'd say 15 to 18, and that seems to be the sweet spot in today's world, which 2,000 to 2400 was the sweet spot back in 2005, 2006. Things have definitely changed as far as people's perspective on housing for sure. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. KUHL-Thank you. MR. CLEMENTS-1 think more people are downsizing. MR. HAYES-That's what they say, then they say we can't fit our furniture in this room. MR. JACKOSKI-Are there going to be turnarounds, or are they going to be backing on to Dixon Road? MR. HAYES-No, there's a shared drive because of a car because of the collector road, and they'll make it so there'll always be like a T so they'll be able to pull in and go out that way, because the road is a relatively busy road, but they're going to be set off the road I'd say probably the way they're showing the plan it's probably going to be somewhere between 75 to 100 feet. So the driveway is going to be quite lengthy. MR. LAPPER-But they're not showing turnarounds. MR. HAYES-No. MR. LAPPER-So you would add a turnaround. MR. HAYES-If that's what they wanted that, sure. MR. LAPPER-Do a three way, three point turn. MR. JACKOSKI-I just think backing onto Dixon Road is. MR. HAYES-Yes, that's not a good idea. It has to be under certain times of the day. MR. JACKOSKI-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I'd like to open the public hearing. Is there anyone here this evening who'd like to address the Board concerning this application? Ma'am, if you wouldn't mind. Welcome. Thank you for being so patient. I know you've been sitting there a long time. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CAROL LA POINT 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) MS. LA POINT-That's okay. Well, no, it really isn't. My name is Carol La Point, and I just have one question. Why, if we have a 500 foot from the Northway, why are we allowing more in that area right there? Now we've put how many families out there now that are in health risk and I just don't see putting any more people out there, when we know already from the surveys and the studies and everything that there is a risk for the people living there. That's all I want to know why, and why we're back here again because we do have that 500 foot overlay. Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, and we can get the applicant to address that. MS. LA POINT-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Garrand, do you want to speak? Did you raise your hand for public comment? MR. GARRAND-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Mr. Strough. JOHNSTROUGH MR. STROUGH-John Strough, Queensbury. First I'd like to convey to you Mrs. Monthie, who was the landowner most directly affected by this because the proposal was adjacent to her backyard, she wanted me to convey to you that this is a detrimental impact to her. The current development is already a negative detrimental impact to her. That the buffer that was promised between her and the other development never was built that way. Some of the trees that were put there were poor quality and are dead, and so she's opposed to the project and I told her I would convey that to you, but again, a little history on the project. I mean, back when, a project similar to what was proposed got Pos decked, and then this project went through. Loopholes in the law, what have you. It certainly was the opinion of many that this development was it. There would be no further development. What they were proposing is, according to the opinion of many, that was it, but they're adding to it. In a way you could argue segmenting, and it certainly meets the criteria of segmenting, if it was a SEAR situation, but the situation that's before us now is for a variance from 179-4-035, the law. The law that was based on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan adopted in 2007. Here's what the plan says. The Town Board should evaluate creating a 1,000 foot buffer zone along the Adirondack Northway within which new residential subdivisions would be prohibited. Residential development in close proximity to the Northway is generally considered to be unsafe and unhealthy, especially for children, and exposes those living there to noise, hydrocarbon pollutants, dust, other particles, vibration, and potential hazardous material situations. That was based on a lot of public comment. That's what the public wanted, and it was based on a lot of studies that prove the same to be true. So the Town adopted a law. Here's what the law says. The purpose and we adopted this on January 28, 2011. The Town of Queensbury has evaluated residential development in close proximity to the Adirondack Northway and concluded that such development may be generally considered to be unsafe and unhealthy especially for children and may expose those living there to noise, hydrocarbon pollutants, dust, and other particles. B, designated area, lands located within 500 feet of the bounds of the right of way of the Adirondack Northway shall be considered to be within this overlay district. The limits of such district are shown on the Town zoning map. This project's included in that, and, C, regulations within the Interstate Highway Overlay District, there shall be no new residential subdivision, and it's clear, shall be no new of land. Existing residences may be enlarged or expanded and existing vacant lots may be developed provided there is no subdivision of land. That's what the law says. Like I said, and I'll repeat, the law was created based on studies, based on public input, and it's very clear. There shall be no new residential subdivision. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. This evening is there anyone else that would like to address our Board? Sir? Welcome. JIM ROUND MR. ROUND-Hi. Jim Round, 34 Pershing Road. I thought in the original stipulation of the property when it was approved for the seven duplexes, that there would be no subdivision, that was part of the, there would be a no cut zone behind the property, and there would be no subdivision allowed of this property. MR. BROWN-Is that a question? MR. ROUND-Yes, that's a question. I thought that was the wording of how it was. 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) MR. BROWN-That was a question that came up during our Staff review of it, and that's not what's in the Planning Board resolution. The condition of approval, as I stated before, is, it says if there's going to be any future development, I don't have it in front of me, future development or subdivision of this property that that development go through the requirements that are in place at the time. There's no subdivision requirement on, there was no no subdivision approval on that approval. MR. ROUND-So if we allow this subdivision, can they come back in the future and try to subdivide the additional three or four acres that are behind this property? MR. BROWN-Well, can they come back and try? They can always come to this Board and ask for permission. Do they have the density to do that? No, they don't have any density left to have any more lots. They're not entitled to any more dwelling units on the property. MR. ROUND-Okay. So if they build on two more homes on this property, or a duplex. MR. BROWN-They have no more density left. MR. ROUND-Okay. MR. BROWN-That's it. MR. ROUND-If they don't get the subdivision, do they have to look for a variance to build a duplex on this property based on the setback? MR. BROWN-They do not. Well, I don't know about the setback where the house is going to be placed. You mean the 500 foot setback? MR. ROUND-Yes. MR. BROWN-No, that's strictly for subdivision only. So I think that's why they're here, and I don't want to argue their case for them, but they don't need a setback variance to do a duplex. It's only for subdivision. It's not for development. It's for subdivision. That's the way it's written. MR. ROUND-So what would be the approval process if they came for, and said we want to put another duplex on this property? MR. BROWN-Site Plan Review with the Planning Board. MR. JACKOSKI-Not this Board. MR. BROWN-Yes, they wouldn't even have to come to this Board, unless there's a setback variance from a property line, but it looks like there'd be enough room to put a duplex on without a setback variance. MR. KUHL-So you kind of have to ask yourself, is this a good use of the land. MR. JACKOSKI-Or in keeping with the neighborhood that close to Dixon Road. MR. ROUND-Well, it wasn't the right use of the property to begin with, in my opinion, my humble opinion, you know, the way it went through was quite interesting. MR. JACKOSKI-I wasn't here then. MR. ROUND-Yes, it was quite interesting, and now we're here back again, looking at this, and, you know, as someone in the neighborhood, should never have started this way, and basically we are where we are because of some of the things that went on. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. ROUND-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone else who'd like to address the Board? MARILYN HERRICK MRS. HERRICK-I'd like to say one thing to you, please. MR. JACKOSKI-Of course. Sure, please, we'll try to listen carefully. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) MRS. HERRICK-I just feel that I have to say that the character of that neighborhood has changed because of what they put in there. I mean, there are people that are sitting in their living rooms and they look out their window and there's a house in their backyard. They are so close to those homes. It's awful. The property value will go down. The quality of life has been destroyed. So many negatives. I don't want to see any more houses there. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Ma'am, what was your name again, please? MRS. HERRICK-My name is Marilyn Herrick. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Marilyn Herrick. So just for the record, Ms. Herrick was concerned about the character of the neighborhood changing due to the earlier development on the property. Is that fair to say? Thank you. I'm going to leave the public hearing open. Is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-1 didn't see any in here. No. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Lapper, obviously the most important thing for me to understand is you and your applicant's thoughts about Mr. Strough's comments. Maybe not the first one, the second one. MR. LAPPER-The law didn't prohibit development. It prohibited subdivision and it just, it seems to us, and maybe we haven't said it, but that it would be better for the neighbors to have single family homes rather than rental apartments or rental duplex. Because the rest of Dixon Road is all single family, and these two homes would buffer, if you will, the rental apartments that are in the back. We think that they were done expensively and tastefully. Neighbors picked the color. It's a successful project, but it seems that this would act to enhance the single family neighborhood by allowing them to build two houses, rather than to build a duplex, and, you know, if the intent was to stop development, it probably wasn't approved that way because perhaps that would be a regulatory taking and that would be expensive to say no houses or no development within 500 feet of the Northway. So this was probably a way to back off of that and say no subdivision, and I presume that it meant no subdivisions, no big land development, but there's density that exists for two units, and the real question, is it more appropriate for the neighborhood to build single family homes or to build one duplex, and we think it's better for the neighborhood and obviously for the applicant to build two homes. MR. JACKOSKI-And I normally don't do this, but for those of you who have spoken or, I mean, the question for us in our balancing, is putting aside the subdivision restriction, does the character of the neighborhood, to the neighbors, would the prefer to see the allowed duplex or would they prefer to see two separate single family homes fronting on Dixon Road? MRS. LA POINT-I can't speak for any of the other people on the street, I really can't. I have no objection to the Hayes boys whatsoever, but I think that when it says you cannot put somebody near the Northway or any interstate, that you should pay attention to that, and I thought that the Board had when we were here. I really thought that they said that (lost words). MR. ROUND-I'd prefer to see two single family homes there that are sold. That is not owned by the Hayes brothers. That is more in character with the neighborhood. I would like to see a compromise, a single family home, one, and an adequate buffer. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Certainly there are things to discuss, and I mean, I normally don't go back to the public and ask, but I think it's important to get your input to try to figure out what we're going to try to accomplish here. We do have the public hearing still open. The applicant is at the table. Do you want to address some of the other matters, Jonathan? Would you like to try to address some of that sentiment? MR. LAPPER-One comment. Just that the neighbors on Hughes Court are also within 500 feet of the Northway. So we're not doing anything that doesn't already exist, and in terms of the buffer issue, I always try to compromise with John Strough, and it's made a lot of projects successful. I think given the choice of one single family house or two duplexes, you'd probably build the duplex, but we certainly can offer a lot of buffer. MR. HAYES-Well, I just wanted to point out to, I'm not sure if the crowd knows this, Tom just pointed out to me. We still have to go through Site Plan Review for this project for the lots, for the buffers, the separations, and all that. This is, we still have to go through the scrutiny of the Planning Board after this. As far as providing a buffer, we'll be providing a buffer up to the duplexes on both sides and to the houses, too, on the side. (Lost words) will be glad to do that, and that's whatever the Planning Board deems would be necessary then we'll be glad to do that. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) As far as the health risk issues and stuff, I believe that if an adult buys a house where they buy it, everybody, they make that decision for themselves where they want to live. That's my belief in America that you should be able to choose where you live, and if people choose to buy that house or not, that's their choice, not for somebody else to decide if that's appropriate for them or not. That's just my personal belief on that, but if you have any other questions. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I can say that normally I try to differentiate us from the Planning Board, not put in stipulations that might be Planning Board oriented, but in this case, because of the 500 feet and what we're trying to accomplish in order to make everyone happy, I think that that becomes part of what might be some of our motion. MR. HAYES-I agree. MR. JACKOSKI-At least in my opinion. I can't speak for the entire Board. MR. HAYES-If you want to enhance it beyond what the Code, that's fine. MR. KUHL-Could I just ask that question. Could they build a single family house on that without anything,just a building permit? MR. BROWN-No. They'd have to create a separate parcel to do that, which is subdivision. MR. KUHL-They were approved for an eighth building on there, originally. Correct? MR. LAPPER-The density allows it. MR. BROWN-No. The density allows it. The density allows for two more dwelling units, whether it's one duplex or two single family homes. MR. URRICO-So just to review; right now what we have is one lot with seven duplexes. MR. BROWN-With one roughly eight acre parcel. MR. URRICO-Right. MR. BROWN-With seven duplexes. MR. URRICO-And the subdivision will divide this into three lots, duplexes on one lot and then two single family homes on the other two lots. MR. BROWN-That's correct. MR. URRICO-If you don't get this, you still have the option of building the duplex? MR. HAYES-Or two houses and rent the two houses. MR. BROWN-I don't think that's a viable option on the property. MR. URRICO-Would you consider, Mr. Strough mentioned the buffer not being adequate on the backside. Would you consider taking a look at that and see what you can do as far as buffering the buffer a little bit? MR. HAYES-Absolutely, and the buffer concerning the existing duplexes was it was inspected by Staff and in fact it does exceed that, and if there's any issues, the Staff would like us to rectify or enhance, we're always, that's no problem as far as we're concerned. MR. URRICO-Look at the trees there that may be dying. MR. HAYES-Exactly. MR. JACKOSKI-Do you know why it hasn't been maintained? MR. HAYES-Well, to be honest with you, there's probably 30 to 40% more trees than were approved, the actual, the reality is that the thing, to be honest with you, Bob Podnorski's nursery on Luzerne Road, which will be in front of you guys and we've actually planted 100 to 150 more trees and shrubs than were required by us probably because of that reason. So that actually the situation is if the Town or the Staff determines that something's not healthy or whatever, we'll be glad to take care of it. I think he's concerned about the buffer. 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) MR. JACKOSKI-Well, it's always nice not to have to have the Town enforce it and take it upon yourself to make sure that it is there. MR. BROWN-Yes and I guess just for the record, between multi-family and single family residential, which the multi-family would be the duplex lot that they're proposing, and the two single family lots on Dixon Road, there are a required buffer per our Zoning Code, between those three parcels. So they have to maintain, I think, it's a 20 foot buffer. There is not a required buffer between the single family lots and Mrs. Monthie's lot, but it sounds like they would offer that during the subdivision review and the Planning Board would probably require that. So there's some that's required and some that's not. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, any other questions from Board members before I poll the Board? The public hearing is still open. Ron, would you like to start? MR. KUHL-Yes. Thank you. I think it's a good use of the land; I do, to build 15 to 1700 square foot houses, rather than leave it empty, or rather than put duplexes there. I realize what the law says, but I'd be in favor. I think it's a good use of the property. MR. JACKOSKI-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-1 also would be in favor. I think it's a viable option. I think that single family houses would, the neighbors would like that better. You've reacted to the, or addressed the current buffer and the dead tree situation. So I'd be for it. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I'm going to go along with everybody else. I think this is a viable project. I would add, I'm still having difficulty with the self-created part because I think the difficulty is self- created, rather than not, because that overlay district does exist now and the application is now. So I just wanted to go on record as saying that, but I would still be in favor of it, and I think if you can review that buffer situation and strengthen it, I think it would go a long way in mitigating the concerns of the neighborhood. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I'd go along with my fellow Board members. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm totally torn on this. I don't want to violate the big picture, and if we created a two lot subdivision here for one single family house, we're still violating that requirement. I would like to see us put an extensive amount of conditions to, not only shield these two future parcels that are going to be sold from what's out back, but as much as we can the neighbors to the east. I'm torn. I mean, it certainly seems we have enough votes to move forward. MR. LAPPER-There's one lot, Steve, to the east. This is Monthie. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, but there's also that other lot that just barely touches. I mean, she owns both lots. That's right. It's my Planning Board desire, that big picture, I just, it's there for a reason. MR. LAPPER-I think the Hayes are willing to agree as a condition to put in a serious buffer along the Monthie lots. MR. JACKOSKI-Is that something we, as a Board, can communicate, or do we want to leave it up to our Planning Board members or? MR. CLEMENTS-1 think that if you want to put some conditions on it, maybe we better know what they are before we decide we're going to vote on it. MR. JACKOSKI-You've got an approval already, even if I voted no. MRS. HUNT-Well, I have a question. Why are these two lots considered a subdivision? Why couldn't they be two separate lots? Then there would be no problem. MR. JACKOSKI-It's one large eight acre parcel. MRS. HUNT-Okay. MR. HAYES-And if somebody purchased it, they'd have to be able to get clear title, because they'd actually own that piece of land. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) MRS. HUNT-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-I struggle with this balance because I know the duplex can go right up front there, right? MR. HAYES-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-And I'm not thrilled with that duplex sitting there, and that's what's hanging over our head, and do we protect the character and shield this development from being any closer to the road with the avoidance of a duplex, and you wouldn't be happy with a two lot subdivision with one single family house. MR. HAYES-1 would say honestly, no. One point to bring up is the fact if we did another duplex, there wouldn't be the screening required between the duplexes. So you're going to, the result would have the most screening for the Code and for the salability of the houses as well. It's actually better for both, the more appealing it's going to be to actually the potential purchaser as well as screening the neighbors. MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, I've closed the public hearing if somebody wants to make a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-2013 HAYES & HAYES, Introduced by Brian Clements who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Dixon Road. The applicant proposes a residential two lot subdivision for construction of single family dwellings. Relief required: The parcel would require area variances as follows: The relief requested from the required 500 foot setback of the IHOD Interstate Highway Overlay District. The entire project site is within this Overlay District. In making the determination, the Board shall consider, One, 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 variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. Number Two, 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 for subdivision are limited. Number Three, whether the area variance is substantial. The request is not substantial. Number Four, whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district. Minimal impacts may be anticipated. Number Five, whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. I feel that the difficulty was not self-created, and I move for approval. Including at least a Type B Buffer to the east. Also, three point turn capability on each individual lot. Duly adopted this 16th day of January, 2013, by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-I do have a motion without any conditions. Is there a second? MRS. HUNT-Second. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any discussion? MR. KUHL-I thought we were going to put some conditions on the buffer? MR. JACKOSKI-What would we like to say, or does the applicant have any proposed language? MR. HAYES-Proposed buffer tree buffer, if you'd like to say that you'd like to see, exceed what the Code is. MR. JACKOSKI-I don't believe there's any Code, is there? MR. BROWN-There's definitely a Code requirement between, again, the proposed two single family lots and the duplex multi-family development. There's no requirement between, on the east side. So you could, I guess if you're looking for language you could say, at a minimum, a Type B buffer to the east, and then if the Planning Board wants to be more restrictive, they can certainly exceed that if they want to. MR. JACKOSKI-So can we amend the motion to say including at least a Type B buffer on the east line and the west line? (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) MR. BROWN-The west line I guess they have to anyway because that's a different use parcel. It's going to be a U shaped buffer around the. MR. HAYES-How wide is Type B, Craig? MR. LAPPER-Twenty feet. MR. BROWN-Twenty. MR. JACKOSKI-And while they're looking up the current side setback, is anyone concerned about the turnarounds? Do we want to make that a condition of approval that they have to arrange for being able to drive out onto Dixon Road? MR. LAPPER-Three point turn. MR. JACKOSKI-I think because we're doing a subdivision and we are creating more driveways on, more vehicle access onto, could we have an amendment to the motion to include three point turn capability on each individual lot, as a condition of approval? Is there any further discussion? MR. CLEMENTS-You have a condition now? MR. JACKOSKI-The condition is that they have a three point turnaround on each lot and that they do at least a Type B buffer on the east line, if it meets what Mr. Center's looking up. MR. CENTER-There's enough room to do the turnaround. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. We have a motion that has been amended. MR. CLEMENTS-I'll agree to the motion as amended. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Brian. Would you call the vote, please. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements NOES: Mr. Jackoski ABSENT: Mr. Garrand MR. JACKOSKI-Sorry. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-You know I hate voting no. Okay. Thank you, folks. MR. HAYES-Thank you. MR. JAC KOSKI-Appreciate it. AREA VARIANCE NO. 03-2013 SEQRA TYPE II SAM MARANVILLE OWNER(S) SAM MARANVILLE ZONING MDR LOCATION 679 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 296 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF BP 2012-556 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1 ACRE TAX MAP NO. 315.6-2-13 SECTION 179-4-030 SAM MARANVILLE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 03-2013, Sam Maranville, Meeting Date: January 15, 2013 "Project Location: 679 Corinth Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a 295 sq. ft. residential addition. Relief Required: Applicant seeks 3.33 ft. of relief from the 25 ft. minimum side yard setback requirement of the MDR zoning district. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) 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 given that the addition has been constructed; however, there appears to be ample area on the site for compliant construction. 3. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. 3.33 ft. of relief from the 25 ft. requirement or 13% relief may be considered minor to moderate relative to the code requirements. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minimal impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood are anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, BP 2012-556 295 sf. residential addition -- Pending Staff comments: The constructed addition has been added to the home in a logical and, what would appear to be, the easiest location. Applicant is seeking a waiver from the survey map requirement. An engineer stamped drawing was submitted. SEAR Status: Type I I-no further review required" MR. JACKOSKI-Hello. MR. MARANVILLE-Hi. MR. JACKOSKI-We'll try to be easy on you. MR. MARANVILLE-Thank you very much. I'm nervous as hell. MR. JACKOSKI-Not to worry. We won't bite, and we do know this is an after the fact matter. MR. MARANVILLE-Excellent. MR. JACKOSKI-So do you want to add anything, or do you want us to just ask questions? MR. MARANVILLE-I'm better at answering questions than making statements. MR. JACKOSKI-That usually is the case when you're not used to doing this. So do any of the Board members have any questions at this time for the applicant? MR. GARRAN D-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Garrand. MR. GARRAND-How did you get caught? MR. MARANVILLE-Actually, Mr. Hatin showed up when I was at work and my wife answered the door. They said he just drove by and saw it. He asked me, he said why didn't you get, you know, stamped or anything. 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) MR. GARRAND-You didn't get a building permit? MR. MARANVILLE-No, sir. MR. GARRAND-Just keep in mind, you can't build anything in this Town without a permit. MR. MARANVILLE-Yes. I'm going to keep that in mind, because now this whole process has been drawn out and my wife's about ready to stab me. I'm currently dwelling in a 730 foot square foot home now, with three children and a wife. So, that's five people in a home that size. You kind of understand why I really need that, and there was, I never actually extended anything over 10 foot, which, when I made a phone call in December somebody said if you're not going over 10 foot. I should have known better. I should have actually probably discussed it with my brother, and, anyway, it was okay as long as there was an existing wall. So the actual old foundation of the structure that was there is still there. It's actually part of the load bearing portion of the new. MR. JACKOSKI-Things happen. Any questions for the applicant, anybody here? We do have a public hearing tonight. There is no one here in the audience. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-No. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll poll the Board real quick. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KU H L-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAN D-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Can I have a motion. I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. URRICO-Did you get a survey for this. It says in here stamped drawing was submitted. MR. MARANVILLE-The reason I asked for the survey to be waived was that there's a pre- existing structure. If you look at that, it's actually an old pump house that was there when it was originally built. So obviously it wasn't over the line. MR. JACKOSKI-Could I get a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-2013 SAM MARANVILLE, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 679 Corinth Road. Applicant has constructed a 295 square foot residential addition. Relief requested from side yard setback requirement for the MDR zone. Relief is 3.33 feet. Will this have an adverse effect on the neighborhood or effect on nearby properties? No. Can benefits be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant? He could re-locate this, but that's not a real practical thing to do at this point. Is this request substantial? This is the most minimal request we've had in here in months. Is this difficulty self-created? It may be deemed self- created, but in the grand scheme of things, this is the most minor variance we've been asked for in ages. I move we approve Area Variance No. 3-2013. 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2013) Duly adopted this 16th day of January, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-We're sorry you had to wait so long, but it's a process. MR. MARANVILLE-It's my own damn fault. Don't worry about it. MR. JACKOSKI-Any additional issues to be brought before the Board? I do make a note that we are down a member and we are down some alternates. I know they're looking, and I have received some names. So thank you. Can I have a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JANUARY 17, 2013, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: Duly adopted this 16th day of January, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 45