Loading...
04-17-2013 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2013) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 17, 2013 INDEX Notice of Appeal No. 1-2013 David Klein/North Country Engineering 1. Tax Map No. 226.19-1-39 Area Variance No. 5-2013 CRM Housing Dev., Inc. 1. Tax Map No. 302.9-1-28.1 Area Variance No.9-2013 Frank L. Sears 11. Tax Map No. 304.17-1-32 Area Variance No. 8-2013 William&Carol Merritt(Cont'd Pg. 36) 13. Tax Map No. 289.17-1-38 Area Variance No. 10-2013 Brian Booth 33. Tax Map No. 295.10-2-30.11 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2013) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 17, 2013 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY RICHARD GARRAND KYLE NOONAN JOHN HENKEL JOYCE HUNT RONALD KUHL ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY (Due to mechanical problems,the first six minutes of the meeting were lost) APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 20, 2013 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 20, 2013, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 17th day of April, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr.Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr.Jackoski, Mr. Noonan NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-2013 SEQRA TYPE N/A DAVID KLEIN/NORTH COUNTRY ENGINEERING OWNER(S) LINDA DE LAURA ZONING WR LOCATION END OF FOREST ROAD APPELLANT IS APPEALING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DETERMINATION OF MARCH 4, 2013 LETTER REGARDING PROPERTY AT THE END OF FOREST ROAD; SEPARATION DISTANCES REQUIREMENT FOR INFILTRATION DEVICES AND LOT CLEARING REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF AV 61-2012; SPR 48-2012; SP 28-10; BP 10-556 (TEST PIT) WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.34 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-39 SECTION 147-11 MOTION TO TABLE NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-2013 DAVID KLEIN/NORTH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Tabled to the first meeting in May 2013. Duly adopted this 17th day of April, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt,Mr. Garrand, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Urrico, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2013 SEQRA TYPE I CRM HOUSING DEV., INC. AGENT(S) CRM HOUSING DEV., INC. OWNER(S) CRM HOUSING DEV., INC. ZONING MDR LOCATION BURKE DRIVE, SOUTH OF ABBEY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 56-UNIT SENIOR HOUSING APARTMENT COMPLEX ON A 17-ACRE PARCEL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM DENSITY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF SP 8-2013 WARREN 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2013) COUNTY PLANNING YES LOT SIZE 17.01 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 302.9-1-28.1 SECTION 179- 3-040 MICHAEL O'CONNOR&TOM ANDRESS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 5-2013, CRM Housing Dev., Inc., Meeting Date: April 17, 2013 "Project Location: Burke Drive, south of Abbey Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 56-unit senior housing apartment complex on a 17-acre parcel. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: 1. Relief is requested for the Density requirements where 2 acres per dwelling unit is required and the applicant proposes 56 units for a 17 acres site. 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 be available to reduce the variance requested. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The lot size of 17 acres allows for 8 units on the site. Where two acres are required per unit if not connected to public sewer and water. The request may be considered substantial relative to the code. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be expected. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, SP 08-2013: Planning Board SEQR review and Planning Board Recommendation - Pending April mtg Staff comments: Applicant has submitted additional and revised information for Planning Board review. This includes SHPO no impact and NYSDEC no occurrences letters, revised plans addressing engineering comments. Clarification provided that each 8 unit structure will have 2 first floor units, 2 second floor units, and 4 1St and 2nd floor units. The applicant has indicated that the surrounding density is similar to or higher than the proposed. The Board should consider if the septic system capacity availability if the proposed system should fail for all the units-is there adequate room to install a new system SEQR Status: Type I" MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board, in a motion,made a recommendation on behalf of themselves to the Zoning Board of Appeals that according to the resolution prepared by Staff in their limited review they have not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2013) current project proposal. There was a concern by one Board member about traffic and potential impacts. This was adopted on April 16,2013,and it was unanimous. MR. JACKOSKI-And just in the interest of full disclosure, the applicant is using some agents that I may have used in the past for myself. I just want to throw that out there for the record. Welcome, everyone. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Board. For your record, I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. I represent the applicant on this application, and with me at the table is John Veracka who is the President of the applicant, and Tom Andress from ABD Engineering, who is the project engineer. I think you're familiar with the project. We were here before we went to the Planning Board,but,Tom,why don't you just run through the outline of what we're doing. MR.ANDRESS-Certainly. Laura, can we have the slides first. It's a little hard to see,but the project is being proposed as a senior apartment complex. It's being proposed with a private drive, the center driving (lost word) the darker color with the cul de sac at the end would be a private drive, but still built to a cul de sac standard that would meet emergency code standards, but basically owned by the applicant. There are eight unit apartment buildings, and I believe we do have one overhead, a view of the units. They'll be served by public water. They will be served by private sewer. There'll be a septic system for each half of the building, so for each building there'll be two septic systems. There is adequate land to expand those systems if we need to. We've provided a fairly large buffer. You can see the green area in relationship to the orange area. The green would be the limit of disturbance of the grading,based upon the plans that we've put together. So there's a fairly good area of buffer around the whole project. Some of it would be preserved as permanent buffer. Other areas will be buffer but would be allowed, in the future, if we did have to do something for the septic system, we'd have an area to expand into. We do have an entrance, or I should say an emergency access to the Ramada, it's the gray piece going up from the proposed private road. That would be an emergency only. It would have access gates to both sides, but it will provide a second access for our site if there is a problem, but it also just as much will provide a second way into the Ramada if they can't use Abbey Lane. That also will act as a walking trail, so people will be able to walk over to the Ramada to use the services,the restaurant there. There will be sidewalks throughout the site so people can walk on the sidewalks and not be in the road. Every unit has a garage that you drive into. The units then either walk into the unit directly. There are a couple that walk into a center hall area,which then has two (lost words). Generally you're walking directly into your unit, but the center do walk into a small common hallway, you'd then have two different units accessed off of that. That gives you a general overall idea. It is all very good, percable sand. So the green infrastructure,the DEC requirements have been met. (Lost words) on site for infiltration and of course that also works as well for the septic systems. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thankyou. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I believe you should have in your file a variance application. You might have the site plan application. I know there were narratives attached to both of those applications that are fairly detailed, more detailed than what Tom just gave you,but it tells you exactly what will go on this site. You should also have in your file a letter from SHPO that there's no impact, and that they have given us a signoff. There's a letter in there from DEC that says there's no significant habitat or species on the site. There is a recommendation from the County Planning Board, and I would note on that they say No County Impact, but part of the issue that you have before you tonight is will this have an effect on the character of the neighborhood or what is the character of the neighborhood. They specifically stated that the housing project is appropriately situated on the lot, and fits the character of the neighborhood. You have, as your secretary read, the recommendation of the Queensbury Planning Board that they did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current proposal. Beyond just making a recommendation to you, we had a discussion of about an hour last night, and they ended the discussion by giving us a Negative Declaration, saying that there are no significant impacts of the project of an environmental nature, and they considered everything. They considered the density of the neighborhood, what we are proposing for our density. They considered the traffic. They considered the septic and on the septic you had a specific question, I think, when you made your referral to the Planning Board. The plans have been to the Town Engineer twice. We submitted the plans to the Town Engineer. There was a response letter to us. We then did a second submittal,and we then had a second response letter. They have raised no issues with the proposed septic as it's been designed. They had some issues with regard to the stormwater, which we've talked through with them, and we will address when we get to site plan, but there's no issues with regard to the septic. They were very thorough, as I said,when they talked about going through the Negative Dec. They actually treat this as a Type I. So they used the Long Form SEQR form, not the 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2013) Short Form. There also should be in your file, or you should have knowledge of a memo from Craig Brown dated February 21St,which addressed whether or not this was a project where the applicant self-created a difficulty. This property was bought in 1986. At that time the density for the property was eight units per acre. They could have built at that time I think 156 units, and I'll get into it when I talk about alternatives. They've seriously considered the number of units that they've requested, the number of units that they think are necessary to make this a workable project, one that would be feasible, and that is why they've requested the 56. If you look across the street, you will see that that project which was built in '86 was built to the eight units per acre, actually it's 8.2 units per acre. So I would try to address each of the five tests, and I've given you some documentation which is in your file I think, but I gave it to you tonight to try and point out some of the specific things. The first test you have is will the project create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties,and if you look at the Staff comments, I think in addition to the County Planning Board, in addition to the Town Planning Board, you will find that Staff has said that this project would have minor impacts, if any, as to the character of the neighborhood and would not be a detriment to nearby properties. That really is the test that you have. What we propose, what are the impacts of it, what are the actual commonsense impacts of it. To look at that, I think you look at the Montcalm Apartments, which are the apartments that are right across the street on Burke Drive. They have 228 units on 27.9 acres. That's a density of 8.2. If you look to the south, you have Niagara Mohawk high voltage lines, and the Richard Sears Tree Service operation. I think you heard some people speak about that the last time we were before you. To the east you have the Ramada Inn, and they have 100 rooms in that with the restaurant, and a large parking lot. We've given you a figure before that if you counted each room,that would be like 15 units per acre. If you count two rooms as a unit,that would still be eight and a half units per acre. To the north you have Abbey Lane and the Northway exchange, the on and off ramps that are on the north side of Abbey Lane. This is not a single family neighborhood. There are no single family residences in this neighborhood. The closest single family homes are on Dixon Heights, and they touch a part of this property, kitty corner to the, I guess south. I've given you a memo that the Assessor gave me that says that their density is 5.446 units per acre. Between them and us we have a very good area of buffer. In fact, that's where a good part of the green space is. Other than 17 acres,we're talking about I think disturbance of 9. something in acreage. The rest will remain undisturbed. The nearest building to Burke Drive is, I believe, 90 feet. This complex won't actually be highly visible from any other property. You're going to have to drive into the entranceway to see that it's there,to see what the extent of it is, see how many units that are there. You're not going to really notice it in a passing way. Our request for density is 3.3 which is less than the Montcalm Apartments,less than Dixon Heights,less than the motel if you try to count that in some manner. We also submitted in the packet to you, and we've submitted, I believe, to the Town, two letters from realtors. One is from Dan Davies of Davies and Davies, who is familiar with the property, who was kind enough to write an opinion letter that stated that he thought it was in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, and that the requested density was not, in his opinion, substantial, given the existing development that is surrounding this property, and I'll touch on that a little bit when we talk about alternatives. Both, and the other letter is from Linda Boden,who is with Levitt Realty, and she gives the same opinion, that this is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. She also, and I think both did say that the other alternatives that are possible would be build eight single family homes on seventeen acres of land, or build four duplexes on seventeen acres of land, and you could build those, but they wouldn't be saleable. People aren't going to put their investment in a single family home between a motel and the Montcalm Apartments. It just doesn't, it's not something that somebody is going to jump into. There aren't enough units,either in the single family,or in the duplex that are permitted to have a neighborhood of its own. It's not a standalone neighborhood. So we think that we're very much in keeping with the character of the existing neighborhood. We've touched on can the benefit be sought by some other method. We don't know of another method. We think the only thing that's going to go in there is a densely populated apartment complex, given the existing development, and the Montcalm Apartments kind of dictate that to us. We also had a CPA do an analysis of the cost of the property and construction costs, infrastructure that's necessary, and I believe you have his letter in front of you, too. With 56 units, he believes that they would have a rate of return of eight percent. That's a low rate of return for a real estate investment,but it does work. If they had less units, he does not think that the project would be feasible. It wouldn't be efficient. You wouldn't have enough of a base to spread a full time staff to. You'd have a lot of the same costs but not enough units to justify it. We believe that there is a need in the community for senior housing. We've tried to find some comparable senior housing, and the only thing that we're aware of at this point is a project by Schermerhorn, but that's out on Gurney Lane, and it doesn't, isn't as readily available to the shopping areas, the markets, some of the churches even as this particular project is. We can't tell you what their waiting list is because it's still running out on the first go round. The other senior projects are subsidized projects, and it's not really, I know the Cedars generally has a waiting list,but that's a subsidized project where there is limited income for tenants, and we're not talking a, we're talking about market driven apartments that won't either 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2013) have subsidies and will not have limitations on tenants in there. The developer has a very similar project, and,John,you've got that letter. They have a project called Foxwood Apartments and they have 100% occupancy. The rentals out there, and this is in Rome, NY, the rentals out there are $950 a month, $950 to $960 a month. It's the same floor plan that he has here. Most of the people are married couples and retirees with an average age of 58. Eight percent of the residents use them only as summer homes. Their area is similar to ours in that a lot of people become snowbirds. So we anticipate that we will have some snowbirds that will take occupancy in these apartments. They currently have 95% of their residents with a car. You have to register your car. Five percent of their residents don't even have a car, and we did do a traffic study,which I'll refer to, I guess I can right now. The traffic study was done on the basis of a regular apartment complex. It was not done on the basis of any discount for seniors. If you treat it as a senior apartment complex for a traffic study, you'd be talking less than 10 trips. We didn't think that, we wanted to put in everything we could put in so that somebody wouldn't say that we tried to slant what we've presented to you. In the peak hour in the morning there are seven trips,seven vehicles that go into this site, and there are 27 vehicles that go out of the site. Ninety-five percent of those vehicles go toward Aviation Road. Five percent go toward Dixon Road. Some of the ones that go toward, I think it's 75% of the 95%will turn to the right when they get to Aviation Road and go down across town. Twenty percent of them will turn to the west. The Planning Board went through that in great detail last night. The traffic study that we presented says that there's no mitigation necessary. It's not a significant impact. The only change at all is in the morning peak time there's a change of delay, an increase in the delay at the intersection of Aviation Road and Burke Drive of 3.6 seconds per vehicle. We don't think that that's a significant impact. If you had four duplexes on there and you had eight units,you'd probably have sixteen cars. Traffic's not,the traffic's not going to be as much as, it's going to be less than ours, but it's not going to be an awful big difference in what we're presenting. This is a senior complex. We looked at the peak hours of regular traffic and we counted our trips as being in those peak hours, but they, we think that they will be active seniors,because we're talking an age limit of 55, and like on this other project the average age is 58. So many of those people will still maybe be working. We didn't take a big discount, but as the initial people that go in there age, they probably won't be as active, and they won't be traveling the peak hours. They can arrange their times better, and avoid the traffic. Somebody also made a point last night,some of those people are going to learn quickly, like everybody else, if you're going west,you don't go out to Aviation Road. You go left and go out to Dixon Road and then go west, or even if you're going east, you can go out to Dixon Road and come down through the City of Glens Falls, and out where you're going, a lot easier than going down through Aviation Road and Quaker Road or Route 9. So the traffic study is very,very conservative. It does not show any significant impact at all. I've got a copy of that letter as to the Rome apartments, and I'll give that to you for your file. The third test that you have is a test as to whether or not what we're requesting is substantial, and I think it's fairly clear black letter law, and I don't mean to lecture you,but it's clear that you don't simply make a mathematical determination by itself. The case law in New York State says you consider the impacts. You don't consider a percentage of fraction in a void, and in this instance I think there are really no significant impacts. I think that's proven by the Negative Declaration that your Planning Board has made in connection with this. That was not a right review. That was a thoroughly looked at it. They took what is considered a hard look. They discussed the points and they came and said there are no significant impacts. The County Planning Board said the same thing, and Queensbury Staff says the same thing. If you look at the findings that they give you or the comments that they give you,they say will there be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, or will it be detrimental to nearby properties. It is a minor impact, and then they say will the proposed variance have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, and they say minor impacts may be expected. With those two findings, they're saying that what we're proposing is not significant. They have a statement in there that says what we have asked for is significant per the Code,but the Code has to be considered in connection with the law and with the impacts that the change that we're asking for will actually create or cause, and in this instance, I don't know of any impacts that will be significant. If there weren't the Montcalm Apartments across the street, I think we would have a tough argument. If there weren't,you know,if there was a single family,the moderate density zone was created, and if you look at the master plan and you look at the purpose statement in the Zoning Ordinance, it says to protect strictly residential areas. Well, this is single family residential areas. This is not a strictly single family residential area. I think what we're asking for is a reasonable request. I think we've talked about cutting and clearing limits, to the benefit of the neighbors, and the fact that we are going to provide an emergency access or exit, if you will, for ourselves and the Ramada Inn is something that people have said is a good thing, something that has been needed. It will have a lock gate on it. The emergency services will have the ability to go through the gates and won't be open for traffic. We also will be able to have our people go over and use the restaurant there. I believe you have a letter from them saying that they support our application. It should be in your file. Laura has it if you don't particularly have it. We've submitted, as I said, the full 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2013) stormwater plan, and it's been reviewed by the Town Engineer, we've had comments back and forth. There's nothing in there that indicates that there will be anything that will be detrimental to the environment, stormwater or whatever. I know that in prior meetings, there were Board members or a couple of people from the public that spoke. There was nobody that spoke last night at the Planning Board from the public, and I don't know if we satisfied them with our presentation or not,but I was very pleased that I appear to have satisfied them. There was a concern about the effectiveness of the septic plan of the Montcalm Apartments, and our answer to that is simple. We understand that that's something that's being worked on on a constant basis,but it's not part of our project. We are not using that in any manner. We aren't putting any effluent in it. It's a separate standalone property, and I think that that's a fairly simple answer. There was concern about the noise and conditions of the property of Richard Sears Tree Service, and again, that's an existing neighbor that we have no control over and it's not part of our project. I understand the Town is working on that to some degree. There was a concern about traffic. We actually had the traffic study performed. I think the traffic study shows that there is no significant impact. We were conservative in how we had the traffic people actually perform the study, and I told you the trips, I guess,at the morning peak hour. In the evening peak hour there are 41 trips that are expected, 27 will be entering the site and 14 will be leaving the site. There was a concern about the permanency of the senior character of the development. We have submitted, and I think it's, you've got a copy of it in your package,a restrictive covenant that would go in the deed that would be conveyed to the entity that will operate the apartment complex, and it will make the apartment run with the land and it will say that one occupant of the apartment must be 55 years of age, and it does allow that if the occupant dies or becomes disabled, whoever else is with them may stay until the end of that term and one renewal term. It does have a provision in there as to mortgage foreclosures. We had some discussion about that last night and we have come to,I think, an agreement that we will work that out as we go through site plan, and come up with something that's satisfactory to the Planning Board. The intention is we want a specific portion of the market. We want the senior market. This is going to be a $13 million investment for 56 apartments. They believe that that can work. They want to keep it that way because that will encourage other seniors to come in to the apartment complex. The last test is not controlling, I think as you know, but is something to be considered, and that is was the alleged difficulty self-created. Craig was here earlier, who has disappeared, wrote a memo, February 21St, saying that when we purchased the property, the density was eight units per acre. We have not created something to change that, the Town has changed the density as it's changed this Ordinance. That is typically not considered a self-created hardship. That is something that was put upon the property by the Town. So I think we qualify for that. So we'd be open to questions, suggestions, particularly as to any of the material that we've submitted to you. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Any questions at this time from Board members? MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-You referenced a letter from the manager of the Ramada that says he's in support of this project. Do you have that? MR. O'CONNOR-I don't have it. The Planning Board maybe. I do not have it,but there is one. I will get you one. MR. GARRAND-Because the last time he was before our Board he was against the project. MRS.MOORE-He wasn't aware of the project. MR. O'CONNOR-He wasn't aware of the project. JOHN VERACKA MR. VERACKA-I had spoken with Kevin directly and they love the idea with having the access emergency lane, if Abbey Lane should be blocked off by a tree falls, something should happen, emergency vehicles,they'd love to have the opportunity to have the emergency exit out of the hotel area,the restaurant area, and there's a letter from Kevin (lost words) now that he fully understands what the project will be,senior housing,things of that nature,it's a plus for his establishment. MR.GARRAND-Okay. You're presenting evidence right now,so. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2013) MR. O'CONNOR-I think it's in your, the problem is we're in front of both Boards and I think it went to the Planning Board. MR.JACKOSKI-Laura,were you there last evening? MRS.MOORE-I was. (lost word) the letter that I have not seen. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. GARRAND-Now the other correspondence you mentioned was a letter from the Town Engineer regarding the septic? MR. O'CONNOR-We have two lengthy letters from the Town Engineer, reviewing the plan as they were submitted to them, and in neither of those comment letters was there any comment as to the septic, his approval of it. If he has an objection to anything that's on the plans he puts it in his letters. I can show you those letters. MR. GARRAND-Yes, I'd like to see his input on it. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, his input is, his positive input is there by absence of any specific comment. Typical, even though we filed this in February, we didn't get the comments until April 10th, and you can't respond before that Planning Board meeting,but they've talked to them by phone. MRS.MOORE-(Lost words) may not appear in the Zoning Board,but they are in the Planning Board. MR. GARRAND-All right. I'll just take a quick look at them. MR. KUHL-What are you going to price them at? MR.VERACKA-Approximately$1200 per month. MR. KUHL-And your access road to the Ramada is going to be gated? MR.VERACKA-Gated. MR. KUHL-Because the legal representative from the Ramada, the first time he came here, had no knowledge, and actually voiced negative thought about that, and you're saying that since that time you've sat down? MR.VERACKA-Yes, I met with Kevin directly,showed him the plans,explained the (lost word) of the project,and he wrote a letter in favor of it. MR.ANDRESS-And actually when I left that meeting that night, I spoke outside in the library to him. He was in favor of it. He just,unfortunately didn't know about the project. So he wasn't sure what was going on,but once he was made aware of what we were doing,he was fine with it. MR. KUHL-And you all did your perc tests and you did it with the Town Engineer? MR.ANDRESS-All the perc tests were done with Chazen,right. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. URRICO-I have a question of Mr. O'Connor. So do you think that this property is incorrectly zoned,considering where it's located? MR. O'CONNOR-It's kind of like, you know, zoning is a broad brush, and you catch properties in between other properties and what not, or you kind of ignore properties in areas that have been fully developed for the most part, and there is some unintentional consequences, and I think that here, if somebody were going to do more fine tuning with zoning, they might zone this differently, with a higher density. MR. URRICO-Well, if we granted you this variance, it would essentially change the zoning in that area. There would not be anything else other than. MR. O'CONNOR-It really doesn't change the zoning. It allows this particular use. Multi-family apartments are allowed in that zone. So we're not asking for a Use Variance. We're asking for an 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2013) Area Variance only. It's like a lot of other Area Variances that you allow from time to time. The project can be built with that Area Variance,but it's not a re-zoning of the property. MR. URRICO-But in essence it would be because if you have a hotel next to it and a housing complex across from it. MR. O'CONNOR-And it probably would complete the development of that neighborhood. There is no other large tract of land or piece of land that would be developed that I'm aware of. I think if you look at the overall map, all that land to the north is owned by the State of New York as part of that interchange. The land to the south of this parcel is already developed. You've got Sears Tree Service in there. You've got the high tension power lines, and the place to the right is the motel. The place to the left is the Montcalm Apartments. It's basically an area of nonconforming uses. I don't think you can have a motel there. I don't think you can have,by(lost word) of the zoning,you probably can't have the Montcalm Apartments there, and I know some other information you couldn't have the tree service that's there, and I don't know if the moderate density goes all the way down to that tree service, and you probably couldn't have Dixon Heights there, but it's not a re- zoning of the property. It's an Area Variance and permitted use increasing the density of the permit. MR.JACKOSKI-I have a few questions. Typically senior housing isn't two story or walking up stairs. There's no elevators planned,correct? MR. O'CONNOR-There's no elevators planned, but the two story building, or two story units are built with stairs that are a stairs from the first to the second floor, and they have a landing midway and that seems to work, and that's the same as what's on this, and this is the same floor plan, right, John,that is used for the senior housing out in Rome, NY. MR. JACKOSKI-And so with that average age of 58 and the entry level age at 55, so you really, I mean,you could have one 95 year old to skew the results. They're all 55 or 56, 57 years old? MR.VERACKA-The minimum age is 55 to get in,the senior housing. Again, our average age at our project in Rome is (lost words)years of age. MR.JACKOSKI-So, I mean,heavily concentrated towards mid 50's. MR.VERACKA-Active seniors. MR.JACKOSKI-Active,yes. More than one car? I mean,you know,let's face it,you know,today the average senior citizen believes they're a senior citizen when they're 85 years old,right? MR. O'CONNOR-We have a provision that even if they had, the trips wouldn't change as far as the traffic study goes,the way the traffic studies are done,but we have provisions they could have a car that goes in the garage and a car that is parked behind the car in the garage. So we basically have designated areas. MR.ANDRESS-Actually we designed it, I believe, to have enough room to get in most instances two cars in there. MR. JACKOSKI-Will the senior citizens be required to remove their own snow from their own driveways and sidewalks? MR.VERACKA-No. MR.JACKOSKI-So all outside maintenance will be taken care of? MR.VERACKA-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-We talked briefly probably about not being able to see this build out from the road, but I think where the septic systems are seemed pretty close to the road. Aren't you going to have to do a tree clearing in order to, I mean,how do you shield this project when you've got those septic systems fairly close to the road? MR. VERACKA-Well, I believe if you do look at the board over there you can see the property line. The property line is the orange line. That is the right of way. So the road is to the south or to the west of that. The green is the limit we show for grading. So you can see while it varies in the 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2013) beginning there is a narrower area, but in most instances it's fairly deep. The narrow area is approximately 30 feet in that one point where it gets closer. Then it goes up from there. MR.JACKOSKI-So is it your opinion that you really won't see this complex so much from the road, or you actually will be seeing it? I mean, 30 feet is,ask some environmentalist here,there's not much of a buffer with 30 feet. MR. ANDRESS-It is a pretty heavily treed lot. I mean, at certain times of the year, no matter what you're going to do,you're going to see with the foliage down you'll see some units through that as a screened view through those trees. During the foliage time, you will get probably very limited views of what you're looking at. The only area you're really going to see is as you come in the main entrance area will be open. So you will see that first unit on the left, and depending on the angle I guess,the first unit on the right. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,and the Planning Board will handle that. MR. O'CONNOR-We would be amenable to any required plantings. MR.ANDRESS-We actually have plantings proposed across, we have a full landscaping plan already that has plantings in those open areas, and the site actually, Burke Drive is the highest point and everything,internally on the site,drops away. So these units actually start dropping down. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members at this time? Well, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. So I'd like to open the public hearing or continue the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience this evening who would like to address the Board concerning this particular project? Seeing no one in the audience, Roy, are there any written comments? MR.URRICO-Nothing other than the one Laura already brought up by Mr. O'Connor. MR. JACKOSKI-So we'll make a note of that. So I guess at this time we should poll the Board. Would that be fair? Rick,why don't you go first. MR. GARRAND-Sure. I'd prefer to go over the balancing test with this one. Given the fact that one of the biggest affected parties here,Mr. Markam over at the Ramada,no longer has any objections to it, I think that kind of diminishes the substantiality of this project. I mean, as you were speaking of before, a project being substantial is relative. Numerically, yes, it's substantial. In the grand scheme of things in that zone,it's not. As you said,the Montcalm is pretty densely populated. This property is sandwiched between a motel and the Montcalm Apartments. Also when looking at it, I mean is it substantial,the amount of traffic generated,that is another area we consider,whether an application is substantial or not. Personally, given the information presented tonight, it's considerably different than what we've seen before, so I would deem it not substantial. Will it produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood? No, not really. On this we're also kind of relying on the Planning Board and the developer to provide proper screening for the rest of the neighbors. The traffic plan seems to be pretty accurate. I drive through there every single day. I would have to agree with the numbers. Will it have adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood? Nothing presented here leads me to believe otherwise. So on the basis of the balancing test, I would be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,Rick. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I'm going to agree with Rick on this. I will make a couple of additional comments that I don't think Staff was incorrect in labeling this substantial. I think, no matter how you look at it, the math is kind of stark. It's stark to look at it that way, that 17 acres only can accommodate eight units according to the way the zoning is set up right now, and they're asking for 56. So that is substantial no matter how you look at it. I don't care how the math is done. However, I do agree that in this location where it is proposed, I cannot see another project that would fit in that place where this would not be place in the neighborhood, it would not be out of character, but would actually fit in to what is actually developed over there, and probably, as Mr. O'Connor said, finish that neighborhood in terms of what it's going to be. So I would be in favor of the project as it's currently constituted. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2013) MR.JACKOSKI-Thankyou. Kyle? MR. NOONAN-Having heard this for the first time tonight, heard it, I did read some of the old minutes from the previous meeting that I was not in attendance at, so I guess tonight what I can say is I do appreciate the comparison of the other per unit densities of the surrounding properties and I do feel that 3.3 is significantly more favorable than what is in the area and I also would be in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-Thankyou. Ron? MR.KUHL-Yes. I think it's a good utilization of the area. I mean,when you,who's going to put eight houses in there? Who's going to come and buy houses that are blocked between the apartments and the Ramada? And from a standpoint of how much load onto the community,you know,there's not going to be children so (lost words) the seniors, and even if you doubled your traffic study, it still wouldn't have a negative effect. So, given the fact that Mr. O'Connor made such a great presentation, I would be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-You're not going to address the longwinded presentation? MR. KUHL-No. Somebody will. MR.JACKOSKI-So noted. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have to agree with my fellow Board members. I think it's a good fit,and I would be in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I also went to the Planning Board last night, and after watching the presentation and everything, I agree with it. It's a great fit and I totally agree with it. MR.JACKOSKI-And just to clarify,there's not a restriction against children, correct? I mean, a lot of grandparents and stuff. So there could be bus stops and there could be. Is it expected that the buses would actually drive in there and come back out around? MR.ANDRESS-I would doubt that. Most buses do not go into a private. So they would have to walk out. I think,John,you said the other units don't have? MR. O'CONNOR-I know John Burke walks. MR.JACKOSKI-Right,because it is Queensbury. MR. O'CONNOR-Montcalm Apartment walks, but a few years ago they went through putting that sidewalk in. The sidewalk is actually on the west side of Burke Drive and it goes out, goes down past(lost words). MR.JACKOSKI-Yes, I forgot, Lake George we bus everyone. Okay. So, I, too, would be in favor. So I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-And look for a motion. See all that enthusiasm. I pick Rick. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2013 CRM HOUSING DEV., INC., Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Burke Drive,south of Abbey Lane. The applicant proposes construction of a 56 unit senior housing apartment complex on a 17 acre parcel. The relief required. Relief is requested for the density requirements where two acres per dwelling unit is required and the applicant proposes 56 units on a 17 acre parcel. On the balancing test, whether benefits can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant, not really. Everything,he's presented data for the financial viability of this project and not that of single family housing. Undesirable change to the neighborhood, we can foresee none at this point. Once again the information presented did a good job of outlining the minimal effect on the neighborhood. Is this request substantial? Numerical maybe. In the grand scheme of the neighborhood, no. Adverse environmental effects,we can foresee none. Is this difficulty self- created? It maybe deemed self-created. So I move we approve Area Variance No. 5-2013. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2013) Duly adopted this 17th day of April, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Congratulations. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. Roy, I'm not saying Staff is wrong with what they put in as being substantial per the Ordinance. I went through that with Keith and finally got Keith to say per the Ordinance as opposed to say per the impact. By working Laura long enough, maybe I will get her to put a second sentence in that says but the impacts are not significant. AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2013 SEQRA TYPE II FRANK L. SEARS OWNER(S) FRANK L. SEARS ZONING Cl LOCATION 67 BOULEVARD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH EXISTING 84 SQ. FT. FRONT PORCH AND 49 SQ. FT. REAR PORCH. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 160 SQ. FT. FRONT PORCH AND A 240 SQ. FT. REAR PORCH. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF BP 2013-021 FRONT & REAR PORCHES; BP 99-731 SEPTIC ALT WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2013 LOT SIZE 1.48 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 304.17-1-32 SECTION 179-3-040 FRANK SEARS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 9-2013, Frank L. Sears, Meeting Date: April 17, 2013 "Project Location: 67 Boulevard Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to demolish existing 84 sq. ft. front porch and 49 sq. ft. rear porch. Applicant proposes to construct a new 160 sq.ft.front porch and a 240 sq.ft.rear porch. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Front Porch-front setback: 75 ft required; 33.4 ft is proposed; sideline setback: west- 20 ft minimum with 50 ft sum required; 5.4 ft proposed. Rear Porch- west side setback where 20 ft minimum with a 50 ft sum required; 6.9 ft proposed Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no 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 not available due to the location of the house on the property. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The applicant's front porch will be located 33.4 ft from the front property line where 75 ft is required; the front porch is to be located 4 ft from the west side property line where a minimum of 20 ft with a sum of 50 ft is required -there is over a 50 ft setback to the east property line. The rear porch is to be located 6.9 ft from the side property line where again 20 ft is the minimum with a sum of a 50 ft setback required this also is over a 50 ft setback on the east property line. The relief requested could be considered moderate. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no 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. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2013) Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, BP 2013-021 front&rear porches BP 99-731 Septic Alteration Staff comments: The applicant proposes the removal of a front and rear porch to construct new porches in their location. The existing porches do not meet the required setback triggering variance review for the proposed porches. The applicant has indicated the purpose of the project is to remove two deteriorating porches; the new porches would not exceed the existing main structure. SEQR Status: Type II -no further SEQR review required." MR. JACKOSKI-Hello. Welcome. It's certainly a much easier application than the previous one. Right? Would you like to add anything to the record at this time or just have Board members ask questions? MR. SEARS-No. I didn't realize there was so much to just putting a porch on a house. The porches are really in sad shape and it's not something that you can just fix a little bit. I mean, I think the only way to fix them is to take them off of there and demolish them and start a building permit, and the porches that I suggested that I, you know, for permission to build is going to enhance the property,and it would just be a lot better. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. GARRAND-It could use some enhancement. MR.SEARS-Yes,then my taxes will go up. MR. GARRAND-Yes,guaranteed. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Any questions from Board members at this time? MR. NOONAN-The only question I have is they're kind of vague. Are these going to be all open or are they going to be? MR. SEARS-Yes. It's going to be a front porch. MR. NOONAN-No windows,no? MR.SEARS-The front's going to have a rail around it and the back is going to be a patio. MR.NOONAN-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Are there any members here in the audience this evening who'd like to address the Board concerning this particular application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.JACKOSKI-Seeing no one in the audience,do we have any public comment written? MR.URRICO-No. MR. JACKOSKI-None. Okay. We're going to leave the public hearing open. I'm going to poll the Board fairly quickly here. We'll start with Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I have no problem with this application. I think it's a good (lost word) the property. It's 1.48 acres. It's a large piece of property but it's difficult because of the way the house is placed. So I would have no problem with it. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,Joyce. John? 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2013) MR. HENKEL-I also have no problem with it. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-Given the nature of that neighborhood, the applicant really doesn't have any choice but an area variance. I'm in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR.URRICO-I would be in favor of the project. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I agree with my Board members. I have no problem with it. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I'd be in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-How about that. I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-This is a Type II SEQR. Could I have a motion? MR. KUHL-Yes, I'll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2013 FRANK L. SEARS, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption,seconded by Joyce Hunt: 67 Boulevard. Applicant proposes to demolish an 84 sq. ft. front porch and a 49 sq. ft. rear porch and proposes to construct a 160 sq. ft. front porch and a 240 sq. ft. rear porch. In making this determination, whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood, I would say no. Whether a benefit can be sought by any other means, it's really not available. This is what it is. Whether the area variance is substantial. The relief requested really could be considered moderate. It's all we can do, and minor impacts to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. For those reasons I recommend we approve Area Variance No. 9-2013. Duly adopted this 17th day of April, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-See how fast it can go without an attorney? AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-2013 SEQRA TYPE II WILLIAM & CAROL MERRITT AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERINGS, PLLC OWNER(S) WILLIAM & CAROL MERRITT ZONING WR LOCATION 103 BIRDSALL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES RECONSTRUCTION OF THE EXISTING SEASONAL RESIDENCE WITH A NEW DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SIDE, SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, PERMEABILITY, AND SEPARATION DISTANCE FOR STORMWATER DEVICES. ALSO, RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS. THE SITE DESIGN INCLUDES A NEW WASTEWATER SYSTEM ALONG WITH A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND LANDSCAPING. CROSS REF SP 12-2013; TBOH 3,2013 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.20 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-38 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM JARRETT&CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-Just in the interest of full disclosure, my family and I have access to the parcel adjoining this parcel in particular, but I don't feel there's a conflict of interest in my being here tonight on this Board. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2013) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 8-2013, William & Carol Merritt, Meeting Date: April 17, 2013 "Project Location: 103 Birdsall Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes reconstruction of the existing seasonal residence with a new dwelling. The site design includes a new watewater system along with a stormwater management system and landscaping. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Relief requested from minimum side, shoreline setback requirements, permeability, and separation distance for stormwater devices. Also, relief requested from maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio requirements. The new dwelling is to be located 11.7 ft from the east side property line, 39.8 ft from the shoreline. The site development will leave 66% of the site permeable. The construction of the home will have a floor area ratio of 25% of the site and infiltration devices will be less than 100 ft from each other. 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 limited due to the lot size. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. FAR,floor area ratio where.22 is allowed and .25 is proposed would be considered minimal; Permeability where 75%is required and 66.1%is proposed; Shoreline setback required to be 50 ft where 39 ft 8 in is proposed; Side Setback East required to be 15 ft where 11 ft 7 in is proposed would be considered minimal; Infiltration Devices required to be 100 ft separated and where devices are less than 100 ft-rain garden along shoreline area, water diversion swales on east and west side of house, and earth/stone sump near Birdsall Road - the devices do not impair each other they are separate distinct. Cumulatively the request is minimal due to the lot size. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be expected positive in nature due to the installation of stormwater measures that did not previously exist. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, SP 12-2013: Pending TB BOH 3-2013: Septic 1/28/2013 Staff comments: The applicant proposes to remove an existing camp to construct a new home on the site. The variance relief requested is minimal based on the code requirements for the Waterfront zone. SEQR Status: Type II-no further review needed" 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2013) MR.URRICO-Last night the Planning Board also did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and will improve the site from its existing condition,and that was passed by the Planning Board unanimously. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy, and just for clarification when you do your presentation, I just want to make sure, we do have approval by the Board of Health concerning the septic systems and the distances on the wells and all that other stuff, correct? If you could address those, please, I'd appreciate it. MR. JARRETT-We will. Good evening. Thank you. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers. With me tonight is Curt Dybas to my left, and both of us represent the Merritts. Bill is sitting at the table. Carol is in the audience. I think we've learned our lesson that longwinded doesn't carry the day. MR.JACKOSKI-You got the hint. MR. JACKOSKI-We'll try to make it as short and sweet to address your issues. We are seeking, we've numerically numbered these as five variances, but actually it's nine separate pieces of relief that we need. Four of them are stormwater related. So they're all lumped together. The side and front setbacks are basically improvements upon the existing conditions. Right now there is a shoreline noncompliance, and both sidelines are noncompliant now. The proposal has an improvement on the one sideline that would still be noncompliant, and the second sideline would be compliant. With regard to the permeability, we would be compliant if Birdsall Road did not cross our property. So that is what causes that variance request. The stormwater separation request, the distance is less than Code basically are caused by our proposing stormwater management along the front of the property, the waterfront side of the property, and then we do propose some infiltration on Birdsall Road to hopefully correct a problem right now with collection of water in the road and some icing on that road. We hope that with grading in that area and a sump that we propose on our,you'll see on our plans, we hope that will help correct that situation. If that's a concern to the Board,we could delete that. Lastly,the floor area ratio is the one we think is the only one that's really self-created in our minds,and that is caused by storage room that we're proposing underneath the garage. The garage is going to be at Birdsall Road elevation, which is quite a bit higher than the lake, and beneath that garage is proposed a storage room. We could make the storage room compliant by leaving the ceiling height less than five feet, but we thought it would be much more practical to use the storage room at full ceiling height. We're asking for the variance to be able to use that full ceiling height. Basically that's our project in a nutshell. We are proposing a new well drilled to New York State Department of Health standards, and we are proposing a septic system that far exceeds Town standards and the Department of Health standards. We went to the Town Board for variances, and received those variances earlier this year. Would you like to add anything? MR. DYBAS-One thing I'd like to mention. Again, 50 foot setback from the lake (lost word) road in the position where it is, they're trying to achieve a garage. They cannot meet that 50 feet. Again, we're dealing with something that was not created by the client of having the road on his property. There is a right of way for that road in the rear of his property, but the road does not occupy that right of way. So we're dealing with that hardship throughout this project. MR. JARRETT-I would like to reiterate that from a permeability standpoint not only would we be compliant if Birdsall Road didn't cross our property, but we're improving the permeability. We're reducing the amount of impervious surface on the site. So we'll open it up to questions from the Board. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay, Board members. MR. KUHL-I have a question. What's the driveway going to be? MR. JARRETT-We've called for permeable pavers of some style. We didn't account for that in our stormwater management design. We accounted for it as being totally impervious, but we are proposing permeable pavers. MR. KUHL-Theoretically you could move it back 11 foot and be compliant with the lake, couldn't you? MR.JARRETT-The house you mean? MR. KUHL-Yes. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2013) MR.JARRETT-Yes,but we are more compliant than the current house is. MR. KUHL-That's okay. The house is coming down. This is new. This is not rehabbed. MR.JARRETT-Then the only parking would be in the garage. MR. KUHL-Well,across Birdsall. MR.JACKOSKI-There's no room. MR. GARRAND-It's on a hill. MR. DYBAS-It's on a hill. MR.JARRETT-We're trying to avoid that if we can help it. MR. GARRAND-This new house looks like it's going to pretty much wipe out the view for one of the neighbors there. MR. JARRETT-We don't think so. It's actually a compliant height. It's less than the allowed height, and it's set down as low as we can set it based on the floodplain, but we don't think it's going to wipe out a view. MR. GARRAND-Yes,it's looking to be like,what,more than 10 feet higher than the existing house. MR.JARRETT-The trees that are there are more of an obstruction of the view than the house is. MR. KUHL-You're going to be how far from Gwinup's well? MR.JARRETT-From Gwinup's well? MR. KUHL-Yes, on the west side. MR.JARRETT-That one is. MR. KUHL-Seventy-three feet? MR.JARRETT-I believe it's 73. MR. KUHL-Any problem with that? BILL MERRITT MR. MERRITT-No. In fact,the Gwinup's wrote a letter on the project. MR. KUHL-Where is the septic going to be,in the back? MR.JARRETT-The back right corner as you're looking at the plan. So it's on the southeast corner. MR. KUHL-Okay,and what's the hard surface down by the lake? MR.JARRETT-Wall,that's a seawall. MR. KUHL-Existing or new? MR. JARRETT-A replacement of the old wooden wall that was deteriorating. It's going to be dry laid natural stone. MR. MERRITT-And that needs to be repaired because it's being undermined by the higher water and the larger boats that exist on the lake. We have a responsibility to have a safe passageway for, I believe it says for the Hirsches,their descendants and. MR. KUHL-To have access to your property? MR.JACKOSKI-It's in the deed. i6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2013) MR. GARRAND-An easement or something in the deed. MR. KUHL-But to the east of that common ground, right,that's that common land to the east of your property? MR.JARRETT-No,that's privately owned. I don't think it's a common. MR. KUHL-I always thought that was,isn't that part of Birdsall,that people have access? MR. MERRITT-There's seven or nine lots (lost word) in that area that people have some type of rights. MR. KUHL-Deeded rights to use that land. MR. MERRITT-Yes,to some degree if someone has to. MR. KUHL-Okay, and there's also an easement or a right of way on your property? Is that what you're saying? MR. MERRITT-Yes. MR.JARRETT-A walking easement. MR. MERRITT-All of that land that was once owned by Al Hirsch. MR. JARRETT-We've provided a pathway there, kind of a torturous pathway around the rain garden, this darker, which is actually red, it's a rain garden. That's our stormwater management system. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. JARRETT-The buffer to the lake, and a stormwater retention area. The wall is there. This lighter tan in the center is a small beach area,for use by the owner. MR. GARRAND-Pre-existing? MR.JARRETT-It's pre-existing. It's being enlarged slightly. MR. GARRAND-You're allowed to adjust the contours of the shoreline like that? MR. JARRETT-Actually we need a permit from the DEC for the wall anyway, and so I don't think we're, we're actually not modifying the beach area below mean high water, but above it we are putting some extra sand in. I believe that the permit from DEC will only involve the wall. I don't believe it's going to involve the beach. MR.JACKOSKI-So,Tom,can you address the shoreline buffering requirements? MR.JARRETT-Shoreline buffering requirements. What we're proposing? MR.JACKOSKI-Yes. MR.JARRETT-We're actually planting this rain garden virtually all the way across the property,and it has a shallow retention area, it's probably eight inches deep, roughly,but that's all vegetated with native plants in that area,that darker area,if that's your question. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,and where's the walking path go? MR. JARRETT-The walking path is right there, and they probably will cut through the beach, but right there is what we've officially designated as a walking path,that grass area. MR. JACKOSKI-So does is that a drop down, you have to step off the wall onto the sand back up on the wall and across the lawn? MR. JARRETT-No, actually this sand is flush with the grass right there. The wall there has a drop down to the lake,but the path is flush. There's no impediment to walking that path. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2013) MR.JACKOSKI-Laura,do you have an aerial of the current? So where is that beach on that parcel? MR.JARRETT-There's a little area right there that's,there's a little area of sand in that wall complex. The wall basically goes across the property. Well,the wall is falling in,too. MR. MERRITT-The sand's been eroded. MR. JARRETT-You'll also note the aerial correctly shows one dock. The second dock that's shown on the survey is not actually there now. MR. MERRITT-That wasn't our dock. MR. KUHL-What did you say, Tom,you're going to try to catch that water off Birdsall before it goes on to the pavers? MR. JARRETT-Right there is where Birdsall exists right now. It should be further to the rear,but it was relocated by others years ago and right now water comes down this shoulder, hits this area right here, and actually rolls off the road to some degree and stays in the shoulder of the road and puddles right there, and we're trying to see if we can get more of that water to go into a sump right there, and get off the road. I'm going to try and knock down this shoulder slightly by a few inches to allow water to go into this sump. I'm not going to re-grade the road, obviously, it's new asphalt, but they think that the impediment to water coming off the road right here causes it to pool right here and freeze in the wintertime. So we think we'll improve the situation a little bit with that sump. MR. GARRAND-Can you get approval from National Grid to dig around in their easement? MR.JARRETT-We obviously have to call Dig Safely and avoid their utilities,yes. MR. GARRAND-But you also,that's a utility easement. So you might want to talk to them before. MR.JARRETT-Right here? MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR. JARRETT-Well, obviously if we're precluded from digging it, we'll have to either move it or abandon it,but right now we think we can do it. MR. MERRITT-And for what it's worth, I think in 1997 or 1998, there was talk about paving the road, and the Town, at that time the Town adopted a number of roads similar to Birdsall Road throughout the Town, and its roads by use, because there were some problems with the Town collecting Federal Highway tax and not, in reality, maintaining the roads. So they determined that they would pave it to make it easier for them to plow, to begin to plow. At that time I spoke at the meeting and asked them to carefully consider the location of the road, gave the history of the road as best as I remember since I guess 1960, and asked that they consider carefully paving it because of the impact on the lake, as well as,you know, personal impact,because even way back then,when the cottage was first built, we fought and fought and fought, we as a family, as we were family thought about living there year round, and it was too far in the woods for (lost word) who didn't drive, and so it never happened, again, for what it's worth. We're hamstrung by the placement of the road. MR.JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members before I open up the public hearing? MR. HENKEL-You say you're going to divert the water,how are you going to do that? Are you going to make a drywell or is it going to be something that you're going to slope up that's going to affect the other people that are across the street or? MR.JARRETT-Along Birdsall,you mean,that little slope? MR. HENKEL-Yes. MR. JARRETT-It's a stone lined sump. It's really like an earth catch basin with stone lining, very small, not going to be intrusive at all. We're going to have rocks around the top so people can't drive in it,but if we take down the shoulders,the soil along the shoulders by a few inches, we think we may encourage water to go into that sump as opposed to pooling on the road. Certainly not going to reconstruct the road to do this. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2013) MR. MERRITT-We don't have to do that. Do we? MR.JARRETT-No. This is something we felt,we thought it would be beneficial for the neighborhood and beneficial for the Merritts, but if the Board's concerned with it, we can delete it from the project. MR. JACKOSKI-So, Tom, the V-1 drawing, the road width is truly plotted as it sits? There is that much property behind the road to the property line? MR.JARRETT-That's correct. That's correct. MR.JACKOSKI-Because it looks less on that picture than it does on this drawing. MR.JARRETT-Well,our map is based on a survey. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So what is the distance from the back of the garage to the edge of the macadam? MR.JARRETT-Sixteen feet I believe. I can check that. MR.JACKOSKI-So that's pretty tight to park cars. MR. JARRETT-It is tight. We don't have a lot of room. They're not going to park full sized cars, actually,if I can find it. MR. JACKOSKI-You know, it's such a shame that the Town didn't strategically place this road. When you said that the road wasn't actually in the right of way, where is that right of way as compared to the road? MR.JARRETT-I'm not sure I can tell you. Bill,you'll have to point this out. MR.MERRITT-In a recent meeting,a preliminary meeting that we had with Craig Brown,he pointed out that the road was not in the right place, that it should be, you know, further back, according to the survey. MR.JARRETT-Did it overlap where the road is now,or was it further up the hill? MR. MERRITT-Well, that road's been in so many places,you know, in a lifetime, as people paved or built garages or the area on the other side of Birdsall Road was developed, before the Town was paying attention to things. MR. JARRETT-National Grid pole right there. So, I was lead to believe that the road was further upslope from that originally. I don't know that for sure. MR.JACKOSKI-So I guess on this survey map that I'm looking at,V-1, it kind of does show the gravel drive cutting across this parcel, it's catching that southeast corner, but I thought that that drive wasn't at that corner. I thought it was actually kept away from that corner. MR.JARRETT-Yes. Do you want to show that to the Board. Show that to the Board. MR. DYBAS-This is off of an old survey. There's the right of way right there. Now I don't know what that's about, but (lost word) the road goes right around the back of the property, well, the right of way is around the back of the property, and there's Birdsall here, in fact, (lost word) had the road moved three or four years ago. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Shall we open it up to public hearing? Okay. I know there's going to be a public hearing this evening. So if you could vacate that table,that would be great. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this matter in front of the Board this evening. If you could come to the table, I'd appreciate it. Welcome. If you could identify yourself for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DEBRASHEEHAN 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2013) MS. SHEEHAN-Sure. My name is Debra Sheehan. I'm an attorney from Albany, NY. I'm here representing the Millers on this application,and I'm with Vickie and Steve,who are also here. MR.JACKOSKI-And just for the record,the Miller parcel is directly behind this parcel,and to the? MS. SHEEHAN-To the east,that's correct. I think one of the concerns here is that no one seems to recognize that there is a detriment to nearby properties here, and that would be my client's property. They're across the road. They're behind what we would call the back lotter as opposed to the front lotter on the lake. Here,with a 26 foot 10 inch garage at the level of the road, it is going to totally block my client's view of the lake. He has pictures showing his view from his house, and what we did, because we didn't have dimensions, we didn't have a site plan, there's no survey, there's no footprint showing the old and the new, at least in the documents we had yesterday, you can't really, to scale, say what that elevation is going to be,but Steve's an engineer and he gave us a pretty good approximation of what his view is going to be. The other thing that came up tonight, in terms of detriment to nearby properties, is the concept of a sump pump across the road, which is right next to where my client's well is,and we would object to anything that collects water on top of his well, particularly runoff water from the road. Here are his pictures, and he also has a letter he'd like to submit with his objections, but I think if you look at the detriment to the nearby property owners,you have to look at the view. You have to look at that. In addition, I do believe,you know, it is my belief that the so called hardship is self-imposed. They're going from 1344 square feet to 2221 square feet. That is a huge jump, and putting a garage, which they don't presently have, and it's really the elevation of the garage. This is a stepped building, the contours of the land, and we understand that, but do you need a two story garage at the highest point of elevation on your property? I would say no. I would say that's a huge detriment to my client's property. There's no footprint shown of the old versus the new. So it's kind of hard to compare. Looking at the application itself, they are saying that the hardship would be that they'd have to put in a smaller structure. That's not a hardship. Basically they're saying that they need storage space underneath the garage,eight feet of storage space. Again,that brings it up to pretty much a two and a half story structure. Do you really need that much storage space in what they're calling a two bedroom house? In regard to the variances for wastewater and that sort of thing,we're not really interested, but what we are interested in is the overall square footage of the house,which is greatly increasing, and how that essentially is (lost word) for my clients. You can see essentially what the new footprint as well as we can tell because there really are no documents that show that, but show where the old house is as opposed to the new house, and the height of the new house, and I think that you can see that that is a substantial impact on the neighbors. Again, looking at their drawings, I know that these are preliminary drawings,but they really don't show the dimensions of the house,other than,you know,the square footage. We don't see where placement of the house is going to be on any of their documentation. Without knowing the actual size and where it's actually going to be, I think that it's very hard to approve a project like this. I'm not saying it's not a beautiful house. It is. It's a beautiful house, what they've designed, but it's a detriment to my clients in that they're raising the height. Now if you want to give them a variance, then I suppose that,you know, Glen Lake is going to look like Miami Beach,have all the high rises on the front, nice lakeside views for the front people, but the back lotters have nothing. I think it will diminish the value of their property. I certainly would make that argument at a Board of Assessment Review if this project is to go through. I think that really it's a self-imposed hardship. They're going from a seasonal residence to a family home,year round. That's all very well and good, but they could still stay within the 1400, 1500 square foot building. They don't need a two car garage at street level that blocks everyone else's view. We would ask that more information be provided in regard to the actual lot,where they're actually going to put the house. We would like to see actual dimensions on their drawing so we actually know how big that garage is going to be. They say the height is going to be 26 10. That's,you know, a foot and two inches less than what your regulations allow, but is that a good spot to be when you're at street level and everybody else is behind you? I mean, it's going to totally block the view and diminish my client's value of their property. We would also like to see, in terms of the footprint and site plan, information regarding the sump pump, particularly visa vie my client's well, which I know they already had their variance with their septic, but my client's well is the closest to the septic of anybody in the neighborhood's. So if they're going to put a sump pump on top of it, I think that that's an issue as well, and I think a 16 foot driveway when you don't know where the right of way is, I think that's an issue, barely enough for them to park cars, and I think the right of way issue is a huge issue. I know that the Town maintains that road, but what happens when they want to widen the road? I really think that a 16 foot driveway that's awfully close in terms of a garage to the roadway. I think what we would like to see done is perhaps a scaled back house, perhaps something, they're already asking for a variance from the sidelines. They're asking for a variance from the shoreline. I believe they're moving it back four inches. They can certainly do better with a smaller house, a one story house, certainly not a two story garage in the back, that blocks everyone's view. Perhaps a detached garage. If they need more storage space,perhaps an Amish shed. I mean,there are lots of other alternatives which have 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2013) not been addressed on this application, and I think that it needs to be. Also on the Area Variance site development data,they don't even note that they're adding a garage. So they're making it seem like they only want 1344 square feet to 1659 square feet. That's on Page Two of their worksheet. Actually that house as we know is going to be almost 2200 square feet, a rather substantial house, even though they purport that it will only have two bedrooms. I do note that on the plans they have lots of spare space. They have a loft. They have attic space,they have space underneath the garage. Again, is this all going to be converted to living space and is that going to adversely affect the sewage,septic and my client's well,which is only 73 feet from the septic tank. STEVE MILLER MR. MILLER-This is Steve Miller, and again, I would just really like to voice our concern. I've submitted a letter with picture. I have more copies if any people would like to review them or you can see the pictures up on the display, and again, I scaled the renderings as close as a I could, not knowing exactly where the house is,but knowing that it's a two story garage,going right up to road level. As we look out our living room, our office, our dining room,where we see like the mountains, we're just going to see the back of a garage and the side of a house. Because our house points right at the Merritt residence and their house is at an angle to that. So we'll see the end of it and the profile, but right now we enjoy a very nice seasonal view in the wintertime. It does go away once the trees come out. The trees are great, but with this house and this garage, it all goes away the whole year, and our property value is based on this, we pay taxes based on our property value, based on our view, and we just don't think that it's right to just let that go away. We're very concerned about our well. The proposed septic system is based on filtering their sewage through Irish peat moss basically and it's a, there's no guidelines from New York State or local as far as installation, maintenance or anything. The approval was based on the engineer the Merritts have hired to locate the system. There's no checks and balances. We don't know, I don't know, personally, I'm not an expert on it if it's going to be installed correctly or not, or to a State Code because State Code doesn't exist, and also the Merritts are drilling a new well and they're giving themselves 95 feet where they're giving us 72 feet, and we have a shallow, uncased point well that is 72 feet away from their sewage system, and their sewage system is a surface system, albeit our well is a little higher than theirs. Chances are water runs downhill to our shallow uncased well, and now this is the first time I've heard of the proposed sump for road drainage,which would bring all the drainage from the road, all the (lost word) from the winter,from the cars, every time it rains we'll have antifreeze and tire residue running down and draining in within 10 feet of our well, our shallow uncased well that we've had tested. It's great water,and we're very concerned about it. MR. JACKOSKI-Could you address, because I understand that there was some discussion about contamination of the well possibly and that the Merritts had a financial obligation to the Millers concerning future contamination. MS.SHEEHAN-I understand that as part of their septic approval they have to have it tested. MR. MILLER-As I understand it, they'll pay for three water tests, one test a year for three years. It could be longer,but the financial responsibility is nothing more than paying for water tests. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I watch the broadcast of the Town Board meeting, so I listened to what was being discussed. MR. MILLER-And I did my research on this system. I engineer things for a living. I personally have several patents, domestic and international. I wouldn't use this and I wouldn't put it next to my well. I just have to say that. I'm very concerned. There are other States,four or five States,where published reports where there's 12, 15, 20% failure rate in these systems, and we're the canary in the coal mine for this system. We'll find out that it's failing when my wife and I get sick, and then we're out of a house. We're out of a well. We're out of everything, until it's get reclaimated, and the onus,as I understand it,is on us, personally,to fix it,to reclaimate it,to prove where everything came from. We all know that's pretty hard, and it's a hardship we're not risk along with the loss of view for anything really. MS. SHEEHAN-Again, I think our point is we would rather see something scaled back, something one story, something that's not 26 and 10 inches above the road level. I think that's a severe impact, and we would like the project to be scaled back. I certainly think that it could be. Although it's a nicely designed house, it's a beautiful house, and I have no problems with the house. I just have problems with the location of the house, although, again, we're not really certain where that location is going to be. There's just too little information in regard to this project, I believe, for the Board. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2013) MR.JACKOSKI-Do you have a height of the house that you would be comfortable with? MS. SHEEHAN-Again, I think that that would have to be something that they'd have to look at. I mean, I don't know that you've ever gone out and measured the height of the road. MR. MILLER-Yes. We haven't done a survey or really sited in the heights,but if the roofline was to stay the same, and they can improve the property, I'm all for it. I'm not here to say someone can't improve their property. I actually like the design. I think it's a great house,but it's kind of like the old saying not in my front yard because my views that I've paid for and pay taxes on, we pay taxes on,just go away,just disappear. MR.JACKOSKI-Are there vista rights,do you know,by chance,if you do have vista rights? MR. MILLER-In the deed? MR.JACKOSKI-Yes. MR. MILLER-I don't know the answer to that. MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, this was all owned by that one family. I just wonder if there were vista rights. MS. SHEEHAN-I don't know the answer to that. MR. MILLER-I don't know the answer to that,either. MS. SHEEHAN-I certainly think there are inherent vista rights,if nothing else. VICKIE MILLER MRS.MILLER-What was that question? MR. MILLER-Were there vista rights in the deed. MR.JACKOSKI-Do you know if you have any vista rights,restrictions? MRS. MILLER-Restriction,the only covenants that I, there's two covenants that I am aware of, one that Mr. Hirsch insisted on,it was about mobile homes,trailers on the property, and the second one was that path across the front for the Hirsches,their descendants and residents. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Anything else? MS. SHEEHAN-No,like I said, I just would ask that it be scaled back to something that maintains the same height level as what is presently there. I think that the hardship is totally self-imposed and you're adding almost 900 square feet,two story garage. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. MILLER-It is a lot, and I hate to sound repetitive, but we're very concerned about our well and our water, and now I find out tonight about a sump for road runoff within 10 or 15 feet of our well. Yes. It really truly is unacceptable. I mean, it certainly didn't take us into consideration when they designed this, and we're not the only back lotters. We're the only ones here,but we're not the only ones. So there are other people,and there's a beautiful lakeside home right around the corner with a two car garage and great house,great view. There are other answers. This is not the answer. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thankyou. MR. MILLER-Thank everybody for their time. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. The public hearing is still open. Is there any written comment for the public record? There is written comment here. So we're going to have,read these into the record. MR. URRICO-I'll start out by reading the letter that was just handed to me. "Dear Chairman and Board members: My wife and I are full time residents on Marley Way behind the Merritt property. I have owned the property and have been a full time resident for almost twenty years. Currently we enjoy a panoramic view of the lake and mountains and clean safe drinking water. We 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2013) understand the Merritt's "want"to improve their property but don't see the proposed project as an essential need or hardship. The property is and has been a seasonal camp for two generations, not a primary residence. The request for zoning relief is very significant and is a self-created hardship. When I purchased the property part of the price or value of the property was based on the view of the lake and mountains. We have paid significant taxes on the property over the years based on the view we have of the lake and mountains. Our property value is based on the view. This project proposes the construction of a significantly larger taller house and a new garage that will block the view that was purchased with the property, we pay taxes on and our property value is based on. The height of the proposed house is approximately 12 feet higher than the existing house. The proposal includes a new garage approximately 18 feet above road level positioned dangerously close to the road. Where my wife and I now enjoy a beautiful panoramic view of mountains and lake this project would give us a view of a roof peak and the back of a garage. This project would significantly reduce the view we enjoy, paid for, pay taxes on and our property value is based on. Pictures are included on pages 2, 3, and 4. Another part of this proposed project is relief from the required 100 feet of separation from the Merritt's septic system to our existing well. Our well is shallow and has no casing. The approval was based on the Merritt's using what I would refer to as an experimental septic system because there is no state or local guidelines for installation or maintenance. My wife and I voiced our concerns but our concerns were dismissed and a separation of 72 feet from our existing well to the Merritt's proposed septic system was approved. In the proposed project the Merritt's well would be 9S feet away from their proposed septic system. The Merritt's have done a lot of preparation for this project. There are many letters of support from other lake side property owners, many who have improved their properties and others who possibly want to. The approval of this project would certainly set a precedent allowing lake side owners to create a wall of garage doors and roof peaks along the lake side hiding the current lake and mountain views from everyone even those people who have paid for it. Language in the application states;That the property is very small,but the Merritt's have taken great pains to design a new home that not only meets their future needs, but is sensitive to impacts on the lake, their neighbors and the Town as a whole. My wife and I do not agree with this. The proposed project might meet the "wants" of the Merritt's but would compromise our well and drinking water, take away the lake and mountain views we paid for, pay taxes on and sets our property value. We should not be required to give up something we have paid for and sets the value of our home. We do not support or want this project to proceed in its current form and will continue our objections if necessary. Most Seriously, Steve and Vicky Miller" "Dear Mr. Brown: We are writing in support of the variance application held by Bill and Carol Merritt, our neighbors on Birdsall Rd., in the Town of Queensbury. A review of the variance requested appears only to have a positive impact on our community for several reasons. A reconfiguration and modernization of the property will only improve the environment for all of us. The Merritt's have requested insignificant relief from the codes and the rebuild will be more in accordance with existing codes than the original aging structure. Upgraded septic and consideration for management of storm runoff will also better protect the lake and surrounding wells. We also have no problem with the request to maintain an 8 foot ceiling height under the garage space as it will not negatively impact the appearance of the neighborhood yet make it easier for the Merritt's to negotiate the property. The Merritt's, whom we have known for 30 years, have visited us on a number of occasions to inform us of their plans and request our opinion on such matters. They have always been fair and honest people and show the utmost respect for the environment and our community members. We hope this letter is helpful to you and the Merritts. Good luck and thank you for your service to the community. Sincerely Maureen and Tom Valenti" And they're at 113 Birdsall Road. "To Whom It May Concern: We are the most immediate neighbors of Carol and Bill Merritt. The Gwinup and Merritt families have been neighbors on Glen Lake for over 40 years. The Merritts have kept us informed of their building plans each step as they progressed. We approve of their plans and the variances. We believe it will be an overall improvement to our neighborhood and the environment. Sincerely, Dan and Kathy Gwinup" And I don't have their address that I can see. MR.JARRETT-They're next door to the west. MR. URRICO-Okay. "As long time stewards of Glen Lake, we and the Merritts have always felt the health of the lake is of foremost importance. Waterfront ownership has its own ethical environmental responsibility. It is apparent that the Merritts agree and have taken this responsibility into account in their planning. With that in mind, we unequivocally support their requests for a few variances of relief from setbacks and a minor FAR variation. The site development will, in fact, make the "neighborhood" much improved in terms of septic and storm water management. Please grant their requests tonight so they can proceed with their plans to build their new home on the lake. Sincerely, Wally Hirsch Kate Hirsch" And they're at 14S Birdsall Road. "Attention: Craig Brown Regarding: Merritt Proposal Please forward these comments to the appropriate board concerning the proposed Merritt residence on Birdsall Road. We understand that Bill and Carol Merritt are asking to replace their seasonal camp with a year- 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2013) round residence. As twenty year summer residents and neighbors,we are speaking in favor of the proposal, although we cannot attend the meetings. Conversions of seasonal residences to year- round are constantly occurring on the lake. This is an inevitability as the population ages and as lakefront values increase. The Planning and Zoning boards are faced with the difficult challenge to strike a balance between acceptable variances from the code and those requests that are simply unreasonable. I believe that the key to acceptability concerns the issue of long term permanent solutions versus short term fixes. I find the requests asked for by Bill and Carol to be reasonable based on the following considerations. 1. Many of the original lots that were sold when the lake community was initially formed in the 50's are now considered substandard and nonconforming. These long ago established lots should be allowed some degree of leeway as they are brought before the Board. The community's goal should be to allow a result that is palatable for the owners and also provides an environmentally sustainable project which will ultimately serve to protect the adjacent aquatic resource. 2. This is not a self-imposed hardship. I believe that the Merritt family owned the land prior to enactment of many of the current land use regulations and I believe that the proposed plan will improve many of the currently non-conforming issues and be a benefit to the character of the area. 3. Replacement and upgrade of the septic system is an obvious benefit. Camp to year round conversions serve to improve the long term water quality of the lake. 4. There really are few alternatives to this proposal. Gerrymandering the footprint to bring the building more into compliance may result in an awkward and unpalatable plan for the owners. Denying the proposal would serve only to postpone the review as the site will eventually be built upon by either the Merritt family or whomever they eventually sell the land to. S. Lakefront living puts neighbors in close contact with each other and disputes over real or perceived issues can often develop. I am sure that some neighbors will speak out against, as well as in support of the proposal. It would be interesting to ask any commenter to divulge any variances that they have sought or obtained, (I received a 4 ft. height variance on my garage seven years ago.) Thank you for your consideration,Russell Pittenger, Lin Whittle 139 Birdsall Road" And that might be it. MR. MERRITT-Isn't there a letter there from Colleen Beadelston,and isn't there,there was a fax that was submitted (lost word) letter of support also. MR. URRICO-I do not see that there are any other comments here. I'll continue looking. If I come up with it,I'll let you know. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. So we're going to let the secretary continue to look, and as we address some of the questions that have been raised during public comment, if he finds them he can certainly,because we are keeping the public record open at this time. MR. URRICO-It does not look familiar. "I am a "long time" resident of Bill & Carol Merritt on Birdsall Road. I am familiar with their building project on Birdsall Road and I am supportive of it. I support their project for many reasons, mainly because it improves the present situation and is beneficial to the lake and our neighborhood. I urge the town to approve the Merritt's project. Colleen Beadelston" And is there an address for her? MR. MERRITT-I don't know what number her house is. It's next to. MR.JACKOSKI-Let's pick 119. MR.JARRETT-Random? MR.JACKOSKI-119, 121. MR. MERRITT-It's next to the Cembrook project. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So we've had quite a bit of stuff that's come up this evening, and I do know that the Millers are looking to maybe ask one, or mention one more thing for public comment. You might need to use the microphone. I'm sorry. MS. SHEEHAN-I think that,according to my client,all those letters are from what I call front lotters. My clients are back lotters. Of course they're going to, their view isn't blocked. Maybe they want to put up a 28 foot garage. We don't know, but is a real impact back here. There's not a real impact living next door. There's not a real impact if you're four camps down. There's no question this is an improvement to the property. We don't question that. What we would like to see is a less intrusive project in terms of height and the grade. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So it looks like you're on. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2013) MR. DYBAS-First of all, I want to clarify that the highest ridge of this building is 26 feet 2 inches to the lowest grade on the property. The ridge of the garage is approximately 16 feet above the road. If we were to build a freestanding garage under the Code that is imposed in Queensbury, we would have a 16 foot high ridge, no difference whether it's freestanding or attached. If it's attached we could build it a lot higher. The ridge height is basically driven by the house, and we also had to raise the floor level of the first floor by approximately four feet because of the floodplain,which we have to comply with on Glen Lake. So that raises the whole house up. As far as the size of the house,the existing house is 1344 square feet of gross area. If you take the garage off this house,it's 1350 square feet. I mean, it's not an appreciable difference in footprint. The detailed site plan and the drawings have been available, the application ever since it was submitted. So I don' t know why they can't find the location. As I mentioned before, the setback from the lake is driven by the location of Birdsall Road, and I was asked can we move it back farther with the driveway. Well,we won't be able to park anyone in your driveway, again,because of the location of the road. That has become a real problem with designing this home, and having a garage access, and another point is the Merritt's wish to have an inside way of getting downstairs. So part of this entrance is through the garage. If you notice on the plans there's a set of stairs that go down to the main floor level. You'd enter through that loft level, which is basically open to the area below. So it is driven by, I hate to say we're all getting older. I don't like the steps that go down to the lake right now, down through the property. I've been up and down several times,and as far as the height,it's hard to tell by those pictures, but first of all, the trees are bare, but in full foliage,the trees are going to block a lot of the view. Secondly,the ridge height of the new house is about 10 feet higher than the existing house, and photographs are deceiving, but I would like to see what a surveyor would say as far as their floor level, their main floor level in relationship to the ridge of the new house, because as far as looking over it,if you look,you're really looking right down over the top of that house so much as the lake, and it's not going to be appreciable difference in view horizontal from their property, and the other thing is, you know, vista covenants. I sit on another Planning Board in another municipality, and all too often this comes before us, and it becomes a difficult issue, but lately it's tough if there's no covenant. It's tough to make that stand when you're trying to take a position on a (lost word). It really makes our decisions difficult, and we wrestle with it constantly. I will tell you,usually it gets built,and with the development on the lake,I've heard that it's a large house and you want it scaled back. It's not a large house. If you subtract the garage from 2200 square feet, it is not a large house, and the idea of storage on the garage, it happens to be a point of construction. We have to build a foundation anyway. If need be,we fill it back in two feet and come in at a 22% (lost word) but it makes no sense, as far as doing that just to crunch numbers. We'll turn it over to Tom. MR. JARRETT-There's some misinformation that's floating around, including some from me. I had mentioned 16 feet from the road to the garage. It's actually 18 feet. So there is room to park at least a medium, moderate sized car. Curt has addressed the height of the house. We can come back to that in a second. I'd like to touch on the septic system for a minute. That was reviewed at length with the Town Board. All of the concerns mentioned tonight were brought up and a number more. After an exhaustive review, and members of the Board may have listened to that, those proceedings,the Board approved the variances we needed, and the testing that we need to provide is annually for three years, plus every three years for a total of 12 years minimum, and we are to report back to the Board if there are problems, and this system is not an experimental system. It's been in use in this area for at least 20 years, no problems that I know of locally have been reported, and in here is the engineering community locally continues to favor these systems because they are so successful and they're easy to operate and easy to maintain. The Department of Health recognizes them as an enhanced treatment unit, and we are providing total treatment that far exceeds Department of Health and Queensbury standards. The Town Board approved the variances and we feel it's an appropriate system for this location. The well in question, the neighbor's well, is uphill from our site, to the rear away from the lake, and we do not believe that they are drawing water from an aquifer that is fed from effluent from our system, which we demonstrated to the Town Board. That leads into the question of the sump on the side of the road that we're proposing. Number One, that's proposed to handle water that's already there, that already infiltrates,but it's a hazard on the road surface itself. We're just trying to get it off the road, and actually the pictures that we have, Laura, will show that ponding in the road. We have, in our directory it says photos. If the Board is concerned with that sump and the neighbor is concerned with that sump, we'll get rid of it, but we, frankly, think that it's a benefit to get rid of that hazard. The road runoff is already there. All we're trying to do is manage it so it's not a hazard. There's the flooding in the road. It's not on the Merritt property, by the way. Our sump is proposed approximately here. The flooding runs down the road and pools right there in the low point of the road. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I don't think anybody has an issue that we know there's a runoff issue there. We know that the runoff comes from both directions. We know it comes down Marley Way. We 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2013) know it comes down Birdsall Road Extension east and west. It does flood on to each lot and you can watch it flow. There's no doubt there's an issue there. That was probably more of a town created issue because they paved the road and they didn't put any stormwater controls in. MR.JARRETT-The only reason I bring it up is the neighbors are concerned with it. MR.JACKOSKI-Sorry, Brian. MR. KUHL-Water and Soil's got a grant for Glen Lake to put. MR.JARRETT-A drywell in. MR. KUHL-That's right. Talk to Tim. MR.JARRETT-We didn't understand it was in that location,but we can double check that. MR. KUHL-They're looking for locations. MR.JARRETT-They are? Okay. MR.JACKOSKI-And that would be a wonderful place for it because that does need attention. MR. JARRETT-The septic system, I think that's an issue that the Town Board addressed thoroughly. I don't think we need to bring it up more here unless the Board has specific concerns. We feel it's an appropriate system. The sump next to the road we will deal with. The height of the house Curt dealt with as well as the size of the house. The garage is actually cited so that the level of the garage is at Birdsall Road. It's really basically a one story garage from Birdsall Road. There's house underneath that level which is closer to lake level, but the garage is based on Birdsall Road, the Birdsall Road elevation, and the height of the house, which is compliant, is measured from grade, the original grade, which is much closer to lake level. So we feel that the height being compliant should not be an issue in this situation. MR. JACKOSKI-Tom, while you're addressing that, can you help me understand, from what you believe as an engineer,the point of the elevation of the macadam to what would be considered, and that's a great picture to see it, the elevation of the first floor of the Miller residence. What is the differential between those two points,because it's clearly,right. MR.JARRETT-If I've got the right house. MR.JACKOSKI-That is the gray house there with the deck and the second floor. MR.JARRETT-Right here? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. What do you think the height is from the floor of that, the first floor of that building to the macadam, at the Merritt property, because that's a depression there where the water is, which is a lower spot than the Merritt's, because I think that would be a good understanding of how high this garage is going to stick out. MR. JARRETT-The topography we had done, the survey doesn't go far enough to give us grade at that house, but the well, which is situated here, you'll notice, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's approximately there. That well is approximately six feet above the road. So I would say the face of the house is probably close to 10 feet above the road,plus or minus. MR. JACKOSKI-I think it would be interesting for us, as a Board, I would assume, to know really what we're dealing with as far as elevations are concerned. Is that 16 foot projection, you know, only six feet up into the view shed or,so to speak,or is it 16 feet? MR.JARRETT-The house,you mean? MR. JACKOSKI-Well, we're trying to understand the impact to the neighboring home, and so if eye level is here. MR. JARRETT-Laura, could you go to the panoramic shot that we've got coming from the other direction. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2013) MR. DYBAS-Are you talking about the height of the garage as opposed to the height of the Miller property? MR. JACKOSKI-But then the concern is the view shed, and of course it would be from the property itself and/or the homes. I'm just trying to understand that differential. MR.JARRETT-We may not have put up a photo in the package. MR.JACKOSKI-Well,we don't have to address it at this moment. MR. KUHL-Can I ask a question,Mr. Chairman? MR.JACKOSKI-Sure. MR. KUHL-What are you going to use the space over the garage for? MR. MERRITT-The space over the garage. MR. KUHL-Will that be trusses or will it be storage? MR. MERRITT-It will, I asked, originally, I hoped for a fancy workshop. I was told under no circumstances, you know, whatsoever, and I said, well, what if I get down on my hands and knees and put things like that,and I was told,well,that might work for the center right at your feet. MR. KUHL-Right,but your intention is not to use it for anything. MR. MERRITT-No. To be honest, I might put a two by four up there. MR. KUHL-But,Tom,the construction's going to be trusses up there? MR. DYBAS-I'm thinking about adding trusses, what they call attic trusses so you come up with a space down the middle to put stuff. There's very little storage in this house. It's a crawl space that can be very wet. It cannot be used for storage. So we're looking for places for stuff, and that's one of the places that will be dry. The space below the garage will be damp and also our mechanical systems will be in there despite its very nature. MR. KUHL-But didn't you say that you were going to build a foundation under the garage now so that you'd have an eight foot ceiling and there's be storage under the garage? MR. DYBAS-Yes. There'll be about a seven foot floor ceiling underneath there, but because of the floodplain, I cannot put any equipment in the crawl space. MR. KUHL-Okay. It's dry storage. MR. MERRITT-It's questionable whether it's going to be dry storage. MR. DYBAS-It will be. MR.JARRETT-It has to be wet tolerable storage. MR. DYBAS-It would be wet tolerable storage. It's going to be like abasement. MR.JACKOSKI-Curt,you mentioned building the house four feet above where it currently is? MR.JARRETT-It's approximately that. The lake level roughly in the summer, and you all that live on the lake can tell me, but it's roughly 399 elevation, and the flood elevation, the 100 year flood elevation is 404, and we have to be 2 feet above that with all of our living space. So our first floor is at 406. MR.JACKOSKI-So what are you doing,you come out of the front of the house to get to the lawn? MR. JARRETT-Some grading, the existing lawn was not at 399. The existing lawn was at approximately 403,and then we're grading up a couple of feet. MR.DYBAS-But the building elevations are taken from the existing grade. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2013) MR.JACKOSKI-So it's going to be at 407? MR. JARRETT-No, no, no. The first floor is at 406, and from the grade to the top of the house is 26 10. MR.JACKOSKI-So the lawn is at 403. The first floor is going to beat 406. That's a three foot drop. So how are you getting out the front doors onto the lawn? MR.JARRETT-We're grading up a couple of feet above that 403 finished grade. MR.JACKOSKI-Within 50 feet of the shoreline. MR.JARRETT-Which is part of the site plan review. MR.JACKOSKI-And, Laura,the Planning Board had identified no questions or concerns. MRS.MOORE-Per your recommendation (lost words)versus the (lost words). MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, we hear all the time that they don't want us to touch within 30 feet of the shoreline, and they don't want us,they want us to have shoreline bufferings and they don't want us to alter the shoreline and they don't want us to be within 50 feet, and so I'm surprised that they didn't come back to us with a little bit more guidance. MRS. HUNT-I have a question. What is the area of the new house? You mentioned it, the square footage of the new house? MR. DYBAS-If you take the garage off. MR.JARRETT-Not including the garage. MR. DYBAS-Not including the garage,it's 1350. MRS.HUNT-And what about including the garage and the? MR.JARRETT-1659,if I remember the numbers correctly. MR. JACKOSKI-So, Curt, is that number including the attic trusses over the garage? Because I understand anything over five and a half feet needs to be included in the square footage. Correct? MR. DYBAS-No, it does not include that. Because it's not an occupied space. We also included the covered stairs going down the outside, because the Ordinance says anything covered has to be included. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, and I hate to keep asking questions, but this is a complicated project. Laura, when we were reviewing the project earlier today, one of things that came up is when you have a road by use cutting through or bisecting a parcel, and let's say it's farmland, okay, and they own left side of the road and right side of the road, the setbacks are determined from the property line that could be 10 acres across the road and down the street or is it actually from the road? MRS.MOORE-In this case (lost words). MR.JACKOSKI-Right,but what are we supposed to do concerning a situation like that? I mean, is it consistent to be looking at the line across the road for the front and rear setbacks? MR. JARRETT-We can elaborate as to what Craig's determination was. Either we had to include permeability as a requested relief, so we included the road on the property but took the setback from the rear setback line, or we could ignore the road and count the setback from the right of way of the road or the imputed right of way of the road. So we're asking for relief on permeability. Those are the two choices we were given. We thought we chose the lesser of two evils. MR. JACKOSKI-You came up in the review and I wanted to make sure it was on the record. Do Board members have any other questions at this time? I am going to leave the public hearing open. MR. KUHL-I make the assumption that this,what the system,the septic system is more than 100, or 100 feet from the Miller's well? 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2013) MR. JARRETT-No, it is not. That was one of the variances sought from the Town Board. We showed them that the system we propose is quite a ways down slope and we believe down gradient from them. MR. KUHL-What's the distance? MR.JARRETT-Seventy. MR. KUHL-Well,you've got 73 from the neighbors,but you don't have it on. MR.JARRETT-Well,this is not a variance we needed from this Board. MR. KUHL-I understand that. No, I'm just curious. MR.JACKOSKI-Overall impact,we're looking at overall impact. MR.JARRETT-Roughly 70 and change. MR. KUHL-Okay. Downhill. MR.JARRETT-Downhill and we believe down gradient. MR. JACKOSKI-Tom, what is your opinion if the Miller's well was encased 100 feet down? Would that improve the likelihood that there'd be no contamination? I mean, it doesn't go that deep, I don't think. MR. JARRETT-That's a difficult question to answer. In theory, one might surmise that, but it's not absolute,because groundwater flow is difficult to predict. Their well is so shallow and upslope, it's actually above the elevation that we're discharging effluent. So it's very unlikely that we're impacting their,it won't impact their well. A deep well might be actually more problematic. MR.URRICO-You say unlikely,but it could happen. MR. JARRETT-When you're dealing with geology and hydrogeology, it is very, very, very complicated,and it's hard to predict. I can't stand here and tell you exactly how it would react. MR.URRICO-That's their concern. MR. JARRETT-But in all likelihood, a hydrogeologist, and this was explored at the Town Board thoroughly. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,we've got to remember the Board of Health has acknowledged and accepted this application and this siting of this septic system or this parcel. MR. JARRETT-Every hydrogeologist that I've been involved with over the years has predicted, in situations like this, that that well would not be impacted, but professionally I'm not going to stand here and tell you absolutely. That's one of the reasons we proposed the system we did,for lack of a better term, it's overkill from what the standards require, and we do have the testing requirement in there. We have to annually test it for three years,and then test it every three years after that. MR. MERRITT-I don't want to speak out of turn or say something that's already been said, but we have the,the very old 50 year, 55 year old septic system. MR.JACKOSKI-Which is currently acting fine. MR. MERRITT-Which is currently acting fine, and it is probably, depending how you measure,at the very,very best 98 feet from the present Miller well. Now, you have the old septic system that far away or a brand new whiz banger all up to date,that is within. MR. JACKOSKI-And I think, Bill, that's the issue this Board's going to have is that of course you're using it seasonally now and the new system, the whiz banger as you call it, of course is going to be for the year round home,and I think we understand that. MR. JARRETT-Actually, if we get into that discussion,year round houses provide a more functional septic system and better treatment than (lost word). So let's not go there. It'll be a long night. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2013) MR. MERRITT-And additionally, my present well is in a tough spot because runoff from the roadway and from the,quote,back lotters,flows down into my well. MR.JARRETT-Their well currently is right on the side of the house. MR. MERRITT-You know, I wish very much to, and we test it regularly. We use it judiciously, and we desire a new well for those reasons,for safety reasons. MR. JARRETT-Let's face it, neighborhoods like this, old seasonal lakeside neighborhoods, are difficult. There are impacts galore from all properties. We think we've done a very good job of balancing those and minimizing,mitigating the impacts that are already there that we think will be lessened with our proposals here. MR. ME RRITT-Example,we've improved from the present situation immensely. The side line from five and a half feet to. MR.JACKOSKI-11 7. MR. MERRITT-11 7 in one spot, come within Code on the other side. Moved the house back from the lake a bit further than it is now, and certainly greater than the average of the property owners. As far as view goes, I can empathize with somebody who's view might be bought. I would like to see further down the lake. Son of a gun somebody built a house on the point,and I can't see around the corner. I'd like to look the other way down the lake, but son of a gun somebody built a house, and I can't see through there. Our house was there first. He bought that property. The people in the back bought property in the back, knowing that they were in the back. If the trees that we planted were evergreens and not hardwood, they would not have a view, but we chose to plant hardwood. I could easily plant. MR. KUHL-Be a good neighbor,right? MR. MERRITT-Yes,be a good neighbor. Be a good neighbor,and we always have been. MR.JARRETT-So do we detect that the Board still has concerns or have we? MR.JACKOSKI-I think we should poll the Board,and I think that's the next step I want to do and let's see what we've got,if you could. So I'm going to start with Kyle. MR.JARRETT-Sounds good. MR. NOONAN-Thanks for the Merritts and the Millers for voicing your concerns about the project. Both parties have impassioned views on what should happen. I do like what I hear about the engineering of the project. I was going to say anyway, Mr. Merritt just kind of said it,but when you buy a piece of property, I think you,there are some what if's down the road, and if you buy a piece of property and you had a great view but you might hope that someone doesn't build something that might impact your view a little bit. I don't think they're completely blocking your view with the engineering of the property. I would be in favor of this project. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-At this time I'm going to have to say no. I just think they're asking for way too much. There's no doubt that the stormwater and the septic tank definitely is definitely a good improvement,but at this time I'd pretty much have to say no. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I'd have to agree with John. Whether benefits can be achieved by other means feasible,build a smaller house. You can knock the FAR down. Undesirable change? Yes,it's going to change the neighborhood. It's going to have a big house where there used to be a seasonal camp. This area was originally designed as seasonal camps for,you know, three months of use out of the year. Now people are turning them to year round houses, putting up these bigger houses that basically don't fit the landscape. While other people are still, you know, can't afford to have a big house, it's ruining people's view shed. It's diminishing the value of other people's properties. Is the request substantial? Nine variances, cumulatively I'd say they're substantial. Will it have adverse environmental effects? I think the engineering was pretty good on this one. I can't really see, honestly, any serious environmental effects. Is it self-created? It's the applicant that's come before us to have a bigger house,and a year round house at that. I can't be in favor of it. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2013) MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I think there's some room for compromise here. I really do. I think the project as proposed, they covered a lot of territory, and I think the septic system's off the table. There is no need for a height variance, but I think we have to consider where this is located and what it could possibly do to the neighborhood down the road. I think we have a situation here where if we can be just a little bit more careful, maybe compromise a little bit more, than we can set up a situation where everybody gains down the road. I do think there are a lot of variances here. I think there's room to make the house a little smaller, and even Staff in its notes say feasible alternatives are limited,but it doesn't say not feasible. So I think there's some room and I'd like to see if we could pursue that. MR.JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I have to agree with Mr. Garrand. I think there are way too many variances required and I would not be in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-I think that this is a good utilization of the property. I don't think it's a McMansion,and I think it improves what's there now,and I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So we have four noes. Something's got to be built there or going to be built there,and I think when you buy parcels of property,you know,there is Code in place when you buy, and I don't think we ever had a height restriction around the lake that was below the 16 feet or 18 feet or whatever was going to be in that area. So I think I'm okay with the engineering. I know that the Town Board spent a lot of time working with the two parties in particular that are affected concerning the siting of the septic. I am not in favor at all of the hard surfacing out front. I'm not I favor of the reconstruction of that shoreline. I don't understand how you're going to walk through the rain garden with all those plantings to get to the water and to the dock,that depression area so, I guess, you know, Craig would probably slap my hand because that's more Planning Board stuff, but in trying to make the whole project work, I think the house can work. I agree with Ron. I think there's just some little bit of tweaking that might need to be done,but I just am very uncomfortable with my balancing test on the development of that front section. MR. JARRETT-Okay. Interesting comments. With regard to the waterfront, there's a grass path that actually goes right around between the wall and the rain garden. That's the path that's maintained for people to walk through the property,which is very infrequent. MR. MERRITT-Yes, at the property was that path, according to covenant, is for the Hirschs, their heirs and descendants,which I guess means the people they say who can walk there,we'll give you permission to walk there. They approved it. They're happy with us. They're content. MR. JACKOSKI-No, I'm sorry, I wasn't referring to the Hirsch's right. I was referring actually to the usage of the property coming out of that house onto the lawn and then how do you get to your lake, through the rain gardens? MR.JARRETT-Well,actually there is,can you pull up the rendering there? MR.JACKOSKI-And again, I think that's site plan review oriented anyway. MR.URRICO-And they're going to hear this all over again. MR.JACKOSKI-I think so. I mean,we got four noes, Tom. So,I mean,we can go to a motion. MR. JARRETT-All right. I was actually trying to flush out exactly how we would tweak the project. I guess I'm hearing some concern with the house and some concern with other issues,I guess. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes, so I do think it's reasonable that the applicant is requesting from the Board,you know, some guidance on how they might get comfortable with the project. Does anybody want to offer some suggestions? I mean,I have about the front,but. MR. GARRAND-You're talking more permeability? Reduction of the hard surfacing? MR.JACKOSKI-You guys know I never want to alter the shoreline. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2013) MR.JARRETT-I think we're getting rid of lawn in favor of rain gardens. MR.JACKOSKI-And I understand that, and I think that's,you know, I love the idea of the stormwater being managed on the parcel. I think that's just great because it's not there now and that's a huge improvement. It's the walls and the beaches and stuff that are bothering me, but that's me being consistent with my service here on this Board. MR.JARRETT-Others wish to weigh in? MR. GARRAND-FAR. MR. JARRETT-All right. We can get rid of that immediately by deleting that storage space ceiling height. MR. JACKOSKI-Which doesn't really make any sense, Rick, because you're never going to see that space anyway, so I understand it's a formality of the FAR, but they get rid of it, what did it do to change the project? MR.JARRETT-It doesn't impact the neighborhood at all. MR.JACKOSKI-The numbers don't see anything different. MR. DYBAS-What do you want, 18%? Change the Ordinance. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, we can't change the Ordinance, but I mean, you know, it's like when a client comes in and they get rid of their basement,it's still the same impact,visually. MR. GARRAND-Hypothetically what could be there with future homeowners,who knows. MR. JARRETT-Well, that space can't be made habitable because of windows and egress, it can't be made habitable. MR. DYBAS-It's surrounded. There's no way to get daylight or egress out of there. MR.JARRETT-Anyway,we can address that. MR. DYBAS-We can make it less than a five foot ceiling and fall within the 22%. MR. MERRITT-The entire garage would not be less than five feet,only a portion of it. MR. GARRAND-Are you talking about the area above the garage? Suppose you knocked. MR. MERRITT-No, I thought the area under the garage. MR. JARRETT-Yes, we can be compliant with FAR if we eliminate the storage ceiling height underneath the garage. MR. GARRAND-Or even, you know, line the garage up with the rest of the roof here, which would also improve the view for the people across the street. MR.JACKOSKI-Could that be done? MR. MERRITT-The people directly across the street that I spoke with yesterday. MR. GARRAND-The people behind you? MR. MERRITT-Directly behind me, have no problem. They approached us to say they had no problem. MR. GARRAND-Is that the Saccoccio family? Is that Saccoccio on the map,is that what that says? MR. MERRITT-Yes, they have no problem with the project whatsoever. The people on the other side of Marley Way, Larry, I don't know his last name, approached me yesterday, too, saying he would get no argument regarding the project from us after I explained what was going on. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2013) MR. DYBAS-It's going to look like an Adirondack check. We can flatten the garage roof out, but the aesthetics of the house just go,if that's what we need to do,we'll flatten the roof out on the garage. MR. GARRAND-I'm sure it would improve the view shed for Mrs. Sheehan's clients. MR. DYBAS-It's going to be about two feet difference. MR.JACKOSKI-And that's at a triangle,right,that's just the triangular piece? MR.JARRETT-That's just the gable. MR. DYBAS-Yes,the gable end. MR. GARRAND-It's an improvement. MR. DYBAS-It's not going to appreciably impact it as far as the roof over the top. MR.JARRETT-You have another application to review tonight. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes. MR.JARRETT-Could we meet and then discuss this with you for a few minutes before you table it? MR.JACKOSKI-Of course. MR.JARRETT-Before you take action. MR. JACKOSKI-Of course. We'll suspend the proceedings and hearings concerning this application at this time, at the request of the applicant. We'll move on to the next agenda item, but we will need to, Tom,just so you know,we will need to have closure this evening on this matter,so that we either table it or. MR.JARRETT-Yes, I understand that fully. Yes,we will come back with a tabling. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you for that. AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-2013 SEQRA TYPE II BRIAN BOOTH OWNER(S) BRIAN AND TARA BOOTH ZONING MDR LOCATION 1032 WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 260 SQ. FT. ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF BP 2011-439 RES. ALT.; BP YR. 1984- 8692 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2013 LOT SIZE 1.71 ACRE(S) SECTION 179-3-040, 179-13-010 BRIAN BOOTH, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 10-2013, Brian Booth, Meeting Date: April 17, 2013 "Project Location: 1032 West Mountain Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 260 sq.ft.residential addition. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Relief requested from minimum side setback requirements and for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. The addition is to be located 22.9 ft.from the side property line. 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. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2013) 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 be available but are limited due to the location of the home on the property 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Relief is requested for west side yard setback where 25 ft is required and 22.9 ft is proposed would be considered minimal; expansion of a non-conforming structure would be considered minimal as there is no increase intensity of use by increasing the structure size. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, BP 2011-439: Residential Alteration BP 8692: Single-Family dwelling 1984 Staff comments: The applicant proposes a 260 sq ft first floor addition to an existing single-family dwelling. The applicant has indicated the addition exterior will be consistent with the original structure; no new access proposed just standard windows to be installed. SEQR Status: Type II-no further review needed" MR.JACKOSKI-Welcome. MR. BOOTH-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Do you want to add anything more, or should we just go to asking questions by the Board? MR. BOOTH-Sure, I can just take questions. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Do any Board members have questions at this time? MR. HENKEL-I see you want to put an office in there. What kind of office is that? Is that like a home office? MR. BOOTH-Office/sitting room. Basically the layout of our home is very nice in that it's open floor plan, but it's one large living room/dining room kitchen all in one area. At the time my wife actually bought the home before we met, and it was just herself and her daughter, and so now there's four of us all together. So it's quite a lot in one room. We do have an entryway that was considered an office, but we have four pets and large dogs crates are in there. So it's not an office. So we kind of looking to have this extra room since the family's expanded obviously since we got married and since we have a child together a while back, and having the one family room is kind of tough. If somebody wants to do homework, they've got to go into their bedroom to do it. My wife's still going to school, so any time she has to write a paper, it's either ask everybody not to watch t.v. or go sit on the bed in the bedroom. So it's tough for work wise, as well as, you know, if somebody wants to watch a different show, you can't do it, but it's really just the comfort of the room or we're kind of compacted the one family room. It's a large square footage home, but with that open layout it's benefits are kind of countered by its negatives that you don't have any private space. Even if my mother came to stay the night, she's got to sleep in the living room. So there's no even little room with a door that we could blow up an air mattress or anything for anybody to have privacy. So it's really just, we've looked at finishing the basement, but it's quite challenging and would actually be more costly than the addition. We've looked at other locations around the property, but to the right hand side of our property, where the driveway actually is, is where the septic is. To the front,that's the office, or that's the living room and dining room, so we'd be going 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2013) off them. It's not really logical. It's hard to really visualize what's happening here. The back left corner of this house is a cutout. It's a very strange layout. So we're really just looking at fill in that (lost word) following the existing line. We don't run parallel to the property line, so we're getting farther back. So to put it in perspective, the current back left corner is 22.9 feet away. The front left corner of our house is only 18 feet away from the property, neighboring property,and the back end of the addition would be nearly 25 feet, 24 feet 3. So we're getting farther away, not more invasive. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? MR.GARRAND-Are you going to maintain the log cabin theme for the addition? MR. BOOTH-We are. It'll be, what we're going to do, because the logs, the mill that actually made the logs for this house burned down, apparently. We found that out because we actually had a small attic fire about two years ago at this property. So we had to spend quite a bit, or the insurance company had to spend quite a bit on the one corner that needed some logs replaced on getting custom ones made. So it's, what we're doing is we're going to do the very corner of the addition with true logs and then the rest will actually be log siding, so that it'll look the same, but you know, we can do a traditional stick frame there. We're not taking down any of the walls. We're actually just going to stud over top of the interior wall and we're just going to obviously have some type of cut out entry. It's in the engineering drawings, but we'll have a hallway entry. So there'll just be a door frame cut out into the lot. MR. GARRAND-I like the inside. MR. BOOTH-Have you been in? MR. GARRAND-Yes,a couple of times. MR. BOOTH-Okay. I know quite a few of the Town guys were there during our prior addition approvals during,back into getting the CO,and you do look familiar,actually. MR.KUHL-I would caution you not to make it too comfortable for your mother. MR. BOOTH-Yes,half the time she actually will stay. MR.KUHL-Make it a murphy bed. MR. JACKOSKI-So we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.JACKOSKI-Seeing no one,is there any written comment? MR.URRICO-No. MR.JACKOSKI-I'm going to poll the Board. Joyce,we'll start with you. MRS. HUNT-This is a very modest request and I would have no problem with it. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-I think it's a good project and I have no problem with it. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR.URRICO-Yes, I believe it satisfies the criteria. I'd be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I don't foresee any adverse impacts and I don't think this request is substantial. So I'd be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-John? 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2013) MR. HENKEL-I'm in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Come on,somebody say no. Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I'm in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-So I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-And can I have a motion,please? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-2013 BRIAN BOOTH, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: 1032 West Mountain Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 260 square foot residential addition. Whether there will be an undesirable change in the area. There will be minor impacts to the neighborhood. Feasible alternatives are limited because of the way the home is located. The request for the variance is minimal. There will be minor or no impacts to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The difficulty may be considered self-created. They just want to make the home more livable. So I move that we approve Area Variance No. 10- 2013. Duly adopted this 17th day of April, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hunt, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Good luck. MR. BOOTH-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Why don't we take a five minute recess and I'll go out and find out what's going on outside. All right. So we're going to go ahead and reconvene here. It's about 10 minutes to 10. Just to clarify for Board members and the applicant and those still in the audience, before we took our break here, we'll come back into session and we'll have the applicant address us. I'd like to offer the neighbors one more chance at some public comment, and then we'll poll the Board again if that's okay with everyone. So,Tom,and when you're ready. MR. JARRETT-Okay. Well, there's, well, we think it boils down to three issues that could be discussed, and one of them is the sump in the road which we would gladly delete from the project. (Lost word) to the Merritt's. We offered it voluntarily but it's become an issue. We will discuss it with Soil and Water and see if they are proposing something and that can be reviewed with the neighbors individually and separately. So we'll withdraw that variance request from our application. With regard to the storage underneath the garage, we will gladly withdraw that if the Board deems that appropriate. We've heard some comments that that really is not a material, it makes no material difference to the project. It really wouldn't have any impact on the neighborhood, but we've put it on the table if the Board would like us to withdraw that as well. House height is another issue that we've looked at just now in the hallway. We could reduce the height of the roof by a couple of feet. We think architecturally it detracts from the house, aesthetically it detracts from the house. We'd be willing to do it if it's a make or break situation, but I do call your attention to the funnel on the screen and that's a picture that I took from the end of the Merritt's dock. The Miller's house is there, I believe, and they can correct me if I'm wrong, but we're looking past the house, which is actually going to be located farther from the property line than the existing house. They have a view straight through that corridor and through their own lot right directly into the lake. So we think the height of this house, behind those trees, really is not as significant as what we've been lead to believe. So, we throw it on the table. If it's something the Board really feels we need to offer, we'd rather than, because architecturally we think it detracts from the house,but that's what we've come to. MR. DYBAS-I had to flatten the roof out,too, about two and a half on foot. MR. JARRETT-By the way, the space above the garage we will stipulate will not be above five feet. There is no potential for converting that to living space in the future. 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2013) MR. DYBAS-If we reduce it by two foot,then that brings us down to 26 10. MR.JARRETT-We're at 26 10 now. MR.JACKOSKI-2410. MR. DYBAS-Down to 2410. MR.JARRETT-We'd rather not,but we will (lost word). MR.JARRETT-You can see the roof lines would be. MR. DYBAS-All the roof lines on the house right now. MR.JARRETT-They match. MR. DYBAS-If you look from the lake it steps up and it carries that 6 12 through the whole house. What it would be if flat over the garage to match the slope that's on that one shed, and it just pulls everything down approximately two feet. You end up with two and a half on twelve pitch. MR.JACKOSKI-And you've decided to keep the beach area? MR. JARRETT-Actually, we can reduce that in size. It was all beach some years ago that the Merritt's were explaining to me, but we certainly can reduce that size. We don't think we should reduce the rain garden size because that's really stormwater management and a buffer to the lake, but we will reduce the beach area. Now the wall, interestingly enough, there's an existing wall there now, a wooden wall that's deteriorating, and we propose, I'm sorry, cement block, is deteriorating, and in keeping with DEC standards, they do not want a vertical wall anymore. They will not permit a vertical wall. So what we've shown is a stepped back wall. It's two courses high, and the second course is stepped back, so in effect it's like a 45 degree angle. So it looks like more impermeable surface than it really would be functionally suitable for or usable for. MR.JACKOSKI-So where will the high water mark be in the beach area? MR. JARRETT-You have our rendering there, Laura. Mean high water is barely in that beach. It probably comes up the beach three feet, I think. Bill and Carol,you can help me with that. I think the mean high water would be roughly three feet inland from that line. It would not come up here. This beach is intended to slope up to be a gradual transition to the waterfront. Carol asked for that for elderly,for them aging as well. CAROL MERRITT MRS.MERRITT-As aging parents. MR.JACKOSKI-It's hard for me because it's precedent setting. MR.JARRETT-Yes. MR. MERRITT-I thought there was no precedent setting because every situation was unique in and of itself. MR.JACKOSKI-You are correct. MR. JARRETT-We don't have a problem reducing the size of the beach somewhat, though. It is designed as a transition now in elevation, down to the waterfront,but we can reduce the area relief somewhat. MR. MERRITT-And it is an improvement from the present situation. Because the present situation, water flows aggressively underneath that(lost word) both directions, and it's a safety issue, and we have an obligation, as I said,through the covenant. What's a person supposed to do? And Tom has told me to shut my mouth and not say anything. Thank you. MR. JARRETT-Anyway,we're trying to work with the Board, and we recognize that it is a balancing act, a give and take situation. I thought we had done a very, very good job of trying to balance it coming here, but there are obviously the concerns the Board has. Have we reached that balancing point for you all now? 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2013) MR. JACKOSKI-Well, let's have some more public comment if we just could, now that we've gotten some answers. MS. SHEEHAN-I just really wanted to correct one point in the record. I believe it was requested to know the size of the new residence, and what they had said I believe, and this is (lost word) application,is the actual size of the residence without the garage is 1475. Now they are adding only the size of the garage which is 340, and not adding the other 400 worth of storage space, but that still leaves a residence with a garage of 1815 square feet. So I think that's the correct number as to the actual size of the project, even downsized, taking away the storage space underneath the garage. As to the new roofline that's been proposed, I mean,we would certainly be willing to look at that, but without drawings, without a site plan that shows the proposed location of the house, and the new roofline, I mean, I really don't think we can take a position on it, I don't think, because there's not enough information there. I mean, we are certainly willing to try and work something out. We would certainly be agreeable to a lower roofline, but we don't know what that number is that's going to not affect my client's view. MR.URRICO-They don't have to reduce the height. MS. SHEEHAN-No, I understand that. MR.URRICO-They're legally under the 28 feet. MS. SHEEHAN-They're legally under the 28 feet. I totally understand that, but they're also in a situation where they're asking for variances and to move a structure that has been there S0, 60 whatever years,that was present when my clients bought it, and certainly the expectation is,when you buy a piece of property,that your neighbor's not going to be able to do something that violates the Code. MR.JACKOSKI-But the height isn't violating the Code. MS. SHEEHAN-I understand that, but they're asking for nine variances. So something is violating your Code. MR.JACKOSKI-But you understand Code is there only to set the initiation. That's why we have this Board here so that we can look at each unique situation where the property doesn't. So it's not really a violation of Code. It's just that the Code doesn't fit this particular project. So, and that's why we're here working on it so that we can determine what the best fit is for the parcel. MS.SHEEHAN-Right. MR.JACKOSKI-It doesn't restrict it from happening. MS.SHEEHAN-Right. I understand that. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. MS.SHEEHAN-What I'm saying is,though, I still think you need to look at what the detriment is,and I still think that saying, well, we're going to flatten it, that really isn't enough information to determine what the detriment is to my clients. MR. MILLER-And one thing, too, in the picture, and if you could put it back up, please, is her house actually doesn't face toward the lake so much as it points right at the Merritt house. MR. MERRITT-That's not true. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Let's let the public speak and then we'll have the applicant come back to the table. MRS. MILLER-We do, we have our living room, which faces our land going down to the lake, all right, but our view, when you walk into our home, we have a big picture window, which is where the Merritt's house is right now. That's our dining room and our kitchen area, and that's through the whole house, and when you look out,that's right what we see from the main part of our house. So it does point in that direction. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2013) MR. MILLER-If you could scroll it back so you took one picture sitting on her dining room table right there you can see the chair on the other side. MRS.MILLER-That's our dining room table. MR. MILLER-That's our dining room table. That's where we've been eating dinner for along time. MRS. MILLER-That's our big window that we lookout to the lake. We do have our living room area. We do have access through that that we're not questioning that. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. All right, and I think the Board members have been to the site so we can see the way things are oriented. Is there anything else you'd like to add to the record? MR. MILLER-Just one thing, and I know the septic was approved and it is a concern, and one question that no one could answer about these systems, has a well ever been placed within 72 feet of one, a shallow uncased well? And no one knows that answer, and no one can show data that a well had been put in that close,that far away,how deep is the well. There's no information on that. So even if this system has all the seals of approval, it's still kind of an experiment because no one can answer has it ever been placed within 72 feet of a shallow uncased well? And there has been no really true study to show, hydrogeological study that I've seen that shows the data around that area. MR.JACKOSKI-Let's hope your water tests come back clean,then. MR.MILLER-Well,we'll find out after we come back from the doctor,you know,if we get sick before the end of the test,I guess,and we're just really concerned about that. It scares us. It really does. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. So if the applicant could come back to the table. I'd like to poll the Board, as I suggested at the beginning of coming back from recess,if that's okay with you, Tom, unless you want to add anything else. MR.JARRETT-No,let's move it along if we can. If issues come up,we'll address them. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So we moved the sump pump in the southeast corner and they've proposed removing the usable space under the garage. MR.JARRETT-If that's material,we would remove it. MR. JACKOSKI-Right. We were going to try to have a discussion about it. They've agreed to put trusses over the garage. Is that correct? MR.JARRETT-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-That would be less than five and a half feet. So that's not part of the FAR. MR. DYBAS-If I flatten that garage, (lost words) have a problem with trusses. MR.JACKOSKI-Correct. Right. So what we'll turn around and say is the garage height,the area over the garage will be less than five and a half feet. MR.JARRETT-It will not be living area. MR.JACKOSKI-As part of the FAR. MR. GARRAND-It'll be like right in line with the other part of that house? MR. JARRETT-If you ask for the roof to be lower, it'll be the same elevation as the remaining roof, right. MR. JACKOSKI-Is that two feet really going to substantially make a difference in the view? And for me the answer is no. MR. GARRAND-Not substantial, but also, it also precludes somebody from doing something down the road. 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2013) MR.JACKOSKI-No,but what they're suggesting,but if he keeps the roof height,what I understand is if you keep the roof height, you'll go to trusses, and then you can't, you'd have to re-structure the whole thing and that would require a building permit and it would flag things. MR. JARRETT-We'll put it on the site plan and it'll be a condition on the site plan, which is filed as well. MR. DYBAS-And it would also be a condition in the construction documents (lost word)trusses. MR. JACKOSKI-So, and then as far as the beach area, I'm going to leave that up to the Planning Board. MR.JARRETT-And we have said we would reduce it in area. MR. JACKOSKI-But, again, I'll leave that up to the Planning Board. So, I'm going to, the public hearing is still open and I'm going to poll the Board, but I'm just going to say that I would move forward with the project without flattening the roof. So I'm going to,I'll go back to Kyle. MR. NOONAN-My stance hasn't changed. I'd still be in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-So next I had Ron. MR. KUHL-Yes. I was in favor before,I'm still in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-And next was Roy. MR. URRICO-I've changed my position. I would be in favor of it at this point without the flattening of the roof. MR.JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-No, I would not change my vote without seeing plans. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-No. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I'm going to change my vote and also say yes to the way it goes with the existing structure. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So could the applicant just re-confirm, nice and slow, that you're going to remove the sump pump. MR.JARRETT-It's not a pump,actually. MR.JACKOSKI-The sump pit,whatever you want to call it. MR.JARRETT-Eliminate it from the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, and you're going to explore the possibility that can use funds to do that through another agency? MR.JARRETT-We'll make sure the neighbor weighs in on that,if he has concerns. MR.JACKOSKI-Right,because that's his property. MR. JARRETT-They will have impact. It's not his property, but he's worried about the proximity to his well. Well, I shouldn't say it's not his property. We don't think so, depending on where the drywell is proposed. MR.JACKOSKI-Correct. MR.JARRETT-He would have input. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2013) MR.JACKOSKI-And you are going to utilize trusses over the garage in order to not exceed five and a half feet over the garage in height of usable space. MR.JARRETT-Correct. MR.JACKOSKI-You can't do the attic truss? MR. DYBAS-I won't do the attic truss,just a standard truss. MR.JACKOSKI-Or a stick built,as long as it's under five and a half feet. MR.JARRETT-Correct. MR.JACKOSKI-And you're going to keep the space under the garage. MR.JARRETT-We would prefer to,yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, that's what we have. Is there anything else that I missed? This is a difficult motion. Is anyone prepared to try to make the motion? Otherwise, I'm going to close the public hearing. I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-Roy,do you think you could make the motion? Would you be willing to? MR.URRICO-I'll give it a shot. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR.URRICO-What's the Floor Area Ratio change? MR.JACKOSKI-It's not,because we never had the attic space in there. MR.JARRETT-24.6%. MR.URRIC0-Permeability is staying the same? MR.JACKOSKI-Yes. MR.URRICO-Setback the same,you said. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes. MR.URRICO-And filtration devices all that is not even on the table. All right. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-2013 WILLIAM &CAROL MERRITT, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption,seconded by Kyle Noonan: 103 Birdsall Road. The applicant is proposing reconstruction of a seasonal residence with a new dwelling. In doing so, he's requested and we're approving relief from the minimum side shoreline setback requirement, permeability and separation distance from stormwater devices, also relief from the maximum allowable floor area ratio requirements. The new dwelling is to be located 11.7 feet from the east side property line, 39.8 feet from the shoreline and leave them 66% of the site permeable. The construction of the house will have a floor area ratio of 25% of the site, and the infiltration devices will be less than 100 feet from each other. Specifically, the floor area ratio will be .25. Permeability will be 66.1%. Shoreline setback requirement will be 39 feet 8 inches. The side setback to the east will be 11 feet 7 inches. I move that we approve this application. In granting the variances, the Zoning Board of Appeals anticipates that the Town Planning Board will seriously consider the shoreline impacts and shoreline buffering. There's one infiltration device that was removed from the project,the sump. Duly adopted this 17th day of April, 2013, by the following vote: MR.JARRETT-One clarification. Did you mention an FAR of 22%? MR.URRICO-.22. 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2013) MR.JARRETT-It's .246,it's 24.6%. MR.URRICO-.25, okay. MR.JARRETT-.22 is required, and,246 is what we're requesting. MR.URRICO-Okay. Thank you. So the Floor Area Ratio proposed is .25. Is that close enough? MR.JARRETT-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any support in adding that granting the variances, the Zoning Board of Appeals anticipates that the Town Planning Board will seriously consider the shoreline impacts and shoreline buffering. Is that okay to add? MR.URRICO-Yes. MRS. MOORE-One other clarification,that there's one infiltration device that was removed from the project,which is the sump. MR.URRICO-I didn't mention that because it was not something that was part of the application. MR.JARRETT-It is. MR.JACKOSKI-Well,we'll amend the motion. AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Noonan, Mr.Jackoski NOES: Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt MR.JARRETT-Thank you for your patience. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any other business to be brought before the Board this evening? Any additional business? MR. GARRAND-Motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF APRIL 17, 2013, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 17th day of April, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mrs. Hunt, Mr.Urrico, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman