Loading...
07-24-2013 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 24,2013 INDEX Area Variance No. 61-2011 Queensbury Partners 1. Tax Map No. 289.19-1-23 - 35 Area Variance No. 30-2013 George&Patty Pensel 15. Tax Map No. 226.19-1-76 Area Variance No. 32-2013 James &Pamela Price 27. Tax Map No. 279.18-1-1 Area Variance No. 33-2013 James &Pamela Price 30. Tax Map No. 279.18-1-1 Area Variance No. 34-2013 Matthew Neuber 33. Tax Map No. 226.19-1-7 Area Variance No. 36-2013 William&Pamela Roberts 35. Tax Map No. 239.12-2-64 Area Variance No. 37-2013 Jeffrey&Sarah Merrigan 39. Tax Map No. 266.1-2-46 Area Variance No. 38-2013 Cover 3, Inc. -Wendy's Restaurant 42. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-56 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 07/24/2013) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 24,2013 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOYCE HUNT RICHARD GARRAND JOHN HENKEL RONALD KUHL KYLE NOONAN LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, everyone. I'd like to call this evening's meeting of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to order this evening. For those of you who haven't been here in the past, it's quite a simple process. We will call each application by reading it into the record. We will ask the applicants to join us at the small table. We will take some questions from Board members. When public comments has been published we will of course seek public comment. We will generally poll the Board at some point and decided how we're going to proceed forward with each application. We do have a few revisions to this evening's agenda, and that is simply to make sure that we do Old Business first, which is the Queensbury Partners project. So I'd like to call that project to the table, please. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2011 SEQRA TYPE I QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LLC AGENT(S) MATTHEW f. FULLER, ESQ. MEYER & FULLER OWNER(S) QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LLC ZONING O-OFFICE LOCATION SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BLIND ROCK ROAD AND BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 11 BUILDINGS TOTALING 132,000 SQ. FT. ON A 34.05 ACRE PARCEL. THE INTENDED USES FOR THE SITE INCLUDE OFFICE, BUSINESS RETAIL AND MULTIFAMILY. ACTIVITIES ALSO INCLUDE LAND DISTURBANCE FOR INSTALLATION OF PARKING AREA AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE RESIDENTIAL USE SETBACK FROM BAY ROAD AND MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFICE ZONE ALONG BLIND ROCK ROAD. CROSS REF SP 62-2011; FWW 6-2011 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2013 LOT SIZE 34.05 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 289.19-1-23-35 SECTION 179-3-040 MATT FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT MR. JACKOSKI-It has been read into the record. If there are any revisions, we'll read those in. Otherwise we'll go right to the applicant. No other revisions. So, Mr. Fuller. MR. FULLER-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Matt Fuller with Meyer & Fuller. I'm here with Matt Robinson from the LA Group and Dan Galusha, the ownership group with the project. I know a couple of the Board members weren't here last month, or last week. So I'll briefly touch on the revisions. At this point the height has been reduced to 40 feet. The pergolas and improvements that we had, basically building attachments along the 75 foot setback on Bay and Blind Rock have been removed. So the building is within the, or meets the 75 foot setback on Bay and Blind Rock. That's the building at the corner, and the one residential building down Blind Rock Road, call it the second one in, the middle one, has been pushed back a couple of feet to meet that 75 feet. We still do have one building, the first residential unit if you're driving down the road from east to west along Blind Rock, where relief is requested of 22 feet from 75 foot building setback, and those are the variances that are requested of you, and I filed for the record, and to document the record tonight, a memorandum of law on behalf of my client in support of the requested variances. These meetings have turned contentious and there's been a lot of arguments made, and I feel at this point we have to document this record based on some of the arguments that have been made. I briefly want to touch on some of those really in the context of Town Law Section 267 B. You're all very familiar with it. I know you go through it on each and every variance, so I won't re-state the five criteria, but I want to talk about first Blind Rock Road, and then the 300 foot residential setback on Bay Road. Blind Rock Road has,to my knowledge anyway, of late not been as controversial, I would 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) say, and really that goes to the buildings that are on the other side of Blind Rock and as we've proposed. I brought it up last month, or last week, and in the past, and when the new zoning was adopted, the difference between major arterials and just other arterials was removed, but the setback from arterials was kept the same as 75 feet. I think, and perhaps Staff informally agrees with me, that that change was in error, but nonetheless it exists. Seventy-five feet is there. Previously, for other arterials, which Blind Rock was one; Bay Road would be a major arterial, Quaker, Ridge, those roads,Aviation, and what not. Previously it was 50 feet, and if you look at the buildings across Blind Rock Road, the one right here on the corner, Ms. Buhrer's building, the next one down, the apartment buildings, down just as you hit the bend there, they all meet that 50 foot setback, and obviously on purpose because that was the 50 foot setback. So, you know, asking for 22 feet,which puts us at 53 feet, I think is clearly in character with the neighborhood. There hasn't been any argument about sight distances, you know, impact to the neighboring properties or anything like that with regard to those variances, and as we've talked about in the past, you know, you get into feasible alternatives and the weighing that you do, you know, there is an alternative which would be to flip that road, the driveway that's behind the buildings, to the front and, you know, if anything I think that would be out of character with the neighborhood, particularly when you take into account the buildings across the street. The roads are all set back,you know, behind the buildings, internal to the property and that certainly makes more sense. So, again, I think there's no environmental impact from that variance. Stormwater, distance to wetland, you know, all those things have been accommodated, and again, I think that variance speaks for itself. I'm going to turn to the Bay Road setback, which,you know, by far, and this is on,getting into the third page of my memo, Figure One, lastly I just want to, getting back to Blind Rock, that Figure One I've showed Ms. Buhrer's building there, and you can just lightly see it on the side. Hers is, I gave her a little more credit because I think the tax map is off a little bit. Her building sits at about 50 feet. I know I show 52.2 feet,which is a little bit more,but I wanted to at least get it a little closer to what I think the right of way is. The tax maps aren't always correct. But getting to the Bay Road setback, this one has, by in large, caused the most controversy, but it's not with regard to neighborhood impact. The controversy has falsely been aimed at sewer capacity in this district. Now, this is misleading and improper of a criteria as a matter of law. Neighbors to the north have argued numerous issues with regard to the sewer in an attempt to defeat the variance request, ranging from an alleged promise of sewer capacity to out of district users, when this property is in the district and pump station issues. With due respect, those are site plan issues and SEQRA related arguments, not an area variance arguments. Were it the case that the area variances that we are seeking were for density, more units, more commercial units, more residential units, then perhaps the opponents comments would carry even a scintilla of relevance, but here, they do not. The density that we are proposing is allowed by the Town's current zoning. The request is to allow residential units above the first floor,within 300 feet of Bay Road. This is an area requirement, not a use requirement, and as such, is fully appropriate in terms of a variance request. Now on these I am going to be a little bit more detailed and touch on the criteria that you have to deal with,the first being a detriment to nearby neighboring properties with regard to this variance. Again, the argument offered by the opposition is that allowance of residential units above commercial units somehow changes the character of the neighborhood. It does not. The addition of residential units to these buildings, which is within the allowed density of this property, does not alter the neighborhood. Indeed, one would be hard pressed to remotely argue how an apartment above an office or commercial structure is any different than,for example, another office, and I've cited a case for you Soho Alliance v. NYC Bd of Standards and Appeals, that's the ZBA that would govern cities, occupancy of buildings by other than artists does not impact the Soho neighborhood. Again, turning to what's inside of a building versus what the building looks like. To the contrary, moving the residential units from these buildings will move these units to the back of the property outside of this 300 foot setback. Now I want to be clear on this. That is,the buildings are still allowed to be constructed -both those along Bay Road, and those to the rear, and the occupancy of the structures will simply change. That is, again, within the setback of the zoning, we can build those office buildings right where they are. It's a site plan issue. There would be no more variance. However, what that's going to do, the opposition's arguments center around density - they don't like the residential density on the property, not the unit. However, that has already been set by the Town Board,and here at the ZBA we don't have the power or the authority to reduce density. The density is allowed by zoning. If you reduce it,you start taking a property right,and that's got its own issues. Second, whether the benefit sought by us can be achieved by some method, feasible for us to pursue,other than an area variance. As I noted above,the units can be moved. However,the reality is that this simply adds buildings. Based on the acreage and the available green space,which we did calculate, additional buildings could be constructed, and still allow these commercial structures along Bay Road. However, again, that would simply increase the number of buildings, which isn't necessarily in the best interests of the neighborhood, or the Town, I would argue, nor is it entirely feasible from a cost-benefit standpoint. In short, it doesn't make sense. Whether the requested variance is substantial. In terms of a number, 300 to 75 feet can be considered substantial. There's no sense walking around the issue. It's a big number request,but again, I think you look at it in the 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) context of what the buildings are and what is going to be housed in them. This isn't a density request. Four, whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The variances will have no impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. As noted, the buildings themselves are allowed subject to site plan review. The mere question with the 300 foot setback is the internal use of the building. Though again, opponents have raised sewer as an issue, this issue is a red herring. Again, this is not a density request. It is an area request. The density is allowed, and adequate capacity exists in the sewer district for this project. No person or engineer has offered any evidence to the contrary. Lastly,whether the alleged difficulty was self-created,which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance. This difficulty was not self-created. This project was initially proposed and met the Town's zoning law. As has been well documented and this Board has participated in and working with the Planning Board, and holding three joint meetings with the Planning Board and ZBA arrived at what's proposed out there on the corner today. Years of work,tens, and hundreds of thousands of dollars of effort. No opposition by board members was voiced at the last joint meeting. The two area variance requests that we have now gotten down to are the result of planning, not self-created hardships by us. It is well settled law that no matter how loud and no matter how forceful, and no matter how much fist pounding and accusations of deals or that a project "stinks", generalized community opposition unsupported by empirical evidence or expert testimony cannot support a decision by a ZBA. And I've given you the three main cases that show up repeatedly. There's been absolutely no documented evidence whatsoever to indicate that there is any sewer issue, let alone that any perceived sewer issue is at all related to the requested variances. As such, those arguments are not supported by evidence, and not to be used as some justification to deny the requested variances. What has been voiced is a dislike for the project in general. With due respect, this is an issue at the time of zoning enactment, not in the review process. The Planning Board has already issued a negative declaration after coordinated review. That negative declaration has not been challenged and is binding. The issues raised by the opposition are tantamount to an end run around that negative declaration, and are not basis for a denial of area variances. When the criteria for an area variance are proven by an applicant,the area variance must be granted. On the District Comment: With regard to the alleged"promise"of sewer capacity to out of district users, we note that absolutely no evidence has been offered in support of this promise, and moreover, such a promise would have been completely inappropriate. With regard to the Cedar Court residents, they were invited into the district, and for cost reasons, declined. Understandable. You make a cost benefit analysis; nobody's going to argue with it. That is their election, and one for which they cannot now complain. Indeed, they certainly cannot convince the ZBA to essentially award them reserved capacity in a sewer district over a property owner who has paid district fees for the better part of 10 years. That would be highly unlawful and give rise to a notice of claim against the Town for benefitting an out of district, non-paying user, over an in-district paying user, and I know I took a little bit of time. I wanted to read that into the record, and I did submit it in writing, because really, you know, there've been a lot of attacks and allegations, but I understand somebody not liking a project, and they might not like aspects of a project, but the zoning is set by the Town Board, and when you meet the zoning and when you go through the process that we have and made multiple changes to a project, had multiple joint meetings with the Boards, and we arrived at a concept that we thought was palatable to the Town, and I think the project has come a long way from the initial 180 units proposed some 10 years ago to, you know, zoning that was jacked up to 1,000 feet after an election, gone through the review process, arrived at 300. We applied for a project that was compliant. The Planning Board very quickly made it clear that it wasn't necessarily what they wanted to see on that corner. We came back with alternatives. The ZBA made it clear that the alternatives that were discussed with the Planning Board weren't palatable to you guys. We went through a year process, had multiple joint meetings with you guys and the Planning Board to arrive at something that I think works. We've been proactive. We've installed the sewer that has benefitted users to the north, this facility that we're sitting in tonight, at our expense. We fixed the traffic. One of the arguments early on was the traffic's going to be a mess. That argument hasn't been around for months because we fixed it. We fixed it proactively when it became clear that it needed to be fixed. So the personal accusations and things that have flown are completely inappropriate. They amount to the generalized community opposition that frankly we've been defending ourselves against for the better part of six years, and I think at this point there really hasn't been anything presented of concrete nature as to why these two variances are inappropriate for this project, and I would ask,with that,that the Board grant the variances. Thank you. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mr. Fuller. Are there any questions at this time from Board members? MR. NOONAN-I guess I have a question for you, Mr. Fuller, on this map here. The area in yellow, that's the area,that's what you're looking for for the variance on Blind Rock Road? 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) MR. FULLER-Correct. That's the building, and it's just for, it's not an area variance for the building. The building itself is allowed within that, outside of the 75 foot setback. That was made compliant with the removal of the pergolas and awnings and things like that that would stick into that 75 foot setback. It's the residential setback,you know, again, if it was a purely residential structure, as was proposed originally,that would not be allowed there. MR. NOONAN-So it's just that triangle,that small triangle piece there? MR. FULLER-The one on Blind Rock? MR. NOONAN-Blind Rock. MR. FULLER-Yes, that's the small little triangle, yes, and again, it's a couple, three porches and I'd say the one unit on the south end would be a bulk of living space. MR. NOONAN-And then on Bay Road it's that whole area that's yellow shaded, that's considered, what the need would be for right now? MR. FULLER-That's correct. The building, we referred to it throughout as the flexible space, if you will, to the south, the south of the entrance road, will obviously remain entirely commercial office because, again, the density is used as proposed, and that is the plan. It can be any number of office and commercial uses. To be no residential above that. MR. NOONAN-Thank you. MR.JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions? MR. HENKEL-Now what's the final decision on the height of it? Did you change that or go back? MR. FULLER-We did. MR. HENKEL-Flatten the roof out? MR. FULLER-Yes,that's the second set of plans if you look at it, and on,you know,we did it because it seemed to be a bit of an issue last time. Honestly, from our standpoint it's still on the table. We think that this proposal versus hiding things in the back is a better plan, but it was made a big deal out of it and I think there were some complaints from the neighbors and we said we can pull that off. There is precedent in the district for that. We had that discussion a couple of months ago that Schermerhorn's buildings have never had variances for the height to do just what we had proposed, hide the mechanicals, but again, we can meet this. I don't know necessarily that it's, at the end of the day that it would be you had hoped it would look like,but we can meet it. MR. NOONAN-And there's no longer any awnings? MR. FULLER-Yes, we pulled them off. I think those were architectural enhancements that would have worked, but at the end of the day, the minimum variance necessary is your criteria, and if it seemed to us that some didn't think it necessary,so we pulled them. MRS. HUNT-There are two variances left,right? MR. FULLER-Yes, which from the, I didn't necessarily agree with Craig's calculation on the first instance, of over the 30,but even with, in the 20's is I think a major, major step forward from where we were, and as I've said in the past, when we were going through it with the Planning Board, you know, we knew that the variance number was creeping up, and it was a concern. We talked about internally, and that was before we came to you the first time. We were unease with the number of variances that had crept up through the design process. So I think we've gotten to a better product. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other comments or questions from Board members before I re-open the public hearing? Okay. As advertised, we do have a continuation of the public hearing scheduled for this project. For those who would like to address the Board this evening, if you could come to the table and identify yourselves and your address. I would ask that you keep all comments to new information that hasn't already been spoken of. We are going to stay very tight to the allowed timeframe that we've established for this Board, and when the timer goes off, I'm going to ask, unless it's absolutely critical that it's new information that hasn't been addressed, we will ask for the next public commenter. So is there anyone here in the audience this evening who'd like to address this Board? Mr. Koskinas? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JOHN KOSKINAS MR. KOSKINAS-John Koskinas, Queensbury resident. Mr. Chairman and Board members, I've followed this Board's involvement with Fowler Square. I've asked both on and off the record that this Board consider its role and actions. This evening on the record I'm asking this Board to formally move on a denial of this application. It's based on the following: the New York Department of State states the duties and responsibilities of the ZBA in its statutes. I quote; all Zoning Boards of Appeals are directly given appellate jurisdiction by State law. Appellate jurisdiction is the power to hear and decide appeals from decisions of the officials who are supposed to manage the zoning, in our case Mr. Brown. This is the primary purpose and function of a Zoning Board of Appeals, end quote. Further from the DOS, the ZBA is limited; you are limited,to hearing and deciding appeals from and reviewing any order, requirement, or decision made by the administrative official. The DOS's formalized guidance to the ZBA's, quote, in general property owner, like this property owner, cannot simply appear at the Board of Appeals, and ask for a variance. It's true that only the Board of Appeals can issue a variance, but it's equally true that it cannot issue a variance except on an appeal from a decision made by the Zoning Enforcement Officer. The Fowler's Square applicants and counsel have for months been using this Board as a working group. You are a planning tool for their project. That is patently wrong. The DOS details what the ZBA cannot do in its discussions on limitations on the Boards of powers. It's in their statutes and it's on their website, and it's in all the training that most of you have had. Specifically, it may not determine what you may not do. You may not determine what restrictions should be imposed upon property in a particular district. The ZBA has no authority to negotiate any aspect of an applicant's project beyond the determinations made by the Zoning Administrator. It may not review the legislative general rules regarding the use of land. Counsel wants you to. The ZBA cannot be part of that dialogue. It may not amend such general rules or change the boundaries of the districts where they're applicable. New York courts in precedent rulings have stated most variances involve a single lot or at least a small parcel of land. Where a variance granted by a Board of Zoning Appeals purports to permit the use of a large tract of land for a proscribed purpose, there's a strong possibility that the purported variance would be called an amendment. The Department of State considers change, other than part of a well-considered and comprehensive plan, calculated to serve the general welfare of this community,to be an amendment or spot zoning. The question is whether the change, quote, conflicts with the fundamental land use policies and development plans of the community. Over and over again, this applicant and counsel have said that our Comprehensive Plan is not a statute it's a guideline. It's just not true. It's not a statute is the truth. That you can turn your back on it is not the truth. By considering multiple variances and degrees of those variances not part of an appeal and in the face of considerable and continued public opposition and in conflict with what is proscribed for the Bay Road Office corridor, you appear to be doing so, and that is against the law. The New York Department of State has published guidance entitled Zoning and the Comprehensive Plan for Zoning Boards, and in it the cite court rulings and the basis for these rulings. It states the Comprehensive Plan provides a means to connect the circumstances,the locality to the zoning law. It was and is insurance that the law bears, quote, a reasonable relation between the end sought to be achieved by the regulation and the means used to achieve that end. It also provides a means to remove the planning process from immediate political considerations and allow for more objective analysis of community growth. That is their quote. I need another moment. MR.JACKOSKI-Mr. Koskinas,this is mostly stuff that you've already submitted to us? MR. KOSKINAS-Not on the public record, so I'm going to put it on the public record. I hope you'll bear with me for one minute, as a courtesy. MR.JACKOSKI-I will give you one more minute, and I will watch the clock. MR. KOSKINAS-Thanks. Thanks. I hope you'll listen during the minute as well. The courts have opined the phrase in accordance with Comprehensive Plan may be understood to mean, one, conforming to a master plan; two, broad in scope of coverage; three, all inclusive in control of use, height and area. The courts think our Comprehensive Plan is intended to serve the public interest,a where a community, after careful and deliberate review of the present and reasonably foreseeable needs of the community adopts a general development policy,courts can have some confidence that the public interest is being served. That's what the New York State courts have said. This Board, also intended to serve the public interest, appears to have painted its way into a corner,whether by omission or commission, I can't judge. I know this. You've taken (lost word) the wrong path with 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) this project. Sometimes big boys take their lumps. You still have a chance to do right by your duties. Deny this application in whole. Do it. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. MR. KOSKINAS-And if the applicant wants to sue you,let them. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anyone else this evening who'd like to address the Board concerning this project,with new information? If you would like to,please. EVELYN KELSEY MRS. KELSEY-First of all, I'd like to show you these. MR.JACKOSKI-If you could just state your name for the record,please. MRS. KELSEY-I'm going to start by passing these out. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. You can hand them to me and I can pass them out to everyone. MRS. KELSEY-I'm Evelyn Kelsey, 81 Cedar Court. Those photos that I'm handing out were taken this past Sunday in Malta, just north of the traffic circle on Route 9. This is a concept that Queensbury Partners has for the Bay Road, Blind Rock area. These buildings were built last year and are mostly empty still. The storefronts on the first floor appear to be 15 to 20% occupied at best. This just begs for vandalism in our rural area, and I'm concerned that these vacant,that these areas will be vacant for quite a while. We are decades away from the need of these buildings,which these buildings will fulfill. I'm also concerned with the development setback variance. We already need a left hand turning lane. I agree that the traffic signals have helped a little bit, but with more increased traffic, there's going to be a need for that left hand turning lane, and where is that lane's width going to come from but that property, which sets it back even further, sets it closer to the road. I also believe that this project is lawfully not too dense,but all of the problems that have been listed by the developer's attorney could be solved very nicely if they would just scale it back a little bit. I would like to see that roof line back again. I would like to see the pergolas and the awnings there. I think that would be an attractive looking development. What I placed in front of you is not attractive for this area. It's not. MR. JACKOSKI-But, ma'am, these are five story buildings. They're not advocating for five story buildings. MRS. KELSEY-I know, but they're still flat roof and they're still high. It's just not morally right. It's something that is lawfully right, doesn't necessarily make it the right thing to do, as we've seen by recent court cases in this area in Florida. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to address the Board at this time? Sir? WAYNE JUDGE MR. JUDGE-My name is Wayne Judge. I live at 30 Cedar Court, Queensbury. I've lived in Queensbury during most of my working life. The Town of Queensbury spent a fortune developing a Comprehensive Land Use Plan, as many other towns have, and to preserve its constitutionality it had to have a couple of pressure valves. The pre-existing use is the first pressure valve. The second pressure valve is to allow the Town,towns must allow for variances from the statute. Why did they allow these two pressure valves? To preserve property rights, and if they didn't preserve property rights, there are constitutional issues involved. The only thing, issues that we have here that I can see are not pre-existing rights. There are no property rights in these developers here tonight, and by the way I'm here tonight to wish them good luck on this project because they have a fantastic piece of property, one of the best pieces of property in the Town of Queensbury. Exactly opposite city hall, once of the most busy intersections in the Town and anyone who could not make a profit on that parcel would have problems, in my opinion, but in any event, the two possible areas of variance are the use variance, and the use variance has to do with dimensions, and that's what we're talking about here tonight, dimensions, and there are five considerations, as you know, that this Board is required to review before they can allow an excuse from the law. The law, which was passed, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the purpose of it was for not only to preserve the most important resources in the Town, but to provide an infrastructure for the future, and that's what it did, and it's been amended at great expense over the years. Now before you amend that law and 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) give someone an excuse from the law,you have to take these five considerations into mind. In any event, I'll only focus on one, and that is, is this a self-created difficulty. That's the last of the five. You probably have memorized the five already, but is this a self-created difficulty? We would argue, the people, the neighbors would argue that it's not even a difficulty, and the reason why it's not a difficulty is this is not Mr. and Mrs.Jones who've discovered that they couldn't put an addition on their house because they didn't have enough setback. We're talking about professional developers here who purchased this property, and before they purchased the property, they knew that a decade of litigation and disputes have taken place over the proper zoning and the proper variances that could be afforded to this piece of property. They knew all that stuff, and they have excellent lawyers. They have excellent architects. They must have said to them, look, Joe or this developer, best case scenario, you get all the variances you asked for. Your profit will be X plus Y plus Z. Middle case scenario,you get half of it. Your profit will be X plus Y, but if your professional advisors came up to you and said, Joe, if you don't get these variances, you're going to lose your shirt, would a commercial developer buy the property anyway? That's what happened here. They bought the property. They're going to be able to make a reasonable return on this property, because if they couldn't make a reasonable return, then they don't have good advisors, and we know they have excellent advisors. There's no hardship here at all. There's no self-imposed, it's a self-imposed, imaginary, difficulty. This is a question of can I maximize profits out of this very reasonable, very valuable piece of property, and that's basically what it comes down to, and this Board doesn't have the right to say we're going to allow him maximize his profits or we think this a wonderful project, it's beautiful and he should put it up. No, you've got to look at those five considerations. Is this going to put an unreasonable burden on the infrastructure of the Town, not only for today, but for years to come? What about traffic, what about the sewage? You could talk about the sewage until you're blue in the face, but the more density that you apply to this corridor, the more pressure it will be on the entire infrastructure, the schools, anything else. What we're asking you to do is just don't change the law. Don't give them an excuse. Just apply the density restrictions that are already in place and deny both of these,deny this application for variances. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Judge, thank you very much. Is there anyone else this evening who'd like to address the Board? Sir who's standing the very back row. Again, if you could just state your name and your residence, and if you could comments to new information that hasn't already been addressed I'd appreciate it. JOHN CURRY MR. CURRY-Thank you. My name is John Curry. My wife Laura and I own Curry Associates, and we have our office at 10 Hunterbrook Lane, which is directly across the road here from where we sit right now. First of all, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to comment,and I'd like to thank you all on the Board for volunteering for this selfless job that you have. You very often difficult to find yourself on the right side. First of all, I agree with every point that the previous speaker just made. My wife and I built our office at 10 Hunterbrook Lane in 2006. We're a small company. We built the building and have invested considerable amount of money in that building. Before we built we actually studied the existing architecture and landscaping in order to be congruent with the existing small businesses on the Bay Road beautification corridor, on the Comprehensive Plan. We certainly have concerns over any new projects that require significant variances to the zoning with which we complied. We are concerned that we have to keep coming back to this Board for the same proposals over and over again, and keep telling you what our concerns are. We question the prudence in reducing setbacks from Bay or Blind Rock Road. With the current traffic situation leaving our office and turning north on Bay Road,which is a left turn, our home is located north on Bay Road,is not only time consuming but also dangerous in its current configuration. We heard at a previous meeting that the County could alleviate this by changing the timing on the light. Apparently this has not yet been done because we're still experiencing the same delays and the same close calls with traffic, particularly at the time that Adirondack Community College discharges to students in the afternoon. We see a current need for a turning lane which will be exacerbated by additional traffic. Maybe even a traffic circle will be required. Will there be sufficient space remaining if these setback reductions were granted? The existing businesses on Hunterbook Lane include the dentist, Dr. Sharpe, Denise Buher, the physical therapist, the Teacher's Credit Union which recently opened, the new building over there, and has increased traffic coming out of Hunterbrook Lane onto Blind Rock Road, as well as our business, would be increasingly burdened by residential and commercial growth without providing an efficient flow of traffic and alleviating the problems we have today. Variances are supposed to be based on hardships. We fail to see any evidence of a significant hardship. We therefore are opposed to granting relief to the zoning that the rest of us have complied with in the past, and we fear that a precedent will be set for future developers. So we ask the Board to deny the application for reducing the setbacks. Thank you. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Curry, thank you. Is there anyone else this evening? Sir in the light green shirt, please. I believe this is our last commenter for the evening. AUDIENCE MEMBER-No,it's not. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. I couldn't see a hand. Sorry. FRANK O'KEEFE MR. O'KEEFE-Frank O'Keefe, 67 Surrey Field Drive in Queensbury. I realize that there will be development on Blind Rock Road, that we would just like good development there. My main concern is traffic on Bay Road existing right now. On Bay Road, at Baybridge, there's going to be another 126 condos. The Schermerhorn area, there's going to be another senior citizen development there, and I think it's about 80 additional houses. The College is going to have 400 dorms. The Blind Rock Road I think is going to have about 140 additional apartments. This road really can't handle anything more, but I think that I would like to hear from the Town itself. I have Mr. Montesi here on my left. More is not better. This road can only handle so much. Then you have the problems of the sewer, like everybody has said. We have problems ourselves where we're at, and the other thing that is really bothering me is I don't hear how they're going to solve the traffic problem on Bay and Blind Rock Road. There's really not enough room there, and as I say,the traffic is bad enough now as other people have said. So I just want to put that on record that the Bay Road corridor I think was meant for professional development. I really think it's gotten out of hand now. Thank you very much. MR. JACKOSKI-You're welcome, Mr. O'Keefe. The lady that's way in the back row. I can't see her, but I know she's there. There you are. Again,folks, a lot of this information that's been discussed in the public comment period has been addressed with this Board numerous times, and I am going to ask that we try to contain it to new information,please. KATHYSONNABEND MS. SONNABEND-I submitted this letter this morning. I don't know if all of you have copies. I would like it to be read into the minutes before you take any votes. Does it have to be after the public hearing is over or can we do it now? I was told by the Community Development office. MR.URRICO-It will get read in one way or the other. MS. SONNABEND-I would like you to do it now. MR. JACKOSKI-If you would like us to do it that way, but, please, this is during your comment period. I am the Chairman of the meeting here. I'm asking you if you would like to have it read now and use up your time or if you'd like to make your comments. MS. SONNABEND-No,the Staff told me today that it would use up my time. MR. JACKOSKI-Fine. We will take your public comment and then I will have Roy read this into the record. MS. SONNABEND-That's fine. Thank you. I spent many hours over the weekend pouring through my documents and I've got,this is only part of them, plus the Town website and the County website, and I can tell you I have documentation for everything that's in here. So if you question anything I can look it up for you and point you to the minutes where I got this information. It's really disturbing to me how the Town has lost sight of what was very clear to the Town Board and the Planning Board and all of the developers from the mid 80's to 2002, including the owners of Blind Rock and Bay. Everyone understood how important the professional office corridor was. The Town wanted growth that would improve the tax base which means offices not multi-family, and they recognized how cost prohibitive sewer extensions would be from multi-user septic systems. The Willowbrook pump station was the answer for existing developments at that time in 2002, and future development with a 1,000 foot setback for residences. Not the answer for the intensive development that this variance will allow if you grant it. The developer's been very creative in trying to claim that the apartments on the second and third floor of those office buildings along Bay Road somehow don't violate the 300 foot setback, but honestly, if you grant this to them, the next developer that comes along for Bay Road and says I want to put apartments on, within 300 feet of the, without honoring that 300 foot setback that's in the Zoning Code, how can you say no to them, to future developers, when you said no to these guys? So granting this variance basically changes the Code. You can't, all right, excess capacity when, that was purchased by the Town. That was 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) intended for the existing developments at that time. I've got lots of documentation to prove that from the Town website, and also even the developers have acknowledged it, because earlier this year they gave you in their packet, before one of their meetings, a report from C.T. Male, dated 2004. Why they were showing you a sewer report that old I'm not sure,but in that report they had capacity listed for Cedar Court and the other developments up and down Bay Road, and in their report it indicated about 10,000 gallons per day were going to be needed by their project, and the same thing for Cedar Court. How can you tell me that 48 townhomes produces as much sewage as 140 apartments plus office buildings? There's something wrong with the math. They have not been representing this project honestly to you. Most of the people in this room are against these variances, but not everybody is comfortable coming up to the microphone and facing all of you, especially when you've got someone telling you you're limited to five minutes. We don't want to hear anything that isn't considered, we consider new. It's very intimidating to the public, and I want you to remember that earlier this year we delivered petitions to you with hundreds of signatures on them, and these people said, we believe granting the variances will violate the public's trust. The Zoning Code reflects the public's wishes evidenced during the Comprehensive Land Use study of 2005. Such significant variances should not be allowed. It would be unfair to all previous developers of the Bay Road corridor who have complied with the Zoning Code and have worked cooperatively with the Town and Zoning Boards. It would be out of accord with Queensbury's updated 2007 Comprehensive Land Use Plan and successful Bay Road corridor. It sets a dangerous precedent for developers seeking future zoning variances and allows a project scale and character incompatible with adjacent neighborhoods. Those photographs that you got distributed to you tonight. I know that they're not talking five story, but that's basically what they're talking about. Retail, office on the first floor, apartments above it. It completely changes the character of Bay Road. It's opening up the floodgates for a complete change, and the Town of Queensbury has wanted to attract people by its scenic beauty. If you look at the website, they're always touting that. That's what the photographs are of. That project would be much more appropriate in Downtown Glens Falls or on the Exit 18 Main Street corridor. Please, uphold the Zoning Code. Don't grant these variances. You're opening up the floodgates for enormous traffic and sewer problems in the future, and it's not fair to the rest of us who are already here, that have to travel those roads, and some day will be dependent upon hooking up to that sewer. It's going to be really expensive for everybody if you keep giving this sewer capacity away. They've acknowledged that this will use up the remaining sewer capacity, and the next step when the next project has to be, is forced into sewer like Baybridge was, but by a DEC order, that's going to be expensive for everybody in the district. Thank you for your time. Please read the letter in full into the minutes, and I can document everything I say in there. So I'm prepared for it. I spent a lot of hours over the weekend digging up documents from the Town website. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mrs. Sonnabend. Is there anyone else here this evening? Sir? I see one other hand after that,and another after that,and, Mr. Salvador,you can be last. MIKE WILD MR. WILD-My name is Mike Wild, 11 Blackberry Lane. I've been in front of this Board before on numerous occasions and I'll try to be very quick about this. To be honest, I'm conflicted. I had spent a number of years back going to all the master plan meetings to discuss how it was going to be developed and what was going to go into it. I spent a lot of hours on the Planning Ordinance Review Committee that actually put to writing the zoning or a good part of the zoning that you guys are dealing with and having to implement and consider whenever projects come in front of you. One of the premises is that brought me to spend the time on that Board was to make development easy, make it so that there weren't a lot of barriers in front of developers,because it's hard to make a buck. It's not so easy. Everybody thinks these developers have lots of money. They may have much more money than I do,but it's not easy when you have to deal with ambiguity in the rules. So we spent a lot of time arguing over various things, like this corridor, and what it should say and what the words meant, and the words were important. So my conflict is, is that I feel bad for the developers that have been for years trying to make this happen, and if I'm not mistaken, they actually presented a plan that had zero variances, some time ago. I don't know what happened to that plan. I don't know where the system failed, but to me, they should have been allowed to move forward with that because it had zero variances, they were following the rules. Something happened in the process. I don't know what it is, but that's where the conflict comes in also, is because I really don't feel that they should be allowed to have the variances. They should be allowed to develop the property, but they shouldn't be allowed to have the variances, based on personal time that I've put in trying to make the rules consistent and easy for everyone to follow. So if I can just take another minute. Mr. Fuller, I believe, is correct saying a lot of these variances aren't his, aren't based on their request. They were imposed, I believe, by the Planning Board, which I think is not so fair to them. He also made a couple of other comments,that, I don't have his paperwork so I can't tell for sure exactly what was said, and I was trying to take notes, but he said 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) something about the 300 foot variance and having apartments on top of the first story, and to abide by the Ordinance would be additional buildings, and I think he said that to do so would not be economically feasible. Well, I don't think that's a reason for a variance, just because it's not economically feasible. Also he just made another comment that I'm going from memory. I'm not sure exactly right, but he did mention a taking, and (lost word) mentioned a taking, which is basically a term saying you're taking his rights to develop his property. He mentioned a taking based on not being allowed a variance, and I'm not an attorney, but I don't believe that you're not giving a variance constitutes a taking. Maybe not considering a variance would constitute a taking, but you don't automatically have to grant a variance, at least in my mind. So,thanks,that's all I had. You guys are in a tough spot. I appreciate it,and hopefully we will resolve this quickly. Thanks. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,sir. In the back. FRANK HARDICK MR. HARDICK-My name is Frank Hardick. I live at 51 Cedar Court. I'm a licensed professional engineer. I've had 50 years of actual engineering experience. I've recently retired, and I've had clients on boards. I have clients in the audience, and I'm going to tell you something you're not ready for. I'm on both of your sides. First of all, I went to Mr. Montesi last month,this month, and I suggested that we ought to have a comprehensive study of the Bay Road corridor, because somewhere along the line the train got derailed, we're off the tracks, and the reason I say we're off the tracks, somebody said there was a negative declaration, and if you don't understand what a negative declaration is, that means that there's no environmental impact. There's going to be one within the next 10 years, 5 to 10 years. The Bay Road corridor has got a problem with septic systems,and you've got overloaded right now with what's in there. So what I say is this,and I know Mr. Montesi had suggested that I work with his engineer. I'm not looking for another job, really. So I said, look, I will work with you at no charge, if you want to do it. You're working without a full deck of cards. What you need is you need more information on the corridor, and you should go to the Town Board and ask them, will you do a real engineering study and help everybody out, help the Town Board out, help you out, help the Planning Board out, help the people out. My story's over. I will help, at no charge; I'll help you get there with you. I'll review it at no charge. I'll do it, but let's do it. Let's do it right, because I'm telling you right now, there's a catastrophe down the road. I've reviewed all the records of the information so far, and I can tell you that I would not pass any kind of agreement until I got that study done. Okay. Thank you. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. I believe that Mr. Salvador is our last speaker. Sorry. I can't see you way back there. If you could,sir. DOUG AUER MR.AUER-Good evening. Doug Auer, 16 Oakwood Drive. I was here last week. I spoke, and since then I've read through, like Ms. Sonnabend has done, all of the past minutes of meetings, and I was at a lot of those meetings, as I've said to you. I was very involved with it. There's another fellow here in the back, Bob Vollaro, who was the president of Baybridge Homeowners Association at the time, and actually we were the ones responsible for this mess. Because we created the lynch pin component, the sewer district, but as several people here have spoken, that was designed in a robust manner for the capacity that existed with the existing zoning. Nobody disputed that. It was like the best Map Plan Report ever done in the Town. That's what we were told. Tom Nace and I worked on that. It was the second generation from the first one that was done when I worked for Baybridge. Now, as this other gentleman just said,somewhere along the line,this thing went off the tracks, and it really has, and I think in light of what has been talked about with all of these other issues,which we really didn't get involved in traffic or any of that sort of thing. We were specifically involved in the sewer. We did a good thing, we thought, but now this has created this nightmare because the developers here have realized that they can create a blivit. Again,you can look that up in the urban dictionary, okay, and that's what we've got here folks. Now,you know, I would like to see at least you all, and you can go to, she can annotate what she's found, because I read through that also. You will see very clearly that all of this was thought through very carefully. There was a very long public hearing on the creation of the sewer district extension, and all of this was talked about in a great detail, I think, in 2004. Is that correct? 2002, and a lot of it I had forgotten quite honestly, but when you re-read that again, it's very enlightening. So, you know, let's not make this mistake. I don't have a dog in this fight. I live over on Oakwood Drive. I have a septic tank, works fine,but this flies in the face of everything that we've done. The good people that have done a lot of work here, those people whose shoulders we stand on, and I'd like to see that the letter that Ms. Sonnabend had submitted be read, for the edification of the folks here. This process has been perverted, subverted, diverted,whatever you want to call it,but this thing has gone off the rails. So, please,do what's right,as I've said before. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. I'm not going to say your name again, Mr. Salvador, because somebody else is going to want to speak. Okay. Mr. Salvador. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Thank you for the introduction, Mr. Chairman. I notice on your schedule for this evening that the Zoning Administrator has described this project as activities also include land disturbance for installation of parking area and other infrastructure and utilities associated with the project. Now previous speakers have brought up the subject of a major utility, and that is wastewater. At your last meeting, at your meeting of May 22nd, Mr. Jackoski, you were quoted as saying so let's talk about the sewer capacity as you understand it, and you gave the applicant an opportunity to speak on that, and this opens the door for that consideration before this Board. I also note on the schedule of meeting announcement that this is a SEQR Type I action. I believe the Planning Board will be doing the SEQR review. Okay. With regard to that,the SEQR law states that for Type I actions,the determination of significance must be made by comparing the impacts which may be reasonably expected to result from the proposed action with the criteria listed in Sub Section 617.7, which reads in part, thoroughly analyze the identified relevant areas of environmental concern to determine if the action may have a significant adverse impact on the environment, and to that end the Planning Board must complete Part II of the SEQR report which is entitled project impacts and their magnitude. Part of that is entitled impact on water. Before I go on, I think everyone understands that the Queensbury sewage discharges into the Glens Falls combined sewer system. You understand what a combined sewer system is? It's a combination of stormwater and wastewater in one conduit, and that goes to the sewage treatment plant. Under normal conditions that water is processed. However, in a storm event,the sewage treatment plant can't take this influx of water all at once and it's bypassed to the Hudson River. Now that constitutes raw sewage from Queensbury contaminating the Hudson River in a storm event. Now the Planning Board will have to answer these questions. Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? The answer is yes, the Hudson River. Eventually either treated or raw wastewater from Queensbury is going to find its way to the Hudson River. Further down the line,they must answer the question. Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity, and in a storm event that sewage treatment plant has inadequate capacity to handle the sewage from this project and all other projects that we've put in in Queensbury, and since this project had its inception, we've built a dormitory down the road here that is going to find, the sewage is going to find its way into that same conduit on Meadowbrook Road, and the choke point that we thought was in Cronin Road may wind up at the Meadowbrook pump station. So, as the gentleman who spoke before me said, you need a study, and I believe that SEQR report that the Planning Board is obligated to,could very well be that study. Thank you. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mr. Salvador. Okay. So we're going to call the applicant back to the table,and if the applicant could address some of the comments they feel it necessary to address. Otherwise we'll poll the Board. MR.URRICO-Do you want to read those letters? MR. JACKOSKI-And we've got to read the letters, I'm sorry. You can come to the table. Roy,you have some written comment to read into the record. Thank you for reminding me. MR. URRICO-"Dear Zoning Board Members and Relevant Staff: I spent the weekend reviewing my files and the Town and County website and I can document my comments. The developer has been painting a false picture for you, especially about the zoning and the sewer district. The Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA") has five criteria to consider for area variances: 1. Will it produce an undesirable change in neighborhood character or a detriment to nearby properties? Yes. Fowler Square is more appropriate in Downtown Glens Falls or exit 18 Main Street, not on Bay Road with the rural scenic appeal that Queensbury has tried to maintain. Traffic congestion, particularly on Blind Rock will be difficult and expensive to remediate. These are County roads according to the County Administrator;they are facing deficits over the next five years that will more than eliminate the current surplus, even with the maximum tax increases allowed. Granting this variance will set a precedent that will lead to even more apartments along Bay Road, creating even more traffic and sewer capacity problems. 2. Can the benefit be achieved by some other feasible method? Probably not. This property does not have the capacity for that many multi-family units. 3. Is the variance substantial? Yes. Reducing the residential setback along Bay from 300 feet to 75 feet is a 75%variance. The zoning was already changed in 2007 to accommodate this project. How can you expect future developers to follow zoning rules if you now allow such excessive relief? Although the 22 foot encroachment on Blind Rock may appear reasonable, after the road is widened for the needed left turn lane, 22 feet becomes 32 feet, or a 43%variance. 4. Will it have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Yes-previously mentioned character, traffic and sewer capacity issues. S. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? yes. A professional office subdivision was approved in 2000 and remains on the books. It was only after the 2002 sewer extension that the owners began to talk about multi-family. Just 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) because they now want to maximize their profit with a new proposal doesn't mean that they are entitled to such significant variances, nor are they entitled to 3 1/z times the amount of the excess pump station capacity anticipated for them when the Town paid Schermerhorn in 2002. I'd like to set straight the history of this property and the Bay Road corridor. The BRB Group ("BRB") purchased the property around 1987. I don't think there was any zoning for the Bay Road corridor at that time,but the vision for professional offices and the 1000 foot setback for multi-family was already underway. Baybridge and Worlco were both approved in 1985. In 1988, the Town zoned the area multi-family, but soon realized that was a problem. The Town acknowledged that soil conditions are not conducive to multi-user septic systems, and the quotes for extending the sewer district were cost prohibitive. The Town Board (713") wanted growth, so they encouraged professional offices to improve the tax base but create less sewage than multi-family units. In 1999,BRB applied for a 12 lot commercial subdivision,telling the Planning Board ("PB") they wanted to build a professional office subdivision like the Hughes development on Baywood,not multi-family. In 2002,the PB approved the professional office subdivision. So even though the TB didn't change the code until 2002 to professional offices in the first 1000 feet and residences beyond, ever since the mid 1980's everyone, including BRB,had been following the professional office vision. It wasn't until the sewer pump station was approved in 2002, that BRB began planning a multi-family development. BRB began to argue that the 2002 zoning language was not clear, and although the PB thought the intent was clear, the TB began to discuss "clarifying"the zoning with a compromise 500 foot setback. In 2004,BRB's proposal for a 174 unit apartment complex was rejected by the PB, which expressed frustration when BRB returned twice in 2005 with the same project, with no professional offices and no intention of making any compromises. BRB kept working on the TB and finally in 2007, the TB changed the code to a very clear 300 foot setback for residential units along Bay Road. Bottom line, BRB had an approved project for a professional office subdivision since 2000. When the deed was transferred in 2006 to Queensbury Partners (possibly including some of the same principals - we don't know for sure without piercing the corporate veil), Queensbury Partners knew that a multi-family project with no setback had been rejected two years earlier, and that the PB was looking for a minimum 500-1000 foot setback. They can't claim they were hurt by the zoning update in 2007, which actually accommodated many more residential units than had ever been anticipated or previously allowed for the Bay Road corridor. So, yes, this problem was self-created. Because the sewer is related to Question #4 and is so important I would like to briefly counter some of the developer's previous misstatements with the facts. The 2002 Map Plan Report for sewer extension # 7 and TB minutes of 9-9-2002 clearly indicate that the excess capacity purchased by the Town is for the future development along Bay Road based on the professional office vision and all existing development up to and including Cedar Court, and that future hook ups would occur whenever the property owners wanted to hook up and it would be done as sewer district extensions. As stated by the Deputy Director of Wastewater Mike Shaw,the actual extensions would be at the cost of those property owners,but improvements to the existing district,such as upgrading the pump station, would be borne by the entire district. Both the 2002 Map Plan Report and the 2004 CT Male report that Queensbury Partners provided to the ZBA in March 2013, list those future users including Cedar Court, but there is a problem with the math. The 2002 report estimates the need at 11,400 gpd for Blind Rock &Bay and 12,400 for Cedar Court. The 2004 report shows slightly lower estimates at about 10,000 gpd each for Blind Rock&Bay and Cedar Court. But the 48 townhomes on Cedar Court can't possibly produce the same amount of sewage as the 174 apartments proposed in 2004 or as the current proposed project. Fowler Square will need about 40,000 gpd,which is about 3 1/z times what had been anticipated in 2002. Queensbury Partners has acknowledged that Fowler Square will take up the remaining excess capacity purchased by the Town. What happens when the next property gets a DEC order? It is only a matter of time. You can alleviate this problem by denying the variances or you can exacerbate it by approving the variances and effectively change the code again from a 300 foot setback for multi-family to 75 feet. Sincerely,Kathleen Sonnabend 55 Cedar Court,Queensbury,NY 12804" MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, Roy. Thank you. Is there any other written comment? You hope not, right? Okay. Again, we don't need to re-hash some of the stuff you've already addressed with us, but if you could maybe touch on the salient points,and then move forward. MR. FULLER-I will. I'll take a couple of minutes here just to touch on a couple of them. Starting with the first speaker, I won't name any names. We know the comments that came out. There was discussion about the, that there's missing a left hand turning lane, and just recently in that letter that that's going to change the setback for the residential building down Blind Rock. That's not true. The land for the left hand turning lane is included in the site plan that is currently sitting before the Planning Board. The setbacks are taken with that. So that land is there,and we haven't gotten fully through the site plan process yet,but if,as it turns out, we need to have the turning lane, then we need to have the turning lane, but we have the land there for the turning lane. I want everybody to be clear about that. The engineer report has said we don't need it,but we know that the Planning Board has been pretty adamant, and we know that the neighbors have, too, so that land is there for that, and that turning lane won't extend 500 feet down Blind Rock Road to the location of that first residential unit. I've just scaled it off here looking at the map. So it will not have any impact on that. The pictures that you got handed out there, again,you know,you're right, they're some 75 feet high. So it's not really the same. The one thing I'll agree with, some people have said that this process has been derailed and the people are intimidated to come up here. You're right. I mean,this process has gone so far askew as far as how,you know, things should be evaluated, and that's on both sides. There's people that live in these neighborhoods that will not come here and express any opinions out of fear of not getting invited to a picnic. I mean,the amount of information,and the concern I have, and I'm going to hit on a couple of these things,is there are people who clearly understand this process, and there are people who know the buzz words and know things to hit on,and that information is being used out of fear. It's being used to inject things into this process. The sewer keeps coming up over and over again. This isn't density. There's no density relief sought here. It's a site plan issue. Mr. Salvador brought up the sewer in terms of SEQR. The Neg Dec's already been 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) issued quite a longtime ago,and it's binding. I mean,that Neg Dec is there. The Planning Board went through that. We submitted a lengthy analysis,a lengthy memo on all of those,that entire 20 point, 21 point criteria that he talked about that's in that Part II of the EAR We did that. One of the commenters talked about the issue being self-created and a reasonable return and that they should be denied because the density shouldn't be allowed. Again, those are Use Variance criteria. That's not, and that's the kind of stuff that floats around out there, because I know people that live in these neighborhoods. I get e-mailed the flyers and things that are going around. I know the stuff that it says on them and it's interjecting site plan criteria and SEQR criteria and things that have already been done, and the traffic that has to be dealt with at the Planning Board, no question. There's no issue with regard to either one of these variance requests that impacts traffic. Again,it's not density. We're not adding more drivers. This is the allowed density on this property. No question. Craig has calculated it. The project was brought down. It was higher before when we were at the Planning Board. It was brought down to meet that density. It was scaled back. So that's something I wanted to touch on,too, as part of this process. The setback thing, it keeps getting thrown at us every time. and just in that letter I will take great exception with the 1,000 foot setback having been there since the 80's. That's patently false, patently false. That 1,000 foot setback was not there. The residential use was allowed in that zone, has always been allowed in that zone, and in fact, I just pulled again one of my initial letters to the Board of February,May of this year a follow up,Section 179-7-040,the primary objective of the Bay Road corridor is to create a professional office identity mixed with high density multi-family residential uses. Now that is the re- statement of your Comprehensive Plan in the preamble to that zone. It's an allowed use. It's allowed in the zone. So, you know, when facts get thrown out that, you know, it's an intimidating fact to get people to express opinions that don't understand, that this isn't a sewer issue here today. It's a site plan issue. It was dealt with in SEQR. It's just not a, it's a romantic argument. It's something that people get their hands around, but at the end of the day these variances aren't density and they don't impact sewer. So with that, I think the record is documented. The only thing I would note for the record here today, because somebody said they'll submit stuff after,you know,I would object to that,and I want that noted on the record that once the record is closed,then that is the record for the matter,but with that I think I'll wrap and if anybody's got questions I'll field them from there. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mr. Fuller. Are there any questions at this time from Board members before we poll the Board? I do want to note that I've left the public hearing open at the moment. Rick,would you like to go first? MR. GARRAND-Sure. Let's start from the beginning. They gave us a compliant project a while back and the Planning Board told them no. The Planning Board said we want this, this, this and we want you to have 30 plus variances with the proposal,and don't worry about it. Then they shipped it on to us,and we said no,take it back. This has gone back and forth several times, and I think the first failure was with the Planning Board by telling the applicant to design this project the way they wanted it designed and not the way it was initially presented. A lot of what you're looking at is a result of what the Planning Board wanted on this. The next step, I don't honestly know if they had done a real thorough SEQR review, I don't know how it would have gotten through SEQR. I don't think this Board would have given it a Negative Dec with SEQR. With respect to the balancing test, the applicant's made changes to this project so numerous I couldn't even sit here and count them. We started out with over 30 variances here, and it was just amazing to me to see this project come to us with so many variances in the very beginning,only to find out that it was the Planning Board who wanted it like that. I think the applicant has given us other means feasible by bringing this down to two variances and those two variances are only setback variances. Now when you look at the 75 foot setback variance,for me,a lot of it's a question of semantics. If it was all commercial,it wouldn't be an issue; if it was all commercial, but you have residential intermixed with this request, thereby needing this variance for the front setback. Blind Rock Road is really of no consequence as far as setback goes. I don't think it's significant at all. Will this produce an undesirable change to the neighborhood? I believe in some ways yes it will. When looking at the setbacks I don't think it's significant because if this was all commercial, they wouldn't even need it,they wouldn't be here asking for this variance on Bay Road. A lot of the environmental questions we had were resolved by a re-design on this project to keep it off the wetlands. Looking at the setbacks, I don't see how it'll have adverse environmental effects on this neighborhood by granting any setback variances. Just keep in mind, that's all we're here for tonight, is setback variances. We're not here for density or anything else. Is this difficulty self-created? I've been watching this project all along, go on for eons, and every difficulty I've seen with this project was created by the Planning Board. That's it,but I am,that makes three out of five. I'm going strictly by the balancing test, and on the balancing test, three out of five for the applicant. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes,I haven't been with this project too long. I've only been on the Board since about February there,so I don't know all the ins and outs,but I'd have to agree with Rick at this time. What they're asking for is not asking for too much relief,other than the relief on Bay Road,and they have gone through the hoops,you know,reading the past history of it,and I'd have to agree with it at this time and say yes,it's good. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-All right. Similar to Mr. Henkel, I haven't been on the Board too long. However, I've managed to read some of the old minutes and certainly listen to everything back and forth,and the amount of time and money spent on this has certainly been significant. I wouldn't say there's an insignificance about Blind Rock Road. People live there. People love Blind Rock Road. It is a significant,you know,part of our Town. I would not overlook that need for that variance there. I mean, 22 feet is certainly not a lot at this point, but there's 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) still need for a variance,and there's a reason why there is a minimum setback. Additionally,with residential within 300 feet,it can be brought up as semantics,and not important because there's going to be commercial there,but,you know, at those off times of the day when your offices are closed, and people are living 75 feet from Bay Road and their activities for living are close and present to Bay Road, that might not always be something that makes Bay Road look like a commercial corridor. So, at this point, just looking at the variances for the setbacks,I would not be in favor of this project. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-I think,thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the Town needs the development, and if,in fact,the 300 foot, the buildings that are on Bay Road, if there was commercial upstairs there'd be no need for a variance. Now the fact that they're putting a residence up there, the density would be the same if they were to build other buildings, and we don't know whether or not we'd have a wetland issue. I think the variances that they're asking on Blind Rock are minimal at best. They could almost turn the building, they wouldn't even need variance. I think we need the development in the Town,and I'm in favor of this project. MR.JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS.HUNT-I'd like to wait until I hear the rest of the Board. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Well, I'm going to take a little different tact. I'm going to focus on the two variances. I do agree that Blind Rock Road does not seem significant. On the other hand the Bay Road one does. I think this is,an undesirable change might be produced in the character of the neighborhood,especially if you consider where the specific Office district mentioned in our Code,it specifically mentions West Mountain Road and Bay Road. So granting a variance of this significance to that setback is a defacto change of the Code. Not only will it change Bay Road for future development, it could change West Mountain Road as well,because those are the two that are mentioned in the Code. If the Town wants to change it, change the Code, it has that option,but right now what's on the books is 300 feet, and 75 feet is 75%, and that's a significant variance. So, when I look at the balancing test, I also look at the charge, and the charge for us is to provide the minimum relief necessary,and I don't think that's it. I'd be against this variance. MR.JACKOSKI-I'm in favor of the project,and I think folks have known that I've been in favor. I'm actually not in favor of the current version because of the reduction and all the architectural significance. I think, unfortunately for us,and hopefully the Planning Board will address this,you know,you've stripped it,and for me the architectural significance, what was trying to be created was important, but I am in favor of the project. Joyce? MRS.HUNT-What do we have now,what is the vote? MR.JACKOSKI-Not that it should matter,but we have four and two,four for yes and two for no. MRS.HUNT-Well,I am a resident of Baybridge,and I don't want to recuse myself,but I will pass on the vote. MR.JACKOSKI-So in order for you to recuse yourself,it's a conflict of interest,as far as you're concerned? MRS.HUNT-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So, having polled the Board, is there any other discussion you want to have before I close the public hearing? Okay. I'm closing the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-We need a motion. Rick,will you make the motion? MR.GARRAND-Sure,I'll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2011 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Southeast corner of Blind Rock and Bay Road. The applicant proposes construction of 11 buildings totaling 132,000 sq. ft. on a 34 acre parcel. Building 1 is to include businesses such as convenience store, coffee shop, personal service, food service, small office; Building 2 is to include businesses similar to Building 1 including bank service and will include 70 apartment units on the 2nd and 3rd floor; Building 3 -11 are to be 2 story, 7,500 sq. ft. footprint with 8 units each for multi-family residential. On Bay Road the proposed relief requested here is 225 feet. They're required to have a 300 foot setback for residential on Bay Road. Setback on Blind Rock Road,the relief requested is 22 feet from the required 75 feet. On the balancing test, whether benefits can be achieved by other means feasible. The applicant has presented us with other feasible means. They've made multiple changes to this project at the behest of this Board. Will this produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood or character to nearby properties? I think as the public has echoed, yes, it quite 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) possibly could produce an undesirable change to the neighborhood. Is this request substantial? I don't believe it's substantial. If this was commercial, all commercial, we wouldn't be here for this, on the Bay Road, we wouldn't even be asked for relief on Bay Road. Whether the request will have adverse physical or environmental effects. The applicant, through the traffic study, has addressed some of the environmental effects, and I believe he's resolved a lot of them. As for the traffic study, the traffic study seems to have solved the problems, but I think that would remain to be seen. Is this difficulty self-created? No, it was created when the Planning Board decided they were going to re-design this property. So I move we approve Area Variance No. 61-2011. The relief is granted from Section 179-3-040. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 2013, by the following vote: MR.URRICO-Shouldn't we be specific about the relief being granted,what part of the Code? MR.JACKOSKI-Laura? MRS.MOORE-It's Section 179-3-040. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So we've noted which Section of the Code we've granted the relief for. Call the vote, knowing that Joyce is going to abstain. AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Noonan ABSTAINED: Mrs. Hunt MR. FULLER-Thank you. MR.JACKOSKI-And before we get started with the next application, Mr. Montesi has wanted to note that he thanks all of us for the extra hard work that this Board and this Staff has put into this, along with the Planning Board, and I do want to make note that, Roy, some folks have told me that I need to be careful because I might not be Chairman next year because you did such a great job at last week's meeting. So thank you for doing that and covering for me while I was out. I appreciate it. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-2013 SEQRA TYPE II GEORGE&PATTY PENSEL AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY, EDP OWNER(S) GEORGE &PATTY PENSEL ZONING WR LOCATION 256 LAKE PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF 960 SQ. FT. RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 1,341 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WHICH INCLUDES AN ATTACHED GARAGE. PROPOSAL ALSO INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A 672 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES; SPECIFICALLY A SECOND GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS, SHORELINE AND SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS RELIEF FROM PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. THE SITE DESIGN INCLUDES A NEW 3-BEDROOM WASTEWATER SYSTEM ALONG WITH A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. CROSS REF BP 8092 DOCK REPAIR YEAR 1983 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2013 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.41 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-76 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-020; 179-4- 050 DENNIS MAC ELROY&CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 30-2013, George & Patty Pensel, Meeting Date: July 24, 2013 "Project Location: 256 Lake Parkway Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes the removal of a 960 sq. ft. home to construct a 1,341 sq. ft. single family home with an attached garage and a detached 672 sq. ft. garage - 4,244 sq. ft. total floor area. The project proposal does not meet the required setbacks for shoreline or side, minimum required road frontage, the number of allowable garages, and the permeability requirement. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) #of Garages Road Shoreline Side Side Permeability frontage North South Required: 1 50 ft. 50 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 75% Proposed: 2 0 ft. 44 ft. 8 ft. 7.5 ft. 70.9% Relief 1 50 ft. 6 ft. 12 ft. 12.5 ft. 4.1% requested 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 limited due to the shape of the parcel,the location of septic system and the well-relocation may place the septic system closer to the Lake. The 2nd garage may be reduced to the allowable garage,however the attached garage is to be 264 sq. ft. and the detached garage is to be 672 sq. ft. where the total square footage of one garage is to be less than 1,100 sq. ft. -the applicant proposes 936 sq.ft.total. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The requested relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code however the applicant has indicated the new construction is less non-conforming than the original building. 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 impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, SP 30-2013: Pending BP 8092: Dock repair Staff comments: The applicant proposes removal of a 960 sq. ft. home, removal of two sheds to construct a 1,341 sq. ft. (footprint) home with an attached and a detached garage - 4,244 sq. ft. total floor area. The project also involves the restoration of a terrace walkway, installation of a new septic system, new stormwater control measures, and a well. The drawings show the location of the existing and proposed home along with elevation drawings. The applicant has indicated the location for the house being in the narrow portion of the property is due to the configuration of the lot and allows for the wastewater system to be away from the shoreline. SEQR Status: Type II" MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome, Dennis. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. I'm Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design, along with Curt Dybas,the project architect,representing Patty and George Pensel in this application for a variance. There are six variances, as indicated. I'd like to cover each one of them,just to provide a little background information and what not, and we'll start with the three that affect the structure, and Curt will do that, but let me just add. This is a .44 acre, pre-existing, lawful nonconforming lot that exists and in a condition with post-development Ordinances. So we're automatically in a nonconforming situation. We're trying to deal with that as best we could with a re-design or 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) replacement of the structure, and I think if you compare the existing with what's proposed, you'll hopefully find that it's more acceptable. MR. DYBAS-Thank you. Curt Dybas, for the record. Very unique parcel. If you can tell by the site plans in front of you,there's a 30, approximately 37 foot wide strip running down to the lake with a large dog leg in back. As far as the side yards, the way it has to be determined is the average of the two,the front portion and the rear portion that comes up with the 20 foot side yard setbacks. If we tried to conform with the 20 feet,we would have a negative,basically, four foot wide house. We, in the design of this structure, we approached it that to the north the existing structure is four feet from the property line. I took that as a,the lot width as 37 feet, and they said, all right, 12 feet is my zoning setback. So basically I took the 4 and the 12, came up with 16, and averaged it to 8. I did the same thing on the south side,took the three feet and the 12 feet and came up with seven and a half. So that's how I arrived at the two side yards, but also looked at constructability for digging a foundation, and obviously, when you excavate down, the angle of the repose is around 45 degrees. So that basically reinforced what we tried to do with the two side yards. The front yard is 50 foot setback. The front of the proposed structure, the actual structure of the house is 50 feet back from the lake. The stoop and the three steps that you see in front of the house in plan are noted on the north to the south elevations, will indicate that that stoop, that three foot wide stoop and the steps is that six foot encroachment, which gets you to the 44 feet from the point of the first riser to the shoreline. So, but that house structure is 50 feet back from the lake. I heard a comment about the, when you touched based on the 4200 square foot total area. Queensbury's FAR ratio,this is a 1340 square foot footprint. We have a, basically, full second floor and a full basement that we counted into that FAR ratio, that's a total five foot tall, and we have the FAR of the garage and we have the FAR of the detached garage. So that's why that number comes up to 4200, but we're still substantially below the 22% requirement of the zoning, again, because of the large dog leg in the back. The height of the structure is within the 28 feet, and I don't know what else I can add to that. That's basically the three requested variances,front,and both two side yards. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay,and it seems pretty straightforward. Is there anything else you want to add,or should we ask for questions from the Board? MR. MAC ELROY-Do you want to cover the other three variances or? MR.JACKOSKI-Sure. MR. MAC ELROY-Okay. I would just reiterate, also, that in each case, shoreline and two sides, the proposed structure is asking for less relief than currently exists. The next variance is the second garage, and as you see on the proposed plan, the variance plan, B-1, you'll see an attached garage within the footprint of the structure, and obviously that's for convenience of having a space in the house that an owner can drive into and be within the house. The detached garage is a two car garage at 672 square feet. Now as Staff Notes indicated, the combination of those two areas is still less than 1,000 square feet. An 1100 square foot detached garage is possible. So if you combine the two areas,you've less than what is the potential of having one,three car garage,let's say,in the area of the detached. So, and that would result in a more, excuse me, more disturbance, more disrupted area. So I think that's part of the justification of having that second garage. There's some history, I'm sure, in Queensbury, that lead the framers of the Ordinance to prohibit two garages. In this case, I think it's an appropriate unallowance. The next item is permeability. Within the site development chart on the plan and within the application you'll see two numbers under percentage of impermeable area on site, and that's existing is 29.9%. That was compliant with the former 65% permeability standard. The proposed project would result in 29.1%, which, again, is a decrease in the impermeable area as compared to the existing. Now a second number is in that table in brackets, which is the percentage of impermeable area if you don't take into consideration Lake Parkway, which we haven't really described that, but Lake Parkway ends and passes through this lot. I think I have an understanding that some previous project, Glen Lake, perhaps, area project, this came up where a road bisected a lot and it was required to count that road area,and so we have done the same, based on recommendations from Staff, but I would just point out that the road bisecting the lot is an unusual situation, it tips the scale, in this case, in terms of permeability. We can count it,but it results in a necessity to request relief from the 75% standard. The last variance, and least, is road frontage, and this is really a housekeeping issue, and I've had this before on other projects where a lot isn't technically on a Town road, 50 foot frontage is required. In this case, the end of Lake Parkway is a private road. So technically there's no Town road access. So it requires relief from the standard. Nothing is changing there. It's just to comply with the specific regulation. So that's a summary of what's being requested. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions from Board members at this time? 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) MRS. HUNT-Yes, I have a question. MR.JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-This proposed second garage,will that have water or electricity to it? MR. DYBAS-No, it will have a trussed roof. It will be uninsulated. It will be just the framed structure,trussed roof, no insulation, no water. It will have electricity, obviously,but, no,there's no intent to have any heat or anything out there. MR. HENKEL-On our prints we don't have any,there's no where the septic is,whether there's going to be stormwater management. Where is that? We don't have that,those sheets. MR. MAC ELROY-It's not on the variance plan. It's part of the site plan package. There is a new proposed wastewater system for this structure,as well as stormwater management. MR. HENKEL-Okay. Because they're going to be shedding, obviously, stormwater off this two car garage. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct,eaves trench infiltration. MR. HENKEL-Okay. Because there is kind of wetlands as you go down that way. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct, yes, but we're more than 100 feet from the wastewater system. The wastewater system, if you see the test pits that are shown on that, on the variance plan, that's where the wastewater system will be, and that is compliant with the 100 foot setback with the wetlands which are further to the east. Typical stormwater devices are drip edge infiltration trenches along the north and south sides of the house, as well as the garage, and those are all typically site plan issues. They're all covered in detail on the site plan. MR. HENKEL-And what's your distance, the two car garage, what's the distance from the road there? You don't have any dimensions on that. It's not a big deal, but that might be able to be brought closer to give you that permeability. MR. MAC ELROY-It's 20 feet. Well,we're 4.1%greater in permeability. MR. HENKEL-But you're still not within the,you know,you're still looking for relief. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. I mean,typically the 20 foot is a parking stall dimension. If you had a car outside of that garage area, I think that's a very typical design. That's the design that we have presented. Again, if we kept that back, whatever, five feet, and it's some distance for the 500, 200 square feet,yes, percentage wise it would be less,but I suspect that 4.1 might change to, I'd have to do the math, but, you know, 3.9 or something. It's not a, it's something. It's not significant. It doesn't eliminate the need for the relief, and it affects, you know, the function of that, and that, correct,good point, Curt reminds me those are permeable pavers,too. So technically you're getting a credit for impervious area on that,too. MR. HENKEL-Because actually you can bring this house a little bit farther from the lake. Right? It would give you your 50 foot setback plus. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, again, what I think as Curt described, and I'll let him, if you look at the elevation drawings in the package,you'll see what that front area actually consists of. It's a landing and steps down to grade. It's not the house itself. So if that is moved back,then we bump into side setback issues also. MR. HENKEL-You're still going to be better than the setbacks that are the original house. MR. MAC ELROY-We are right now. As proposed. MR. HENKEL-Right,but even if you did bring that back,you'd still be better than the original house. MR.JACKOSKI-I assume there's a concern to try to capture the view,correct? MR. DYBAS-I mean, it's basically it's the front of the house that's in relationship to what is there currently. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) MR.JACKOSKI-But is two stories on that part,or is it just one story? MR. DYBAS-It steps back for the second,the second floor steps back six feet. MR. JACKOSKI-One of the questions that I was asked when I was up that way was the neighbor, not by the neighbor to the south, but concerning that house to the south, and that's the extra height of this house, how it being forward would affect them, if at all. Do we know if we have any public comment from that family? We have no written public comment and I don't know if they're here tonight. MR. MAC ELROY-I can,no,that property is in trust. That former owner has passed away and it's. MR. HENKEL-Is that Langford? MR. MAC ELROY-No,the property to the south. MR. KUHL-Harrington? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, Harrington. I can tell you a little bit because I'm also a neighbor a little bit to the south, a couple of doors to the south. So I'm familiar with that neighborhood. Harrington has passed away. That property is in trust, and I'm not sure what it's future is. It's an old cottage that I suspect in time may have some changes itself. MR. JACKOSKI-So, Dennis, one of the other things that also was brought to my attention is the turnaround of the Town's vehicles in maintaining Lake Parkway is where? MR. MAC ELROY-I suspect it's further north because it's a private drive. Now whether, sometimes the Town has been known to go onto private drive to turnaround. Maybe I can. MR.JACKOSKI-No,they do that at my place all the time. I mean,they have nowhere to turn around. They have to turn around in my parking lot,but they don't plow it. MR. MAC ELROY-They don't plow to the end, so that it's some point north of that where that transition is. I don't know exactly. MR. JACKOSKI-I was just wondering if they came down there and used that as the turnaround and how those pavers would hold up with that turnaround, if that's really appropriate to put those there, but if the Town's not coming down with those big trucks and turning around in there, then I guess we won't have an issue. MR. MAC ELROY-Right,and I think typically they plow with a smaller truck. MR. URRICO-Why a second garage as opposed to an accessory structure? You use an accessory structure,you can use up to 500 feet without having to ask for a variance. MR. MAC ELROY-An accessory structure that was detached? MR.URRICO-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-Without a garage door. MR.URRICO-Without a garage door. MR. MAC ELROY-I guess I'm not sure. MR. DYBAS-Let I just try to address it. As Dennis mentioned, you know, this convenience of an attached garage, and the convenience would have had a two car garage, but they're narrowing this other lot. I'm down to 17 feet 8 inches at that point. So there's no way to get a two car garage, and obviously the owners have two vehicles, and a boat that they would like to store in there. So that's why they came up with the three cars,you know, three car storage, one for the boat, and one car at the house and the other car across the road. MR.URRICO-It's still kind of a small lot to be granting a second garage. MR. GARRAND-Yes,it's 100%relief. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) MR. MAC ELROY-Yes,by the numbers,yes, it's 100% relief,but you're either going to be, in granting relief like that, two garages, you're either going to be 100% or you're not going to be anything. I suppose you could be 200%if you're asking for,you know,another garage. MR. GARRAND-That kind of a situation where a feasible alternative would be to get rid of the garage on the house and just use the two car garage up on the hill. That would be a feasible alternative to eliminate 100%relief. MR. DYBAS-Or build a three car garage up on the hill, of 1100 square feet, which is more disturbance. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. MR. GARRAND-Allowable square feet, but get rid of this thing on the house, and also you get rid of that, you can reduce some of your footage there, you can possibly reduce some of your, you know, get rid of the pavers and stuff there. You wouldn't need to be driving down there if you got rid of that garage on the house. I mean,there are feasible alternatives here to avoid 100%relief. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. Again, I think that this particular request of a variance, one, two garages versus one, is automatically going to be,you can't ask for 50% relief from the standard. It's going to be 100 because you're asking for a second structure. It's not a little bit more area. It's the number. So that 100%. MR. GARRAND-It just pushes the whole application kind of over the top, especially with a lot size, you know, of less than half an acre,in a Critical Environmental Area also,which we've got to be very careful we don't start granting second garages for these, you know, tiny lots because everybody's going to want one because they want to store their boat on site. They want to have,you know, a car there all the time or, you know, it's going to, it'll be ridiculous in an area that needs all the permeability it can get. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, I understand the point you're making. I think, from the applicant's standpoint,two things, it's a convenience of having a garage within the house,whether it's safety or just not having to deal with the elements as you're going from garage space to the house proper, and the alternative, and I don't want to portray this as any kind of threatening option, but the alternative is to have a three car garage in place of, you know, having the attached garage, and that results in more disturbance in a Critical Environmental Area, too. So from a practical standpoint there's that perspective,when you put it that way. MR. GARRAND-And you also get rid of all this area here closer to the lake. So you'd have,you know, you'd have a lot more permeable area. It would all be grass. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, I think that that space certainly within the structure would still remain as living space. It would still be used as Floor Area Ratio. The need to have permeable pavers to access it? Yes, you're right. That would be reduced, but that's also one of the reasons we went to permeable pavers, that that's potentially less impact with a solution that's, you know, a good as a stormwater solution as well, and the Town recognizes that by giving it some percentage of credit, a discount factor,as DEC does. MR.JACKOSKI-Laura,can I ask a question of Staff? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-Hard surfacing. MRS.MOORE-Within 50 feet. MR.JACKOSKI-Within 50 feet. MRS.MOORE-Are you asking if that's something that we didn't identify in the application? MR.JACKOSKI-No,which Section of the Code are we dealing with? MRS.MOORE-With this one it's 179-5-020. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) MRS.MOORE-And 179-4-050. MR.JACKOSKI-Any additional questions from Board members at this time? MR. KUHL-Yes. In your planning, Curt, how come you just didn't take into consideration your front structure and make it 50 feet off the lake? I mean, why do you need shoreline relief here? You're building a new structure? You've got plenty of depth there. You could move the whole structure back six feet and really. MR. DYBAS-Probably a bit of oversight, and I think (lost word) is the one that picked that up in the initial review,is that it had to be measured from the stoop instead of the (lost word). MR. KUHL-But what you're saying is you could push it back? MR. DYBAS-I'd have to make the house a bit narrower,as I push back. MR. KUHL-Why does the house have to be narrower? You're asking for north and south relief already, and if you take the structure you have here and just move it back that six feet. MR. DYBAS-Well,you know, I established the eight feet and seven and a half foot lines. MR. KUHL-I understand. MR. DYBAS-But if I make those slightly less, I can push the house back, obviously, and leave the plan as is. MR. KUHL-I think you should. I think you should consider. Staff, Laura, if he makes a carport instead of a garage,does that count or no? MRS.MOORE-To me, I would consider that still,you're housing a car. MR. KUHL-So it's still the same as a confined garage? MRS.MOORE-I believe so, and I'm not 100%sure. MR. MAC ELROY-I think that was my experience previously also,that it would still be counted. MR.JACKOSKI-And that wouldn't allow us to get rid of any of the pavers anyway. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. MRS. MOORE-And if you do, if you move it to the 1100 square feet, that does trigger the Floor Area adjustment to be higher than what's permitted. MR. MAC ELROY-Good point. MR. KUHL-I personally think, because this is a new structure, I think your shoreline should be respected, I really do. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members, or comments? Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'd like to open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.JACKOSKI-Roy, do we have any written comment? Okay. So I do see Mr.Water Keeper there. I assume that's who you're referring to. Is there anyone else in the audience this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular project? Chris,it's all you,if you'd like. CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. The Water Keeper requests that the Zoning Board of Appeals apply the Town regulations regarding criteria for granting the area variance during your deliberations. You've already touched on some of this, but again,the requested variances are not the minimum variance necessary for the applicant to achieve the intended use. It is acknowledged the applicant will increase the shoreline setback by two feet or four percent from the existing condition. However, a redeveloped site project, it appears the 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) applicant has the ability to construct the new structure in a compliant location and meet the required setback. In addition, the Water Keeper does not support the variance request for relief from permeability requirements in the Waterfront Residential District and the Critical Environmental Area around Lake George. There are alternatives available to reduce permeability including removal of hard scape patio, walkways and/or driveways or buildings. Reducing impervious cover and hard scape is important for water quality and should be a goal of this project. It is unable to determine the mitigation of the potential negative impacts to the environment and neighborhood based on the application materials. It was questioned about the stormwater. Again, that was put on the site plan,but that was not part of the variance. There is question regarding the level of stormwater management that will be proposed. Will it be the minimum required for only the increased impervious surface, will the site be treated as a newly developed site and maximize stormwater management, or will it be something in between. In addition, since stormwater management controls within 100 feet of Lake George require variances, it appears no stormwater management is proposed in the most critical area of the redeveloped site in close proximity to the shoreline. It was mentioned that there will be eaves trenches along the house,which would appear to fall within the shoreline setback. We are not opposed, but we think that that, if that's the case, that should be cited. This information is necessary for the Board to make a determination regarding the potential environmental impacts. In addition, it is the recommendation of the Water Keeper that the Zoning Board of Appeals condition any approval, if granted, requiring stormwater management for all impervious surfaces. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Chris. Just checking one last time. Is there anyone else in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this project? Okay. If the applicant could re-join the table and then maybe address some of the Water Keeper's comments and/or any of the other Board members comments, and just so you know, folks. I did check in to the definition of private parking garage, and it says an accessory building or structure to a residential use, attached or detached, used primarily for storage of no more than three automobiles. So a carport seems to follow up that definition. MR. MAC ELROY-Let me just address at least one of Chris' comments, and we only received that letter this afternoon, but stormwater management, those items are site plan issues. They're on the site plan. We've provided a design that incorporates all new construction. We haven't taken any credit for pre-existing impervious area. So that's a response to one of the comments that he's made. The 100 foot setback applies, in a minor project, to that runoff from surfaces that are vehicular surfaces, and the interpretation of that regulation has been, it even includes residential driveways. I think that was a stretch from the original intent of that Ordinance, but, nonetheless, that's what's become the interpretation, that it also includes residential driveways, but we don't have runoff from a residential driveway that is handled within 100 feet of the lake. So that's not an issue. I would note that the Planning Board had an opportunity to offer a recommendation regarding potential site plan issues, and they did not identify anything and they passed it along with a unanimous recommendation with the Board. So site plan issues certainly we'll deal with at that time,but none that raise to their level of concern. MR. JACKOSKI-So, Laura, if the Board's will is to possibly request that this structure be moved back to be compliant with the 50 foot setback,can we grant more side yard relief in order for them to not have to narrow up the house? In other words,because as they're pushing it back and that line is at an angle,they may encroach more on that one point. So instead of grant. MR. GARRAND-They're going to have to re-submit. MR.JACKOSKI-Right,that's what I'm asking. MRS. MOORE-My understanding is that you'd have to have the applicant table, re-design the application materials for that request,because the information isn't,the data that's been advertised. MR.JACKOSKI-So the public could not comment on the fact that we gave them. MRS.MOORE-Additional relief. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. DYBAS-May I address the Board? MR.JACKOSKI-Of course. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) MR. DYBAS-If we eliminate the platform on the top of those three steps that come on the right side of the house,that's three feet,and if we move the house back so the front of the steps is 50 feet from the lake, then we'd have approximately three feet of stairs, and then the front of the house, which means pushing the house back three feet, and the only point that I know of,without doing the math, because the surveyor laid it out for me, is the only point is the back corner is that 17 feet 8, and if make the proper adjustment, and it's on the building plan, the first floor building plan, there's two numbers listed. The house (lost words). There's two numbers listed. The first one is the survey distance width at that point. The second number is the actual width of the house. So the only point that I know of without looking at it offhand is part of this back corner would hit, and I could narrow the house up enough to beat the eight feet and the seven and a half foot setbacks. MR. KUHL-And meet the 50 feet shoreline? MR. DYBAS-And meet the 50 feet to the front stoop. MR. JACKOSKI-Would that mean, then, that the front of the house could get wider so that it's closer to that line instead of as far from it as it is now? MR. DYBAS-No, I would leave it right where. MR.JACKOSKI-I mean,you could do that. MR. KUHL-No. MR. DYBAS-No. Because everything's going back. It's the wedge;you're driving it into the wedge. MR. MAC ELROY-That first corner back would still be a point of constriction. MR.JACKOSKI-I agree,but if we grant overall relief to the lot line, so you can maximize the lakeside of the house width to that same dimension,correct? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, but it still has to come back to that first jog, and if you push that back then you're still going to butt up against that. MR. DYBAS-On the first floor plan you'll see that the front tip mark, there's a diagonal which corresponds. MR.JACKOSKI-When you refer to front,are you referring to roadside or lakeside? MR. DYBAS-Lakeside. MR.JACKOSKI-So many people do the roadside. Lake people do the lakeside. MR. DYBAS-All right. Lakeside, start at the lakeside. You'll see a diagonal line running from that point to the back corner. That is the actual line that's eight feet from the property line. There is a number that says 22.08 feet. That is the actual dimension of a survey line from point to point. The house is 21, and then the next point you'll see it's 21., I can't even read it, .13, and the actual width of the house is 21. Three feet at this angle is so close that I'm not going to worry about making that adjustment in the plan. I mean, that's almost a thickness of siding at this point. So, you know, to move the front stoop back is 50 feet from the lake and eliminate the top platform that's on lakeside means that the front of the house basically moves back three feet,but everything comes back, meets the 50 foot side yard setback, and the only point is way back by the garage, where you see 17.04 and I'm at 7.004. So that's the only part is on the back that I would have to narrow up. I could take it out of that walkway very easily. MR. MAC ELROY-Could I ask for clarification, perhaps, from Staff. What constitutes being part of the structure? I think I've run into this before about what that,if that's attached to the foundation. MRS.MOORE-I believe it is,and you're looking at the,correct me,this stoop that faces the shore. MR. MAC ELROY-On the lakeside,correct. MRS.MOORE-You're getting rid of that. MR. DYBAS-We have to leave the stairs line. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) MRS.MOORE-That's what I was wondering. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, my question is, is there an alternative to stairs that are attached to the foundation? MR. JACKOSKI-If they are landscaping stairs, they do not, from what I understand when I built my own home,they do not count as part of your setback,if they are landscaping stairs. MR. MAC ELROY-Could they be a stone step? MR.JACKOSKI-Of course you'll get into permeability issues. MR. MAC ELROY-I already have it. MR. DYBAS-We already have it. It's hard surface stairs. MR. MAC ELROY-So, I mean,that's an alternative to the owner. The point being that the structure is, the face of the house,the structure is at 50 feet and compliant with the regulation. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,you know, I would hope that we don't force the applicant into a situation where they're coming out a door and right onto some steps. I get nervous about that. I'd rather have a platform landing and then come down a little bit. MR. MAC ELROY-But if it's a structure or a landing,a stone, for instance, structure that is not part of the foundation but provides that transition from the first floor elevation to grade, but not, presumably is an alternative to the owner. MR. JACKOSKI-Again, I can't speak directly for Craig, but I understand that landscaping can be utilized and it does not count as part of the setback. MR. DYBAS-Then I would do that. MR. MAC ELROY-Okay. So that would eliminate the need for that variance, and we would stay at the proposed and requested side setback. MRS.MOORE-So I guess are you proposing such as a landscaped terrace approach? MR.JACKOSKI-They can do whatever they want to do landscaping wise to deal with the topography issues as it draws down. We can't regulate landscaping. MRS.MOORE-No, I'm just,okay. I'm just trying to get a clear picture. MR. DYBAS-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-Okay. So that eliminates that request,that need for relief. MR.JACKOSKI-So the front of the structure will be at 50 feet off the shoreline? MR. DYBAS-That's correct. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, we don't want to mislead you and guide you down the wrong path because Craig could come back and say something different,but. MR. MAC ELROY-Understood. MR. JACKOSKI-I personally have landscaped, I actually have grass steps and then they built them into new grass,and they did not count,with our very tiny lot. Doesn't mean things don't change. So the only other issue the Board members had was something about a second garage, a three car garage versus a one car versus a two car versus carport. So any further discussion among Board members? MR. KUHL-Well, I still think that they're keeping under the 1100 square feet. I don't have an issue with it. I really don't, and they're getting stuck with the asphalt and permeability. I mean, we had that with the house on Glen Lake,too. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) MR. MAC ELROY-It's an unusual situation with having a road that bisects the lot. MR.JACKOSKI-That was the Cembrook house,right? MR. KUHL-Yes. MR. MAC ELROY-And as you can see again from the numbers provided, without consideration of that, the impervious surface computation is far under the 25% maximum. We're under 19%, but the road counts. I understand. MR.JACKOSKI-So,on the tax map as you see it,it appears that there's actually a deeded road there. MRS.MOORE-It's a private road. MR.JACKOSKI-So who actually owns that land? MR. MAC ELROY-Well,that's not according to our survey. MR.JACKOSKI-You don't trust the tax map? MR. MAC ELROY-As you know,tax maps aren't always the most reliable source of boundary line. MR.JACKOSKI-Just making a note for the public that we do notice that it shows that on the tax map. Any other comments or questions from Board members before we poll the Board? MRS. MOORE-Can I clarify what you're removing from the project application? If I'm looking at the first floor plan,it shows front,it shows, I believe,steps and a stoop. MR. DYBAS-That's correct. MRS.MOORE-So you're removing that completely from the drawing? MR. DYBAS-Remove that completely. MRS.MOORE-Okay. Thank you. MR.JACKOSKI-That will be interesting, Laura. Will you measure from the,what I'll call the balcony, or you'll measure from the first floor foundation wall? If I look at the elevation, you have a projection forward on the second floor above the living room wall out toward the lake? And I just recall this on that Crossover Lane, the Cardinale, was that what it was. They put that balcony on there and we made them measure from the base of that balcony to the lake, or in their case to the road. So are we measuring from the foundation or are we measuring from that point that's, and I don't know how far that is. MR. DYBAS-Well, I asked Craig Brown about this when I started designing, and he said basically it's the same as an eaves overhang, and he said 18 inches would be permitted, and other than that he'd measure from the foundation wall, and that was the premise of which I proceeded with this design. MR.JACKOSKI-So that's about an 18 inch overhang. MR. DYBAS-It is an 18 inch overhang. MR.JACKOSKI-Seventeen and seven eighths? MR. DYBAS-Seventeen and seven eighths,three quarters. MR.JACKOSKI-Just as long as Craig has had those clarifications,it's not up to us to (lost words). Any other questions? MR. URRICO-The only thing I didn't read in earlier that should be read in is the motion by the Planning Board and recommendation on their behalf to the Zoning Board of Appeals, that based on its limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal,and that was passed July 16th unanimously. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay, Roy. Thank you. So I guess I should poll the Board. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) MRS. HUNT-Could you go over what variances are needed. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, all the variances are going to remain as requested except for the front number one, the shoreline dimension which says 50 is required, 42 is existing, proposed is now 50, not 44. So there is no variance request. MRS. HUNT-No variance for shoreline. Okay. Everything else is the same. MR. JACKOSKI-That's what I understand at this time. Yes. So I've left the public hearing open. I'm going to actually poll the Board and see where we stand,and I'll start with Ron. MR. KUHL-Yes. I realize that this is a small lot, and I realize you're also getting stuck with that asphalt road for permeability. The sides setbacks are what you're going to need, and you shouldn't have asked for a shoreline, and I'm glad you're not and you're moving the house back. I'm in favor of it. I would put an elevator in though. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I would say that I'm in favor of most of the variances, the permeability and the side setbacks and road frontage, but I think there's a feasible alternative for the second garage. I think that might create a change in the neighborhood that we're not going to be happy about down the road and the difficulty is self-created. So I'd be against that portion,that specific variance. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Well, I think that there's a big improvement, the new dwelling will be a big improvement over the old one, taking up less space. Moving it back the six feet was one of the concerns I had. So I would be in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I would be in favor of the project. Again, to kind of piggyback on what some of my Board members are saying, some similar ideas, the permeability. You couldn't do anything about the road there. Ultimately, the issue of the garage, in terms of the character of the neighborhood, the second garage, quite frankly on that road as I went down, looks, many homes have a second garage across the street. So actually it seems like it's coming in more character than what's there now with new houses on property lines, bigger. I don't think it's going to change the character of the neighborhood. I'm in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes. I'm also,no problem with it at this time. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I think we should petition the Board to change the Code if we're going to vote for a second garage on this postage stamp sized parcel, and also if we're going to overbuild on these, we should at least know what kind of stormwater we're having. I wouldn't be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay,and the Board,you're referring to the Town Board? MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-I'm in favor of the project as well. So I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-And ask for a motion. Joyce? Thank you,Joyce. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-2013 GEORGE & PATTY PENSEL, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption,seconded by Kyle Noonan: 256 Lake Parkway. The applicant proposes the removal of a 960 square foot home to construct a 1,341 square foot single family home with an attached garage and a detached 672 square foot garage. The project proposal does not meet the required setback from shoreline or side minimum 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) required road frontage, the number of garages allowed and the permeability requirement. The relief required. Number of garages required one, proposed, two. Relief requested, one. Road frontage, 50 feet, proposed zero. Relief requested 50 feet. Side north setback 20 feet is required, eight feet proposed, twelve feet is requested. Side south, 20 feet required, 7.5 proposed, relief needed is 12.5 feet. Permeability, required 75%, proposed 70.9%, and the relief requested is 4.1%. I think there would be minor impacts to the neighborhood. The feasible alternatives we've discussed and since the two garages do not equal the total square footage allowed for a garage, I think that takes care of that. The relief may be considered substantial relative to the Code. However, this new construction is less nonconforming than the original building, and there will be minor or no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The difficulty may be considered self-created. I move we approve Area Variance No. 30-2013. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 2013, by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-There was a clarification just discussed about the front area, the hard surfacing within 50 feet that the Water Keeper mentioned also, but that will get resolved at Planning Board level. Correct? MRS.MOORE-This requires site plan review. MR.JACKOSKI-I just want to make sure that we note that that's part of the site plan review. AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Noonan, Mr.Jackoski NOES: Mr. Garrand, Mr.Urrico MR.JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Thank you. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. MR. URRICO-I'd like to say that given the number of items on the agenda and the speed at which we're processing them tonight, I may not be here for the end of the meeting. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I'll try to speed things up. I know everyone was done by nine o'clock last week. MR.URRICO-I have an early morning tomorrow. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. AREA VARIANCE NO. 32-2013 SEQRA TYPE II JAMES &PAMELA PRICE OWNER(S) JAMES & PAMELA PRICE ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 185 SUNNYSIDE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF THREE RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS TO EXISTING HOME. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF BP 92- 140 SEPTIC WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.46 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 279.18-1-1 SECTION 179-3-040 JAMES PRICE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 32-2013, James & Pamela Price, Meeting Date: July 24, 2013 "Project Location: 185 Sunnyside Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of residential additions to existing home: 230 sq. ft.back and 160 sq. ft. on side with a 72 sq. ft. front porch entryway. The additions due not meet the required setbacks in the RR-3A zone. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Front (side Side (side Side (side Front (front Side (front Side (front addition) addition) west addition east porch) porch) west porch) east Required: Required: 75 ft. Required: 75 ft. Required: 100 Required: 75 Required: 75 100 ft. ft. ft. ft. Proposed: Proposed: 23.9 Proposed: 68.1 ft. Proposed: Proposed: Proposed: 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) 65.3 ft. I ft. 1 156.2 ft. 44.5 ft. 43.5 ft. Relief 34.7 ft. I Relief 51.1 ft. Relief 6.9 ft. I Relief 43.8 ft. Relief 30.5 ft. Relief 31.5 ft. Front (rear Side (rear Side (rear addition) addition) west addition) east Required: 100 ft. Required: 75 ft. Required: 75 ft. Proposed: 87.1 ft. Proposed: 45.1 ft. Proposed: 31.4 ft. Relief 12.9 ft. Relief 29.9 ft. Relief 43.6 ft. 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 not be considered available as the lot is 0.459 acres and any construction on the parcel would require a variance as the RR-3A zone requires 100 ft. front and rear setbacks with 75 ft. setbacks required on the sides. The RPS data indicates the home was constructed in 1954. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code however any improvements to the building would require a variance as the building envelope required for 3A zoning would overlap due to the size of the lot. 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 impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty in the relief requested for this application may be considered not self-created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, BP 92-140: Septic AV 33-2013: Pending Staff comments: The applicant proposes 3 residential additions to an existing 900 sq. ft. home including a front entryway porch, a side addition on the west and a rear addition that replaces an existing porch area. The applicant has broken the project up between the house and the garage to allow the board to discuss the projects independently. The plans show the location of the additions. The existing home was built in 1954 according to the RPS records and the only other construction activity was a septic alteration in 1992. SEQR Status: Type II" MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. Hello. It's a pretty straightforward application. Is there anything you would like to add to it at this time,or would you like us to just kind of ask some questions? MR. PRICE-Questions,please. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Board members have any questions at this time? And I will note that. Go ahead. I was just going to give you some advice,but go ahead. MR. GARRAND-Question about the garage. What kind of utilities do you have in the garage? MR. PRICE-Just electricity. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) MR. GARRAND-Just electricity. No plumbing,no nothing? MR. PRICE-No,no plumbing. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, does the Board want to do both of these applications simultaneously, or do we want to break them up? MR. GARRAND-They're two different. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,they're two different variances. MR. KUHL-You're just updating. Are you James? MR. PRICE-Yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. PRICE-Yes,just updating. MR. KUHL-Updating the house. Okay. Making it nicer. MR. PRICE-Yes. Yes,we bought it to renovate completely and it requires full renovation. MR. KUHL-So you're going all the way down to the walls? MR. PRICE-All the way down to the walls. MR. KUHL-Okay. No, I think you would need a variance no matter what you wanted to do there. MR. PRICE-Yes,absolutely. MR. KUHL-I have no issues. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? Again, we're dealing with this kitchen addition, not the garage. There is a public hearing scheduled this evening. I will open the public hearing. Is there any written comment, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.URRICO-No comment. MR.JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one at this time, I'll poll the Board. Joyce,can we start with you. MRS. HUNT-Yes, I have no problem with this application. I think it's pretty straightforward, and the changes are rather minor. So I would be in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I agree. I think it satisfies the criteria. I think what they're attempting to do there, I would be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes. I'm in favor of it also. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I don't see any other place you could really put the garage on this property. MR.JACKOSKI-But the garage is going to be next. Right? MR. GARRAND-Yes. There is not a lot they can do here on the house or the garage. So feasible alternatives are limited,very limited. I'd be in favor of it. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I think it's an improvement to what they purchased. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-No problem,straightforward,in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Great. I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-And ask for a motion. MR. NOONAN-I'll make a motion. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Kyle. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 32-2013 JAMES &PAMELA PRICE, Introduced by Kyle Noonan who moved for its adoption,seconded by Joyce Hunt: 185 Sunnyside Road. The applicant proposes the construction of residential additions to existing home. 230 square foot back, 160 square feet on the side with a 72 square foot front porch entryway. The additions do not meet the required setback in the RR-3A zone. The relief required. The parcel will require area variances as follows: front side addition, required 100 feet, proposed 65.3 feet. They're looking for 34.7 feet of relief. The side addition to the west, required 75 feet, proposed is 23.9 feet. Relief requested is 51.1 feet. The side addition to the east, required 75 feet, proposed is 68.1 feet. They're requesting 6.9 feet of relief. The front porch, required 100 feet, proposed 56.2 feet. The relief requested is 43.8 feet. The side front porch west, required 75 feet, proposed 44.5 feet. The relief requested is 30.5 feet. Side front porch east, required 75 feet, proposed 43.5 feet. The relief requested is 31.5 feet. The front rear addition, required 100 feet, proposed 87.1 feet. The relief requested is 12.9 feet. Side rear addition west, required 75 feet, proposed 45.1 feet. The relief is 29.9 feet. Side rear addition, east, required 75 feet, proposed 31.4 feet. The relief requested is 43.6 feet. In making this determination, the Board shall consider whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated,but not likely. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance. Considering the size of the lot and zoning, not much feasible change at this point. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to Code. However, any improvements to the building would require a variance as the building envelope required for a 3A zone would overlap due to the size of the lot. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty and the relief requested for this application may be considered not self-created. I recommend this Board approve Area Variance No. 32-2013. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mrs. Hunt, Mr.Jackoski NOES: ONE MR.JACKOSKI-Congratulations Part I. Part II. AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-2013 SEQRA TYPE II JAMES &PAMELA PRICE OWNER(S) JAMES & PAMELA PRICE ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 185 SUNNYSIDE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING 684 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 684 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE ON THE SAME FOOTPRINT. PROJECT INCLUDES A 192 SQ. FT. SUN PORCH TO THE GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT, SIDE,AND REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF BP 92-140 SEPTIC WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.46 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 279.18-1-1 SECTION 179-3-040 JAMES PRICE, PRESENT 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 33-2013, James & Pamela Price, Meeting Date: July 24, 2013 "Project Location: 185 Sunnyside Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of existing 684 sq. ft. detached garage and construction of a new 684 sq. ft. detached garage on same footprint. Project also includes a 192 sq.ft.sun porch to the garage. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Front(garage) Side west(garage) Side east(garage) Rear(garage) Required: 100 ft. Required: 75 ft. Required: 75 ft. Required: 100 ft. Proposed: 81.4 ft. Proposed: 72.9 ft. Proposed: 8 ft. Proposed: 81.8 ft. est. Relief: 18.6 ft. Relief: 2.1 ft. Relief: 67 ft. Relief: 18.2 ft.est. Side west(garage Side east(garage Rear(garage sunporch) sunporch) sunporch) Required: 75 ft. Required: 75 ft. Required: 100 ft. Proposed: 72.9 ft. Proposed: 8.1 ft. Proposed: 69.8 ft. Relief: 2.1 ft. Relief: 66.9 ft. Relief: 30.2 ft. 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 not appear to be available as any construction on the parcel would require a variance in the current RR3A zone which requires 100 ft. setback from the front and rear along with 75 ft. setbacks for each side. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested for setbacks might be considered substantial relevant to the code however the new construction is to be in a similar location as the existing structure to be removed. 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 impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty in the relief requested for this application may be considered not self-created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, AV 32-2013: Pending BP 92-140: Septic Staff comments: The applicant proposes to remove an existing garage and attached sunroom to construct a new garage with a sunroom. The applicant has provided the board with two applications one for the garage work and one for the residential house additions. The applicant has indicated the garage is in disrepair and will be removed and the new garage will be in the same area. The existing garage has a sunroom that is also in disrepair and the applicant proposes to remove the existing and construct a new sunroom off the back of the proposed garage. The information from RPS indicates the detached garage was built in 1954 about the same time as the main house. SEQR Status: 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) Type II" MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, again. Do you want to add anything to the record or just field questions from the Board members? MR. PRICE-Field questions. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I know Rick asked a couple already. Any further questions from Board members? Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.JACKOSKI-Seeing no one,is there any written comment? MR.URRICO-No written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-No written comment. I will leave the public hearing open. I will just confirm that there's no footprint change on this entire garage re-build. Correct? MR. PRICE-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, and as Mr. Garrand had asked before, there's no plumbing in the garage, it is just electricity. MR. PRICE-Correct. MR.JACKOSKI-No heat. MR. PRICE-No heat. MR.JACKOSKI-Storage above. MR. PRICE-Storage above. There will be. MR.JACKOSKI-And will you access that storage with a stairway or with a ladder? MR. PRICE-From the inside,stairway. MR.JACKOSKI-There will be a stairway? MR. PRICE-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. I'll poll the Board. Kyle? MR. NOONAN-It seems straightforward. I'm in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-I have nothing against it. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR.URRICO-I have no problem with it. MR.JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-No problem. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I'm also in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) MR. GARRAND-No undesirable change. It's not substantial. I don't see any adverse environmental impacts. MR.JACKOSKI-Good. Thank you. So I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-And ask for a motion. MR. KUHL-Can I make the motion? MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,sir. Thank you. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-2013 JAMES & PAMELA PRICE, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption,seconded by Richard Garrand: 185 Sunnyside Road. The applicant proposes demolition of an existing 684 square foot detached garage and construction of a new 684 square foot detached garage on the same footprint. The project also includes a 192 square foot sun porch to the garage. The front relief is 18.6 feet. The side west for the garage is 2.1 feet. The side for the east garage relief is 67 feet. The rear for the garage is 18.2 feet. Side west garage sun porch is 2.1 feet of relief. The side east for the sun porch is 66.9 feet and the rear for the sun porch is 30.2. Whether an undesirable change will be produced. Minor to impacts to none is expected. Whether the benefit can be achieved by any other method. It is an older structure and replacing it is a good thing. Whether the area variance is substantial. Considering the setbacks, it may be considered, but new construction is better than what's there now. Whether the proposed variance could have an adverse effect. Minor to no impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood are anticipated, and the difficulty and the relief requested for this application may be not self-created because it's an old structure. I recommend we approve Area Variance No. 33-2013. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hunt, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Thank you. MR. PRICE-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2013 SEQRA TYPE II MATTHEW NEUBER AGENT(S) RICHARD MORRIS OWNER(S) MATTHEW NEUBER ZONING WR LOCATION 24 SUNSET LANE - ASSEMBLY POINT APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 420 SQ. FT. DECK ONTO EXISTING RESIDENCE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF BP 2012-053 SEPTIC WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2013 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.20 ACRE(S) SECTION 179-3-040 RICHARD MORRIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 34-2013, Matthew Neuber, Meeting Date: July 24, 2013 "Project Location: 24 Sunset Lane-Assembly Point Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 420 sq. ft. deck onto existing residence where the deck will not meet the front setback requirement. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Front Yard Setback Required: 30 ft. Proposed: 25.8 ft. Relief: 4.2 ft. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the orientation of the house on the lot. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal. 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 impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, BP 2012-053: Septic Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a 420 sq. ft. deck. The applicant has indicated the deck will allow for access for the owner from the gravel drive instead of the current steep steps on the existing porch. The drawings show the location of the deck with the setback to the front property line. The applicant has included a side elevation view of the new deck and photos of the existing home. The applicant has indicated the deck could be constructed without the variance request but would be an angled deck and would not be consistent with the structure. SEQR Status: Type II" MR.JACKOSKI-Welcome. MR. MORRIS-Thank you. MR.JACKOSKI-Do you have anything to add at this time? MR. MORRIS-I don't believe so. MR.JACKOSKI-It's pretty straightforward. MR. MORRIS-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-Any questions at this time from Board members concerning this project? MR. HENKEL-Actually aesthetically it's going to make it look nice. Make the neighborhood even look better. MR.JACKOSKI-Where will the steps actually come off of the deck? MR. MORRIS-They'll come on the gravel driveway on the upper side, so there's only going to be about one step down to the gravel driveway. MR.JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? MR. KUHL-Will it be a self-standing deck or will it be attached to the house? 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) MR. MORRIS-It'll be attached to the house. MR. KUHL-How are you going to do it? Are you going to put a plate on your? MR. MORRIS-Yes, onto the logs there. I've done this before, shimmed them, and, you know, cut a, and then lag it into the logs. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR.JACKOSKI-Any other questions? There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board concerning this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.JACKOSKI-Seeing no one,is there any written comment, Roy? MR.URRICO-No written. MR. HENKEL-I'll make a motion. MR. JACKOSKI-I've got to close the public hearing first. I've got to poll the Board first. Is it necessary to poll the Board? MR. KUHL-No. MR.JACKOSKI-Everyone says no. Okay. Great. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-And I will go ahead and ask for a motion. Thank you,John. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2013 MATTHEW NEUBER, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Joyce Hunt: 24 Sunset Lane -Assembly Point. The applicant proposes construction of a 420 square foot deck on to an existing residence where the deck will not meet the front setback required. Relief required, front yard setback, required 30 feet, proposed 25.8 feet. Relief of 4.2 feet. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: Undesirable change to the neighborhood or nearby properties. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. Two, whether benefit could be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the orientation of the house on the lot. Three, whether the request is substantial. No. Four, whether the request will have adverse physical or environmental effects. Minor to no impacts where the project would give the home a better curb appeal for the neighborhood. Whether the alleged difficulty is self-created. Difficulty may be considered self- created. I recommend Area Variance No. 34-2013 be approved. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Thank you very much. MR. MORRIS-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-2013 SEQRA TYPE II WILLIAM & PAMELA ROBERTS AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY, EDP OWNER(S) WILLIAM & PAMELA ROBERTS ZONING WR LOCATION 4 HOLLY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF ANEW DRIVEWAY WITH STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FOR AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL USE IN THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. SITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE INSTALLATION OF A SHALLOW GRASS SWALE TO ACCOMMODATE DRIVEWAY STORMWATER RUNOFF. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM 100 FT. SHORELINE SETBACK AND WELL SETBACK FOR A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DEVICE. CROSS REF BP 89-652 SEPTIC; BP 98-070 RES. ALT.; BP 98-071 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) RES.ALT.; BP 98-069 DOCK REPAIR WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2013 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.42 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-64 SECTION CHAPTER 147 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 34-2013, William & Pamela Roberts, Meeting Date: July 24, 2013 "Project Location: 4 Holly Lane Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes to renovate an existing non-conforming structure with a new driveway and to install a stormwater device to accommodate the new impervious surface that does not meet the 100 ft. setback requirement Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Shoreline Setback for stormwater device Well Setback for stormwater device Required: 100 ft. Required: 100 ft. Proposed: 41 ft. Proposed: 81 ft. Relief 59 ft. Relief: 19 ft. 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 limited as the lot size is 0.41 acres and stormwater devices are to have 100 ft. separation from water sources relevant to Chapter 147. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested might be considered minimal to moderate relevant 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 to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, SP 33-2013: Pending BP 98-652: Septic BP 98-070: Residential alteration BP 98-071: Residential alteration BP 98-069: Dock Staff comments: The applicant proposes to renovate existing homes on a 0.43 acre parcel where the homes are preexisting non-conforming. The project activities include installing a new driveway area and a stormwater device to handle the stormwater from the new impervious surface. The applicant has indicated there currently is no stormwater management on site. The improvements to the existing home are being reviewed as part of site plan. SEQR Status: Type II" 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) MR. URRICO-The Planning Board, on July 16th, based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was voted on unanimously. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Welcome. If you could identify yourself for the record, and I know it's a pretty straightforward application,but if you'd like to add anything,please feel free to do so. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. Yes. I'm Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design, representing Pam and Bill Roberts on this variance application. Pam is with me here tonight. This involves, as was described, setback relief from the requirements of Chapter 147. It's not a variance that you often hear, but I know that you've seen them before. In the case of stormwater management devices, stormwater that is generated from a vehicular surface, in this case the proposed gravel driveway. Perhaps in the future it could be paved, but essentially that's the same, and we've provided stormwater management devices in the form of shallow grass swales, in two locations. One requires relief from the existing well, and the second and lower one requires relief from the 100 foot setback requirement to the lake. It's pretty straightforward. That's the summary. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Board members have questions at this time before I open the public hearing? MR. KUHL-Yes, I have a question. I assume that this is going to go from that telephone pole or from that pole to the property line,where that pole is now? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. KUHL-And that sign will be going away,that road sign? Isn't there a sign right there? That goes away. There's a guywire on that pole also? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. Yes, and the driveway would be between the property line and the pole, and the guy,yes. MR. KUHL-Good. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions? There is a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board concerning this particular application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.JACKOSKI-Seeing no one,is there any written comment? MR.URRICO-Yes,there is,and Mr. Navitsky snuck out the back door. I think I will be reading this. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. MR. URRICO-"Dear Mr. Jackoski: The above referenced variance application was personally reviewed in my capacity as a licensed professional engineer and the Lake George Water Keeper. The Lake George Water Keeper is not opposed to the requested variances but views the project as an opportunity to maximize water quality improvements and bring the site into compliance. The Lake George Water Keeper requests the Zoning Board of Appeals apply the Town's regulations, specifically §179-14-050 Imposition of Conditions and §179-8-040 Shoreline Buffers, during your deliberations regarding the above referenced variance application. The Zoning Board of Appeals should require a shoreline buffer for this project located in the Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake George. There are minimal, if any, shoreline plantings on the property and the applicant states there is no existing stormwater management on site. This inlet off Harris Bay has exhibited algae blooms over the past summers indicating high nutrients. The installation of a shoreline buffer would increase infiltration and reduce stormwater runoff to the lake. The Zoning Board of Appeals should require additional stormwater management for the existing impervious surfaces. The applicant proposes to manage and treat stormwater runoff from the new impervious surfaces, which is the minimum required. The Water Keeper encourages the applicant to increase the size of the proposed stormwater management facilities and maximize stormwater management in this area off the lake that exhibits algae blooms. In closing, the Lake George Water Keeper recommends the Zoning Board of Appeals grant the variances with the following conditions: 1) Require the installation of a shoreline buffer compliant with Town Code, and 2) Require management of stormwater runoff from all impervious surfaces. The Lake George Water Keeper looks forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to defend the natural resources of Lake George and its watershed. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Christopher Navitsky, PE Lake George Water Keeper" 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Any other written comment? MR.URRICO-That's it. Laura,is this project going to the Planning Board? MRS.MOORE-It is. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So I believe that the Planning Board will address the shoreline buffering, but we can certainly make it part of our deliberations here. MR. GARRAND-Are you proposing shoreline buffering? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. MR. GARRAND-As the Water Keeper said,it's kind of turning into bad water down there. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, there is some supplemental planting we've proposed on the site plan for that,for that area. MR. GARRAND-For the shoreline? MR. MAC ELROY-Along the shoreline, yes, right, as, in compliance with the Town's Zoning Ordinance, which, I will say, does not require a lot, and that's what we've provided is compliance with that provision. MR. GARRAND-Yes,it would be a great idea,especially for a lot like this. Anything (lost word) down there,because. MR. MAC ELROY-Well,and there is vegetation there. Maybe it's not in the form that. MR.JACKOSKI-Well,again,the Planning Board will address. MR. MAC ELROY-That's a Planning Board issue,yes. MR.JACKOSKI-The specific criterion and height of plants and type of plants. MR. KUHL-And this is going to be a stone driveway,right,not asphalt,or is it going to be asphalt? MR. MAC ELROY-I think initially the thought was that it was a gravel driveway or a stone driveway, but certainly it has all the possibilities of being an asphalt driveway at some point, but the stormwater is the same regardless. MR. KUHL-It is? Okay. MR.JACKOSKI-Any further discussion? I'll poll the Board quickly, I guess. Kyle? MR. NOONAN-The project seems straightforward. I'm in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I think I don't see any change to the character of the neighborhood. I think they've addressed possible feasible alternatives. I think it's substantial, but I think it will be an improvement to the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood, and I think it is self-created,but it's self-created in a good way,and I would be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I would be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I agree with my fellow Board members. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I'm also for it,no problem. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-As long as they implement the suggestion of the Water Keeper, I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-And I think that's key, too, to make sure that we have, this bay in particular. I happened to be in that bay about less than a month ago, and it still is quite sandy, I'm surprised,but you can also see algae blooms. MR. GARRAND-Laura,could you forward our request on to the Planning Board? MRS.MOORE-Yes, I can. MR. GARRAND-Please. Thank you. MR.JACKOSKI-Do you want to make it part of the motion? MRS.MOORE-You can make it part of your motion. MR. GARRAND-I'll make a motion,once you close the public hearing. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Rick. I'd like to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-Rick. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-2013 WILLIAM & PAMELA ROBERTS, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: 4 Holly Lane. The applicant proposes to renovate an existing nonconforming structure with a new driveway and install stormwater device to accommodate the new impervious surface that does not meet the 100 foot setback requirement. The applicant has agreed to install shoreline buffer planting as per our requests as a condition of approval, as per the Town Code. Whether benefits can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. Due to the small nature of this lot, I do not believe benefit can be achieved by other means. Will this produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood. None whatsoever. Is this request substantial? Staff Notes say it's moderate. I would have to agree. Will the request have adverse physical or environmental effects. Any effects anticipated will be mitigated by the scope of the controls and the shoreline buffer. Is this difficulty self-created? It maybe deemed self-created. So I move we approve Area Variance No. 36-2013. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 2013, by the following vote: MR.JACKOSKI-And I will note that in Rick's motion he made note that it's shoreline plantings as per the Town Code. AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mrs. Hunt, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. MR.JACKOSKI-Have a good night. AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-2013 SEQRA TYPE II JEFFREY&SARAH MERRIGAN AGENT(S) TOM HUTCHINS - HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) JEFFREY & SARAH MERRIGAN ZONING RR-SA LOCATION BOULDERWOOD DRIVE & WILDWOOD PLACE GRANT ACRES, PHASE 2 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,696 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH A 264 SQ. FT. DECK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF SP 37-2013, FWW 2-2013 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.68 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 266.1-2-46 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 37-2013,Jeffrey& Sarah Merrigan, Meeting Date: July 24, 2013 "Project Location: Boulderwood Drive & Wildwood Place Grant Acres, Phase 2 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a single family dwelling that does not meet the required shoreline setback of 75 ft.from an APA wetland. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Shoreline Setback Required: 75 ft. Proposed: 52.7 ft. Relief requested 22.3 ft. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives appear to be limited due to the lot having a designated wetland on it. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant 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 to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, SP 37-2013: Pending FW 2-2013: Pending Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct of a 1,696 sq. ft. (footprint) home on a preexisting lot of the Grant Acres subdivision Phase 3. The lot contains a designated APA wetland and the rear porch of the proposed structure does not meet the required shoreline setback. The information submitted shows the survey of the lot, proposed site plan with the new house location and distance from the wetland, and the original subdivision plat with the lot shown. The applicant has indicated the APA has granted a permit for the house and onsite septic system as located on the plans submitted,APA permit# 86-233. SEQR Status: Type II" MR.JACKOSKI-Welcome. It's a pretty straightforward application. Would you like to add anything at this time or field questions from the Board? MR. HUTCHINS-I'll just be very brief. We've laid out the proposed plan essentially as it was laid out on the approved subdivision. The wetland is still there. It's still in the same location as it was in 1989. The difference is somehow between 1989 and now the wetland is now subject to the shoreline setback which it wasn't at the time it was approved. So we're requesting relief from that 75 foot shoreline setback to the wetland,and everything else will be constructed in accordance with the approved plan and the APA permit,and,Jeffrey and Sarah,anything to add? 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions from Board members at this time before I open the public hearing? MR. HENKEL-Basically the relief is from the proposed deck,not from the house, right? MR. HUTCHINS-Well,we're showing a deck on the back of the house because,yes, there'll be a deck on the back of the house. We kept it down to 12 foot width,but the relief is to the deck,yes. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions or comments? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who'd like to address the Board concerning this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.JACKOSKI-Seeing no one,is there any written comment? MR.URRICO-No written comment. MR.JACKOSKI-No written comment. I'm going to poll the Board. I'll start with Rick. MR. GARRAND-I don't think the request is significant. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR.URRICO-I agree with Rick. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I agree with Rick and Roy. MR.JACKOSKI-Let's see what you feel like,Joyce. MRS. HUNT-I agree with the other four. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Well, the APA already gave them a permit, so I guess, isn't that the body that seeks the first approval? Right? Isn't that the subject matter expert that we go behind? MR.JACKOSKI-It seems like a formality. Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I'm in favor of the project. It seems fine. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HENKEL-I'll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-2013 JEFFREY & SARAH MERRIGAN, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Joyce Hunt: Boulderwood Drive &Wildwood Place Grant Acres, Phase 2. The applicant proposes to construct a single family dwelling that does not meet the required shoreline setback of 75 feet from the APA wetland. The relief required, shoreline required 75 feet, proposed 52.7 feet, and relief requested 22.3. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: Number One,undesirable change to the neighborhood character or nearby properties. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. Two, whether benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. Feasible alternatives appear to be limited due to the lot having a designated wetland on it. Three, whether the request is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relative to the Code. Four, whether the request will have adverse physical or environmental effects. Minor to no impact. Five, whether the alleged difficulty is self-created. Difficulty maybe considered self-created. I recommend Area Variance No. 37-2013 be approved. 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hunt, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Good luck. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-2013 SEQRA TYPE II COVER 3, INC. - WENDY'S RESTAURANT AGENT(S) TOM HUTCHINS -HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) COVER 3, INC. ZONING Cl LOCATION 714 GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR RENOVATIONS INCLUDING REMOVING EXISTING ATRIUM AND CONSTRUCTING NEW ATRIUM IN THE SAME FOOTPRINT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK, TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY SETBACK, AND MINIMUM PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. ALSO,RELIEF IS REQUIRED FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN THE Cl ZONE. CROSS REF SP 38-2013; SP 13-2006; BP 2006-182 ALT.; BP 8752 YR. 1984 RESTAURANT; SIGN PERMIT NO. 8867 A (88-743) AND SIGN PERMIT NO. 8867 B (88-744), VARIANCE NO. 930 OF YEAR 1984, SPR 16-84 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2013 LOT SIZE 0.82 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-56 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-13-010 JON LAPPER, MATT STEVES&TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 38-2013, Cover 3, Inc. - Wendy's, Meeting Date: July 24, 2013 "Project Location: 714 Glen Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to renovate an existing Wendy's restaurant including exterior and interior renovations with a new atrium,new wall sign feature,and enclosing the outdoor cooler into the footprint of the building. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Setback -front & travel Permeability corridor Required: 75 ft. Required: 30% Proposed: 25.86 ft. Proposed: 15.80% Relief requested 49.14 ft. Relief requested 14.2% Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives appear to be limited as the as the site is already developed and the renovations do not change the intensity of the use. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code however the renovation causes a minimal change being less nonconforming in permeability with a majority of the renovation being within the same footprint. 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 impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, SP 38-2013: Pending BP 2006-182: Alteration BP 8752: Restaurant 1984 Staff comments: The applicant proposes to renovate an existing Wendy's restaurant. The applicant has provided a site plan showing the existing and proposed alterations. This includes a new atrium, a new wall sign feature, enclosing the outdoor cooler, and providing a second exit lane on the north side. The information also includes a color rendition of the building interior and exterior look. The applicant has clarified that the only signs will be the permitted one free standing and one wall sign. SEQR Status: Type II" MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, and you must be a big project because we have a surveyor, a lawyer and the engineer here all at one table. MR. LAPPER-We've got you covered. MR.JACKOSKI-It's a pretty straightforward application,but if you would like. MR. LAPPER-For the record,Jon Lapper, Matt Steves,Tom Hutchins. We'll give you the ten o'clock, two minute version. Very old,tired architecture. Everything within the footprint, as Laura said, or in the front by the road. The cooler is outside of it. On the drawing there's a two foot, what Matt describes as the blade, which is an architectural feature that has an interior fireplace, which is pretty nice, and the main benefit of the project is putting that right turn lane in. Right now when everyone's going through the drive thru, especially at lunch, and you've got one guy trying to make a left onto Glen Street at lunch, all the right turns have to wait for the left turn. Now they'll be able to make a right and it should make the whole site function much better, and that's pretty much the story. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,sir. Are there any questions from Board members at this time? It looks like he won't step out into the exit lane. MR. HENKEL-Is that going to be the main heat in the place,that fireplace, or what? MR. LAPPER-It looks like it'll probably produce some good btu's,yes. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR.URRICO-Is there any reciprocal agreement with the properties next door to use theirs as part of the exit? MR. LAPPER-No. When we did the Rite Aid a few years ago, ordinarily you'd have an interconnect under the Town Code,but because of this drive through,you'd be interconnecting in the middle of a drive thru and it would just make the site not work. MR.URRICO-And what about the back lot,the lot behind it? MR. HUTCHINS-That's part of Rite Aid. The stormwater controls from the Rite Aid project, and to the south, that's the back of Warren Tire. That's Rite Aid, that's Rite Aid's stormwater, and then that,the outlets to the north are (lost words). MR.JACKOSKI-Any other questions? I do have a public hearing scheduled for 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-Any written comment, Roy? 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) MR.URRICO-No written comment. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. I'll poll the Board quickly,then. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I have no problem with it. I think it's pretty straightforward, and I have been in some of the new Wendy's and they're beautiful. They really are lovely. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I don't see how benefits can be achieved by other means feasible. You try to push this restaurant back, you're going to lose the drive thru and everything else. It's going to produce no change in the neighborhood. I'm in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Go for it. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR.URRICO-Yes. I agree. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I agree with my other members. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I'm in favor of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Somebody say no. All right. We've got to get Mr. Lapper to earn his money here. Come on. Okay. It is a great project. I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. GARRAND-I'll make a motion. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Rick. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-2013 COVER 3.INC. -WENDY'S RESTAURANT, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: 714 Glen Street. The applicant proposes to renovate an existing Wendy's Restaurant, including exterior and interior renovations with a new atrium, new wall sign feature, and enclosing the outdoor cooler into the footprint of the building. The relief requested is 49.14 feet from the front Travel Corridor Overlay setback, and we're also requesting 14.2% relief from the permeability relief. On the balancing test: I do not believe benefits can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant given the nature of this lot. It is what it is. No undesirable change will be produced. Is this request substantial? I think it's minimal. Adverse environmental impacts on the neighborhood. None whatsoever. Is the difficulty self-created? No. We're governed by the outline of this lot. So I move we approve Area Variance No. 38-2013. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,congratulations. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-The meeting really started to move along after that first one. Thanks a lot. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Harrison, thank you for sitting all evening. We appreciate it. Mr. Salvador,you asked for five minutes with the Board. 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/24/2013) JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Earlier this evening, I heard from this side of the room a comment like it's a small lot. All of the lots are small. We knew the lots were small when we put in the one acre zoning 25 years ago, and we changed the one acre zoning to two acre zoning, and the lots are the same small lots. It makes absolutely no sense. That's why you have these long agendas. MR. GARRAND-I was told it was to preserve open spaces in Queensbury. MR. SALVADOR-It's wall to wall paving. MR. GARRAND-Well,that's what it's becoming. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. I don't know if you've heard, but your approval of the Kitchen project is in court,and. MR.JACKOSKI-And, Mr. Salvador,just so you know,we can't discuss anything about the project. MR. SALVADOR-I'm not asking you to discuss a thing,all right. MR.JACKOSKI-Just making sure,that's all. MR. SALVADOR-One of the issues that I have been trying to get settled and finalized for a long,long time, and this goes back to the Seaboyer approval, if you recall. Do you remember that one? Is the fact that the Lake George Park Commission is supposed to be put on notice when you are granting variances to Chapter 147,the Town's stormwater management. That paragraph reads, no variance shall be granted by the Town of Queensbury until first providing notice to the Commission a minimum of 10 days in advance. The Commission shall be deemed a party to the proceeding. Okay. MR. GARRAND-When our agenda is e-mailed to us, they're also e-mailed with the agenda that we have. MR. SALVADOR-I know. That's what I've been told by the Town Supervisor. Excuse me, the Town Supervisor gave me this list as evidence of notice. That is not notice. That is a distribution of information, and I have taken this together with a lot of other information I've written, I've answered the Lake George Park Commission in this regard, and with regard to that sort of thing, I say, said e-mail list places the Commission on the same low level of environmental concern as several less motivated parties and could hardly be considered satisfaction of an applicant's responsibility to notice the Commission that it is to become a party in an application for a variance to the Commission's model stormwater ordinance. It's the applicant's responsibility to notice the Commission, or get a waiver from it, and they never do that. Now this e-mail list you refer to, the Town Clerk of the Town of Lake Luzerne is on the list. Come on, there must be 30 people on that list. That's not notice to the Commission to become a party to the variance application. So,anyway, I'll share this with you, and by the way, this is an issue in that lawsuit. This is an issue in that lawsuit,in addition to several others. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Could I have a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JULY 24, 2013, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption,seconded by Richard Garrand: Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 45