Loading...
09-18-2013 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2013) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 18,2013 INDEX Area Variance No.43-2013 Greenwood Builders, LLC 1. Tax Map No. 290.00-1-83 Area Variance No.46-2013 Richard&Jill Long 6. Tax Map No. 240.00-1-16 Area Variance No. 39-2013 Stewarts Shop Corp. 9. Tax Map No. 296.16-16.3 Area Variance No.47-2013 Colleen M. Halse 15. Tax Map No. 239.12-2-66 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 09/18/2013) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 18,2013 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOYCE HUNT RICHARD GARRAND JOHN HENKEL HARRISON FREER,ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, everyone. Good evening. Today, Wednesday, September 18, 2013 at seven o'clock I'd like to call to order the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for this evening. For those of you who haven't been here in the past, it's actually quite an easy process. We'll do some housekeeping then we'll do some Old Business applications and then we'll call the New Business applications. It's a simple process. We'll call the applicants to the table here to present their application. The Board members will ask some questions. We'll get public comment when a public comment period or public hearing has been noticed. We'll poll the Board and then take action from there. So I'd like to do some housekeeping first if we could. The approval of the meeting minutes from July 17th, and I will note that the members here this evening that were a part of that meeting were Roy, Joyce, John, Harrison, and that's it. So can I have a motion, please, from any of those four for the approval of these minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 17, 2013 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 17, 2013, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mrs. Hunt NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr.Jackoski, Mr. Garrand July 24, 2013 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 24, 2013, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Freer MR.JACKOSKI-Okay,housekeeping's all done. Old Business,please. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-2013 SEQRA TYPE II GREENWOOD BUILDERS, LLC AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS, PLLC OWNER(S) H. THOMAS JARRETT ZONING MDR LOCATION 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2013) EAST SIDE OF RIDGE RD. JUST NORTH OF HAVILAND RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 16-ACRE PARCEL INTO THREE RESIDENTIAL LOTS; ONE (LOT NO. 3) TO BE LOCATED OFF STONEHURST DRIVE AT THE EXTENSION OF THE 50 FT. WIDE PAPER STREET. PROPOSED LOTS 1 AND 2 TO BE LOCATED ON RIDGE ROAD WITH A SHARED DRIVEWAY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS AND DIRECT ACCESS ON A PUBLIC STREET FOR LOT NUMBER 3. DRIVEWAY ACCESS WILL BE THROUGH STONEHURST DRIVE. CROSS REF SB 2-2013; FWW 1-2013; TOWN BOARD OF HEALTH SEPTIC VARIANCE; SET PH ON AUGUST 5, & PH SCHEDULED AUGUST 19, 2013 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2013 LOT SIZE 16.02 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 290.00-1-83 SECTION 179-4-050; CHAPTER 183 &CHAPTER 94; 179-3-040 TOM JARRETT&GARY SCOTT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 43-2013, Greenwood Builders, LLC, Meeting Date: September 18, 2013 "Project Location: east side of Ridge Rd., just north of Haviland Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 16-acre parcel into three residential lots; one lot (lot 3) to be accessed off of Stonehurst Drive at the existing 50 ft. wide paper street. Proposed lots 1 &2 to be located on Ridge Road with a shared driveway. Relief Required: Parcel will require an area variance from the following section of code 179-4-050 Frontage specifically for road frontage access: Frontage and access on Public Streets Required 50 ft. Proposed 0 ft. Relief 50 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 are limited due to the proposed lot configuration for the 3-lot subdivision. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial however the lot configuration avoids work with the wetlands and minimizes curb-cuts onto Ridge Road. 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, SB 2-13: Pending FW 1-13: Pending Septic Variance: Pending 8-19-13,9-9-13 Staff comments: The applicant proposes a 3-lot subdivision where lot 3 requires a variance for physical frontage access on an unimproved paper drive accessing Stonehurst Dr. The applicant has indicated the proposed configuration minimizes curb-cuts to 2 on Ridge Road where lot 3 will access Stonehurst 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2013) Dr. The materials submitted show the lot configuration, proposed house location, wetland areas, driveway and other site details. SEQR Status: Type II' MR.JACKOSKI-Welcome back. MR.JARRETT-Thank you. Welcome to yourselves. We're Tom Jarrett and Gary Scott,for the record. Ridgewood Meadows is a 16 acre subdivision. Three lots are proposed. All three lots have frontage on Ridge Road. Only two of them are proposed for access from Ridge Road via a shared driveway. The third lot is proposed to be accessed through Stonehurst Drive, as the best buildable area for that third lot is near Stonehurst Drive, and as you can see from the paper street,the Planning Board intended an interconnect between that subdivision and this parcel, but they probably did not realize how wet this parcel is and thought there would be quite a few more lots than just three, or quite a few more than just one in the rear. So, if we built a Town road through that paper street,we could get the frontage in the rear and put the access through the frontage, but it really makes no sense from a practical or environmental perspective to do that. It makes more sense just to build a narrow driveway with one house, and in which case we don't really have the proper frontage on a Town road. So we need a variance. Did I confuse you with that or clarify? MR.JACKOSKI-No,very clear. Any comments or questions at this time from Board members? MR. HENKEL-Yes. If we grant this variance, is there going to be other variances needed when they go to build houses as far as setbacks from wetlands or any of that? They'll be all right? MR. JARRETT-No, they can comply. These lots are compliant except for this one variance, and the Town Board did grant a variance for wastewater setback to a wetland, which I am contesting, actually. I'm going to meet with the Town Board in a workshop to discuss it, but that was granted in any event. So this is the only other variance that we think we need. Don't envision any others. MR. GARRAND-What's to prevent the homeowners from building, you know, things back in the setback area? MR.JARRETT-You. I mean,that's blunt,but you and the Town Board,basically. They could propose something,but they'd have to go in front of one of the Boards to get approval to do it. MR. GARRAND-Yes, because anything they want to build here, pools, anything will fall within the setbacks. MR. JARRETT-Structures proposed within 75 feet of a wetland would require a variance. You would hear, and other than that. MR. GARRAND-I think something like a pool would be even more detrimental in that 75 foot setback. MR.JARRETT-And you certainly don't have to grant that variance. MR. GARRAND-I'd be happier with conditions that like no pools on,within the 75 foot setback from the wetlands. MR.JARRETT-I don't think we have a problem stipulating that, if you'd like to make that a condition of any action you take. MR. JACKOSKI-Any further questions at this time? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here this evening who'd like to address the Board concerning this particular application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR.JACKOSKI-Seeing no one,is there any written comment? MR.URRICO-No. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2013) MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment at this time, are there any questions that Board members would like to ask before I poll the Board? Okay. We're going to poll the Board. I'll start with Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I don't see any issues with this. I should say there are issues, but I think they're logical and the response has been a logical one,and I would be in favor of the application. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I think the applicant has made a very reasonable concession, as far as not encroaching on the wetland. So I'd be in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-I'm in favor of it,but, Rick,are you going to stipulate no pools as part of your? MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-And is it going to be only pools, or is it sheds,is it tree houses? MR. GARRAND-I think the biggest detriment to the environment would be a pool in that area, especially given that they are protected wetlands, or Army Corps of Engineer wetlands. I think a shed might not be as detrimental to the environment as say a chlorinated pool would be. MR.JARRETT-Good,okay. I like that, and you're going to say within 75 feet of the wetlands. Right? MR. GARRAND-Within 75 feet. MR.JARRETT-So they could put a pool in a compliant area. There's not much room for a compliant. MR. GARRAND-There's almost no compliant area on any of these properties. MR.JARRETT-Right,you'd build a very small house and have a tradeoff. MR. GARRAND-Yes,that's a possibility. MR.JARRETT-That's fine with us. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-All I'm saying is when I asked you that question about the, if we're going to have to grant you variances later, as far as now you're saying there's workable acreage there to build houses. MR. JARRETT-We believe not. Now if the lots are sold and another applicant decides to propose something much more intrusive or larger than what we've designed here, they could come back to this Board,but we don't envision that need. MR. HENKEL-Yes,because I remember I asked you a question last meeting about how much acreage approximately is there available to build on that would not infringe on wetlands or that, and you said approximately two acres. MR. JARRETT-There's two acres in each lot, at least two acres in each lot, which is the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. So, I mean, we've all seen huge houses proposed in all of the zones. So what somebody proposes and what somebody tries to add later is going to have to be dealt with on a case by case basis, but we don't envision that need. Certainly a reasonable house can be built without any more variances. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR.JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I think there'd be minor impacts to the neighborhood and I agree that feasible alternatives are limited, and I think they have to be congratulated for working it out so that they don't encroach on the wetlands,and the curb cut, I like that idea,too. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2013) MR.JARRETT-Thank you. MRS. HUNT-And I don't think there'd be any physical or environmental impacts, and I guess it is self-created,but I would be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-So, Staff, before I say yes or no, can you tell me, could be condition it that each of these lots, when they are going to be built, would have to go in front of the Planning Board, even if they were compliant,for a variance? MRS. MOORE-The Planning Board would do that and you would forward a recommendation to the Planning Board to make it that they require site plan review for each of the homes. If you felt the need to do it as a Board, as a condition, he could. It's just not typical. Does that make sense, or I guess have you seen in the past that you've done that sort of a thing? MR. JACKOSKI-No, it's just that there's so many wetlands here. Like Rick is saying, that's the big concern,and we know what happened further down the road. MR. JARRETT-Obviously if somebody proposes something within the setbacks, they'd have to come in front of this Board in any event. MRS. HUNT-They'll need another variance. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes, I just wonder if they, I understand,but if it's,okay. MRS. MOORE-We do do site plan for waterfront lots. So in some subdivisions where a waterfront lot is created, any further site development on that lot would come before the Planning Board for site plan review. So that's. MR. JACKOSKI-So before they get a building permit, even if they were meeting all of the Code as far as setbacks are concerned, they'd still have to be in front of the Planning Board on these lots because of the wetlands? MR.JARRETT-Are you calling this a waterfront lot? MRS.MOORE-No. MR.JARRETT-The value goes up. MR. GARRAND-In the spring it might be. MR.JARRETT-There's always a silver lining. Right? MR.JACKOSKI-Well, is there any support to put it in front of the Planning Board no matter what, or do we just let them do that during the? MR.URRICO-Yes, I don't think that we need to do that. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Great. Okay. So I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-Is there anyone to make a motion. Rick? MR. GARRAND-Sure. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO.43-2013 GREENWOOD BUILDERS.LLC, Introduced by Richard Garrand BOARD MEMBER who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt BOARD MEMBER: Whereas the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Greenwood Builders, LLC for a variance from Section(s) 179-4-050; Chapter 183 &Chapter 94; 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury in order to subdivide a 16-acre parcel into three residential lots; one lot (Lot No. 3) to be located off of Stonehurst Drive at the extension of the 50 ft. wide paper street. Lots 1 and 2 to be located on Ridge Road with a shared driveway. Relief requested from road frontage requirements and direct access on a public street for lot number 3. Driveway access will be through Stonehurst Drive. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2013) Upon review of the application materials, it's a Type II SEQR, and information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1) Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested area variance? It is our finding that: It will not create any detriment to nearby properties. 2) Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? It is our finding that: The applicant has designed this in such a manner that there is no other feasible alternative for three lots. 3) Is the requested area variance substantial? It is our finding that: I'd say it's moderate. 4) Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? It is our finding that: We don't believe it'll have any impact on the physical or environmental conditions, in addition to the condition previously stated. 5) Is the alleged difficulty 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)It is our finding that: I don't believe the difficulty is necessarily self-created. I think it's a function of the lots,and the amount of wetlands that are on the lots. Based on the above findings, I move that this Board Approve Area Variance No. 43-2013 Greenwood Builders, LLC with the following conditions: That there be no pools within the 75 foot Army Corps of Engineering wetland setback. Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 2013,by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-I do want to note that we should remove the SEQR language from that resolution. Correct? So where we stated completed SEQR review form,just to clarify that it is actually a Type II SEQR. AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR.JARRETT-Thank you very much. MR.JACKOSKI-So I'd like to go a little bit out of order here and call the next application, Richard and Jill Long. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO.46-2013 SEQRA TYPE II RICHARD&JILL LONG OWNER(S) RICHARD& JILL LONG ZONING LC-42A LOCATION 2407 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 787 SQ. FT.ADDITION AND TO ALTER A 351 SQ. FT. PORTION OF AN EXISTING HOME THAT INCLUDES A NEW PORCH ENTRYWAY. THE PROJECT INVOLVES AN ADDITIONAL BEDROOM, UPDATING AN EXISTING BATHROOM, UPDATING AN EXISTING BEDROOM, ENCLOSING UTILITIES AND REMOVAL OF A SHED THAT PREVIOUSLY HELD THE UTILITIES. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, SETBACK AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE LC-42A ZONE. CROSS REF AV 67-1998; AV 2-1996; BP 97-048 ADDITION; BP 98-639 ADDITION WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2013 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.44 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 240.00-1-16 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-13-010 RICHARD&JILL LONG, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 46-2013, Richard & Jill Long, Meeting Date: September 18, 2013 "Project Location: 2407 Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2013) to construct a 787 sq. ft. addition and to alter a 351 sq. ft. portion of an existing home that includes a new porch entryway. The propect involves an additional bedroom, updating an existing bathroom, updating an existing bedroom, enclosing utilities and removal of a shed that previously held the utilities. Relief Required: Parcel will require variances from the follow sections of the Zoning Code 179-3-040 Establishment of Zoning District and 179-13-010 Continuation: Relief is requested for expansion of a nonconforming structure,setback and permeability requirements of the LC-42A zone. Setback-Front Setback-Side N Setback Side S Setback Rear Permeability Required 100 Required 100 Required 100 Required 100 Required 95% Proposed NE 81, Proposed NE 49.3, Proposed SE 26.9, Proposed NW 56.5, Proposed 81 SE 87.1 NW 55.9 SW 20.1 SW 59.7 Relief 19, Relief 50.7,44.1 Relief 73.1, Relief 43.5,40.3 Relief 14% 12.9 79.9 Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives are limited as the size of the parcel is 0.437 acres and the existing house currently does not comply with the required setbacks as well as any expansion would not comply with the required setback. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested is substantial 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 to be created by the zoning code as the structure was built in 1964 prior to zoning. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, SP 49-13: Pending AV 67-98: Residential addition, setback, permeability & expansion of non-conforming structure relief 9-23-98 AV 2-96: Residential addition, setback, permeability & expansion of non-conforming structure relief 2-21-96 BP 97-048: 936 sq.ft.addition BP 98-639: 144 sq.ft.addition 8-17-99 Staff comments: The applicant proposes to renovate an existing home to where the addition would have two bedrooms, a full bath, a nook area, and enclosing utilities furnace and such. The applicant has previous additions that were also subject to board review and have been constructed. The plans show the location of the existing home and the addition proposed. SEQR Status: Type II' MR.JACKOSKI-Welcome. If you could just identify yourselves for the record. MRS. LONG-Jill Long. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2013) MR. LONG-Rich Long. MR. JACKOSKI-So at this time I know last evening they tabled the application. So I understand this evening we'll be tabling this as well. Correct, Staff? We do have a public hearing scheduled for the evening. So is there anything, at this time, you want to add to the record for us? I mean, I'll ask Board members to see if they want to ask you any questions,but I wanted to bring you up sooner so you didn't have to sit through some other applications because of the tabling. MRS. LONG-Not really. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So are there any questions from Board members at this time? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'd like to open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.JACKOSKI-Roy,is there any written comment? MR.URRICO-I do not find any. MR.JACKOSKI-So none of the adjoining neighbors have made comment? MR.URRICO-No,not that I see. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one, I'm going to leave the public hearing open, and talk to Board members briefly about what we want to do here. Table it to when? MRS. MOORE-You can table it to next week, simply because the Planning Board has tabled it to next week. You would receive the Planning Board recommendation prior to your Zoning Board meeting. You could make your decision at the Zoning Board meeting next week. This would then move this applicant to October for the Planning Board meeting to complete their site plan application. MR. JACKOSKI-And how many applications do we currently have on, I mean, I have it right here, don't I? MRS. MOORE-For next week? You have four items on for next week, and I don't believe that they're lengthy. You could potentially table them until then. I would be comfortable with that. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. If the Board's okay with tabling it until next week, I'd like to get a motion. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-2013 RICHARD &JILL LONG, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: Tabled to the September 25th, 2013 Zoning Board meeting at 7 p.m. MR. JACKOSKI-I would like to note if we could move this, would this item be the first one on the agenda for that evening? I think that would be reasonable, considering we brought them here this evening to put them as first. Okay. Duly adopted this 17th day of September, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hunt, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-See,that wasn't bad. See you next week. MRS. LONG-Thank you. MR.JACKOSKI-You're welcome. Good luck. MRS. LONG-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2013 SEQRA TYPE II STEWART'S SHOP CORP. AGENT(S) JENNIFER HOWARD OWNER(S) STEWART'S SHOP CORP. ZONING CI LOCATION 402 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING GAS ISLAND CANOPY AND REPLACE WITH A 46 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2013) FT. BY 50 FT. CANOPY WITH AN INCREASE FROM 2 GASOLINE PUMPS TO 4 GASOLINE PUMPS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT YARD SETBACK, TRAVEL CORRIDOR, AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF SP 40-2013 CANOPY; SP 36-2013; SP 10-2011; BP 2013-265 FS SIGN; BP 99-3363 FS SIGN; BP 99-3347 FS SIGN; BP 99-3349 WALL SIGN; BP 99-3348 WALL SIGN; BP 99-255 ALT.; BP 99-128 NEW BLDG. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2013 NCI LOT SIZE 1.33 ACRE(S) SECTION 179-3-040; 179-4-030 TOM LEWIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 39-2013, Stewart's Shop Corp., Meeting Date: September 18, 2013 "Location: 402 Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove existing gas island canopy and replace with a 46 ft.x 50 ft.canopy with 4 gasoline pumps. Relief Required: Parcel will require variances from the zoning ordinance sections 179-3-040 Establishment of Zoning Districts and 179-4-030 Travel Corridor: Front Yard -Cronin Front Yard-Bay Rd Travel Corridor-Bay Rd Permeability Rd Required 75 ft. Required 75 ft. Required 75 ft. Required 30% Proposed 31.1 ft. Proposed 41.6 ft. Proposed 41.6 ft. Proposed 28% Relief 43.9 ft. Relief 33.4 ft. Relief 33.4 ft. Relief 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 area limited as the parcel is on a corner having two front setbacks and any reconfiguration of the 2,300 sq.ft. canopy would require relief. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal for the relief requested for permeability and maybe considered substantial relevant to the code where the code requires the 75 ft.to be maintained as open space. 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 40-13: Pending SP 36-13: 522 +/-sq.ft. addition 7-23-13 SP 10-11: 4'x 15' exterior storage area 2-22-11 PZ 1-05 & SB 17-04: Applicant proposes 1) a zoning district boundary change involving changing 1+/- acre from PUD to HC Intensive and changing 1.02+/- acre from HC-Intensive to PUD, and 2) a five (5) lot subdivision of 6.37 +/- acres. PB may accept SEQRA Lead Agency status and perform SEQRA review, issue findings as well as issuing a recommendation to the Town Board relative to the Petition for Rezoning associated with this project 4-19-05 Staff comments: The applicant proposes construction a 2,300 sq. ft. gas canopy to cover 4 pumps where the site currently has a 720 sq. ft. canopy covering two pumps. The applicant has indicated to staff the new 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2013) canopy will have recessed lighting for the pump areas. The plans also show the areas of landscaping where the corner planting bed is to be relocated being closer to the corner. SEQR Status: Type II' MR. URRICO-The Planning Board did meet, and they prepared a draft resolution that based on its limited review they didn't identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was passed September 17th unanimously. The Fire Marshal also had no site issues at this time, and the Warren County Planning Board, the issues here appear to be of a local nature involving local issues. Staff recommends No County Impact based on the information submitted according to the suggested review criteria of New York State General law Section 239 L applied to the proposed project. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome. MR. LEWIS-Hi there. Thank you. I'm Tom Lewis,the real estate rep at the Stewarts Shop. I've been doing this 21 years, and I still have fun. We've been, the last four or five years, looking at all of our shops that don't work well. A lot of the old ones are way too small. This one suffers from being too successful. Which is to say that it wasn't this way when we began, and I'll begin with the hard thing first. It's counterintuitive for me to say that this is going to relieve the situation there at the gas pumps and improve the circulation. It's not uncommon for someone to say, wait a minute, Tom. You've got two pumps. You're going to go to four pumps. So that means it'll be more congested. If you just think about it, if you've ever gone there and see the two pumps that are here,because of all the activity, I mean, the popularity of the store, you will frequently someone, one, two, three, four and then there's a car waiting here or there's a car waiting here. So by having the four pumps, you're going to move the cars in faster. I can understand this is a tough sell. I could see where you could say it's self-created, you're saying that you're too successful. So it's not a Use Variance argument, but we're looking to improve it, and we're investing money all over the place. We purposely went to the Planning Board first for a building expansion, and we didn't marry the two because I know,this is not a no brainer Area Variance. So we are going to add an additional 10 feet here because it'll make the circulation inside the shop better, less deliveries. More room, and just expand it, which is what we're doing all over the place. In terms of the five criteria, I don't think there'd be any argument that this is going to cause an undesirable change to the neighborhood. I don't know any other way that we could make the circulation better inside at the gas island other than this. I can see the case for calling this a substantial or moderate. It's certainly not a small. I don't think the variance will have any adverse effect on the physical or environmental, the neighborhood, and again, the difficulty being self-created is a consequence of what's happened around us. If the Town wasn't so successfully growing and there wasn't that much business there, then I don't think we'd be here. I was pleased with the Planning Board. I think they recognized that this makes the circulation better. They asked and we said yes that if this is done we will add, update all the lighting, LED lighting throughout the whole site. So seven of seven thought that was good,but that would be the case that we make here. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Any questions at this time from Board members? MRS. HUNT-I have a comment. MR.JACKOSKI-Go ahead,Joyce. MRS. HUNT-I think it's a wonderful proposal. I go past there every day. I get my gas there and I've seen several times where we've almost had accidents where people were vying to get into the same place or people are backing up. I mean, it's really dangerous. I'm surprised there hasn't been an accident. MR. LEWIS-I mean, I've done so many area variances before, I mean, I get the difficulty here, but that's exactly the reason why we're doing this. MRS. HUNT-And I mean I've seen it personally. MR. LEWIS-Yes. We're looking to invest large amount of money in every single shop. I mean, the company does very well, and it just made sense to improve, and that's what this does, and I mean, you have a fair amount of area here and here, but of course the Code says 75 feet and I understand the Code is the Code. MR.URRICO-The expansion's going to push the shop closer to Bay Road,right? 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2013) MR. LEWIS-I mean, that's going to happen no matter what. That's already been approved. So the answer is yes,and we lose one parking area here. MR.URRICO-But it's also going to create a narrower? MR. LEWIS-No, it'll work better for the gas customer. We would not do this. We have huge arguments over this for years. We will not ever do a shop that doesn't have the necessary distance for safety between cars. So it used to be that,we were really late figuring out how the gas customer works, because we used to do all of our pumps at the same way, this is now in series, where you have the two pumps this way, and they're nearer to each other than they should be. So what you have is that a car won't go all the way up front, and then the second car gets there and they can't fit in there. So after, you know, many years of looking at Mobil and Hess, we noticed that they're not doing this anymore. They're doing this. So then we began to do that. We were late on the number of pumps. We're more of a food business than a gas business. So, you know, the Mobils and the Hesses,they'd have six, eight,ten, and we usually had two, and we want the four, and we learned of the distance between the two. There was one shop we did, it might have been in Queensbury, where we had them too close, and we just don't do that anymore. So what would happen is that one car opens their door, and then the other car opens their door, and they hit. So the answer to your question is we're 100% confident that there's just the right amount of room. We asked for the minimum variance we could in order to have the safety factor. MR. URRICO-What I was going to ask was that the Spaces One, Two, Three, and Four, a customer backs out of that,they have to back out so the exit on Bay Road. Right? MR. LEWIS-Yes. MR.URRICO-Because they won't have room to exit through the pump. MR. LEWIS-Yes,what they'll do is they'll go this way,which is what they do now. MR.URRICO-Yes. Okay. MR. LEWIS-They'll go this way,and then out that way. MR. URRICO-Well,why did you consider expanding towards Bay Road rather than expanding to the back of the shop? MR. LEWIS-The back of the shop? You mean having gas back here? MR.URRICO-Not the gas,just the expansion of the building. MR. LEWIS-Because of the distance which is needed here. MR.URRICO-Okay. MR. LEWIS-I mean,those guys,you know,in my office are really good with measurements. MR.URRICO-I have to ask the question. MR. LEWIS-Sure, and knowing how, what the company does very well is we understand the customer. We understand how people interact in and out of the shop. MR. URRICO-Well, I just wanted to make sure there's enough room for somebody to back out without hitting somebody waiting for,getting to the gas pump. MR. LEWIS-There's a lot of locations that need this, that we just don't do. Because if it's not really going to improve it,why do it. MR. HENKEL-According to this picture, it looks like you're almost increasing the green space on the Bay Road side. There's no way you can,but according to this,the way it looks on this. MR. LEWIS-That wouldn't surprise me. Aren't the numbers there? The green space numbers. MR. HENKEL-That picture compared to what's drawn here, it looks like you're increasing the green space,which there's no way you can do that. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2013) MR. LEWIS-We're,it's going from 18,000 down to 1200. It is not being increased,but that obviously meets the Code, but, yes, the green space is being decreased, but I'm fairly sure we meet the Code, otherwise we'd need a variance for that. MR. HENKEL-Right. It's just too bad that we have to keep on eating away green space. I understand. MR. LEWIS-Well, if the thing actually gets approved this evening the Planning Board loves to ask us to do landscaping. MR. HENKEL-Right. MR. LEWIS-Lighting,and we generally say yes. MR.JACKOSKI-Are there any further questions at this time before I open the public hearing? MR. GARRAND-When this is all done, how much closer are the gas pumps going to be to the actual building itself? Because it's kind of like walking a gauntlet right with traffic going from one side of the parking lot to the other. MR. LEWIS-It's exactly the same as it is now. MR. GARRAND-It's going to be so the gas pumps will not be any closer to the corner of the building than the sidewalk is? MR. LEWIS-That's correct. Except they will be further. So again, rather than like this, they're now going to be like this, which avoids have that where one car blocks both, but the distance is exactly the same from the building, and we did that so that we asked for the minimum amount of variance. We could have moved it out further,but we know you really need to ask for just what you need and not more. In addition to which you also need enough of a distance here so that a car going this way and then if we moved everything, let's say this Board said, well, we'd rather give you a larger variance and move everything this way,that eats up even more green space. So this seems to be the most reasonable. MR. GARRAND-Yes, and that area's pretty much a floodplain. You need all the green space you can get over there. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any further questions or comments? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I'd like to open the public hearing,and, Roy,is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.URRICO-No,there is not. MR. JACKOSKI-No written comment. Is there anyone here this evening who'd like to address the Board concerning this application? Seeing no one, I will leave the public comment period open for a bit here. I'd like to poll the Board on how they feel about the project,and I will start with Rick. MR. GARRAND-I'm looking for feasible alternatives on this, and I really can't find any. I hate to lose green space, especially in an area like this. I'm hoping the Planning Board can come up with some way they could improve permeability on this area, but at this point I can't find any way to do it. Adverse environmental impacts, it's always possible when you reduce green space in an area like this. By the same token, I've never really seen any flooding at Stewarts. My concerns primarily were with the gas pumps and their proximity to the building. Right now it's kind of like walking a gauntlet when you're going from the gas pump to get in the building, and that's kind of problematic, especially, you know, you've got to look both ways so you don't get hit by somebody cutting from one side of the parking lot to the other. Relieved by the fact that they are not narrowing the distance and shortening that area of roadway because it is kind of dangerous, potentially a liability area. Also on the balancing test, is this request substantial? I don't think it's substantial from what we have now. Self-created? It's just a function of the lot, the nature of how small this lot actually is. The Bank ever moves out, hopefully maybe they can expand into that, but I don't see that happening, not with Gary being on the Board of(lost word) I don't think it's going to get rid of the Bank. I would be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,sir. John? 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2013) MR. HENKEL-Yes, I'm in favor of it. No problem. Short and sweet. MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes. I don't think it's going to have an adverse effect on the neighborhood and that it's pretty much the only feasible way to do it. I, too, have played bumper cars in that gas pump area, and I think this will actually improve things considerably. It's probably moderate given the fact that the distances to what we're trying to hold on the 75 feet is pretty much a, I guess, moderate incursion,if you will,and I don't think it's self-created. I think it's,as you suggest,sort of a symptom of what's going on on Bay Road. So I would support it. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,sir. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes, I have to agree. I think, as I said before, I think it'll make it safer, and today a lot of people use their credit card so they don't have to go back into the shop. I'd be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes,the bottom line is it's going to be better than it was before,but it's not going to be perfect. There's going to still be some concerns. There'll be concerns about traveling within the confines of the parking lot there and there's going to be concerns about getting from your car to the, if you're at the pump,getting to the front door, and there may be even some problems backing cars up towards the pumps, which is a concern, because it's happened a number of times in this area already. So I'm just saying that it's a concern, but I agree with the balancing test I don't see any alternate plans that might work better. So I would be in favor of it at this point. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I'm comfortable, that canopy's pretty large, and that's a big canopy on that corner, and it's going to be pulled much more towards the corner,but I'd like to suggest that maybe we try to emphasize in our resolution that we expect the Planning Board to really work hard on beefing up the green space and the landscaping plan for the site, given that we're giving this much relief. MR. GARRAND-Agreed. MR.JACKOSKI-I mean,this is a lot of relief on a project where we've got green space and maybe we don't have flooding there because of the green space, and we're taking a lot of it away. Okay. I guess we're going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And look for a motion and try to have that motion have a condition of some landscaping. Rick,you did a nice job on the last one. MR. GARRAND-All right. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2013 STEWARTS SHOPS CORP., Introduced by Richard Garrand BOARD MEMBER who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt BOARD MEMBER: Whereas the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Stewart's Shops Corp. for a variance from Section(s) 179-3-040; 179-4-030 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury in order to remove existing gas island canopy and replace with a 46 ft. by 50 ft. canopy with an increase from 2 gasoline pumps to 4 gasoline pumps. Relief requested from front yard setback,travel corridor, and permeability requirements. Upon review of the application materials, SEQR was a Type II and information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1) Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested area variance? It is our finding that: We do not believe that it will be a detriment to nearby roperties. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2013) 2) Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? It is our finding that: We don't see how any other design can achieve what the applicant is trying to achieve here. 3) Is the requested area variance substantial? It is our finding that: The setback relief may be deemed substantial. The permeability relief might be deemed moderate. 4) Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? It is our finding that. It will not have an adverse environmental impact. 5) Is the alleged difficulty 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)It is our finding that. I don't believe it's self-created. The lot size is the biggest limitation of any type of expansion with this property here. Based on the above findings, I move that this Board Approve Area Variance No. 39-2013 Stewart's Shop Corp. with the following conditions: We would direct the Planning Board to find ways to mitigate the decrease in permeability on this project by exploring some landscape options. The applicant has agreed to the lighting as specified by Mr. Jackoski, LED and recessed lighting on the entire site. Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 2013,by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-Do we want to note, as a condition, that the applicant has made reference that they will,they are planning to do LED lighting on the site, and the entire site,which has come into factor here because,you know,we're re-developing the site and making a lot more activity on it. So do we want to make sure that that LED lighting does,in fact,happen because of the balancing test? MR.URRICO-Is it LED lighting or recessed? MR. FREER-You mean recessed lighting? MR.JACKOSKI-Sorry,it's going to be both,right. MR.URRICO-Both. Okay. MRS.MOORE-Compliant. MR. JACKOSKI-Compliant, well, you know, this site's going to light up like a Christmas tree under that big canopy. I mean, if you know that Stewarts across from my place on Route 9, man, that is bright over there. It is really bright, and,you know, the Harvest's corner is a little bit subdued, and then you've got that Stewarts corner. MR. LEWIS-We're very comfortable with that. Because we're going to do that. So I don't mind, put it in. MR. GARRAND-As an added stipulation in the resolution, I'd also like to make note that the applicant has agreed to the lighting as specified by Mr.Jackoski. MR. LEWIS-Recessed and LED lighting. MR. GARRAND-Recessed and LED lighting. MR.JACKOSKI-Just what I need is Staff calling me to clarify. MR. LEWIS-No,that was a big issue with the Planning Board last night. MR.JACKOSKI-That's fine. We just want to,you know,because we deliberated and we talked about it being a mitigating factor. MR. LEWIS-Great. MR. GARRAND-That was in the Planning Board notes. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2013) MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, but we're needing to put that stuff in our resolutions now, even though it was talked about. MR. LEWIS-Mark Schachner's been talking to you. AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. LEWIS-Thank you very much. MR.JACKOSKI-You're welcome. MR. LEWIS-Have a good evening. AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-2013 SEQRA TYPE II COLLEEN M. HALSE AGENT(S) JOE ROULIER OWNER(S) COLLEEN M. HALSE ZONING WR LOCATION 25 BRAYTON LANE - ASSEMBLY POINT APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 420 SQ. FT. ATTACHED GARAGE UPON REMOVAL OF 2 EXISTING SHEDS ON THE PARCEL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT, SIDE, REAR AND SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. ALSO, RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WR ZONING DISTRICT AND EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF SP 48-2013; BP 2002-024 ADDITION; BP 88-469 2 DECKS, 1 DOCK; BP 88-343 DEMO SFD; BP 86-318 PUMP BLDG. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2013 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.10 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-66 SECTION 179-3-040; CHAPTER 147 179-13- 010 JOE ROULIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 47-2013, Colleen M. Halse, Meeting Date: September 18, 2013 "Project Location: 25 Brayton Lane - Assembly Point Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of 420 sq. ft. attached garage upon removal of 2 existing sheds on the parcel. Relief Required: Parcel will require variances from the Zoning Ordinance sections 179-13-10 Continuation. 179-3- 040 Establishment of Zoning District, Chapter 147 stormwater: Relief requested from front, side, rear and shoreline setback requirements. Also, relief requested from the minimum Floor Area Ratio requirements for the WR zoning district and expansion of a nonconforming structure. Front Side East Shoreline FAR Permeabili Required 30 ft. Required 20 ft. Required 50 ft. Required .22 Required 75% Proposed W 20.17, Proposed S 12.20, Proposed W 37.86, Proposed .30 Proposed 56 E 20.00 N 11.44 E 24.30 Relief 9.83, 10.0 Relief 7.8, 8.56 Relief 12.14, Relief .08 Relief 19% 25.7 Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives are limited due to the lot size and the location of the existing home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relative to the code. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2013) 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 48-13: Pending AV 97-01 & BOH 55-2001: 204 sq. ft. second story addition to include roof line change. Relief from the requirements of the Waterfront Residential zone as well as relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure 12-13-01 SP 55-01: Construction/ modification to existing bedroom to include a roof line change, bedroom, closet,and bathroom 12-20-01 BP 02-024: 408 sq.ft.residential alteration 5-24-05 BP 88-469: 2 decks, 1 dock BP 88-343: Demo sfd BP 86-319: Pump building Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct an attached 420 sq. ft. garage and to remove a portion of the existing asphalt driveway along with two sheds. The garage will be 18 ft. in height and match the existing roof line of the home. SEQR Status: Type II' MR. URRICO-The Planning Board met on September 17th and approved a resolution that based on its limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and the Warren County Planning Board, they say the issues appear to be of a local nature involving local issues. Staff recommends No County Impact based on the information submitted. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome. Hi,Joe. MR. ROULIER-Good evening. I'm Joe Roulier. I'm here representing Colleen Halse,and I feel like I'm at the Dunham's Bay Fish and Game Club right about now, and I'm the target. I think it's a reasonable proposal. I know that we have a few hurdles that we have to get over, and I'm willing,at this point, to address each one of them with this Board, and I think that, at the conclusion of the meeting, hopefully you'll see that it is a reasonable proposal for the size of the property and the benefit that it will be to Ms. Halse when we conclude this meeting. The first consideration is if you look, and I would assume that most of you have been to the property. It's a relatively small piece of property on Brayton Lane. What we've come to the conclusion, in order to mitigate the impact on the property itself, and reduce the impact on the property,we're willing to eliminate two sheds that are right there. We're willing to eliminate approximately one third of the driveway, and we're also going to eliminate,totally eliminate the stockade fence to the east side of the property. Eliminating the fence we feel as though will actually give the appearance that the property is larger than it is, and by consolidating everything and annexing it to the house, we hope that, Number One, we that we can, we know we're going to improve the permeability of the property, but we think overall it'll generally clean up the property, getting rid of these out buildings, so that it'll actually be an improvement in the neighborhood. One of the most significant advantages that this property has, and I know it's something that all of the ZBA Boards recognize when they make a decision, is what impact will it have on the adjoining neighbors. This proposal, fortunately, will have no impact on any of the adjoining neighbors because of the location of the garage. As you well know that it's wetlands to the south side of the property. There'll never be anything built there. There's a right of way. There's a right of way to the east side of the property. So there'll be nothing built there, and the garage certainly isn't going to encumber anything to the west side of the property. In fact,we'll be reducing a small shed on that side of the property. What we did, because of the shoreline, the irregularity of the shoreline, knowing that we wanted to have an attached garage, we actually pulled the garage back as far as we could from the shore, and what that did is it permitted us still to maintain 20 foot driveway so that it would be reasonable for Ms. Halse to have company or to pull her car in there without impeding the narrowness of Brayton Lane. So we feel as though the location of the proposed garage is in the best area that doesn't,you know, create a problem for the neighbors in that community, and I happen to be one of the neighbors in that community. So I'm 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2013) quite familiar with the property. We were able to, by the consolidation of the sheds, by the elimination of a portion of the deck; we're actually able to increase the permeability of the property, which we feel is a benefit to the Town of Queensbury and to the lake. We will be able to put gutters up on the garage. There's no gutters currently on any of these out buildings. So by eliminating the deck, incorporating gutters into our project and then having leaders come down into retention devices on the east side of the garage, it'll mitigate the amount of runoff that would be created in that particular area. I think, you know, I realize that it's a small piece of property. We're consolidating the structure. We're increasing the amount of room that's available as a buffer zone on the east side and on the shoreline and to the back. We feel as though it is the most reasonable proposal for the property we have to work with. The additional benefit of the property is that the house obviously could never be expanded. There's no additional proposed square foot in the house and as most of you know,the property is currently on holding tanks. At that point, I would certainly tender any questions that the Board would like to ask me. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Joe. Are there any questions or comments at this time from Board members before I open the public hearing? MR. FREER-Yes. So with regard to the sheds,you know, what's to prevent new sheds going back, if we approve this garage,because that's sort of my worry, I guess. MR. ROULIER-I think, Mr. Freer that could be incorporated into the recommendation by the Board. So that would mitigate that issue down the road. I know that the, by eliminating the shed she obviously will be able to have some storage within the garage area. I don't foresee, I would not like to believe that anyone at that point would go ahead with putting additional storage on the property, but I think that that could be incorporated into the ZBA ruling. MR.JACKOSKI-Does the applicant have access to any of the property on the other side of the street? MR. ROULIER-Currently, no. That's owned by the people that have the right of way adjacent to Ms. Halse, and to be honest with you, that's a wetland piece of property. I seriously doubt if anyone would ever be able to build on that property right there. MR. JACKOSKI-And you said currently no. Does that mean there's discussion or plans right now to have access to it? MR. ROULIER-Excuse me. I don't understand the question. MR.JACKOSKI-When you responded,you said currently there's none, but does that mean they're in discussions to actually have access to that parcel of property on the other side of the street? MR. ROULIER-Are you talking about? MR. JACKOSKI-The little parcel that's right there, directly opposite the,you can see the yellow lines on the tax maps. MR. ROULIER-Can I go up to that map? MR.JACKOSKI-Sure. MR. ROULIER-You're referring to this piece of property right here? MR.JACKOSKI-Just the small triangle,yes. I'm sorry, it's the small rectangle, sorry. MR. ROULIER-The rectangle. This piece of property right here is owned by the people that have this right of way right here,okay. I have no idea what their intention is down the road. I don't work for that property, I can't answer that definitively, but I do know that this entire parcel in here is a complete wetland area. MR. GARRAND-And it is swamp. You can't even walk in there. MR.JACKOSKI-Wet land. MR. FREER-Swamp is no longer politically correct. MR.JACKOSKI-Correct,wet land. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2013) MR. ROULIER-I mean, it is a swamp. It is a wet land. It would be extraordinary for anyone to be able to come in front of any Board, in my opinion,to get approval to build on that piece of property, given the nature of the property. MR. JACKOSKI-It's a water quality improvement parcel associated with the quality of the Lake George water. All right. Anyway. Any further questions before I open the public hearing? MR. ROULIER-Can I just mention something? Seriously, I know that you're joking about a swamp. They're huge filters. MR.JACKOSKI-We know. That's why we were saying that it improves the quality. MR. HENKEL-But you can see the water's running. I mean, when I was like at the property, to see water's running next to her property on what would be the west side of that property. MR. ROULIER-That's right. MR. HENKEL-That's coming from that property that you just talked about. MR. ROULIER-Yes, there's a culvert underneath there, and probably every five years the Town has to actually come in and clean out the culvert so that it continues the water, but it's an extremely high water table on that south side of the road, Brayton Lane. I don't know, the other thing that I would say to the Board at this point, too, is that I feel as though the proposal, it's a modest sized garage. It's only 420 square feet. It's 21 by 20. Most of the garages that are built today are significantly larger, but we feel as though, given the size of the property, the size of the house, we want to keep it so it's compatible with the house in terms of sizing wise. We think that it would actually, you know, it certainly isn't going to be detrimental to the neighborhood, and I don't believe, and I know I had spoken to Laura earlier today. I don't believe that we've had any negative comments from any of the adjoining neighbors, although I would stand corrected if she has them tonight. MRS.MOORE-In the folder there was nothing. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Any further comments from Board members? MR. GARRAND-I've got one for Staff. Anything they build on here is going to require a variance for permeability. According to the application all sheds and everything are going to be removed. It's going to be an increase in permeability from 50% permeability to 44%. Is that how you guys calculated it or were my calculations wrong? MRS.MOORE-It's increasing the permeability. Yes, and I think we had the same issue last night. MR. ROULIER-Can I address that? Okay. It actually goes from 49.86 to 43.66. MR. GARRAND-Fifty versus forty-four. MR. ROULIER-Yes. It's increasing the permeability on the property. MR.JACKOSKI-And what's the requirement for permeability, Staff? MRS.MOORE-Fifty percent. MR.JACKOSKI-That's the requirement? MR. GARRAND-No,no. This is Waterfront Residential. MR.JACKOSKI-Thirty,isn't it? MR. GARRAND-It's thirty. MRS.MOORE-Okay. MR. HENKEL-Now have you thought about maybe taking the whole driveway out and putting permeable pavers there? That would help drastically,wouldn't it? MR.JACKOSKI-You'd get some credit. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2013) MR. ROULIER-I have not made that calculation. It would be something that if we had to address that we would certainly be willing to go ahead and to do that, but at this juncture, I have not addressed that, nor have I made that calculation as to what it would be. I mean, I know it's not a significant, this is, is the glass half full or half empty when I say this to you, because we had this discussion last night. It is an increase in the permeability of the property, okay, and I think that the increase in the permeability, in conjunction with being able to put in retention devices, significantly improves the characteristics or water control on that particular piece of property, given the size of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Any further comments? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-There is no one in the audience to ask, should they want to address this Board concerning this particular application. So is there any written comment, Roy? MR.URRICO-No,there is not. MR.JACKOSKI-Public hearing is still open, and I'm going to poll the Board to see where we stand on this. I'll start with Roy. MR. URRICO-I do agree that there's limited options available to the applicant, but the option is always not to build it, that is always an option. I do anticipate minor impacts to the neighborhood. I think the feasible alternatives, as I mentioned, are limited. It's a moderate relief. We would have to, at any rate, apply the FAR to any project of this nature. I think, even though the variances are moderate, I think they're reasonable, and I don't think they'll be, it's not going to change the environment. The environment already has what it has, and this is not going to make it any better or worse, and the difficulty is self-created in a sense that we are trying to put this garage up, but I think I would be in favor of it at this point. MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-So, I don't think there's an undesirable change to the neighborhood. As a matter of fact, you know, it'll probably look somewhat cleaner and more professional with those sheds gone, and I guess my worry is that,besides that stuff starts showing back up, and certainly I believe we need to stipulate in the approval that, you know, expectations that sheds won't be placed on the property. My other hesitation is that I've seen numerous garages sort of without permits changed into living space, and that would be something that probably would have a significant impact on the activity there. I think it's moderate, and, you know, it's really close to the lake that we're getting with this stuff, and that's always something that we need to be conscious of, but given some stipulations in the proposal, and hopefully a diligent enforcement of switching from garages to living space, I would support it. MR.JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes, I have to agree with my fellow Board members. I think it's a modest garage, and I think taking down the two sheds is a plus. So I would be in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I think there's some room for improvement here still. While I don't think it's out of whack, I think a six percent increase in permeability is a good thing, I think the applicant should also be doing some landscaping on this. Other than that, I wouldn't be opposed to it. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Well, I'm not for it at all. I think definitely they'd have to do some changes here. Like I said,the asphalt driveway should be gone. The shed should be gone, and I would approve a smaller garage,but not as big as they're asking for. So I'm not for it. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, this is a tough one for balancing tests, and I,you know, I'm surprised the Water Keeper's not here because this is one of those bays that really needs to have control over stormwater. So I think the shoreline buffer is, to re-institute that is probably critical on this parcel, given the lake frontage that you see there. I think that Mr. Henkel's ideas of the permeable pavers instead of macadam is a good idea. I think I'd like to see a smaller garage. I mean, this is only .1 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2013) acres. This is a really small lot on Lake George. So I think if we do a little bit more work on it, we can make something happen, but as it stands right now presented to us without any conditions, I would not be in favor. So where do we want to go from here? Given we have a six member Board this evening and it sounds to me like we have three and three. MR. ROULIER-Excuse me. I thought you just had four and two. MR.JACKOSKI-I believe Rick was unsure, unless we added some stipulation,and John's a no. I'd like to see some stipulations. I'm not saying no. MR. ROULIER-No, no, no,but I can address both of those. I've already spoken to Ms. Halse because I know that there's a big push on,within the Town of Queensbury, and she has already initiated some buffering to the west side of her property, and I actually spoke to Laura about it, and we've agreed to put in additional buffering on the shore side of it. So that's something that I thought actually we would be addressing at the site plan review, not here at the ZBA, but it is our intention to put additional controls on the property through natural type of buffering along that shoreline, okay. If the Board felt as though, now I'm not totally, you're talking about just using standard concrete pavers that are? What type of pavers are you referring to? MR. JACKOSKI-The permeable pavers. Technology is there now to actually have permeable pavers. We have some of those on Rockhurst. MR. ROULIER-All right. If that persuaded you vote tonight, given that I'm assuring you that we would be doing additional buffering as well as removing the asphalt driveway and putting in the pavers for that garage,and I would certainly agree to that tonight. MR. HENKEL-Yes, see, I'm still not up with, when you've got a chance to, you know, you're getting too close to the lake there. You're talking 24 feet from that point,whereas if you brought the garage in to a 14 by 20,that would give you even a little bit farther from the lake. I just think we're starting it too close to the lake. MR. ROULIER-But I can't get a car in there. MR. HENKEL-A 14 by 20? MR. ROULIER-That's a pretty limited garage. MR.JACKOSKI-It's an eight foot door and three feet on each side. MR. HENKEL-Right. MR.JACKOSKI-Two cars in twenty feet is only ten foot apart. MR. HENKEL-I'm not taking away your depth. I'm just taking away the frontage. It's allowing a one car plus, because, you know, usually you're talking six feet roughly, six and a half feet for a car, depending on what kind it is, you know, roughly, to be safe. You've got 14 feet. That gives you a space to put,you know, stuff that you would have, put in a shed. That's just my feeling. I just think for the size of the lot,yes, I know a garage, a garage is a great idea. Everybody should have a garage, no doubt,but this was considered a camp at one time,and that's what it was,a camp. So now you're going to try and change it from a camp to a year round home. I have no problem with that, and people should have a right to do that, but I just think we're, the size of the property is just, we're getting smaller and smaller with these pieces of property, and allowing more and more. That's my belief. MR. ROULIER-But let me ask you a question. If we reduce the size of the garage, it's not going to make, if we reduce the size of the garage, is it going to make a significant difference in the water flow versus if we leave the garage at the same size and we have gutters put up on it that are going over into retention basins on the east side of the property. I don't think it's going to have a significant difference in it. I mean, the same amount of water is still going to be distributed in that area, and the other, and I realize that the Board has to look at each proposal on its own basis, but since this is having such a limited impact on the neighborhood, and we don't have any, we have no neighbors opposing it. There's nobody here behind me opposing it. It gives the woman the option of being able to have two cars in her garage, still increasing the permeability, agreeing to do the permeable pavers and the buffer,you know, and I agree. I'm not arguing with you over the fact that it is a small piece of property, but I think we're also offering to the Board a cleaner looking piece of property. We're willing to go along with the drainage. We're going to increase the permeability. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2013) We're catching the water in basins. We're increasing the buffer. I think the bottom line is that it's a benefit to her, and quite honestly, it's not detrimental to the neighborhood and it certainly isn't detrimental to the Town of Queensbury. MR. HENKEL-I can't disagree with you. I just don't doubt it's going to make that property look better. It's going to make the neighborhood look better, but, I don't know, just my point of view is I'm sick of seeing things getting closer and closer to the lake when you don't have to do that. MR. JACKOSKI-So what you're suggesting, Joe, is that you would be willing to be fully compliant with the Code concerning stormwater, and the shoreline buffering, and that you would be willing to utilize the permeable pavers for the driveway and not have the asphalt? MR. ROULIER-I would be willing to go along with the permeable pavers. MR. HENKEL-So no asphalt at all. MR. ROULIER-Correct. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. ROULIER-Eliminate the asphalt. MR. GARRAND-Which brings you down to 40%,yes it's a full 10%reduction in impermeability. MR. ROULIER-Right. MR. GARRAND-Using the conversion for permeable pavers. MR. ROULIER-Okay,and she has agreed already to increase the buffer zone. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, what does increase mean, Joe? Because it's either compliant with the Code or it's not compliant with the Code. Increase could mean one plant. MR. ROULIER-No. Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-And we don't have anything in front of us to know what that increase is. So I'm trying to use that as my balance for the permeability,for the FAR. MR. URRICO-I'm going to suggest that, since we're at 3-3 deadlock right now, and we're still negotiating as far as what will be on the table and what will not be on the table, that we table this application until we have things in front of us that suggest. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I was just trying to get myself to turn into a yes so that we could move forward with it,but does the Board feel it's better to table it and try to get more answers? MR. URRICO-Well, I'm just not hearing, I'm not hearing the applicant say specifically what they're going to do. MR. ROULIER-Well,can I address that? MR.JACKOSKI-Well,hang on. We're still in this polling of the Board phase here before I go forward. So Rick has suggested that we have an approval, provided that they do the permeable pavers and they do the buffering,and the stormwater controls. MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So we have enough votes,then,to move forward, and then I am going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-And ask for a motion. Rick,do you want to make it three for three? MR. GARRAND-Sure. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2013) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-2013 COLLEEN M. HALSE, Introduced by Richard Garrand BOARD MEMBER who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico BOARD MEMBER: Whereas the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Colleen M. Halse for a variance from Section(s) 179-3-040; Chapter 147 179-13-010 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury in order to construct a 420 sq. ft.attached garage upon removal of 2 existing sheds on the parcel. Relief requested from front, side, rear and shoreline setback requirements. Also, relief requested from the minimum Floor Area Ratio requirements for the WR zoning district and expansion of a nonconforming structure. Upon review of the application materials, SEQR was Type II and information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1) Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested area variance? It is our finding that. No, we believe we've mitigated any possible detrimental effect by imposing the conditions upon the applicant. 2) Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? It is our finding that. The applicant is requesting a two car garage. I don't believe there are other feasible methods given that it's a .10 acre lot. 3) Is the requested area variance substantial? It is our finding that: This request may be deemed substantial relative to the Code. 4) Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? It is our finding that. I believe we are going from a 50% impermeable to a 40% impermeable, which is a net 10% gain. So it's going to have a positive impact on the area. 5) Is the alleged difficulty 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)It is our finding that. I believe it is self-created. Based on the above findings, I move that this Board Approve Area Variance No. 47-2013 Colleen M. Halse with the following conditions: With the stipulation that the applicant will incorporate permeable pavers for the driveway, increase the buffer to make it compliant with Town Code,and will not install sheds at a future date,thereby decreasing permeability. Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 2013,by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-If you want to clarify increasing the buffer. Is it to mean that it's compliant, or does it mean one more plant? MRS. MOORE-Going to the buffer definition, for every 15 linear feet of shoreline buffer, one large tree, minimum three inch diameter, or one small (lost words) shrub, or if less than 50 feet, one smaller tree or shrub. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,but there's much more than that. There's three layers. There's different heights of plants. MRS. MOORE-Right. So compliant. So you're directing him to be compliant, then there's guidance that gives the applicant information that he can use, plants as well as which size and things like that. So that information is in the Code to work with Staff and the applicant. MR. GARRAND-So if we just stipulate that it be compliant. Is that adequate? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. GARRAND-All right. Did I do that yet? MR.JACKOSKI-You said increase. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2013) MR. GARRAND-Increase a buffer to make it compliant with Town Code. MR. ROULIER-Yes, and that's very reasonable. I've spoken to Laura about it, and we'd be happy to do that. MR.JACKOSKI-And I just want to clarify,what is the permeability relief we are giving at this time? MRS.MOORE-You're required to have 75%. The applicant is saying 40%. MR. JACKOSKI-And we know that calculation is correct at 40, Rick? I just don't want to get them in a bind and it becomes. MR. GARRAND-They were going from 50 to 44%. With the permeable pavers I think it goes down to 40%. It's only four percent difference,because they get half. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So we're approving the impermeable at 40%. MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Just making sure we're clear, and with that clarification, Laura, that's what the relief is that we're granting, then, to have an impermeability of 40%. Any further discussion? Call the vote,please. AYES: Mr. Freer, Mrs. Hunt, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: Mr. Henkel MR.JAC KOSKI-Reluctantly,Joe,but yes. MR. ROULIER-Thank you very much. MR. JACKOSKI-Any further business in front of the Board this evening? Could I have a motion to adjourn,please. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2013, Introduced by Harrison Freer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mrs. Hunt,Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-We're adjourned,thank you, 8:24. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 23