Loading...
01-22-2014 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 22,2014 INDEX Area Variance No. 35-2012 Blue Moose Tavern/Daniel&Ellen Nichols 1. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 288.20-1-18 and 19 Area Variance No. 64-2013 Dodge Watkins 3. Tax Map No. 296.9-1-54 Area Variance No. 64-2013 Larry Clute (Cont'd Pg. 10) 3. Tax Map No. 296.9-1-55 Use Variance No. 1-2014 Paul&Terri Schuerlein 14. Tax Map No. 302.9-1-1 &3 Area Variance No. 2-2014 William&Pamela Roberts 22. Tax Map No. 239.12-2-64 Area Variance No. 3-2014 Garner Lake Properties, LLC 29. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-14 Area Variance No.4-2014 Martin&Kara Seaton 37. Tax Map No. 300.00-1-27 Area Variance No. 5-2014 1 Main Street Queensbury, LLC 41. Tax Map No. 309.11-2-17 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 01/22/2014) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 22,2014 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY KYLE NOONAN RICHARD GARRAND JOHN HENKEL RONALD KUHL MICHAEL MC CABE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, everyone. I'd like to open tonight's meeting for the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. For those of you who haven't been here in the past, it's a fairly easy process. On the back table you'll find an agenda as well as a sheet that explains the basic process this evening. We'll call each applicant up to the table, and then we will listen to the application be read into the record. We will ask the applicant some general questions. We will open a public hearing when there is a public hearing published, and then we will poll the Board and move forward from that point. First I'd like to do some housecleaning, which is some approval of minutes, and I guess we should do the approval of the minutes of November 20th. Can I have a motion,please? APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 20, 2013 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 20,2013, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 22nd day of January, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, everyone. Next will be the minutes of December 18th. Could I have a motion,please? December 18, 2013 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 18, 2013, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: Duly adopted this 22nd day of January, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, everyone. Okay. So for the first item,we do have a request for a further tabling consideration until July of 2014 of the Blue Moose Tavern,Area Variance No. 35-2012. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: REQUEST FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION UNTIL JULY 2014: AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2012 BLUE MOOSE TAVERN/DANIEL&ELLEN NICHOLS 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DAN NICHOLS, PRESENT MR.JACKOSKI-Do we need any discussion? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-I think we should, given the length of the project. Yes, and just so everyone knows, the public hearing is open. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper with Dan Nichols. Ellen is here as well. I know this is an unusual tabling request for a six month delay. So I just want to give you a quick back story. This is an important project to Dan. The Blue Moose is in pretty lousy condition and he wasn't responsible for it. He bought it this way and he's got a pretty ambitious plan to upgrade it, but financially he was tied up with the Blue Water Manor project, which took a lot of his time and attention, and therefore he wasn't able to devote to this. You probably saw in the paper that that was sold last year, and he wants to focus on this now, but he's got to get back into it, get up to speed, and the reason why we don't want it to be tabled is we've got to merge the parcels and deal with the sewer department to extend the sewer district to the back piece so that this project can work, and we've already had discussions with DOT, which the Planning Board had asked for, in terms of their SEQR. So there's a bunch of things that are going forward that we need to get finalized before we can come back to the Boards. We were here last night at the Planning Board and they granted an extension until June 16th for submission for the July meetings, and we'd like the same from this Board to go forward,but let me just put Dan on the record. MR. NICHOLS-My wife and I are very dedicated to this. The project that I had up at Blue Water was a very large one, big scale in terms of getting rid of it and having to meet the terms to do that, and unfortunately I had to make a business decision to focus on that so I can get to here, and put all of our eggs in a basket and make this happen because of the opportunity and being home and near civilization again and steady customers and lots of faces that I know here and around and we're excited about it. I just need some extra time to get some other funds coming back in from up there that are owed to me and my wife and get back on a keel and make it so it's going to be done correctly. I just don't want to go backwards financially. I want to do this positively and I've got some banking people, that's what they want me to do. So I'm here to make it happen and we're dedicated to it,and I'd appreciate the opportunity if you could help us get to that point. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions at this time from Board members? Hearing none, there is a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone here, actually the public hearing is still open. Is there anyone in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR.JACKOSKI-Seeing no one,was there any other additional written comment? MR.URRICO-None. MR.JACKOSKI-None. Okay. So I think we should poll the Board. I'll start with Rick. MR. GARRAND-I think the applicant's provided reasonable enough justification for tabling. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I have no issue with it. We spent a lot of time on tabling and tabling, but I think that it's fair to say this is the last time. I don't know if I can say that,but it's time to do it, and if July is your time,let's get it done,but I have no problem with the tabling. MR.JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I have no problem. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I also feel it's a fair request and no problems. Good luck with it. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) MR.URRICO-Yes, I'm in favor of the tabling. MR.JACKOSKI-And? MR. NOONAN-And I am also in favor of the tabling. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So I'm going to,do I have to close the public hearing? MRS.MOORE-No. MR. JACKOSKI-No, I would leave open for the project. So I'll entertain a motion for the request at hand from the applicant. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2012 BLUE MOOSE TAVERN/DANIEL AND ELLEN NICHOLS, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption,seconded Michael McCabe: Until the July 2014 meeting with a submission deadline of June 16, 2014 and this will be the final tabling. Duly adopted this 22nd day of January, 2014,by the following vote: MR. GARRAND-Table it until what date in July? MRS. MOORE-It would be the, I would say July meetings of the Zoning Board of Appeals, with a submission date of June 15th or the June 16th date. AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-2013 SEQRA TYPE II LARRY W. CLUTE AGENT(S) MATT STEVES - VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) LARRY W. CLUTE ZONING MDR LOCATION 5 TWICWOOD LANE, TWICWOOD PHASE 2 APPLICANT PROPOSES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WHICH WILL RESULT IN THE RELOCATION OF THE COMMON PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN 5 TWICWOOD LANE AND 3 MAPLEWOOD DRIVE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE EXISTING SHED ON THE PARCEL. CROSS REF BP 2012- 201 192 SQ. FT. SHED;AV 64-2013 WATKINS; SB 6-2013; SB 13-72 PHASE 2 MODIFICATION; BP 2000-455 SEPTIC; BP 96-215 INGRD POOL; BP 6488 ADDITION WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.71 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.9-1-55 SECTION 179-3-040; 179- 5-020 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-And do we need to read anything more into the record since so much has already been read into the record? MRS. MOORE-Just to clarify, you had 65-2013, or you're opening up both 64-2013, which is Dodge Watkins. MR.JACKOSKI-I'm sorry,you know what, I skipped Dodge. I apologize. We'll do, do we want to do 64 first,or do you want to go ahead and do 65? MRS.MOORE-It does not matter. I just want to make sure that I write that in my notes. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes, 64 is first on the list. Matt doesn't care. Right? AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-2013 SEQRA TYPE II DODGE WATKINS AGENT(S) MATT STEVES- VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) DODGE WATKINS ZONING MDR LOCATION 3 MAPLEWOOD DRIVE,TWICWOOD PHASE 2 APPLICANT PROPOSES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WHICH WILL RESULT IN THE RELOCATION OF THE COMMON PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN 3 MAPLEWOOD DRIVE AND 5 TWICWOOD LANE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM 2 - ACRE REQUIREMENT FOR THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE EXISTING SHED ON THE PARCEL. CROSS REF AV 65-2013 CLUTE, SB 6-2013; SB 13-72 PHASE 2 MODIFICATION; BP 2008-438 SHED; BP 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) 2006-389 RES. ADDITION; BP 2006-140 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.59 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.9-1-54 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-020 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR.JACKOSKI-I apologize for skipping the Watkins family. MR. STEVES-That's quite all right. MR.JACKOSKI-And again,just to remind Board members,this is,these two are kind of tied together. MRS. MOORE-I can offer to the Board that you did read information into the record. You asked Staff to look into items in regards to those lots,and I did. That information was provided to you. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. MRS. MOORE-There was only one condition that indicated that there'd be no further driveways. It didn't say where. MR. JACKOSKI-Either parcel, but thank you, Staff, for doing that. That was important. All right, Matt,go for it. MR. STEVES-Okay. Good evening. Matt Steves, from Van Dusen and Steves, representing both Dodge Watkins, owner of Lot 90, and Larry Clute, of Lot 89, Twicwood, Section 2. Again, we're talking about Dodge Watkins, but they're very much intertwined. It's a proposed lot line adjustment on these two lots to accommodate a few different things. Primarily to allow the current shared driveway that is located completely on Lot 90 to allow for each parcel to have their own driveway entrance, and also to straighten the line out. If you look at the existing dashed line that's on your maps, the kind of convoluted line that runs down through there, this also helps with the setbacks from the current sheds and the current buildings, and also this new lot line will coincide with one foot off the existing fence that exists on Lot 90, or Lot 89. So because of this the reduction in Lot 90 for Mr. Watkins is what we're here for for his application, because of the way it's configured to be more suitable and perpendicular and parallel to the buildings and allowing for a nicer rear yard setback for Mr.Watkins, even though the existing one is larger, it is in the middle of the shared driveway. So it coincides with the usage and where both parties have agreed to and we've met them in the field numerous times to establish right where they want to be able to put up a fence and accommodate the driveway and the turnarounds for everybody, for both party's purposes. So, again,there's a slight reduction in the area of the lot of Watkins, I believe it's around 900 square feet reduction. So any reduction in the lot size of any pre-existing, nonconforming lot will need to come in front of this Board. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,sir. Any questions at this time for the applicant's representative? MR. HENKEL-Was that number about 1,045 square feet reduction? MR. STEVES-Yes, I'm looking at it right now. 1,045 exactly. MR. HENKEL-Now, what's the reason? You think that stair effect is better than kind of a straight line,and that kind of makes it funky. MR. STEVES-The existing lot line is the dashed line that you see that starts on the driveway. MR. HENKEL-Right. MR. STEVES-Goes in about 20 feet, turns south for about 80 feet, and then turns back to the east, and then turns back to the south again, a foot off the shed, and then turns back to the east again to the back property line. So there's one,two,three, four, five courses on that existing line, and again, the new line does have some jogs in it. In the back it coincides with the existing fences that were around the pool area on Lot 89. MR. HENKEL-Now, if you were going to make a property line change,why didn't they try to make it so you would, with the shed that Mr. Clute has, why wouldn't you try to make that so there was no need for a setback? MR. STEVES-Again,we looked at that. There's been, I think, eight revisions to this. We're trying to get a property line proposed that would satisfy both parcels and both people. The existing fence is 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) there and they wanted to use that existing fence. The shed that is there now is one foot off the line, holding to one foot off the fence, and then moves it to 11.57 feet off the property line, and we were trying to move that line to the north to get closer to Mr. Watkins' backyard, but we aligned it right where the usage of both parties are, and we tried to push that so that Mr. Watkins' backyard is around 35 feet to accommodate that, but he was not agreeable to that. If you go look at this property,there's a couple of trees and a row of trees in there right opposite just to the north of that circle part of the driveway where both parties are utilizing and mowing and maintaining to. So that's what they're trying to accommodate is what they've actually been using. MR. NOONAN-Mr. Steves,you're,right now,representing Mr.Watkins. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. NOONAN-So the shed that's for Watkins, that's in the backyard over, is that in violation or too close to the property line, Number 91? Is that the one that's not, because the shed that is one foot off the line,that's Clute,that's the next one. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. NOONAN-Okay. So, and that's kind of one of those Amish pre-built sheds that can be picked up and moved? MR. STEVES-Correct,it's on skids. MR. NOONAN-Okay. MR. STEVES-And once this is, and if this is accomplished, this lot line adjustment, he knows that. We had all the discussions with Staff and with Mr. Watkins and he is prepared to relocate that closer to his deck. MR. NOONAN-So Mr.Watkins' shed is a lot easier to move than Mr. Clute's, and that's the next thing we're going to talk about. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. NOONAN-So I have a question for Staff or Chairman. If we look at this and say, okay, we can move the lot line for Mr. Watkins because that's Area Variance 64-2013, in doing so, how do we then,it's tied in to the next shed that is complicated,I feel,these aren't equal moves. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, so what I'd like to propose is that we hear this application, we open up the public hearing for it, we poll the Board, and then we hold off our decision on it until we hear the next application, then go through that application, and then as a Board, decide where we stand. Is that fair? Everyone's okay with that? Okay. MR. KUHL-I just have a question. I don't know if I was asleep when you presented it, Mr. Steves, but what's the reason? Are we fighting? We can't share the driveway that they wanted originally? MR. STEVES-It's really to accommodate both party's wishes of where they would like the usage of the property, because they'd like to fence the property, and right now trying to currently fence the property so they'd both have a private, Mr. Watkins has a private backyard, is kind of hard to do when you share the driveway with the turnaround right across the property line. MR. NOONAN-I have another question. In the November 20, 2006 meeting, one of the stipulations or conditions was no new driveways on either lot. There is a new driveway on the corner of,that's not on this map, that goes from the corner of the asphalt driveway out to, you know, where that corner Maplewood,Twicwood is. That's on the property right now. I mean, it's covered with snow right now, but it's there. There's an additional driveway that's actually not on the map that we have in front of us that goes from the corner of the, well, it goes out from the corner, from the property on the corner to Maplewood and Twicwood, it just kind of goes out diagonally. That was added I don't know when, but I know in reading the notes from 2006, it says there's no new driveways,but there's a driveway there. MRS.MOORE-There's a driveway there. MR. NOONAN-It's covered in snow right now,but it's there. I don't know how that comes into play, because my thought when I saw this property when it came back was there's a lot of asphalt 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) between these two pieces of property right now, and I get it trying to have one single driveway for each property,but there's a new driveway that's there that's not on the map. MR. STEVES-Okay. So you're saying that the Watkins parcel has a driveway that comes off the end of that asphalt? MR. NOONAN-It does. MR. STEVES-And goes northerly to Maplewood? MR. NOONAN-Yes,it kind of goes right to the corner. It's there. MR. STEVES-I was not aware of that. MR. NOONAN-Well, it's covered in snow right now, but it wasn't when we originally had this stuff came in our mailbox a few months back. I saw that, and I don't know how to go forward with that, but I just want to bring that out there that there's a driveway there. MR.JACKOSKI-And I think our motion can state that that would have to be removed. MR. STEVES-Okay,and I have no issue with that. MR. GARRAND-Do you also have no issue with no new driveways on either lot? MR. STEVES-Me,personally, I have no issues,no. There's a shared driveway now. MR. GARRAND-They pretty much have to keep the shared driveway because the original subdivision approval hinged on them sharing a driveway. MR. STEVES-The original subdivision approval or was that a subdivision modification? MRS.MOORE-That was a subdivision modification. MR. GARRAND-Modification. MRS.MOORE-In 2006. MR. STEVES-In 2006. MR. GARRAND-Yes,that's one of the conditions that the Planning Board put on this. MR. STEVES-Understood, and we went in front of the Planning Board for recommendation to here and discussed that at that time and they passed this thing through with a positive recommendation to the Zoning Board. I understand that, but that was a stipulation of the Planning Board and I believe we are prepared with our comments with the Planning Board to address that at the Planning Board. MR. GARRAND-Okay, because basically what you're asking us for is to override a Planning Board stipulation for this subdivision modification. MR. STEVES-No, I'm not. What I'm asking you to do is to look at the zoning and the variance request for the setbacks and the lot area. The Planning Board stipulation for the driveway, unless I'm mistaken, is a Planning Board issue that we've already discussed at the recommendation and they passed it on to you to review without any concerns regarding that driveway. MR. GARRAND-Because the application states that part of the reason why you're doing this is to have separate driveways. MR. STEVES-Correct,and they read that application as well. MR. GARRAND-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Any further questions from Board members? Okay. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? I do see some folks in the audience who'd like to do so. If you could come up to the table,please. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) PUBLIC HEARING OPEN CHUCK MC NULTY MR. MC NULTY-Hi, Chuck McNulty. I live at 14 Twicwood Lane, and several thoughts I want to throw out to you as reminders for you to consider. Perhaps the first one is that subdivisions, modifications of them, and variances tend to stay with the land. So when you're considering these, you need to consider more than just the current owners, because whatever you decide is going to affect the subsequent owners of this property, and in that context, I'd also suggest that, back in 2006 when the approvals were made by the Planning Board and whoever else for a shared driveway, this is what should have been and I believe was in their minds when they made the decision that the best choice for these properties was a shared driveway. If you divide the driveways now, I believe the intention is to put a second driveway in that will come out on Twicwood hill, and one of the reasons that the current driveway, shared driveway, is where it is is it's at the crown of the hill, so cars going into or out of that driveway are visible both from cars coming up the hill and cars getting ready to go down the hill, and if the second driveway is put in part way down Twicwood hill,then cars starting down are not going to have as good visibility to see somebody coming in or out of Mr. Clute's driveway, and this hill is traveled by school children every school day,because the school bus stop is at the foot of the hill. I'm not totally clear on the request for setbacks on these sheds, but I would point out that Mr. Clute, I believe, built the house that Mr. Watkins is in,and Mr.Watkins bought the house after everything was finished. So they both should have known full well what the situation was before they set their sheds in place. As has been pointed out, Mr. Watkins shed can relatively easily be moved. So that could be moved to a compliant location once they find out what you're going to approve or what you're not going to approve. Mr. Clute's going to have a little bigger problem,but I would also suggest that what he has really built there is a small garage. You might not get a Cadillac in it, but you might easily get a Volkswagen in it, and it's got a garage type door on it. Granting setbacks for these sheds as they exist at the moment is going to, in effect, establish a precedent for that neighborhood. Now I know that area zoning decisions are not supposed to be setting precedents, that each issue is considered separately, but nevertheless, at least in effect it establishes a precedent because you approve setbacks for these sheds now, and five or ten years from now, I decide I want to put a shed on my property at 14 Twicwood, and I decide the best place to put it is right next to the lot line, I'm going to put it there, and I'm going to sit before whoever's on the Zoning Board at that time and say, hey, this guy got a variance for no good reason other than that's where he put his shed first, and so why can't I do it? And it's going to be a little tougher for that Board to tell me no, if you've told these people yes. Another thought, I don't know if there's anybody else here from the neighborhood tonight, but an error that I think we make a lot of times sitting on a Zoning Board, and I did sit on this Board for a number of years back a while ago, is to make the assumption that there's nobody here to object, that must mean they approve. Not true. A lot of people out there in the Town believe that the Board is created to look out for their best interest. They expect the Board to consider everybody's point of view and what's good for them, but they expect you to make a decision based on what's best for everybody, not just for the people that are here asking for a variance. So please don't make that mistake. I think this is going to be a decision that's going to be a little bit tough for you because you've also got a variance for making some modifications because both these lots are under the two acre minimum zoning, which personally I think is ridiculous for this area. Almost all the lots average somewhere around 100 by 150. So that that part of the variance is almost a no brainer, but don't let it lead you into just automatically making the rest of the variance approvals without really thinking about it. I think that pretty well covers it, and it probably covers both variances for me. Thank you. MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Chuck. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to address the Board concerning this application in front of us? Seeing no one,is there any written comment? MR.URRICO-I do not see any written comment. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay, Matt. Come back to the table. Do you want to address anything in the public comments,or should we just go to polling the Board? MR. STEVES-No, sure, I can make a quick comment. As far as the existing shed on the Watkins parcel we're talking about now,that is definitely going to be moved to a compliant location, and we don't have any issue with that. We're not asking for the variance. It currently exists too close to the property line, but we state right on the plan and on the application and Mr. Watkins is fully aware and he has no issue. He thought he was in compliance,but I said,no,you're over 100 square feet, so move it to the 25 feet, and he has all intentions of doing that. It's just he's in Florida for the 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) winter and the spring when he gets back that is going to be moved. So we're not asking for a setback variance on that shed,and while we're on the subject of sheds,like I said,we were using the existing fence line. If you take the first course coming in off Twicwood Lane of the 133 feet to the end of that line, if you're looking at your map, and then you take those two courses out and just draw a cross on that triangle, then I can create the existing shed on Mr. Clute's property and not need a variance as well. We're just trying to utilize the existing vinyl fence that's there and cement it in, but we couldn't draw across there, and then that shed would then be completely compliant with the new property line. So instead of having any shed setback variance, all you would be asking for is another slight reduction in the size of Mr.Watkins'parcel,but then can make that shed compliant. So I know that that's somewhat of a tradeoff, but I do agree with, completely with Mr. McNulty's statement that the fact that, you know, this was re-zoned two acres, but they're all developed about half to three quarter acre lots. So, no matter what you do it requires a variance, even if you move the lot line an inch. So there is some room to adjust that lot line. Like I say,we're just trying to accommodate everything that existed on both properties at the time, but if it was something that the Board would want to entertain,we can remove two of those lines, add one new one. Basically, if you don't see what I'm talking about, I can draw it on the map for you, but that would put Mr. Clute's shed in compliance. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. At this time, again, I'm going to leave the public hearing open. I'm going to poll the Board as to what their thoughts are, and then I think we'll take a break from this application and go into the next one, but let's poll the Board first and see what their thoughts are. Mr. Noonan? MR. NOONAN-As for the Watkins application, where and what's being asked ultimately, well, can I ask a real quick question of Staff? Accessory structures, is a shed considered an accessory structure? MRS.MOORE-Yes,it is. MR. NOONAN-It's 120 square foot. MRS. MOORE-Is required to meet the setbacks of the zone, and then less than 100 square feet, there's other setback items to address. MR. NOONAN-So 120 square feet,would that be linked in with like the same setback as if there was a primary structure on the building? Like a setback the same as if it was the house? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. NOONAN-And is this shed,dimensions of that shed show up nowhere on the. MR. STEVES-It is 120. It's 100 or less that has a different setback. Right, Laura? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. NOONAN-Okay. MR. STEVES-So anything over 100 square feet now has to comply with the general setback regulation. MR. NOONAN-The Watkins shed is a lot easier to move. The lot line adjustment, they can move their shed anywhere, really, on that property. I would be in favor of looking at the Watkins application favorably,with the criteria that they move the shed,obviously. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm leaning in the opposite direction right now. I think the potential for more than minor impacts to the neighborhood are on the table. There are feasible alternatives, and that's not to make the change. The relief could turn into a substantial action relative to the Code, especially considering, not too long ago, 2006 wasn't that long ago, a modification was made to accommodate the property owners at the time, and now we're maybe looking at changing it back. So I don't think there'll be any environmental impact from this and the difficulty has to be considered self-created. So right now I'm leaning in a negative fashion,but I have an open mind. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. John? 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) MR. HENKEL-Yes. I would say that, even though most of the properties in that Twicwood area are around that half acre, with that decreasing of 1,000 square feet, that piece of property there, of Watkins there, I don't really like it now. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay,and, Mike? MR. MC CABE-I don't agree with the change in the property,either. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. Mr. Clute came in '06 to accomplish something and he did, and in that accomplishing he also made, it was stipulated that there'd be no other driveways. So as far as I'm concerned, no matter what the Planning Board said for here, I'm living to the fact that he made a commitment in'06 and I'll make that commitment today that there'll be no second driveway. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I have to agree with Mr. Kuhl. There's a lot of reasons why these stipulations are put in there. Part of it's the added cars you're going to see parked in a driveway. Another part of it's going to also be the curb cuts and the fact that you have lots that are pretty small in this area and you don't want a lot of driveways hindering traffic in and out. Line of sight, as Mr. McNulty has also stated, is a primary concern. I think the lot size relief is minimal. Setback relief, taking out of the equation removing the shed wouldn't even be necessary, but I do think that adding another driveway to this parcel would be detrimental. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So my opinion is this. If this applicant came to us and wasn't expecting to create the second driveway with his neighbor, and they were still going to utilize the existing driveways, would we actually not approve this lot line adjustment? I think we're getting complicated with the fact that the second driveway is what seems to be a concern, but that is not a Zoning Board matter at this time. We're not giving a variance for a second driveway. We are simply giving a variance for the lot line change. So they could do a lot line change and continue to use the driveway configuration as is. I think it becomes a Planning Board issue to deal with the second driveway. Mike? MR. MC CABE-But then why change the lot line? MR.JACKOSKI-It's up to them. They're two adjoining neighbors. It's up to them to change their lot lines. MR. STEVES-Could I comment on that? MR.JACKOSKI-Please. MR. STEVES-For the reason and the purpose of the usage of each owner,you know, forget there's a lot line there, what are you using, what are you maintaining, it only makes sense to place that lot line in the area. Why would you want to own beyond somebody's fence? And that's what you do in this instance. So it's just kind of cleaning it up between the lot lines. I mean, we could take that line that runs off of Twicwood and bend it south so that there is no decrease in lot size whatsoever, but then what that doesn't do is then you're creating a lot line through somebody else's yard, that somebody else has been maintaining and utilizing. So,you know, as far as the change in the lot line goes, if you drove up to the property, you would never see anything different, besides the fact that the people had been utilizing that property where they're asking the lot line to be. You wouldn't see any physical difference whatsoever by the adjustment of that lot line. It just would accommodate the usage of both parties,and as far as the driveway is concerned, I agree that that's a Planning Board issue, and if we were to adjust the lot line so that it wasn't any area or reduce the amount of variance that's requested for the reduction in that lot line by moving that lot line along Twicwood Lane to the south, and then also cutting the corner, there, to per se to where Mr. Clute's shed does meet the required setback,then,you know,this Board, if they want to still move forward with an approval of the variance, then they could put into the motion that they were not in favor of the second driveway and let the Planning Board deal with it at that time. At least that way they have the ability to accomplish the locations of their usage, whether or not they want to share the driveway, and if they have to, that's a Planning Board decision, but it does clear up the existing structures, particularly the shed on Mr. Clute's lot that's only a foot off the line, and then we can make that, if it is not the wishes of this Board to grant a variance from one foot to eleven and a half, we could push that to the 25 so that there is no variance requested other than the lot size. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) MR. GARRAND-See, my problem with this is you came with the intent of a second driveway, and that goes back to this Board's responsibility, health, safety and general welfare of the other residents in the neighborhood also. MR. STEVES-I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm saying that,you know, say that you want to approve the variance for the lot line adjustment and for the sheds or ask me to move the line so the shed is compliant,but you're saying that you're not approving, or you're not, I don't think that you can say, legally, that you cannot approve the second driveway because I believe that's the purview of the Planning Board. MR. GARRAND-We can impose it as a condition. MR. STEVES-That's correct. MR. GARRAND-Which I would ask the Board members to do. MR. STEVES-And that's what I'm saying. If that's what you feel,that's fine,but what I'm saying is if you need to adjust a lot line to make it more palatable for you, we can do that, but ultimately that's the Planning Board's decision, but I have no problem with you putting that into your motion that you're not in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Any further comments from Board members? MR. HENKEL-Because obviously Clute's shed cannot be removed, cannot be moved. That's permanent. MR. STEVES-That's a brick shed. MR. HENKEL-Right. Obviously, so the only way to make that compliant was,like you said,to draw, to make that triangle to eliminate that. MR. STEVES-And I'm not trying to get too far ahead or complicate the thing. I'm just saying, I'll work with the Board whatever we've got to do to accomplish that lot line for the usage. If we get through this and they still have to share the driveway, they still have the usage they want. They just have to deal with the issue of sharing the driveway. Yes, ultimately, everybody likes to have their own driveway. That's not my decision. I can't blame them for wanting to have their own driveway, but if that's not the wishes of the Town Boards, then that's what it is, but at least it accomplishes the adjustment of the lot line between the parcels so they can maintain that, regardless of where the driveway is. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So at this time I'd like to propose we postpone a vote on this particular application. We'll leave the public hearing open, and we'd like to go to the next application. Is that fair? Okay. So, again, under Old Business: it is the Clute property, Area Variance 65- 2013. It is a Type II SEQR. It is at 5 Twicwood Lane. It has been read into the record. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening, and do we need to have Roy add any comment to the record, or is it just go right forward with Mr. Steves? Staff? Roy doesn't need to read anything back into the record,correct? MRS.MOORE-No. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Great. Mr. Steves,welcome. MR. STEVES-Again, Matt Steves representing Larry Clute on this application. I think we've already basically gone over the entire Clute application,looking at the Watkins application. So I won't bore you with any other details,unless you have specific questions for me,or comments regarding what I had mentioned about the lot line,that we could adjust that. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So, Board members, at this time are there any questions on this application before I open the public hearing on this one? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening, and I'd like to open that, and is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this? Yes, I do see someone. If you please could come to the table. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN LINDA MC NULTY 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) MRS. MC NULTY-Hi. I'm Linda McNulty, 14 Twicwood Lane. I still have a problem with upsetting the original subdivision plan. I don't like the idea of adjusting lines to the degree that you're doing on this one. I also do not like the building that he has built there. It looks like a garage. It is not in compliance with the neighborhood. It just is totally out of character. I would like to see Mr. Clute remove that garage. At the least, if you insist on leaving it, please have him put the entrance on the south side of the building and no larger than what would accommodate a riding lawnmower. It doesn't need to be a garage door, and I know this isn't the same application, but the previous one, I'm not sure whether Mr. Dodge, and I assume that it still works, or Mr. Watkins, rather, I assume that it still is in the Town Code that a corner lot has two front boundaries. So how is he going to put a fence up? Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. We'll address that with Staff. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in the audience this evening who'd like to address the Board concerning this application? Is there any written comment, Roy? MR.URRICO-No, I cannot find any. MR.JACKOSKI-And so for Board members,while we listen to public comment,the concern is we are here to listen to the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision on the lot line and the shed. There is no current matter in front of us concerning what that other shed is used for, or if it is a garage or not a garage. Just to clarify that. MR. GARRAND-That's for Code Compliance to determine. MR. JACKOSKI-Right. So that is for Code Compliance to take care of. Okay, Mr. Steves. So I'm going to poll the Board again, although I think it's probably redundant, and then, again, the public hearing is still open, and then we'll make a decision on what we're going to do. I'm going to start with Rick. MR. GARRAND-Excluding the driveway, the setback relief is minimal, or it's minimally moderate. I mean,it's not tremendous. The lot size,you're never going to get around that in this neighborhood. The only way I'd be in favor of this is with a condition that no second driveway. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Mr. Noonan? MR. NOONAN-I'd just say that the, in terms of undesirable change, the current configuration of the driveway is certainly unique to these two properties. Nowhere else in the neighborhood this happens. You can clearly tell it looks like an add on. So an additional driveway, I feel they're trying to do the right thing by trying to clean it up,but at the same time,the decision was already made in 2006, and I don't think putting a driveway on the hill where it's proposed is safe. Again,the lot line adjustment, I can understand the lot line adjustment,but if the intention of the lot line adjustment is for the second driveway for Mr. Clute, I don't see it, I'm not okay with that. I mean, again,these are two different applications. What Watkins wants is different than what Clute wants, and I think it works better for Watkins than Clute. I definitely think it's self-created, in terms of that shed that has got about five or six courses of brick on the bottom up,and then stop work on it makes it kind of permanent right now,but it's not complete. It's not finished. It does look like a garage, regardless. What is the square footage of that shed? MR. STEVES-I believe it's 12 by 16. MR. NOONAN-12 by 16,significantly bigger. I would not be in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Mike? MR. MC CABE-I'm not in favor of a lot line change. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I think I would be in favor of the lot line change, with the condition that Rick stated, but also a condition that we remove the, are we talking either application right now? MR.JACKOSKI-No,right now we're going to talk about the corner. MR.URRICO-Okay. Then I would,with Rick's recommendation. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. John? 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) MR. HENKEL-Yes, I guess I'd be in favor of it if they could make the shed of Clute compliance but change that line a little bit and also stipulation of not a second driveway,but definitely make Clute's shed with a side setback legal there. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Well, you know, in the Staff comments here it says, and I quote, the lot line adjustment has been proposed so that each lot has a separate access, and, you know, here we're saying we're going to do a single driveway, and stipulate that there'll never be another one, and now we're asking for the access. So, I'm sorry, I can't go with it. MR. JACKOSKI-This is a tough one, and, again, if I just focus on the lot line adjustment, I like what Rick has suggested is that they can do a lot line adjustment but keep the single driveway as a condition. I like what John has suggested that, character of the neighborhood and everything else, we could minimize and avoid the self-created difficulty by cleaning up that line so that the one shed is actually in compliance. I do think it changes the character of the neighborhood because of how these two parcels are nested together. So I think I'm going to reserve until I hear what the motion is to make my decision about how to move forward. I do note, though, that we're teetering on a denial, if I look at the polling of the Board. So,this is a tough one, and I think, as far as the Board is concerned, I think we go back to the Dodge Watkins application. I think that one has more to it, and see if we can put forth a resolution, because then the next application would just follow suit, but if we go back to the Watkins application, see if we can get a resolution together that everyone's feeling comfortable with,and then go from there if that's reasonable. MR. STEVES-Can I make one or two quick comments, Mr. Chairman? Obviously the second driveway is the issue,and,you know,there was no question that we showed the proposed driveway and put it in the record because we didn't want to let you, you know, we could have a lot line adjustment and not say anything about the second driveway, obviously they both wanted their own driveway. If that's not going to happen, we understand, but we didn't want to tell the Board that, you know, we were coming in here for a lot line adjustment and then go back in to the Planning Board and ask for a second driveway without this Board knowing and, down the road, that's not right, because that wouldn't need a variance, per se. That would just need Planning Board approval. So I just wanted to let everybody know what that was for. If there's not a big issue with the lot line adjustment with a minor change there, you know, it still accommodates the usage for both lots by taking the second driveway out of the equation. Then if this application did not state anything about a second driveway, and then we made a slight change to, whether or not it was unanimous that we make the change for Mr. Clute's shed or not, what is the feeling of the Board if there's no second driveway associated with this application, but just leave the lot line in its current configuration that we have proposed? MR. HENKEL-Now are you saying without taking that little triangle out,you're going to leave it the way it is? MR. STEVES-I'm asking because I think you're the only one,John,that brought up the fact. MR. HENKEL-That way that would put that shed in compliance there. MR. STEVES-Yes, and then the only variance, then, we'd be asking for is the area of Mr. Watkins' parcel. Does everybody understand what I'm saying? MR.URRICO-So you're withdrawing this application? Would there be a need for having this? MR. STEVES-That's, I want to get the feel of the Board before I go back, make my decision whether I'm withdrawing this and go back to both of my clients is to,you know, I'm not saying you're going to be able to give me a definitive yes or no. I understand that, but what I'm asking the feel of this Board is if this application came back in front of you without a second driveway proposed but just a lot line adjustment the way it is, what would be the feeling of this Board as far as the proposed lot line, period? Would they still want to have that shed that is currently only one foot off the line, being on Mr. Clute's lot, be in compliance, and then the only variance that would be needed would be the lot area for Lot 90 would be Mr.Watkins' property. Or is there not that much of a problem with the proposed setback to Mr. Clute's shed? I have to go back to them with something that,you know, I feel that the Board may be willing to approve. MR. JACKOSKI-My concern is that we continue to shrink the size of the one lot, and change, I think we'd have to see it in detail, but I'm very concerned about the snow covered driveway that's not on 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) here, and the addition of a driveway and the safety concerns of it. I mean, this Board does have some responsibility to understand how these two lots are being used, if we approve them in a different configuration. MR. STEVES-I agree, Mr. Chairman. I'm saying that come back with an application that does not include the second driveway,just the lot line adjustment. MR. JACKOSKI-I don't see why we couldn't do that this evening if that was what the Board was willing to do. We're not deciding on a second driveway. We're only deciding on a lot line adjustment, and we can make it contingent on no second driveway, as part of our decisions on the five criterion as to how it's going to affect the neighborhood and whether it's self-created and all these other reasonings. MR. STEVES-That's what I'm asking. MRS. MOORE-Can I interject? The question with the, one would be the lot size, one of the requests, and the second one was the setbacks in reference to the Clute shed. Is the Board looking at changing that so that Clute's shed is more compliant, and that would make that lot size reduced on the one. MR.JACKOSKI-Right,it's even more reduced. MRS.MOORE-And that's what you're concerned about. MR.JACKOSKI-That's what we're all talking, all these things are playing into these two applications, correct? MR. STEVES-And again, and I'm not going to confuse it anymore. One final comment and then I'll leave it up to the Board. I could take that line that's running out perpendicular to Twicwood Lane, and rotate that down Twicwood Lane closer to the shown proposed driveway on Mr. Clute's lot, so that the areas of the two lots do not change,but that's not going to be where they're going to utilize their property. It's in the middle of Mr. Clute's usage right now. So I just wanted to reiterate that. I can easily slide that down and then not need that variance, and then I know that that would be substantial enough change that you would probably want to see this application again, and I could do that,and I just wanted to let the Board know that. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. GARRAND-Our numbers would materially change,and we'd have to see a new application. MR. JACKOSKI-So, at this time, Mr. Steves, my thoughts are this Board has in front of it this current application, we can make a motion to try to do what we're going to do with this application, or if you would like to attempt, after you've gotten all this feedback from the Board, to withdraw it and re-propose it you certainly can,but we can't direct you onto what might or might not move forward in the future. MR. STEVE S-I understand. I really do. I'm the one that's got to report back. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,so, I mean,the will of the Board as it sits,is,again,on the polling,it's really going to depend on the condition. So, I mean, I don't know how it's going to vote. MRS.MOORE-The applicant could request the Board to table the application. MR.JACKOSKI-He knows. That's what he's saying. MRS.MOORE-Okay. Versus withdrawing. MR. STEVES-So now I'll make a suggestion if we could table this application, and then I'll have it re- submitted for next month's 15th deadline and talk to both clients and come back with a plan that may be more agreeable to you. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So the applicant has requested a tabling of Area Variance No. 64-2013. Can I have a motion to so grant that request? 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-2013 DODGE WATKINS & AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-2013 LARRY W. CLUTE, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: To the March, 2014 meeting with a mid-February deadline submission. Duly adopted this 22nd day of January 2014,by the following vote: MR.JACKOSKI-To when? MRS.MOORE-So if you make it to March with a February deadline of submission. MR. GARRAND-To a March meeting with a mid-February deadline submission. MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. STEVES-Thank you for your time. MR.JACKOSKI-So, Staff, as a matter of course, is there any way that these two applicants could have come to us jointly? MRS. MOORE-In this case, I'll look into it, but as a matter of course, they're two separate lots, two separate requests. MR. JACKOSKI-But a lot of times we have multiple lots that are getting combined for subdivisions and stuff like that. So why does that matter? MRS.MOORE-Okay. I'll look at it. MR.JACKOSKI-It might just help things not be so complicated,if that's even possible. MRS.MOORE-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Of course we have legal counsel out there. Maybe they'll tell us later, who knows. New Business. NEW BUSINESS: USE VARIANCE NO. 1-2014 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED PAUL & TERRI SCHUERLEIN AGENT(S) MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR,ESQ. OWNER(S) PAUL&TERRI SCHUERLEIN ZONING NR LOCATION 310 DIXON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONVERSION OF EXISTING 2,421 SQ. FT. PLUMBING AND HEATING SHOP AND WAREHOUSE TO MEDICAL OFFICE AND 1-APARTMENT. SITE WORK ALSO INCLUDES GARAGE REMOVAL AND RECONSTRUCTION OF A 483 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO GARAGE; DISTURBANCE WILL RECONFIGURE PARKING AREA. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM ALLOWED USES IN A NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL (NR) ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF SP 5-2004; UV 48-2001; UV 77-1997; BP 2011-550 C/O; BP 2011-551 FS SIGN; BP 2002-528 COWL ADD; BP 2002-229 GARAGE DEMO; BP 2001-224 C/O; BP 98- 3270 FS SIGN; BP 98-651 C/O; WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 2014 LOT SIZE 0.54, 0.09 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 302.9-1-1 &3 SECTION 179-3-040 MICHAEL O'CONNOR&NATE HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 1-2014, Paul &Teri Schuerlein, Meeting Date: January 22, 2014 "Project Location: 310 Dixon Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes conversion of existing 2,268 +/- sq. ft. Plumbing & Heating Shop and Warehouse to Medical Office 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) and apartment. Site work includes garage removal and reconstruction of a new 900 sq. ft. garage; site disturbance and reconfigure parking area is also proposed. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Relief requested from allowed uses in the NR zone Section 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts. Criteria for considering a Use Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. The applicant cannot realize a reasonable return, provide that return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence. The information necessary for this response should identify each of the uses allowed in the zone and the"dollars and cents"values to operate each use compared to the proposed use or uses the applicant has suggested as well as the previously approved,by Use Variance,use of Plumbing&Heating business. The applicant has provided a response to using the building as is for the same use, a proposed residential use, and the proposed medical office with a Summary of Rate Return Computation prepared by CPA Paul L. Dowen. The document indicates the rate of return for the original cost is less than 15% expected for a commercial property where 6.97% is anticipated of the proposed Medical Office, 3.76% would be for a duplex use and 1.37% would be to maintain current use. In addition the CPA has provided a Total original costs plus renovations values where the proposed commercial use and apartment would be at $407,360, a duplex would be $365,935 and the existing space would be$72,835. The document indicates even using the building as is has a return rate of 1.37. It does not appear as though the applicant has provided sufficient evidence to support their claim for lack of reasonable return. 2. The alleged hardship related to the property in question is unique,and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood. The file records indicate the building was built in 1955. The NR Zone allows through site plan Bed and Breakfast, Cemetery, Condominium Development or unit, Library, Multifamily dwelling, Outdoor recreation, Place of worship, Playground, Private school, Produce stand greater than 100 sq. ft. Public/semipublic building, Town House the Special Use Permits may be applied for that includes, Personal Service, and permitted uses include Duplex, Mobile home, Produce stand less than 100 ft. and a Single family dwelling. The applicant proposes a medical office that is non-compliant commercial use where the zone does allow for compliant money-making uses The applicant has indicated the property has been used for commercial purposes for the last 50 years. 3. That the requested Use Variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The neighboring properties are single family, duplexes, watershed property, and storage within three zoning districts NR, MDR, and PR-10. The proposed new use of a Medical office would not be consistent with this zoning district. The Neighborhood Residential (NR) District encompasses areas of older,more traditional,high-density neighborhoods.The NR zone is intended to protect and enhance traditional,high-density neighborhood character while providing the opportunity for infill and high-density housing. The applicant has indicated the new uses on the site will not be the same where there will be no commercial trucks or such storage on the site. 4. Whether the alleged hardship has not been self-created. The alleged hardship can be interpreted as self-created. The applicant has indicated that the site can still be used for the approved commercial use however the intent is to convert to a less commercial use. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, Use Variance 77-97: Change the relief and provide for the use of the building by two businesses; Schuerlein Plumbing&Heating and Kellwood Cabinetry. 8-20-03 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) NOA 2-03: Appealing Zoning Administrator's determination regarding the addition of a commercial business to an Urban Residential property. 6-25-03 Staff comments: The applicant proposes to alter a building and site for a Medical office and an apartment. The project involves removal of an existing garage and construction of a new garage, renovation of the existing building for a medical office and renovation of portion of the building for a 2 story apartment. The previous use for Plumbing and Heating and Cabinetry construction was approved as a use variance in 1997. The applicant has indicated there would be no commercial trucks or storage as associated with the previous use. The applicant has also indicated that the total land and building would be about 72,500 and adding demolition would bring the total to $90,000 where the applicant has explained that a vacant parcel would not be worth $90,000 in this area. However, no realty information such as recent sales was provided with the application materials. Has the property been recently listed for sale? At what price? Were there any offers?And For how much? These types of information may help to establish the dollars and cents justification for the existing status of the property,however,the required financial information for each and every allowable use within the district has not been provided. SEQR Status: Unlisted" MR.JACKOSKI-Welcome. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. I represent the applicants. With me at the table is Terri Schuerlein, who is one of the owners of the property, and also Brian Schuerlein her son who hopes to be the medical practitioner who will occupy the property if we obtain the approvals that we're seeking. This is Brian over here. Paul Dowen is the CPA who did the cost analysis,the dollar and cents analysis as to what is a reasonable rate of return on the property. Tom Hutchins is behind me. He is the engineer for the project, and probably his issues are more site plan orientated,which we also have to go through, as opposed to use,and also with me is Nate Hall who is from my office. This property is located at 310 Dixon Road. It's in an NR zone, a Neighborhood Residential, and I will say a little bit of confusion on the Staff Notes. We do meet all the dimensional requirements and we are not seeking any area variances. All we're seeking is a variance for what will go on on the property within the building. So we meet the lot size, setbacks and all of that, and permeability, non-permeability. The County Planner has reviewed the application and found and submitted to the Town a statement of no negative impact. The Town Planning Board entertained the application to make a recommendation to you last night. I wasn't here. Unfortunately I was in the airport in Baltimore where I spent the night trying to get back here. It looks like that night is almost as long as your night's going to be here tonight, but anyway, they were very enthusiastic. They thought that what the applicant is proposing makes good sense. It's a good use of the property. It's a good way to rejuvenate the property and actually make the property fit more into the neighborhood character, and I'll get into that as I talk to you about some of the changes that are going to be made,the external changes. The footprint of the property, or the structures on the property, the main building is not, are not going to be changed, but the overhead doors that look like industrial doors which were used by the prior business will be removed. Some windows will be put in the higher part of the building in the back, and there will be landscaping on the property. The parking has been purposely put toward the back of the property,not way to the back,but off of the street,so that it won't be noticeable. This is not a large operation. It's not a large use of the property, and basically what we're trying to do is a medical office, and also an apartment for actually Mr. Schuerlein to live in in the back part of the property. This property has been used for commercial purposes since 1955, over 59 years, and that use began before Queensbury had any zoning. I think the first zoning in Queensbury was some time in the 60's, maybe '64, '66, something of that nature. We believe that Warren Clark had the building built and had it built as a commercial building. It's an on slab building. It doesn't have a basement, and if you notice the back part of the building is quite tall, and that was because he was in the business of cleaning rugs,and he used to hang the rugs in that back part of that building that's going to be turned into an apartment, a two story apartment if you will. There may have been some additions since the 1955 building. If you look at some of the, there's a concrete slab on the back, and there's another slab, and those are going to be removed as part of this improvement to the property, if we get the approval. Our client purchased the property in 1998, and just from the timetable, it looks like they purchased it subject to, or they entered into a contract to purchase it, subject to them getting a Use Variance for a plumbing and heating business and warehouse, and that was granted in 1997 by a Board of the Town of Queensbury, and I don't know if that was provided to you or not, but I'll read just a little bit from that for you for your background. At that time the property was UR-10, and specifically it says commercial activities are not allowed in the 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) UR-10 zone. The surrounding properties were used for the same purposes they're used now. The subdivision behind the property, out on Zenas Drive, or you get to from Zenas Drive, was there in existence. The watershed property on one side was there. The property to the west was there. There's no change in the neighborhood, significant from the 1997 Use Variance. The Board at that time found that the structure was built for commercial purposes. It was always used for commercial purposes, and it is my opinion that no reasonable return can be realized on the property as it is currently zoned. The Board further found that while the area is residential in character, the subject property has historically been used in a commercial manner, and I think if this property was there in 1955 and was built for commercial purposes, most of that residential property came in after the fact, after the commercial use was already established, if you look at the buildings,the age of the buildings that are in that immediate area. The Board further found that the alleged hardship is not self-created, in that it's attributed to the Zoning Ordinance and the fact that this property was built before the date of the existing Ordinance. That is all true. Every one of those findings are still true today. It's not really any different. As I said, our client purchased the property in 1998. They did purchase some adjoining property which were separate tax map numbers, in 1999, and a small portion of one of those parcels they bought in 1999 is included. It's actually the back part by the parking area. In 2006, and I'll refer to this later also,they decided that they'd sell the property, or try to sell the property, 2005, 2006. The property was listed through Frontgate Realty. They listed it as separate parts and as all one piece. They never did get an offer for the entire parcel, and they never got an offer or had any reaction to the sale of the commercial portion of it. They did sell off the barn. I call it a barn. Other people call it a warehouse, that's in the back corner of the property. I think George Luca bought that and his son bought a two family house that was on, the farmhouse on Dixon Road. In the marketing, that's the only result that happened in 2006. The marketing of the property continued. Mark Levack took over the marketing and he went through his records and he had one specific listing, and that was in 2010, and he specifically went out and went to what he thought would be the prime target for this property, because the principle use of the property is the plumbing and heating business and warehouse. He went to every plumber and everyone involved in that business in the community and could not get any interest in the property. He also then went to many small service operations and said you will need to get a Use Variance because if you change uses it'll require a Use Variance, and he could not get any. He continued to market it, even after his listing agreement was over, and he just hasn't had any luck. I've got a letter here from him that I'll submit that supports what I just said to you. If you're looking at a Use Variance, it's a little bit different and difficult to look at, as opposed to an Area Variance. It's our burden to show that we do not get a reasonable rate of return. It's not a contest of how you get the best rate of return. It's a reasonable rate of return for any of the permitted uses, and that's the analysis that Mr. Dowen did because the property right now doesn't render a reasonable rate of return. There's a tenant that pays $600 a month, and he's left, but because we made the application, he's (lost word) that he's on his way out, so he found another place. So we'd have to find somebody else, if we could, that would take his place, but that's only, that's less than two percent. The standard for commercial real estate rate of return, a reasonable rate of return, is 10 to 15%, and I don't think there's any real issue to that. I looked at the permitted uses, and I kind of broke them down by those that you would think about, from a commonsense point of view, for that location and those that you wouldn't. Those that you wouldn't I listed as bed and breakfast. It's not near a travel highway. It's not near any attraction. I doubt very much that you'd have any success with a bed and breakfast. Cemetery. I don't think people are building cemeteries, private cemeteries. A library. I don't think you're going to have a library there,public or private. Outdoor recreation. It really isn't big enough. I think between the two tax map parcels we're talking about, it's .59 acres. Playground. Again, I don't think that's something that somebody's going to get into. A private school. A private school would probably have more development costs than what we're talking about, which Paul has analyzed for a residential use or this use that we propose. A produce store, or I guess it's a produce stand. Again, I don't think you're going to have enough of a business to give a reasonable rate of return by turning the property into a produce stand. A public building. I don't know what we'd need a public building for on that size lot there. So those are the ones I think, from a commonsense,that I dismiss as being uses that would not provide a reasonable rate of return. The ones that you are permitted to have,which might, if the costs were appropriate, render a reasonable rate of return are basically residential. A single family residence or duplex. Duplex you'd need 10,000 square feet per unit. We have 2500, 25,000 square feet. So you could have two units on there. Multifamily,you could have two units. Condominium you could have two units. Those are uses that you could, if you rehabilitated, reconstructed the building,you would be able to maybe get a better return than what you're presently getting,but Paul will give you the analysis. The cost for turning the entire building into residential, whether it be duplex or single family, is higher than the cost of turning it into medical office and an apartment, and the rents that you would obtain from the apartments, given the competition that you have in the community, are less than the square footage that somebody could afford to pay as part of their business of operating a medical practice. So there's a lot of advantage, and that's the reason you get a better return if you turn the building partially into a 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) medical office and an apartment. You have less construction costs and you have a higher rent stream when you're all said and done. So, Paul, why don't you go through that part of what you analyzed. PAUL DOWEN MR. DOWEN-Yes, I believe everybody's got a copy that was submitted. So on the top section, as Mike has pointed out, we did the analysis on the far right hand side of what the original cost minus the accumulated cost that have been written off against the property. So we're retaining a value, at this point, of$72,835. What they were using it as, up until the point where the tenant left, they're renting it out currently at $7200 for the year, and the proposed, the estimated costs that are there at this point is $6200. So they're netting just a little over, about$1,000. So that is where the rate of return at 1.37. The existing cost is structured on the bottom. You'll see that the totals that were off the tax return that I was able to get my hands on is a total of the $105,000 minus the non-shop costs brought it down to the value of$72,835, and we carried that across to the other two columns. So the next one that I was asked to look at was the proposed duplex use, and we are looking at the rents on that at $850 a month for two, times the 12 is the $20,400, with estimated costs of$6650. The total costs there, or the total net profit expected would be the $13,750, and then we looked at the cost of converting the existing to the duplex at 2931 square feet, we estimated at $100 per square foot. So the total costs into that project at that point would be $365,935, which still only rendered a 3.76 rate of return, and then we looked at the proposal of the commercial use of the medical use and the one apartment, and looked at the square footage there and the cost and you'll see that that was the $407,360. So we had additional costs of $234, or $334,000 plus the 72 original, but because of the type of use and the rate that could be commanded for the rental, we were able to raise that gross rents to a little over $35,000. With the same costs that would be there with the duplex as the cost,the other rental cost would be absorbed by the renter. So it brought a net profit of $28,405, and even with that, it still only brought it to just slightly less than seven percent rate of return, and as Mike had pointed out, we typically would look at a 10 to 15% rate of return, more so on the higher side of the 15%. So we know that we're not, we're still on the low side, but looking at the proposal and what's been currently being used is that it made sense to go ahead with the project with the higher rate of return and at least get something for the property. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, did you want to ask specific questions or go through point by point, or do you want us to go through the whole thing and ask questions at the end? MR.JACKOSKI-Point by point of which part? MR. O'CONNOR-Of this, first element of proof would be that we are not able to get a reasonable rate of return from any of the permitted uses. MR. KUHL-I believe you, Mike. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Let me, I also said I had the letter. MR. JACKOSKI-I think, Mr. O'Connor, if we could, could we maybe gauge the, because the Board members have reviewed the entire packet presented to us, and I know you're just giving us some new stuff now,but maybe could we gauge some questions from the Board,before you go through all this complete detail,just to see if it's even necessary? Because we may already understand a lot of it and appreciate it. MR. O'CONNOR-I've been told before that it's better to say less than more. MR.JACKOSKI-You listened. MR. O'CONNOR-We'd be glad to entertain any questions, specific questions if you have from what you reviewed in the packet before I go on. I think we can go to each point and address them very well,but tell me how you want to do it, Mr. Chairman. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, so Board members, I mean, let's ask some questions now so the applicant can understand better of where they need to focus their attention on our concerns. Does anyone have any questions,at this point,for the applicant? MR. NOONAN-I have a quick question. How much traffic do you expect to come in and out of the property? 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) MR. O'CONNOR-As minimum, I think the office space is 1600 square feet. Initially we would have one practitioner, maybe with one non-practitioner assistant, maybe two maximum. It's not going to be heavy duty. MR. NOONAN-So maybe similar to what a duplex would have? MR. O'CONNOR-Probably. Duplex,if you go by the transportation,we'd have four trips during peak hour. This would be during the course of the day. I don't think it's scheduled where people come in all the time. MR. URRICO-And you said, would it be an MD that would be in that complex, or would there be more,would be an eyeglass place,a dentist,what kind of? BRIAN SCHUERLEIN MR. SCHUERLEIN-For the record my name is Brian Schuerlein. My future practice is a DC, chiropractor. MR.URRICO-Okay. MR.JACKOSKI-Are there any other questions? MR. MC CAB E-What is the waste disposal there? Is that septic,or are you tied into the sewer? MR. O'CONNOR-We understand that there are three different potential locations of the existing septic. So rather than guess, we're going to put in a brand new septic system that will serve both the medical practice suite and the apartment, and that's the second map, or second set of maps. Somebody tells it's on the west side of the building and somebody else told us it was on the north side of the building. So we're not going to utilize what's there. We will remove what's there and put in a new septic. MR. MC CABE-Will your medical practice have any unusual materials that will go into the septic? MR. O'CONNOR-There are other regulations that require those type of waste products to be disposed of separately, and they would be applicable to this. There'd be nothing but human waste, maybe some washing of material,but nothing from the apartment. MR. JACKOSKI-Are competing townhomes, Mr. Dowen, as you mentioned, only receiving $850 for rent income? The Schermerhorn complexes average$1300 a month. MR. DOWEN-This was the number that I was given for,to use. MR.JACKOSKI-Are you certifying this,or,when you say given,what do you mean by given? MR. DOWEN-The proposed,when I asked what the potential rent was for the size of the apartment, I was told that it would be$850. MR. O'CONNOR-It's a two story apartment and it's not that large. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-It doesn't have any of the complex side benefits that you have. MR.JACKOSKI-Or the detriments. MR. O'CONNOR-Or the detriments. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So is the Board requesting that Mr. O'Connor go through each point of the analysis? MR. NOONAN-I've got a good handle on it. MR.JACKOSKI-Everyone feeling comfortable? Would you suggest that I open the public hearing at this point in time? Okay. So at the Board's will we're going to open the public hearing. Is there anyone here this evening who'd like to address this application with the Board? 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.JACKOSKI-Is there anyone herein the audience at all? Okay. Is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-There is one letter, and I did not met last night and determined that there was no, nothing that they could, they did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And that was a unanimous vote, and then there's one letter. It says, "I vote no. The traffic on Dixon Road now is mess with everyone circumventing Aviation Road. A medical office will increase traffic, pave over existing green space and add to an already congested space. Go put this in someone else's front yard." And Timothy Ruscio, doesn't identify where he lives in relation to there. His address on here is 25 Plattsburgh Plaza in Plattsburgh, NY. MRS.MOORE-I can add to that. It's Zenas Drive. MR.URRICO-Zenas Drive. MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR.URRICO-Okay. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So somewhat close proximity. Okay. Since there's no other additional public comment, I do have the public hearing still open. I am going to poll the Board at this time. John, I'll start with you. MR. HENKEL-Well, after looking around a half mile radius in that area, there's a lot of mixed use there. There's apartments, there's single family, there's medical services, tree services. I'd be in favor of it. I think it's a good use for that property,any Use Variance. So,yes, I'd be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Mike? MR. MC CABE-I've traveled Dixon Road for over 40 years. There's always been some sort of commercial property there. I think a medical office would be an improvement over the office that's there. I have no problem. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I agree with my Board members. I think it's a good use of the property. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I couldn't find any way that this is really going to alter the character of the neighborhood. So, I'd be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm a big fan in re-purposing property, and I think this is a good example of it being accomplished in a positive way. I think it would actually be less traffic than more traffic, based on what existed there before. I think it would be less of an impact to the neighborhood instead of more of an impact. So I would be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Mr. Noonan? MR. NOONAN-I also would be in favor of it. I sat in the driveway over there this weekend for quite some time with all the plans, paperwork and,you know, tried to vision, envision what was going to be there, and the property works fine for what it's doing right now, but I feel without the trucks there,without the garage there,getting cleaned up it'll look a lot nicer down there,and I'm in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-So my only question is that,with the mixed use of residential and office, is there any concern that, should the residential aspect not be used by the tenant of the offices, that that needs to be tied together? But it sounds to me like we are moving forward with an approval anyway. So I'm going to close the public hearing,and seek a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS.MOORE-And I apologize, I'll interrupt. It is considered an Unlisted action. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) MR.JACKOSKI-That's right. We've got to do SEQR. Sorry. Rick likes to do SEQR. MRS.MOORE-Do you want a blanket template to look at? MR.JACKOSKI-My apologies for missing that. Thank you, Staff. MOTION FOR USE VARIANCE NO. 1-2014. PAUL & TERI SCHUERLEIN, for the project on Dixon Road, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, as noted, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental statement need not be prepared. Accordingly,this negative declaration is issued. AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski, NOES: NONE RESOLUTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 1-2014. PAUL &TERI SCHUERLEIN, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, and amended as per Steven Jackoski, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Paul & Teri Schuerlein for a variance from Section 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury in order to convert existing 2,421 sq. ft. Plumbing and Heating Shop and Warehouse to Medical Office and 1-Apartment. Site work also includes garage removal and reconstruction of a 483 sq. ft. addition to garage; disturbance will reconfigure parking area. Relief requested from allowed uses in a Neighborhood Residential (NR) zoning district. Upon consideration of the application materials, completed SEQR review form and information supplied during the public hearing and the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(B) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law, and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: We find that the applicant cannot realize a reasonable rate of return, provide that the return is substantial as demonstrated by the competent physical evidence; provided by the applicant. We find the alleged hardship relating to the property in question is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood. We find that the requested Use Variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The alleged hardship has not really been self-created since commercial property has existed there for quite some time. Concerning the reasonable return, we have completely reviewed the spread sheet work presented to us by the applicant's agents as related to reasonable rates of return and different uses of the property. Under the hardship being unique, it is unique given the specific details of this particular building and this particular lot and when it was constructed and before the neighborhood was basically even developed in its current use. Will it alter the essential character of the neighborhood? Given it was a commercial entity before the neighborhood; basically even was in existence, we feel that it does not change or alter the essential character of the neighborhood as the record has demonstrated this evening,as well. Under the hardship being self-created: It may be considered, slightly self-created but given the presentation by the applicant and their agents,we're comfortable that it is should be a motion that's approved by everyone. Based upon our findings above, we hereby determine that the applicant has demonstrated that the applicable zoning regulations and restrictions have caused unnecessary hardship. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) Based upon all of the above, I move that this Board Approve Use Variance No. 1-2014, Paul & Teri Schuerlein; Duly adopted this 22nd day of January, 2014 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Good luck. Welcome to Queensbury. MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you. MR. SCHUERLEIN-Gentlemen of the Board,thank you. MR.JACKOSKI-You're welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-2014 SEQRA TYPE II WILLIAM & PAMELA ROBERTS AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY, PE OWNER(S) WILLIAM &PAMELA ROBERTS ZONING WR LOCATION 4 HOLLY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF TWO EXISTING NONCONFORMING COTTAGES AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWO NEW RESIDENCES IN THE SAME EXACT LOCATION AS CURRENTLY EXISTS. [2,329 SQ. FT. +/- FOOTPRINT TOTAL PREVIOUSLY APPROVED; 2,657 SQ. FT. +/- FLOOR AREA TOTAL PREVIOUSLY APPROVED]. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FOR A SECOND DWELLING ON THE SAME LOT. CROSS REF SP 8-2014; SP 33-2013; A V 36-2013; BP 2013-513 RES. ALT. GUEST HOUSE; BP 2013-512 RES.ADD. MAIN HOUSE; BP 98-652 SEPTIC; BP 98-070 RES.ALT; BP 98- 071 RES. ALT.; BP 98-069 DOCK REPAIR; WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 2014 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.42 ACRE(S) SECTION 179-3-040; 179-4-010 JON LAPPER&DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 2-2014, William & Pamela Roberts, Meeting Date: January 22, 2014 "Project Location: 4 Holly Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes removal of two existing nonconforming cottages and construction of two new residences in the same exact location as currently exists (2,329 sq. footprint previously approved; 2,657 sq. ft. floor area total previously approved). Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Relief requested from shoreline&front setback relief and for a 2nd dwelling on same lot in a WR zone Section 179-3-040. Shoreline Setback Front Setback Density (main house) (guest cottage) Required 50 ft. 30 ft. 2 acres Proposed 25.5 ft. 16.5 ft. 1 acre Relief 24.5 ft. 13.5 ft. 1 acre Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may include reducing the homes on the site to one compliant versus two units. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request may be considered substantial requesting to demolish and rebuild two homes. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) 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 8-14: Pending Site Plan Applicant proposes tear down and rebuild in approved footprints. Hardsurfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline requires Planning Board review and approval. Variances: Relief requested from shoreline setback (main cottage), front setback (guest cottage) and 2 acre per dwelling density requirements of the WR zone SP 33-13: Site Plan: Applicant proposes improvements to two existing residential structures. Main house will increase footprint by 128 sq. ft. Expansion of non-conforming structure in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief requested from the minimum 100 foot shoreline setback and well setback for a stormwater management device. 7-16-2013 AV 36-13: See above BP 13-512: Addition to main house BP 98-652: Septic BP 98-070: Residential alteration BP 98-071: Residential alteration BP 98-069: Dock repair Staff comments: The applicant proposes to remove the existing Main house and the Guest house to construct new dwellings within each previously approved footprint. The Main Cottage deck is to be located 25.5 ft. away where a 50 ft. setback is required and guest cottage is to be located 16.5 ft. from the front property line where 30 ft. setback is required. Both homes have moderate portions of the existing home space outside the setback requirements. The building plans and floor plans are provided showing the elevation and the layout of the floors with bedrooms etc. The applicant has indicated the existing floor area ratio is only 14%. The applicant has indicated the cost, quality of the home and safety of the home for renovations has been evaluated and determined that the renovations are capable of being completed but a rebuild may better due to cost, quality of the rebuild, and safety of a new build versus a renovation. The applicant has explained that discussions with building contractors that renovations including jacking up the existing structure would not be cost effective and may not be safe for the integrity of the structure. SEQR Status: Type II' MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome, Mr. Lapper. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record,Jon Lapper with Dennis MacElroy,the project engineer, and Pam Roberts, next to me. Bill is behind us. The simplest way to look at this application is that they received all of the approvals to do this project, from the Zoning Board and the Planning Board, and were in the process of getting quotes from contractors when,you know,the contractors look at this without understanding zoning and say, why the heck would you ever come in, jack the house up, build a foundation and then renovate the house when we can build you a brand new house cheaper that'll be better than what you have here. So, you know, coming to you with this application, we understand that there is an alternative to consider which is to knock both houses down and start from scratch, and build something slightly larger from the lake, but the argument here is that this lot would accommodate a substantially larger house, and if that's what they were planning to do, that's what they would have asked for to begin with. These are two modest structures. It'll come out looking the same ultimately, but it just won't be the same construction. So they're going to pay more to get less, and so if you compare this application to what was approved, as a fully approved project, it's really modest compared to what this lot would accommodate. Dennis has calculated it could be a 50% larger house without any variances, but that's not their goal. They want to do something simple,just what's been there historically, and it's just,it's a good location on the site for the use of these structures. So we hope that you'll approve it this way so that they don't have to consider the cost of building,renovating it to less for more. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) MR.JACKOSKI-So can I just ask a couple of quick questions? MR.LAPPER-Of course. MR.JACKOSKI-The footprint of the new build is exactly the same as the old footprint? MR. LAPPER-It's exactly the same as what was approved. MR. JACKOSKI-Which is approved, that's fine, and the reason you're here is because you're not utilizing the old structures to do what you were planning to do, because the Code requires us, if it's a brand new structure,we have to get this variance. Correct? I never understood why the Town of Queensbury would prefer old construction versus new construction, but that's what we're here to take care of. Okay. Are there any questions from Board members? MR. GARRAND-What's on the second floor of the main house? I don't have anything in here that tells me what's on the second floor. There is no second floor of the main house? PAM ROBERTS MRS.ROBERTS-No. MR.JACKOSKI-But there's the balcony and a. MRS. ROBERTS-Okay. It's called a guest cottage, I think. MR. GARRAND-No,the main house,the main house that's going to be closest to the water. MRS. ROBERTS-There's no second floor. MR. GARRAND-There's no second floor at all. MRS. ROBERTS-It's a cellar that's underneath there, like a crawl space. MR. GARRAND-And there will be no second floor of the new house. MRS. ROBERTS-No. There's a crawl space cellar, right now. I think we're going to make it go five feet. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Because the main house is going to be like 20,over 20 feet high. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. Yes,there's no second floor on the main structure. MR. GARRAND-Okay,no loft or anything in there? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. There's a peaked roof area,but that would be a cathedral type effect,but no floor area on the second,there's no second level to have floor area. MR. GARRAND-And the septic alterations? What are we going to do for septic alterations? Are we going to have joint septic,different septic? MR. MAC ELROY-As it exists today, one of the first thing the Roberts' did when they purchased the property was to re-build their wastewater system, which I've certified as being compliant for the use. MR. GARRAND-For five bedrooms? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MRS. ROBERTS-(Lost words) when we bought the place. MR. KUHL-Mrs. Roberts,why two houses? Why not one? MRS. ROBERTS-Guest cottage. MR. KUHL-Okay. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) MRS. ROBERTS-They're both small. We've got growing families. MR. HENKEL-You don't rent it out at all? MRS. ROBERTS-No. Not at this time. We have no reason to. MR.JACKOSKI-These aren't going to be year round houses at all? MRS. ROBERTS-No. I think probably when we build them they'll be for that, but we live 27 miles away in Argyle. We go back and forth. We don't, I can't see us living there ever. MR. GARRAND-We've heard that a million times. MRS. ROBERTS-At this time. I know. MR.JACKOSKI-But your current intent is not right now to live in them. MRS. ROBERTS-No. MR. KUHL-Dennis,the construction is going to be crawl space,or is it going to be the foundation? MR. MAC ELROY-Well,it's a perimeter foundation. MR. KUHL-It's going to be how high underneath? Six foot,eight foot,is it usable space? BILL ROBERTS MR. ROBERTS-It is probably five feet. MR.JACKOSKI-And that's because of the water table? Is that the issue there? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. Yes, the total, so it's not counted as floor area, certainly, so it's less than five feet,the crawl space,but it's a crawl space configuration. MR. KUHL-Yes,you're building this as a 12 month house, a heated house? MR. ROBERTS-Correct. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR.JACKOSKI-But the renovated houses are going to be heated houses as well. Correct? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. It's the same end product. It's just the construction procedure. MR. JACKOSKI-Any further questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? There is a public hearing scheduled this evening so I'm going to open it. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.JACKOSKI-Seeing no one wishing to address the Board,is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-Yes, sir. First I'd like to mention that there was a motion to make a recommendation on behalf of the Planning Board to the Zoning Board on this appeal and the Planning Board, based on its limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the project proposal, and that was approved January 21, 2014 by a unanimous vote. To the letters, "For the Zoning Board meeting tonight support for Roberts", and it's signed Florence Connor. Again, I don't know what the relation is. MRS. ROBERTS-She's the neighbor. I'm sorry. MR.URRICO-Neighbor. Which house? MR. MAC ELROY-North. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) MR. URRICO-Okay. Second letter, "As a property owner of 6 Holly Lane (the property adjacent to 4 Holly Lane) I would like to support the Roberts' application requests. The shoreline setback of the existing cottage is congruent with the setbacks of the neighborhood. Any deviation would seem completely out of place. Relating to the second dwelling,there have been two dwellings on 4 Holly Lane for more than sixty-five years with no adverse effects on the neighborhood. Since the footprint would not change, I can see no reason to deny the Roberts' request. Sincerely yours, Florence E. Connor" She sent a letter and a fax. MR. LAPPER-We like those kind of neighbors. MR. URRICO-This is from Meredith Durkee. "Please find attached a letter in reference to this project. Scheduled for this evenings meeting. Respectfully Brian Hogan." This is a cover message. "Please be advised that we reside at 34 Holly Lane, Lake George, NY 12845 and are the owner of said premises. This letter is written to express my opposition to the subject property. The applicant seeks a use variance to remove two existing non-conforming residences and to construct two new residences on the property. The deed to the 4 Holly Lane premises attached to the application indicates the property was acquired on March 4, 1998. It indicates that at the time of the applicant's purchase, the subject premises were designed for zoning purposes as waterfront residential for a one-family residence. The request for variance constitutes a self-created hardship on part of the applicant and is not sufficient justification for approval. The use variance proposed would alter the character of the residential community. Permitting the construction of the two year-round residences on a non-conforming lot, which currently has two seasonal residences, would change the WR 1 use classification. This would result in increased traffic and parking on an already congested narrow lane, as well as environmental burden so close to the lake. Particularly if the properties are used as rental properties, for which there can be no guarantee that they would not be. This use variance would negatively impact the character of the neighborhood and follow subsequent transfers in ownership in the future. The use variance proposed by the applicant fails to meet the criteria required by both local law and Town Law. We respectfully request that the relief sought be denied. Additionally, we request that the original approvals under AV 36-2013 be reviewed in accordance with Town law. The $200,000 in original approvals were submitted as part of a driveway request, without any detail provided for public review or evaluation by the Zoning Board of Appeals. We would be very supportive of One single family home on the property, with fewer requirements for setback variance. This would not negatively impact the neighborhood and mitigate the pressure on Lake George from run-off. Very truly yours, Brian Hogan" "Please be advised that I reside at 20 Holly Lane, Lake George, NY and am the owner of said premises. This letter is written to express my opposition to the subject property. The applicant seeks a use variance to remove two existing non-conforming residences and to construct two new residences on the property. This application fails to meet the variance criteria in Section 179-14-080 of the Queensbury Code. The deed to the 4 Holly Lane premises attached to the application indicates the property was acquired on March 4, 1998. It is my understanding that at the time of the applicant's purchase, the subject premises were designated for zoning purposes as waterfront residential for a one-family residence. A hardship is self-created where an applicant acquires property subject to the restrictions from which the relief is sought. The applicant knew or should have known that this property was zoned for a single family home and not for two homes. The use variance should be precluded as a matter of law. This status should be fatal to the applicant's request for a variance. The application also fails to disclose any information which would demonstrate that the applicant cannot obtain a reasonable return for any of the uses permitted in the waterfront residential district. There is also no demonstration that a reasonable return cannot be obtained if the property is used for construction of a new single family home, which would require an area not a use variance. The assertion that it would be a more effective approach to tear down and rebuild pursuant to recommendations from contractors does not constitute a hardship. There is no dollar and cents proof submitted to demonstrate a lack of reasonable return for the use of the property. The applicant also does not demonstrate a uniqueness inherent in this particular lot that distinguishes it from other properties in the neighborhood. The use variance proposed would alter the character of the residential community. Permitting the construction of the two year-round residences on a non-conforming lot,which currently has two seasonal residences,would change the land use in this single family neighborhood, resulting in increased traffic and parking, and burden on the septic, particularly if the properties are used as rental properties. This use variance would negatively impact the character of the neighborhood and would run with the land into the future. The use variance proposed by the applicants fails to meet the criteria required by both local and Town Law section 267-b. It is respectfully requested that the relief sought be denied. Very truly yours,William Y. Crowell, III" That's it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, and for the record, to clarify, this applicant is not requesting an use variances. This is an area variance and a lot of the public comment that was read into the record has to do with use of the site, which has already been approved as being presented here 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) tonight. Okay. Any comments from the applicant on those public comments, or should we just go to? MR. LAPPER-Just one comment, just in terms of the impact on the neighborhood. It'll look identical, the drawings that we submitted. It's just how it's built. It's not what's getting built. So exactly what was approved. It'll look the same, re-sided. It's just a question of whether it's built new. So I don't see how that,there could be any difference in terms of impact on the neighborhood from what was approved versus the method of building. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So the public hearing is still open. I'm going to poll the Board, and then we'll see what we do from there. I'll start with Mike. MR. MC CABE-I look at the property. I think it looks fine. Everything looks in character with the other cottages around there. I think demolishing the two and putting up a single house would look odd. So basically I support this variance. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I looked at this, the first time I looked at it I was really thinking the best thing possible here to do would be to just tear down these two and put up one giant house in the middle of the property. After going out there, I'm thinking if they're going to squeeze five bedrooms into one piece of property, they're going to have it at least two stories there. It's going to be a bigger house and it's going to do more to obstruct the view from say Holly Lane and it's going to be more visually obtrusive from the lake. Personally I'm against having these two residences here, but they're pretty, as far as impact on the view shed looking towards the lake and away from the lake, it's a lot less intrusive having these smaller properties there, than having one big house there. Some of these McMansions we have up there just absolutely look horrible from the lake, and you can't even see the lake,present company excluded as far as. MR.JACKOSKI-Oh my, I don't even know where to go with that. Okay. Anyway, Mr. Noonan? MR. NOONAN-I'd be in favor of the project and I share some of the same thoughts as my members on the Board. Two smaller structures, I think, fit that neighborhood better. It looks more campy, more, I think what you're trying to go for up there, as opposed to something larger that does look like a year round residence. I think you have less roof. You'll still have more, maybe the square footage of the roof will work out to be the same, but I think in terms of runoff, I think you'll be better with the two smaller houses to reclaim some of that runoff. So I think, environmentally, it's probably better to keep two smaller houses as well on the parcel. So I'd be in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Well, because this is new construction, I think you have the opportunity to bring it into compliance, and you're not even trying. All you're doing is you're duplicating what you have,which is non-conforming. You have a feasible alternative which is to build one house and make it compliant, and based on that, and I mean, we've had other ones come here and any new build should be, you should make an effort to get it compliant, and I don't see that effort being set forth here. So I'm definitely against it. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I'm for the project. I wish that you could be back a little bit farther from the lake, but other than that, I agree with it. It's a nice looking project. The second story would be overwhelming,but,yes, I agree with the project. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I think there will be minor impacts to the neighborhood. I think a feasible alternative would be one house as opposed to two, probably a larger house, which I see this as being less obstructive in the neighborhood's, in fitting into the neighborhood. I don't think, I think it is substantial, but, again, the alternative, we've already approved these two houses. So we really liked what we saw, and I see minor impacts to the neighborhood physically, and this is a self- created situation but I think it's a good self-created one. I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I'm in favor of the project, and as I've gone through the five criterion that we've discussed here this evening, and I do understand exactly what Ron is saying. There sort of is a concern because I'm sure we took into consideration last time the use of the old buildings,but I do 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) like what Rick suggested to us concerning the building itself being so large on that lot in that little bay. I mean, while some people may look at what that looks like from the lake, there's not too many folks that actually go down into that part of the lake. It's not easy to navigate in there. So I do think it's self-created. I don't think there's going to be any adverse physical or environmental effects because of the Planning Board's involvement with this project and what we've done for runoff. I specifically think that it actually improves the character of the neighborhood because it's the two smaller residences versus a larger building that would accommodate a larger family environment within one structure. So I am in favor of the project. I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-I'm going to ask for a motion. RESOLUTION TO: Approve, Area Variance No. 2-2014, William & Pamela Roberts, 4 Holly Lane,Tax Map Number 239.12-2-64. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from William & Pamela Roberts for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040; 179-4-010 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury in order to remove two existing nonconforming cottages and construct two new residences in the same exact location as currently exists. [ 2,329 sq. ft. +/- footprint total previously approved; 2,657 sq. ft. +/- floor area total previously approved ]. Relief requested from minimum shoreline setback requirements and for a second dwelling on the same lot. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,January 22, 2014; Upon review of the application materials, 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 determined that minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? There are feasible alternatives as expressed by the Board,for example reducing the homes on the site to one compliant verses two units. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? The request may be considered substantial; request to demolish and rebuild two homes. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Minor to no impacts on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be considered self-created. Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Area Variance No. 2-2014,William and Pamela Roberts, Introduced by Kyle Noonan, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame expires; B. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building&Codes personnel; C. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) D. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a building permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 22nd day of January, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Noonan, Mr.Jackoski NOES: Mr. Kuhl MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-2014 SEQRA TYPE II GARNER LAKE PROPERTIES, LLC OWNER(S) GARNER LAKE PROPERTIES, LLC ZONING WR LOCATION 67 KNOX ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES RECONFIGURATION OF A PORTION OF THE ROOF LINE FROM PEAKED TO HIP ON THE EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. (556 SQ. FT. OF ADDITIONAL FLOOR AREA). RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS AND MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE SP 4-2014; SP 53-2007; BP 2013-251 DOCK; BP 2007-488 DOCK-VOIDED; BP 2006-271 SFD; BP 2006-273 DEMO SFD; BP 2005- 945 DEMO CAMP&SHED; BP 2004-539 SEPTIC ALT.; NOA 11-2007; NOA 4-2009 ANDY BRICK&MICHAEL CHRYS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 3-2014, Garner Lake Properties, LLC, Meeting Date: January 22, 2014 "Project Location: 67 Knox Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes alteration to an existing home to reconfigure of a portion of the roof line from peaked to hip on the existing single family dwelling and to add 556 sq.ft.basement utility area. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Relief requested from maximum height restrictions and maximum Floor Area Ratio in a WR zone, Section 170-3-040 Establishment of Districts and Section 179-13-10 Continuation Height FAR Required 28 ft. 22% Proposed 30 ft. (Existing 36 ft.) 25% (Existing 31%) Relief 2 ft. 3% 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 proposed alterations are reducing the nonconformity of the existing home. The modification to the home proposed in 5/2011 for SP 53-2007 for the removal of the 2nd floor area would have resulted in a compliant height for the home -the owner proposes the alteration instead of the removal. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request may be considered minimal relevant to the code. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) 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 4-14: Pending Site Plan: Applicant proposes to alter a previously constructed home. Alterations include a portion of roofline from peaked to a hip roof and 556 sq.ft. FAR(basement). The existing home exceeds both the maximum height and minimum Floor Area Ratio of the WR zone. Change from the previously approved site plan and expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. Variances: Relief requested from maximum height and minimum FAR requirements of the WR zone NOA 4-09: Appellant is appealing determination of the ZA regarding the applicability of the old Zoning Code to this property. 11-18-09 SP 53-07: Modify existing incomplete sfd by removing 2nd floor living space and modify previously installed driveway to allow access for neighboring parcel to the north- Major Stormwater project 5-17-11 SP 53-07: 2,503 sq.ft.sfd with a 406 sq.ft.garage. Major stormwater project requires PB review/approval 7-28-09 NOA 11-07: Appellant appealing ZA determination regarding site development issues 12-26-07 BP 13-251: 737 sq.ft.dock BP 06-271: 4,112.5 sq.ft. sfd (1st flr. 2266.10 sq.ft.basement 1846.4 sq.ft.of living space) BP 06-271: SFD BP 06-273: Demo BP 05-945: Demo camp &shed BP 04-539: Septic alteration Staff comments: The applicant proposes to alter an existing home with a new roofline for a portion of the home and a new basement area for mechanicals. The drawings indicate the new roofline will no longer be peaked roof and lowers the roofline for approximately 30 ft. and will be about 30 ft. in height. The new basement area is about 556 sq. ft. along with the alterations of the roofline reduces the floor area ratio from 31%to 25%. The applicant has indicated the work is necessary to address issues of the house construction from previous owners. The previous site plan of SP 53-07 was to remove the second floor of an incomplete single family home which would have reduced the height to 28 ft. for a compliant height-the owner proposes altering the existing home versus the removal of the 2nd floor area. The site has been monitored by the Town's Code Compliance Officer where the site is considered stable. The project is still subject to certification when completed. SEQR Status: Type II' MR. URRICO-And the Queensbury Planning Board,based on its review of the Area Variance, and its limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. This was adopted January 21, 2014, and there were six yeses and one no, Mr. Hunsinger. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, and just before we begin with the applicant, Staff, for clarification, while the application denotes that the existing height is 36 feet, that is not an approved existing height, correct? MRS.MOORE-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-So, just for those new Board members here, just because, it may look strange because it's already got 36,you know, why would they be here for less, but please understand that that's not been approved at 36,and that's actually why the applicant is here. Welcome. MR. BRICK-Yes, for the record, the 36 is completely illegal. We recognize that. My name is Andy Brick. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Donald Zee in Albany, on behalf of Garner Properties, Gregg Properties, LLC. With me is Mike Chrys, principle of the LLC. We are here this evening 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) seeking the floor area ratio variance as well as the height variance. Mr. Chairman, I have copies of my remarks. Would I be able to hand them out very quickly to the Board? MR.JACKOSKI-Sure,but do we have to read them all this evening? MR. BRICK-No. This is what I'm going to be going over,but I just want you to have them. MR. KUHL-While he's doing that, Mr. Chairman,could I ask Staff? MR.JACKOSKI-Please,this is going to be a long one. MR. KUHL-That SP 53-07,was that a definitive that it had to be taken off,the second floor? MRS.MOORE-As part of the approval,yes. MR. KUHL-So it should have been taken off? MRS. MOORE-It's still,that site plan is,that's why the applicant is back before the Board. Instead of following through on that 2007,proposing an alteration to the building. MR. GARRAND-Why was there no enforcement action? MRS.MOORE-Because the project's been being monitored ongoing. MR. KUHL-Okay, but going back to my question. This is the same applicant, this applicant has, it's not like this gentleman bought this property. MR. BRICK-We did. MRS.MOORE-They did buy this property. Correct. MR. KUHL-So these are new owners? MRS. MOORE-They are new owners. There's been an outstanding issue previous to this owner,and as part of the previous owner,they were to remove that second floor. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR.JACKOSKI-Go ahead. MR. BRICK-By way of history, and I'm not sure how many of you Board members, how long you've been on the Board, but you may have been involved in the long, tortured history of this particular property. The house that exists was originally, began for construction in 2007. During the construction process one of the neighbors realized that, in their opinion, the house that was being constructed not only did not meet the plans that were approved, but also was, in their opinion, in violation of a number of provisions of your Zoning Code, and that resulted in an appeal by that property owner to the Zoning Board of Appeals in 2007, appealing the determinations of your Zoning Administrator to allow the original building permit to be issued. In 2008, this Board,your predecessors if you weren't on it at the time, upheld the appeal of the adjoining neighbor as against the Zoning Administrator, which is what started the process of rendering this building to be illegal and not in compliance with your Code. That particular decision by the Zoning Board of Appeals was then challenged to Supreme Court. Judge Krogmann found in favor of the Zoning Board and their interpretation and did make a determination that the height of the building, as it was constructed and as the building permit had been issued, was, in fact, illegal. The existing zoning restriction at the time and as it is now is 28 feet, but the measurement is from the natural grade, whereas when the, apparently when these building plans were reviewed it was measured from the finished grade. So that's how you ended up with an existing, as we sit here tonight, there's a building down there that is 36 feet in height, and that's why it's in violation of the zoning and also what violates the floor area ratio. My client, Mr. Chrys, purchased this property in 2012, and what he did, immediately upon purchasing the property, is reach out to both neighbors, because during the course of the appeals and litigation, the neighbor on the other side retained an attorney and both neighbors ended up bringing a second appeal to the Zoning Board in 2009. So there was a long history of challenges to this project as it was being constructed. Eventually all things stopped in 2009. Apparently at some point in 2011 they tried to resolve it by promising to take the second floor off to bring it into compliance. Obviously that didn't happen. It's still there. Mr. Chrys purchased the property and we admit it's self-created. He was aware of the zoning issues and the 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) history of this when he purchased it and what he did when he purchased it is he immediately went to the neighbors that had raised all of the concerns and said, can I work with you to craft a design and a plan that we can then present to the Town that will address your concerns, address the zoning concerns that existing, but still make an effective and viable use of the house, and that's the proposal, and we think we've achieved that, and that's the proposal that's before you this evening, and we've actually been able to reduce it down to only minor variances, one, a two foot height variance which is not for the entire roof. Basically the plan is what we're doing is we're demolishing a large portion of the existing roof. We're changing the type of roof and we're bringing it down, in most instances more than six feet from the thirty-six feet, but at the very center of the property, where there used to be like a turret type structure, for design purposes and proper drainage purposes, that area, based upon what we're proposing, does have to stay at the 30 foot level,but it's only a small section of the house. So as you go along the 30 foot roof line, I don't want you to think that it's all 30 feet. The vast majority of it,because of the grade of the property slopes, the vast majority of the roof we're proposing is compliant and below the 20 foot height restriction. It's only a small portion in the middle of the house that bumps up to 30, and again, that, our engineers have looked at it and determined that for drainage purposes, that would be the best way to approach this, and we've discussed that with both neighbors, Mr. Glandon and Mr. Rosenberg, who have been involved since Day One, and they agree with that design concept. I'm also pleased to report to you that as Exhibit B of my handout to you, it's an e-mail from Tom West, who was the attorney that represented both adjoining property owners, and who was also a neighboring property owner, and for the record his e-mail to me from yesterday states that "This will serve to confirm that we have reviewed the plans that are the subject of the pending applications and will not be interposing any objections. You should feel free to represent to the boards that the neighbors have signed off on this version of the plans. Good luck with the process." Thomas West of West Law Firm, and again the neighbors he's referring to, his clients, are the people who originally appealed to the ZBA and fought the construction of this house. They're now on board with the plan that Mike has presented and crafted with them to provide that we get these two minor variances, make the house livable and yet in conformity with the Code. The floor area ratio request is because the existing house exceeds it by nine percent, we're at 31% when only 22% is allowed. What we're proposing by reducing the roof down and demoing the roof down does knock it back to only 25%, which is still a 3% variance being required, but we're asking that the Board consider that because the alternative proposed is to fill in an existing mechanical room area where all the existing mechanicals come into, and it would be a great difficulty for Mr. Chrys if he had to basically seal in or fill up that mechanical room and then divert and relocate the mechanicals throughout the structure. So we believe that since it's internal, it would have no impact to the neighborhood. It can't be seen from outside, and the neighbors have come into the house and have looked at it and they have no problem with the mechanical room staying as it is, and we've asked the Board to consider that minor variance as well to allow that mechanical room to function as it was originally designed. That's briefly what we're here to do and here to request and we're here to answer any questions because, like I said, I know there's a long history, and it's somewhat of a complicated idea that we're proposing, but we appreciate the ability to present this evening, and we're here for any questions you may have. MR. GARRAND-There was some significant issues with stormwater control on this property, back when they Glandons filed their appeal. They had mud running into their house from this property. What's been done to mitigate any potential impacts from the construction of this house that would affect their house in the meantime,since their appeal was filed? MR. BRICK-My understanding, it's now fully compliant with stormwater regs and the Glandons would agree to that if they were here. They've signed off on this project,but if I can, I'll turn it over to Mike and he might be able to update you on specifics. MR. CHRYS-Sure. There's a, I can tell you that we, there's an approved site plan with respect to stormwater management. It was not completed by the previous owner, although they represented that it was. So we are in the process,and if you went through the history of it you may know. MR. GARRAND-I remember it. MR. CHRYS-But there was a little bit of fraud,to say the least,and I got a little of that on my end,too, but that's not your issue. So what I will tell you is upon completion of that, and we have made sure, both on a temporary and a permanent basis,that they didn't have any problems. It is adequate,as I understand it, and it is a completely approved situation. So I've had no complaints. I've had a lot of compliments,and I have been working with the neighbors since the purchase in June of 2012. MR. JACKOSKI-And Staff can suggest to us that there have been no complaints and we have been monitoring the site as the Town of Queensbury,and they've had no issues. Correct? 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) MRS. MOORE-That's correct, and the Code Compliance Officer will repeat the same, that he's inspected the site regularly. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay,just clarifying. So that's good. MR. CHRYS-One other comment that I'll just make, and, you know, I'm looking at it, maybe, in a simpler format, but there's a north and a south shore here, shoreline. The Glandons are on the south side, and the Rosenbergs are on the north side, and normally you'd think intuitively that things slope up going north, and in this particular case, they slope the other way. What we did by taking off the roof and making it a gambrel rather than, much lower gambrel rather than a regular gable, is on the Glandon side we're six inches below, or five inches below the 28 foot mark, and on the Rosenberg side we're six feet below. So if you took an average, we're way below the 28 mark. It's just that because of the way the land slopes, there's a small triangular piece that literally disappears to zero, it's a sliver,that is above that line, and it's actually not 30 feet. I think it was 29, according to the engineer's calculation, 29 and a half, but it's just for a sliver. So it's not, when I read that as a layman, I'm sitting there going, we're not asking for two feet of relief. We're asking for less than two feet of relief on a very small sliver as a result of the way it slopes, but we're compliant on both sides,and if you took an average,we're way below. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. BRICK-I would just add, in terms of the stormwater question, should we receive these variances, we do have to appear before the Planning Board for an amendment to the site plan that had previously been approved. So that I'm sure they're going to bring up stormwater at that point as well,but we're prepared to address it. MR. JACKOSKI-Any further questions from Board members? There is a public hearing scheduled this evening, and I'm going to open that public hearing. Is there anyone here who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? Mr. Waterkeeper, please. Welcome, Chris. We haven't seen you in a while. How are you? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-I missed you. MR.JACKOSKI-You did not. MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. We did not prepare comments. I was a little confused on the application. I was not sure,when I saw the references to 36 feet, and we were not sure where that came from. I was under the assumption that approvals were tied to that, to have that second story removed. I appreciate the effort I think that the applicant has come in to to try and improve the property. The floor area ratio still troubles us. It still seems like a lot of structure for that property, and with the, you know, the disturbance that happened almost seven years ago, that still is there. So I don't know if all of the alternatives have been met. I do feel that there are some issues that will be outstanding for site plan review. We maintain that this property that there still was questionable areas for wastewater treatment,based on slopes. Those lands were altered during construction and during disturbance. Unfortunately we had differences with the Building Department on that, but in our opinion there are slopes greater than 15%that really were not acceptable for wastewater,but I do feel that there is still a lot of house and a lot of structure for this property, and a lot has been done to the land, to the existing vegetation, to the soils, and I do think decisions were made that should be supported previously. Thank you. MR. GARRAND-Chris,you're going to be at the Planning Board for this? MR. NAVITSKY-Yes. MR. GARRAND-Okay. This, the area, what you were talking about with the slopes is one of the biggest issues we had to deal with last time because of the mudslides that were happening due to the intense slopes and the way things sloped on the property. So something you might want to pay attention to if you go before the Planning Board. MR. NAVITSKY-And we were, we were informed, we were contacted by residences in the area. So we did see some of the construction activities ongoing. You build a large retaining wall that is 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) going to stop some mudslides, that does shift some changes on the site. The modifications do alter the way things drain,but we will follow through on a planning aspect. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mr. Navitsky. Is there anyone else this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? Seeing no one, Roy,is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-There is one comment, and it's by Mr. Chrys. "The alteration of the roof satisfies the 28 foot max or ridge height rule on the south (or Glandon) side of the house. Additionally on the north side, (the Rosenberg side) we are below the maximum height of 28 feet by somewhere between 10 and 11 feet property. ONLY a small triangular sliver in the center of the house, for a short distance, is above the 28 feet. My calculations show this to be approximately a foot and a half above the 28 foot mark. Diminishing to 0 ft. in a relatively short distance. This is clearly visible in the information given to the town. Months were spent with Mr. Glandon (an engineer) and the engineer I hired to accommodate the Neighbors with the roof concerns and the cellar variance request. As a result it's my understanding that there were no complaints or objections to these variance requests. Thanks for your help. Michael Chrys, member Garner Lake Properties, LLC" MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Are there any additional comments you'd like to make, or would you like to poll the Board? MR. BRICK-Just in response to Mr. Navitsky's comments. I will reach out to him in advance of site plan, should we receive the variances, and see if there's anything we can do to work with his organization to address any concerns that still may remain for them. I know they've been involved in this for quite a long time,too,but we'll definitely reach out and see what we can do to help. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. MR.JACKOSKI-Any further questions of the applicant,or should I just poll the Board? MR. KUHL-I have a question. If you had to reduce your floor area ratio by 554 square feet, how would you do it? MR. CHRYS-I'm happy to answer that. Again, from a commonsense perspective it almost seems ridiculous,but what we'd have to do is build a wall inside. We have to reduce it to where it's a five foot crawl space. So what we would do is build a concrete wall inside,fill it. It's going to have to be filled with aggregate or dirt, and then put a slab on top of it, and I talked to Craig Brown as to what, you know, needed to be done there. So,we would basically be filling in a square which would have been a mechanical room, and also the ingress egress from the house, and just building a platform, for lack of a better description, that covers 550, and I'd have space of about 5 feet, instead of the normal cellar space. MR. KUHL-It wouldn't be counted,then,as floor area? MR. CHRYS-Yes,which almost seems like a head fake,you know, I mean. MR. KUHL-No, I asked you a question and I wanted your honest answer,and I appreciate that. MR. CHRYS-Yes, no problem, and there's a great expense in doing that and I'm just not it serves any purpose at all. MR. KUHL-Gotcha. MR. CHRYS-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So on this project I think we still have the public hearing open, and I'm going to go ahead and poll the Board,and I'm going to start with Kyle. MR. NOONAN-Looking at the evidence presented to us here tonight and listening to what you had to present to us, I'd be in favor of the project. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR.URRICO-Well,having been on the Board when this came up the first time. MR.JACKOSKI-And the second and the third and the fourth. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) MR. URRICO-And the second and the third and the fourth time, I'm kind of inclined to stick to my guns and say we got it right the first time and I think that's what we should stick with. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I think we got it right the first time and I think it can be right again. Concerned about, you know, stormwater controls on this property. The applicant says they're going to remediate that, and that's one of the biggest things for me is seeing the stormwater remediated for the neighborhood, having those issues resolved. I would have loved to have, you know, seen this house, what it's actually going to look like shorter. From the lakeside it's a behemoth. I think they're taking some giant steps to remediate this issue. Will the request have adverse physical effects on the environment? I think it'll have less physical effects on the environment. If we do nothing it'll have more physical effects on the environment. I'm more concerned about doing nothing than I am here allowing two feet at one part of the roof. Originally, that original application I remember I was against that all the way, nine ways from Sunday,but this is quite a bit different. I think if the original Board had seen this, they might have been in favor of it. I don't think it'll produce an undesirable change. It's more of a desirable change in the neighborhood. Is it substantial? By some measures it might be deemed substantial. Is it self-created? It was created by the builder. At this point I'd be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I actually sat on the Board when they were going to tear the roof off, and,you know, I could argue the two foot for that or even the floor area ratio, but I appreciate your honesty of how to go around that and I think it's an improvement, and hopefully you'll make this thing right and be what it should be,but, I'd be in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes. I also, I haven't been on the Board very long. I wasn't here for the original,but I have to agree that they're trying to do what they can possible and to take care of the stormwater and all that. So what they're asking for for the little bit of 554 over the FAR variance, I agree with it. I think they're doing a good job. I agree with the project. MR.JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I don't think the requests are substantial. I like the idea that the applicant got together with his neighbors to resolve issues. I think we should do more of this. So I'd be in favor of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-And, Mike, I thank you for doing this for the neighborhood. I'm trusting that the evidence we see here tonight and from Mr. West, albeit it is just a fax. We don't have original signatures and stuff, but I truly believe that you have worked it out with your neighbors and I appreciate that because it'll be nice to see this site move forward and thank you for doing that for the neighborhood. So I am in favor of it. Okay. So I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-And I'm going to ask for a motion,please. Thank you, Rick. RESOLUTION TO: Approve Area Variance No. 3-2014, Garner Lake Properties, LLC, 67 Knox Road,Tax Map No. 239.7-1-14; The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Garner Lake Properties, LLC for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,January 22, 2014; Upon review of the application materials, 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: 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) The applicant proposes to reconfigure of a portion of the roof line from peaked to hip on the existing single-family dwelling and to add 556 sq.ft.of basement utility area. For relief required is for maximum height; it is required to be 28 ft. high and at one spot in the roof it's going to be 30 ft. high; that's 2 feet of relief. On the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) they are allowed 22 percent; they are proposing 25 percent; that's actually a reduction of 6 percent from what it is currently; that's 3 percent of relief. 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? I think it's a desirable change from where it's at now. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? On the balancing test, whether the benefits can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant - without tearing tearing out the second floor of this house in a complete redesign, I don't think the benefits can be achieved by other means feasible. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? I don't believe it's substantial; it's moderate. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? As I previously stated, I think it will have positive environmental effect on the neighborhood. Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Area Variance No. 3-2014, Garner Lake Properties, LLC, Introduced by Richard Garrand, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame expires; B. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building&Codes personnel; C. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; D. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a building permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 22nd day of January 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,congratulations,good luck. MR. CHRYS-I appreciate it. MR. JACKOSKI-The Board has been sitting for two and a half hours. Does anyone want to take a quick break? MR. KUHL-I'd love to. MR.JACKOSKI-All right. Just a five minute break if we could. AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-2014 SEQRA TYPE II MARTIN & KARA SEATON AGENT(S) JOEL STIPANO/AJA ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) MARTIN & KARA SEATON ZONING LC-10A LOCATION 339 CLENDON BROOK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 625 SQ. FT. +/- SECOND 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) STORY RESIDENTIAL ADDITION AND A 1,520 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING GARAGE. GARAGE CONVERTED TO STORAGE/GAME ROOM AND CHANGE OF DOOR TYPE AND LOCATION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM FRONT AND SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. RELIEF IS ALSO REQUESTED FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF BP 2008-108 ADDITION; BP 2008-075 RES. ADDITION; AV 21- 2008 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 7.62 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 300.00-1-27 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-020 ANDY ALLISON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MARTIN SEATON, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 4-2014, Martin & Kara Seaton, Meeting Date: January 22, 2014 "Project Location: 339 Clendon Brook Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 625 s+/- sq. ft. second story residential addition and a 1,520 sq. ft. freestanding garage. The existing garage will be converted to storage/game room and change of door type and location. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Relief requested from minimum front & shoreline setback requirements and expansion of a non-conforming structure, Section 179-3-040 Establishment of districts and 179-13-10 Continuation. Front house Shoreline house Garage front Shoreline Garage Required 100 ft. 200 ft. 100 ft. 200 ft. Proposed 59.73 ft. 157.53 ft. 20.3 ft. 111.34 ft. Relief 40.27 ft. 42.47 ft. 79.7 ft. 88.66 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 location of the existing home currently not a compliant location and the existing driveway access to the proposed new garage. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request may be considered moderate to 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 not created by the applicant as the house was built in the 1850's prior to zoning. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, BP 08-108: 508 sq.ft. addition C/O issued 11-16-09 BP 08-075: 455 sq.ft.residential alteration bathroom and dormers 11-16-09 AV 21-08: 432 sq. ft. second story addition -Relief requested from front yard and side setback requirements. 5-21-08 Staff comments: The applicant proposes to alter an existing dwelling and site where the existing garage is to be renovated to a storage /game room with a 2nd story addition then a new proposed garage will be located on the site. The survey shows the location of the garage and house to be outside the setback requirements for both the building and shoreline. The information on file indicates the home was 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) built around 1850 and the applicant has received previous variances for additions to the home. The drawings submitted show the location of the addition and the proposed garage including elevations and floor plans. The applicant has received a no permit required letter from the Adirondack Park Agency 1/7/2014. SEQR Status: Type II" MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Welcome, a fairly straightforward application, but if you'd like to add anything to the record,you can do so,or we can just ask you questions. MR. ALLISON-Sure. I'm Andy Allison from the Architecture firm AJA Architecture planning. Joel Stipano is with me and Martin Seaton is the property owner. Just a couple of clarification things on the application. The existing garage is not being used as a garage. It's about an eight foot wide door and then when you get inside the garage there's about another foot on the other side of that door. So they really can't actually pull a car in there right now,the types of cars. So they're using it as storage, mainly for lawnmowers and things like that. Two other things that they're hoping to accomplish with this project. One is the existing 1850's house. The basement is a dirt floor basement that takes on quite a bit of water so they have no storage in the basement or in the attic of the house. So that's the reason for the second story of the garage, which has storage space in that, and then the third goal of the project is when they bought the house, the house had two sheds on the property that are rather unsightly. So they're taking and they're adding into that garage a small storage component in the garage so they can take down those sheds eventually, in the back of the property,and clean up what,now,is kind of unsightly for the neighborhood. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. At this time I'll open up for Board member questions. MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-The existing garage,you're going to turn that into a game room,you're going to take the garage doors off so we don't end up with something that looks like we have two garages there? MR.ALLISON-The existing garage doors face the road. MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR.ALLISON-And it's going to remain a storage shed that's going to be accessed from the exterior. So it's not going to be connected to the main body of the house, through a door, and the new door from the side now will be a six foot wide door so they can pull in a lawnmower or something like that, but it'll be on the side, and the length from the face of the door to the wall that divides that from the house,will be about 10 feet. So you couldn't pull a car in in that direction. MR. KUHL-But from the, your question is and this drawing shows a single door. You're access is really going to be from the side. MR.ALLISON-Yes,the main access, if you look on the side,we have a side elevation drawing of that. You can see a sliding barn door that we're going to put on. JOEL STIPANO MR. STIPANO-So the answer is to the front of the house, the garage door will be removed. A window will be put in. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR.JACKOSKI-Any additional questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? MR. GARRAND-Concrete in the basement to deal with some of the water issues? MR.ALLISON-Well, the existing house has a, I believe it's a stone foundation right now. We're not modifying the existing house. This portion where the garage is is a slab on grade. We are actually going to excavate under there and pour foundation walls,but no crawl space. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) MR. GARRAND-Okay. I know everybody in that area has water problems because it's on the down slope of the mountain. MR.ALLISON-Yes. MR. GARRAND-And water, just in the springtime it's a mess, plus, you know, you've got stream up there. MR.ALLISON-Yes,that's part of the charm of an 1850's house. MR. GARRAND-Yes, I don't think they had zoning in 1850. MR.URRICO-I wasn't on the Board then. MR.JACKOSKI-Any additional Board member questions? MR. HENKEL-You couldn't change the angle of the garage a little bit to be farther off the road, that one corner? MR. ALLISON-Well, we looked at that, but the topography, the more that we turned that, we really played with that, that 20 foot dimension quite a bit, and if you turn that thing slightly, the topography really starts to grow as you go north on this map. So the more we turn that to the right, the deeper we're going to have to go, and then the stream that we show on the back,you know, the more you start pushing into that, the more you're going to push earthwork toward there and the owner really came to me with this problem and said I'm really stuck because I don't want to impact the stream, and my sense was it would be better for us to impact the front yard setback than to impact the stream setback,at any case. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions? I'm going to open the public hearing. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? And I do see someone. Welcome,you've been very patient sitting back there. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOANNE HOLMES MRS. HOLMES-I sat just as long as you did. My name is Joanne Holmes. I own the property that surrounds Mr. Seaton's property, and the Seaton family's done nothing but improve that property since they've bought it. I see absolutely no reason to deny anything that they want to do to improve their home. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to address the Board concerning this application? Seeing no one,is there any written comment? MR.URRICO-No. MR. JACKOSKI-So at this time I think what I'll do is I'll poll the Board. I think we'll go through that relatively quickly. Ron? MR. KUHL-I think it's a valid request, only because Mrs. Holmes came. Anyway, I think it's a good build and I'd be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I also agree with that, just with the size of the property you have there. Unfortunately you've got that stream going through it so that creates a problem there with setbacks. So I agree with the project,yes,no problem. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR.URRICO-Yes, I would be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) MR. GARRAND-I think anybody trying to do such a project with a house that was built of that era does it because they have a passion for it. It's just so much work. So many obstacles you run into with a house like that, and I commend them for this. I think the variance is not a result of anything they could or should do. The variance is a result of where the road ran when the houses,you know, when it was built. They had no control over it. It's not self-created in any way,shape or form. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I don't have a problem with the project as proposed. When I drove by it, what was going on,it looked like you needed a garage where you want to put a garage. So I'm in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I agree with the project. MR.JACKOSKI-And I'm actually glad to hear that the neighbors came to support the project because I was a bit concerned about the back of the garage being on the curve, and how that would impact the neighbors and how they'd feel about it. So I'm glad to hear that they were in support. So I'm in support of it as well. So I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-And ask for a motion. MR. KUHL-Could I give this motion, Mr. Chairman? MR.JACKOSKI-Certainly,thank you, Ron. MR. KUHL-You're welcome. RESOLUTION TO: Approve Area Variance No. 4-2014, Martin and Kara Seaton, 339 Clendon Brook Road,Tax Map No. 300.00-1-27; The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Martin& Kara Seaton for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040; 179-5-020 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury in order to construct a 625 sq. ft. +/- second story residential addition and a 1,520 sq. ft. freestanding garage. Garage converted to storage/ game room and change of door type and location. Relief requested from the minimum front and shoreline setback requirements. Relief is also requested for a second garage and expansion of a nonconforming structure. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,January 22, 2014; Upon review of the application materials, 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: The front of the house; what's required is 100 ft. and the proposed is 59.73 ft. relief requested is 40.127 ft. The shoreline for the house is 200 ft.; the proposed is 157.53 ft.; the relief is 42.47 ft. The garage front; 100 ft. is required; proposed is 20.3 ft. with the relief requested is 79.7 ft. Shoreline for the garage; 200 ft.is required; proposed is 100.34 ft.; relief requested is 88.66 ft. 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's a minor impact and as a matter of fact it supports the design of the house and is more or less an improvement. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an area variance? Limited,at best. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? I would say it is moderate. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Minor to no impacts. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? You could say it is self-created but with an 1850's house I would say it is a good move. 6. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Area Variance No. 4-2014, Martin and Kara Seaton, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame expires; B. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building&Codes personnel; C. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; D. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a building permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 22nd day of January 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-And thank you. I appreciate it. Good luck. So, Board members, it's kind of getting late. Do we want to postpone the next one to the next meeting? MR. KUHL-Well,it depends on who presents it. MR. JACKOSKI-I know, well, given what we see, why don't we postpone it. If it was just Mr. Cushing,we'd say keep going,but given they've got legal counsel,let's postpone this. Curt,sorry. MR. LAPPER-We figured we'd be up here at 11. So,this is better. MR.JACKOSKI-Welcome, Curt. Welcome, Mr. Lapper. AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2014 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED 1 MAIN STREET QUEENSBURY, LLC AGENT(S) JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S) 1 MAIN STREET, QUEENSBURY, LLC ZONING MS LOCATION 1 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES REDEVELOPMENT OF A 792 SQ. FT. +/- SINGLE STORY RESIDENCE WITH NEW 41 SQ. FT. PORCH FOR ENTRYWAY AND 784 SQ. FT. NEW HARDSURFACING FOR PARKING. PROJECT ACTIVITIES AREA FOR ALLOWABLE USES WITHIN MAIN STREET (MS) ZONING DISTRICT THAT IS LIMITED TO 5 PARKING SPACES PROPOSED. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FROM THE TWO STORY BUILDING REQUIREMENT OF THE MS DISTRICT. CROSS REF SP 3-2014; YEAR 2009 DISCUSSION ITEM WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 2014 LOT SIZE 0.33 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 309.11-2-17 SECTION 179-3-040 JON LAPPER&CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 5-2014, 1 Main Street Queensbury, LLC, Meeting Date: January 22, 2014 "Project Location: 1 Main Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes redevelopment of a 792 sq. ft. single story residence with additional 41 sq. ft. porch for entryway and 784 sq. ft. new hardsurfacing to the existing parking area to the rear of the building. Project 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) activities are for allowable uses with Main Street zoning district that is limited to 5 parking spaces proposed. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Relief requested from minimum setback requirements and from the two story requirement of the MS district, Section 179-7-070 Main Street and 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts. Front Rear 2ndstory Required Build to line 20 ft. 20 ft. 2 Proposed 24 ft. 3.2 1 Relief -4 ft. 16.8 1 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. The application relevant to the code may be considered a major impact to the neighborhood as the proposal to maintain a one story building is not consistent with the code. 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 parcel size and the location of the neighboring buildings variance relief may still be requested by the applicant. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request may be considered substantial relevant to the 2-story code requirement. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor 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 3-14: Pending -proposes to renovate and utilize and existing building for specific uses including Food Service, Gallery, Health related facility, Office-small,or Personal service 2009 August: Discussion Item -removal of existing residence and construction of a 2 story 4,400 sq. ft. building with 1St and 2nd to be commercial along with 18 parking spaces and two curbcuts. The building frontage would have been Western Avenue. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to renovate and utilize and existing building for specific uses including Food Service, Gallery, Health related facility, Office -small, or Personal service. The renovation includes construction of a new porch access that does not meet the required 20 ft. build to line where the porch will be setback by 24 ft. The porch will be 78 sq. ft. in total with the addition. The project includes 784 sq. ft. of new parking area surface for a total of 3,140 sq. ft. The applicant also proposes to maintain the structure as a one story with additional dormers on the Western Ave side of the building. The code requires two story with different roof types and exterior facade design where 2 usable story's is required. The Main Street Design standards intent is to establish a distinctive character creating a corridor that accommodates higher density SEQR Status: Type II" MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board, based on its limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. I would like to add to 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) this that the design of the building will make a nice transition between single story and two story units,and this was adopted January 21, 2014,and that was unanimous. MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, and this is a pretty straightforward application, but if you'd like to add to the record,just let us know. MR. LAPPER-Just a little bit. For the record,Jon Lapper and Curt Dybas,the project architect. We hope to separate this request from the political discussion going on at the Town Board between one and two story buildings in the corridor because we believe that this building and this lot are very unique in this corridor, mostly because of the small lot size but also because of where this is located, as the first building in the corridor, at the corner of Western, a long, narrow lot where there's two major intersections and this is just not a site that is conducive to much traffic. So the idea of proposing a larger building, which, in terms of green space and parking, that .34 acres, there's not much that you could fit on this site. We also have a pre-existing building, which is currently in non-conforming residential use. It's just been rented. It's in lousy shape. You get, you know, an inexpensive renter, you know, quick history of this. The applicant developed the plaza next door for his chiropractic practice, did a lease with CVS and we got approval from this Board for a zero lot line subdivision so that CVS could buy their parcel way back when, but at the time that this parcel was purchased, it was anticipated that this could be merged with the plaza and there would be a building with access to the parking lot on the plaza. However, he wound up selling the chiropractic practice and the doctor that bought it wasn't interested in this lot, and CVS wasn't interested, or the CVS developer wasn't interested in this lot. So we have, this was the original lot, you know, .34 acres, but there just has very limited use because of the lack of parking and you don't want to have a lot of cars going onto busy Western Ave. between those two traffic lights, so what Curt designed is something that I think is in keeping. It looks somewhat like the Cool Beans on the next corner. Adding the dormers is a measure of making it look like a two story, certainly completely re-cladding it in stone and wood is a complete renovation of what's there now. Visually, this will be a huge improvement, and in terms of the usage, we just listed the permitted uses because obviously no one's interested in it the way it is now. So he's going to do the renovation and then put up a for lease sign and see who's interested, but just in terms of that corner, it's important for traffic to not be too close to the corner. We're just basically taking what's there and making it a lot better. The variance in the front of the building is to add the handicap lift which is required by the Building Code, and then when Curt looked at this, rather than having it non-symmetric by just having the lift on one side,all he did was make it match by having the roof go over the other side where there's no lift. So, you know, we certainly aren't trying to do much within that setback, it's just about making it work with the lift. So I hope you'll see that this is a minor but important improvement to what's there, entrance to Queensbury and clean up what's there now. Other lots certainly can handle two and three story buildings,but this one can't. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions from Board members at this time before I open the public hearing? MR. GARRAND-Yes. This is going to be terribly hazardous the way this design is. If you have anybody egressing from this parking lot and trying to take a left onto Western Avenue, they're going to get creamed. Traffic going across there when the light is green from Thomas is pretty fast. They're not going to see anybody coming off of Main Street. It's going to be hazardous. MR. LAPPER-I think you're right in that this should be a right turn out, but we'd be at the Planning Board next week to talk about that, but I think that's a valid point. That left turn is pretty tricky coming out of here. MR. GARRAND-Yes, it's going to be a nightmare, and not to mention you've got traffic backed up here almost all day long, you know, going one way or another on Western Avenue. Cool Beans, it gets backed up to them. MR. LAPPER-Yes. I think that a right turn out and restricting left turn out is probably the right answer. MR.JACKOSKI-And this project is going in front of the Planning Board after this Board,correct? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-So the Planning Board will deal with those issues. MR. LAPPER-But I think that's a valid point. 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) MR. DYBAS-One thing, Rich, was asked, talked to Craig Brown about this some time ago, and one of the suggestions was to have access to the property from either the chiropractic business or CVS, and both parties,on contact,were not interested at all in that venue because of liabilities. MR.JACKOSKI-Right, and Mr. Cavayero came before our Board before and tried like heck to get that to happen. MR. DYBAS-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-Because at one time there was a two story building planned for here,wasn't there? MR. LAPPER-He had looked at it. MR.JACKOSKI-But he just couldn't make it happen. MR. LAPPER-He couldn't make it happen. MR. DYBAS-Economically we looked at it in'09. MR.JACKOSKI-I remember. MR. DYBAS-But the site would only support about 4,000 square feet, and you give up about 25% of that for circulation with an elevator, stair and everything else, and the economics were not there at the time to spend over a million dollars to try to recover on 3,000 square feet of leasable space. It just,and nobody wants second floor. MR.JACKOSKI-Correct. Yes, I remember all that. MR. DYBAS-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Any further questions from Board members? MR. HENKEL-Wouldn't the entrance work out better on Western Avenue instead of Main Street? Closer to the parking lot? MR. LAPPER-Because of the way the building is oriented and in the Main Street corridor you're supposed to be oriented towards Main Street. So that's what(lost words). MR. DYBAS-And if you visited the site, this whole back portion of that site is very low, and you'll notice in a storm all the water comes down Luzerne Road and you have a big swimming pool back there. It's like a retention basin right now in a heavy rain storm. MR. KUHL-Is this property rented out or no? MR. LAPPER-It was rented out until a number of months ago residentially, and then he came to us and said I've got to change this, it doesn't make sense to have a residence there, and the kind of rent you get it so low because who wants to rent it. MR. GARRAND-And the power's been cut off to that building for a while. MR. LAPPER-Probably because he didn't want to pay the (lost word). MR.JACKOSKI-Any further questions from Board members? MR. KUHL-No. MR.JACKOSKI-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I'm opening the public hearing. Is there anyone here 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-There is no written comment. 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment, seeing no one in the audience, I'm going to keep the public hearing open for the time being. I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Mike. MR. MC CABE-I think any improvement to this property will be a big improvement. I'm in favor of the project. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-Like Mr. Lapper said, the property currently is in lousy shape, and I do agree with you, like Mike said, it should be, any improvement would be better than what's there. I think the proposed building renovations are a very nice improvement. I know you're looking for relief on the one story, but we're charged with that challenge to grant minimum relief when possible. I think it's a nice addition to that corner, even though it's not the ideal two story, everything we've been hearing about,but I am in favor of the project. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes. I know it doesn't fit into the Main Street zoning, but with that look of trying to make it look like a second floor there it looks good, and I have no problem with the project. Go for it. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-I'm in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I don't see any undesirable change in the neighborhood. I think putting a second story on this would require a larger parking lot, more people in and out of there. For the size of this lot, I think what's there is more than adequate. I think to try to force somebody to put a second floor on a building is,that's pre-existing is almost unfathomable. So I'd be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-You know, I was on the original Comprehensive Land Use Plan when it came up with the design of this corridor, and speaking for myself, I never thought it would become a noose around development. I don't think it should be a noose around development. It was a goal, and this particular parcel, I think one of the Planning Board members put it well, that this would be a nice transition between the one story and the two stories. Where it's located is sort of on the cusp of the changeover. So, and I think it's a very nice plan. It makes use of the property very well, and I would be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, and I, too, am in favor of it. When you look at the five criterion for balancing test, this a very good option for this parcel. So I'm in favor of it as well. So I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-And seek a motion. MRS.MOORE-I'm going to interrupt you. You will need to do SEQR. It's Unlisted. MR. JACKOSKI-Dang, I've done that twice tonight. I'm so sorry. Thank you, Laura, twice. 2014 is not doing well for me I guess. Thank you, Rick. APPLICATION Area Variance No. 5-2014, 1 Main Street Queensbury. LLC, for the project at 1 Main Street Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, as noted, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental statement need not be prepared. Accordingly,this negative declaration is issued. 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Now for the motion,please,for the project, Mike,go ahead. MR. MC CABE-I'll make a motion. RESOLUTION TO: Approve Area Variance No. 5-2014, 1 Main Street Queensbury, LLC, Tax Map No. 309.11-2-17; The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from 1 Main Street Queensbury, LLC for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury; SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,January 22, 2014; Upon review of the application materials, 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: The applicant proposes redevelopment of a 792 sq. ft. +/- single story residence with new 41 sq. ft. porch for entryway and 784 sq. ft. new hardsurfacing to the existing parking lot to the rear of the building. Project activities are for allowable uses within the Main Street (MS) zoning district which is limited to 5 parking spaces - proposed. Relief required for the front of the building is built to 20 ft.; proposed is 24 ft.; the relief requested is 4 ft. In the rear, the required is 20 ft.; proposed is 3.2 ft.; the relief requested is 16.8 ft. The second story - there is a requirement of two-stories; proposed is one; relief requested is a single-story. 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? There will be no undesirable change produced to the character of the neighborhood or 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? There is no other method feasible for this applicant to pursue. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? It's moderate. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? We think that's minor. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? It is but we still think the project is worthy, therefore I recommend that we approve this variance. Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Area Variance No. 5-2014, 1 Main Street Queensbury, LLC Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame expires; B. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building&Codes personnel; C. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/22/2014) D. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a building permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 22nd day of January 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-And thank you, Curt,for coming up with that creative concept. We appreciate it. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. Now we've got to go out into that cold. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any further business that anyone would like to bring in front of the Board? Can I have a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JANUARY 22, 2014, Introduced by Kyle Noonan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 22nd day of January, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 47