Loading...
02-19-2014 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/19/2014) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 19,2014 INDEX Sign Variance No. 18-2014 Angoli Signs for Berkshire Bank 1. Tax Map No. 296.20-1-52 Area Variance No. 11-2014 Christopher Gaunt 5. Tax Map No. 308.18-1-32 Area Variance No. 13-2014 M&W Foods, Inc. Ray Aley(KFC/A&W Restaurant) 9. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-43 Sign Variance No. 14-2014 M&W Foods, Inc. (KFC) 13. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-43 Area Variance No. 16-2014 James, III &Kathleen Mackey 17. Tax Map No. 289.13-1-16, 17,and 19 Area Variance No. 17-2014 Marc D.&Betty R. Fuchs 25. 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 02/19/2014) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 19,2014 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY KYLE NOONAN RICHARD GARRAND JOHN HENKEL MICHAEL MC CABE RONALD KUHL 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 you haven't been here in the past, it's actually quite a simple process, but on the back table there is a sheet that kind of explains it. We will call each application to the small table here for presentation of the application. We'll read the application into the record. We'll ask questions. We'll open up the public hearing when a public hearing has been advertised. We'll generally poll the Board on how to move forward, and then we'll make motions as applicable, and then we'll go on to the next application. So, this evening, unfortunately for everyone here in the audience it's going to be a long meeting, but we don't even have some housekeeping to do,so we're going to start right away with New Business. NEW BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 18-2014 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED ANGOLI SIGNS FOR BERKSHIRE BANK AGENT(S) MATT STEVES - VAN DUSEN AND STEVES OWNER(S) FLEET NATIONAL BANK ZONING CI LOCATION 183 QUAKER ROAD AND NATIONAL GRID ROW APPLICATION PROPOSES A NEW 33 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN WHICH IS LOCATED 33 FT. OFF THE EDGE OF THE PAVEMENT OF QUAKER ROAD AND 3.75 FT. FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. THE EXISTING SIGN IS LOCATED BY AGREEMENT WITHIN THE NIMO (NATIONAL GRID) RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE PARCEL THE BANK OWNS IS AN ODD CONFIGURATION WHERE THE SIGN IS LOCATED ON THE NIMO (NATIONAL GRID) PROPERTY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SIGN. CROSS REF SV 669 YR. 1980; BP 2013-526; BP 2012-384; BP 2011-534; BP 2004-464; BP 2004-465; BP 2001-723; BP 2001-218; BP 2001-103; BP 2001-102 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2014 LOT SIZE 11.01 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 296.20-1-52 SECTION CHAPTER 140 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 18-2014, Angoli Signs for Berkshire Bank, Meeting Date: February 19, 2014 "Project Location: 183 Quaker Road and National Grid ROW Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a new 33 sq. ft. freestanding sign which is located 33 feet off the edge of the pavement of Quaker Road and 3.75 feet from the front property line. The existing sign is located by agreement within the NIMO (NATIONAL GRID) right-of-way. The parcel the bank owns is an odd configuration where the sign is located on NIMO (NATIONAL GRID) property. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Relief requested from minimum front yard setback for the sign, Section 140-6 Signs. Front yard setback Required 15 ft. Proposed 0 ft. Relief 15 ft. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/19/2014) Criteria for considering a Sign 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 locating the sign to a compliant location. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request may be considered 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 self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, BP 13-526: Wall Sign, 12-23-13 BP 12-384: Comm.Alteration-drive through area 10-29-12 BP 11-534: ATM for Bank of America, 7-15-13 BP 04-465: 19 sq. ft.wall sign, 6-30-04BP 04-464: 33 sq.ft.free standing sign, 6-30-04 BP 01-103: Change existing wall sign-Fleet Bank, 3-21-01 BP 01-102: change existing freestanding sign,4-24-01 Variance #669: sign variance granted to place sign with no property line setback in lieu of the required 15 ft. with condition that the sign will conform to the ordinance when road is widened. 5- 21-80 Staff comments: The applicant has proposed to reface an existing sign structure that currently does not meet the required setback. The sign is shown to be 33 sq. ft.and 18 ft.in height. The applicant has explained a sign variance was granted in 1980 with the condition the sign conform once the road is widened and at this time the sign base is still 33 ft. from the edge of the Quaker Road pavement. The sign is located on a Niagara Mohawk right-of -way and a new agreement with property owner will be required to reface the existing sign. The applicant has indicated the NIMO (NATIONAL GRID) paperwork to be completed is for the existing sign to remain in the same location where if the sign is to be located differently than NIMO (NATIONAL GRID) would require additional review and associated paper work; current NIMO (NATIONAL GRID) paper work recognizes the existing sign in the right of way. SEQR Status: Type Unlisted" MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Pretty straightforward. Welcome, Mr. Steves. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves with Van Dusen and Steves representing Angoli Signs on this application. As you've read in, this is property on Quaker Road for what is currently the Bank of America and Berkshire Bank is taking that particular branch over, and the proposal is to reface that existing sign, re-color it from the white post to a black post with a green background on the sign. The sign itself, in the exact same location as stated, and slightly smaller in size than the current Bank of America sign by about three and a half square feet. Back in 1980, as it was stated,a Sign Variance was granted. It said when and if the Quaker Road widening happens that it be in a compliant location. Obviously Quaker Road widening happened quite a few years ago, but most of the widening was to the southerly side of Quaker Road in that area because of the proximity to the brook and stuff on the north side. So the sign is within a few feet of where it was originally on the edge of Quaker Road on that side. It is kind of a unique property, as you can see on the map, that the Bank sits to the north side of the National Grid or Niagara Mohawk right of way for ownership, and then they have a small triangular shaped piece that abuts Quaker Road. So they actually own 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/19/2014) about four feet of property in front of the sign, or,you know, south side of the sign toward the road, but the sign is completely within the Niagara Mohawk right of way, and there's two sets of power lines that run through there, and they do have currently a 50 foot easement for the access through there and the license agreement for the sign location. We did send the current wire heights and profiled the wires in comparison to where the sign is located to National Grid so they could update their records, and moving forward with National Grid depends on what happens here at the Zoning Board, because if it moves any farther to the north or more into the National Grid property, it becomes closer to the power lines, and then we have to, you know, maybe get a new license agreement or see what happens there. So, we're hoping we can leave it in the same location, and just re-face it and take the big white sign that's there and kind of blended in a little bit is going to be, like I say, a black base, black pole, and then the sign, instead of being white, is a green background. I believe you have colored renderings of that in your package. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Any questions from Board members at this time on this application? MR. GARRAND-How come the sign wasn't moved back as per the previous agreement? MR. STEVES-I have no idea. I got involved when Berkshire Bank took over,hired by Berkshire Bank and Angoli Signs. I have no idea what transpired since the subsequent from the Bank of America or at the time I believe it was Fleet, was it Albany first? State Bank of Albany. So many people have transpired, I can't get a definitive answer on that why it wasn't moved,but like I say,looking back at the survey records that we have of where the edge of Quaker Road was in 1980 and where the edge of Quaker Road is now in 2014, being the north side of the road, it's within a few feet of where it was originally. So the widening happened, but it predominantly happened to the south side. I think at that time, and logically so, they were worried that if that road was widened, that sign base may be right on the edge of the asphalt and in the case of the actual widening, it took place more to the south side of the road. So that would be the logical reasoning for that, but like I said, the widening didn't go to the north because of issues with the brook and other issues and the wetlands and stuff on the north side. MR.JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? MR. HENKEL-Basically you're saying National Grid's okay with this where it is? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience, once I open the public hearing, that would like to address this Board concerning this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.JACKOSKI-Seeing no one,is there any written comment? MR.URRICO-There is no written comment. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. I'd like to poll the Board. Mike? MR. MC CABE-It seems perfectly reasonable to leave the sign where it's at. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I'd be also in favor of the project. No problem. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR.URRICO-Yes, I agree with everybody else. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-Normally I would have just told him to move the sign back, but my concern, primarily, is with moving the sign back you get into the proximity the wires, and there's other issues involved with that that I won't get into here, but it does pose somewhat of a safety hazard to anybody who may have to work on that sign. So I'd be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/19/2014) MR. NOONAN-I've got no problem with the project as proposed. I'm in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I'd be in favor of the project. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay,and I am,too. So I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And we do have a SEQR here this evening for this project. Could I get a motion concerning SEQR? MRS.MOORE-I'll just remind the Board there is a resolution in the package that you can use. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. 18-2014 ANGOLI SIGNS FOR BERKSHIRE BANK BASED UPON THE INFORMATION AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.THIS BOARD FINDS THAT THIS WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. SO WE GIVE IT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 19th day of February, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Now that the SEQR's done, can I have a motion, please, for the application itself? And we do have the motion in the packet. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Angoli Signs for Berkshire Bank for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury in order to install a new 33 sq. ft. freestanding sign which is located 33 ft. off the edge of the pavement of Quaker Road and 3.75 ft. from the front property line. The existing sign is located by agreement within the NIMO right-of-way. The parcel the bank owns is an odd configuration where the sign is located on the NIMO property. Relief requested from minimum front yard setback requirements for the sign. A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, February 19, 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 sign variance? No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, nor will a detriment to nearby properties be created by granting of the requested Sign Variance. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? Benefit could be sought by other means,but it seems unnecessary. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? The requested variance is substantial but,again, not without merit. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? The proposed Sign Variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? The alleged difficulty is self-created. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/19/2014) In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 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 Sign Variance No. 18-2014,Angoli Signs for Berkshire Bank, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: 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. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA's review is completed; C. 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' D. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; E. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign 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 19th day of February, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mr. Steves. MR. STEVES-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2014 SEQRA TYPE II CHRISTOPHER GAUNT AGENT(S) MATT STEVES-VAN DUSEN AND STEVES OWNER(S) CHRISTOPHER GAUNT ZONING OLD SR-30; CURRENT MDR LOCATION 26 HONEY HOLLOW ROAD, BEDFORD CLOSE, SECTION 5 APPLICANT PROPOSES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WITH THE ADJACENT PARCEL TO THE NORTH (24 HONEY HOLLOW ROAD; FEDELE). PARCEL 308.18-1-32 WILL BE REDUCED FROM 0.94 TO 0.85 ACRES AND PARCEL 308.18-1-33 WILL INCREASE FROM 0.77 ACRES TO 0.86 ACRES. THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WILL CORRECT THE CURRENT NONCONFORMING PLACEMENT OF AN IN-GROUND SWIMMING POOL LOCATED ON LOT 141, (26 HONEY HOLLOW ROAD). RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF SUB. MOD. 6-84, SECTION 5; BP 2009-239 POOL; BP 88-156 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.94 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 308.18-1-32 SECTION 179-3-040 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 11-2014, Christopher Gaunt, Meeting Date: February 19, 2014 "Project Location: 26 Honey Hollow Road, Bedford Close, Section 5 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment with the adjacent parcel to the north (24 Honey Hollow). Parcel 308.18-1-32 will be reduced from 0.94 to 0.85 acres and parcel 308.18-1-33 will increase from 0.77 to 0.86 acres. The lot line adjustment will correct the current nonconforming placement of an in-ground swimming pool located on Lot 141 (26 Honey Hollow). Relief Required: 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/19/2014) Parcel will require area variances as follows: Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements of the MDR zone. Section 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts. Lot size Required 2 acres MDR(0.94 existing) Proposed 0.85 Relief 1.15 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 preexisting lot is part of an approved subdivision where lots were created less than 2 acres. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request may be considered minimal as the lot was created at 0.94 acres as part of Section 5 of Bedford Close that was approved in 1985 and the home was constructed in 1988. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, SB 6-1984M: Pending BP 09-239: Pool BP 88-156: SFD Staff comments: The applicant proposes to adjust a property line in an approved subdivision where the parcel will be further reduced from an existing 0.95 acres to 0.85 acres. A variance is requested for creating a less conforming parcels where 2 acres is required if not connected to sewer and water. The applicant has indicated the modification is necessary for a portion of a neighbor's pool that was previously installed on the applicant's property will now be located on the correct neighboring property. The applicant's plans show the existing and proposed lot line including the parcel size. SEQR Status: Type II' MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board made a recommendation on behalf of the Planning Board, of course, for Area Variance No. 11-2014, and it was introduced by Brad Magowan, seconded by Thomas Ford,and it was approved unanimously on February 18, 2014. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome, Mr. Steves. Pretty straightforward, and I know that these parcels have been in front of us before on some other matters. MR. STEVES-All right. I'll make it brief. It is pretty straightforward, and again, Matt Steves representing Christopher Gaunt on this application. This actually came to our office for this application because we performed a survey for the neighbor, Fedele,Andrew Fedele on Lot 140. I believe he had then subsequently come in here looking for a variance, I believe, for a second garage that I wasn't part of that application, but, so you know the property. The pool on Lot 140, Mr. Fedele's property, was constructed prior to the purchase of the property. You go into the, look in the back of the lot on the map, there is an angle in the back of what was Lot 141. We're asking for the change, and that was the rod that everybody found and they used that and put their pools in, and so really what it does is it clears up the pool being on the wrong property basically right down 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/19/2014) through the middle, unless they wanted to share it,but they already have their own pool, and it also by adjusting the property line right to the fence line of Mr. Fedele's and coming just the foot off it, it also allows both pools to conform to the required side setback. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Any questions,at this time,from Board members? MR. KUHL-Yes, I just have one, and maybe you can humor me, Matt. When the people in 140 bought the lot,the pool was in,right? MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. KUHL-Don't they have, I mean, we pay people to do title searches and don't they re-shoot the property lines? MR. STEVES-Not necessarily. MR. KUHL-Okay. My question is, shouldn't this have gotten picked up when they bought that property? MR. STEVES-To answer your question briefly,it should have,but what happens lots of times is if the existing homeowner signs what's called a survey affidavit saying that there's been no substantial changes and they haven't affected the property line, then if you're putting enough money down, your bank may say that they waive the requirement for a new survey, and then their title company ensures it. MR. JACKOSKI-But both neighbors, or both parcels at the time thought that that's really where the property line was. Correct? MR. STEVES-At the time,correct. MR.JACKOSKI-Right. So I mean both entities believed that that's where it was. MR. STEVES-Right. They didn't do anything maliciously. He signed it thinking,because they found that one rod in the back, and that was their corner, and they were happy about it for quite a few years, until the new owner found out, when I did the survey, that his beautiful pool was not completely on his property. MR.JACKOSKI-How'd that conversation go? MR. STEVES-I always love when I have those. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any further Board member questions before I open the public hearing? There is a public hearing scheduled this evening. I am going to open it. 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-No,sir. MR.JACKOSKI-At this time I'm going to poll the Board. This time I'm going to start with Ron. MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this is a good project to correct something that apparently went unnoticed, but from the many times of going to closing statements on houses, when you sign 45, 50 or 60 pieces of paper, it boggles my mind that this could get by all of that nonsense, or excuse me, all of that process and here we are, and it's costing the property owner money to do this,but hopefully this'll straighten it out. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,sir. Kyle? MR. NOONAN-No problem with the project as proposed. I'm in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I don't think this difficulty is self-created. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/19/2014) MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I think this'll improve the neighborhood, I guess, in making sure the property lines are in the right place. So I would be in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I'm in favor of the project. MR.JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I'm in favor of the project also. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-Could I please have a motion, Rick? MR. GARRAND-I'll make a motion. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. RESOLUTION TO: Approve Area Variance No. 11-2014, Christopher Gaunt, 26 Honey Hollow Road,Tax Map No. 308.18-1-32; The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Christopher Gaunt for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury in order for a lot line adjustment with the adjacent parcel to the north (24 Honey Hollow Road; Fedele). Parcel 308.18-1-32 will be reduced from 0.94 to 0.85 acres and parcel 308.18-1-33 will increase from 0.77 to 0.86 acres. The lot line adjustment will correct the current nonconforming placement of an inground swimming pool located on Lot 141, (26 Honey Hollow Road). Relief requested from the minimum lot size requirements for the MDR zoning district. Required lot size is two acres in this zone. Proposed is .85. The relief requested is 1.15 acres. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, February 19, 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? There will be no undesirable change in the neighborhood. It's a positive change. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an area variance? This is the most feasible means. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? It's minor at best. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? There are none whatsoever. This is just a clarification of lot lines. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? It's not self-created. The homeowner was completely unaware of it when they purchased the property. 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. 11-2014, Christopher Gaunt, Introduced by Richard Garrand, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/19/2014) 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 19th day of February 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,sir. MR. STEVES-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-2014 SEQRA TYPE II M &W FOODS, INC. RAY ALEY (KFC/A & W RESTAURANT) AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING/BPSR OWNER(S) NORTHGATE ENTERPRISES ZONING Cl LOCATION 797 STATE ROUTE 9; NORTHGATE PLAZA APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING 3,730 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT (KFC/A&W) AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 3,510 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT ON EXISTING FOOTPRINT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF SP 11- 2014; SV 14-2002;AV 14-1997; SP 12-97;AV 1379; BP 2002-079 SIGN; BP 2002-080 SIGN; BP 90-322 EXTERIOR ALT.; BP 88-355 YR. 1988, SEPTIC ALTERATION; BP 89-056 SIGN; BP 85- 638 SIGN; BP 8308 YR. 1984 ADDITION & ALTERATION WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2014 LOT SIZE 2.73 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-43 SECTION 179-3-040 STEFANIE BITTER&TOM HUTCHINS,REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 13-2014, M &W Foods, Inc. Ray Aley (KFC/A&W Restaurant), Meeting Date: February 19, 2014 "Project Location: 797 State Route 9, Northgate Plaza Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to demolish an existing 3,730 sq. ft. restaurant(KFC/A&W) and construct a new 3,510 sq.ft.restaurant on existing footprint. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Relief requested from front yard setbacks requirements of the Cl zone. Section 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts. Front Yard Old Aviation Required 75 (existing 32.4 Proposed 33.7 Relief 41.7 Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/19/2014) 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited as the proposed rebuild is in an existing plaza where this is the only out building on the parcel. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request may be considered moderate relevant to the code. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, SP 11-14: Pending demolish an existing KFC restaurant and rebuild a new KFC building SV 14-14: Pending-requesting relief for proposing 2 wall signs SP 20-10: Demo of existing KFC / A & W restaurant & construction of a new 3,276 sq. ft. building, 5-20-10 (expired approval) SV 14-02: Placement of two additional wall signs, 3-20-02 Staff comments: The applicant proposes to demolish an existing KFC restaurant and rebuild a new KFC building in the footprint. The relief requested is for front setback where the existing and proposed do not meet the 75 ft. setback requirement. The plans show the existing and proposed building that includes building elevations and redefined parking and landscaping. SEQR Status: Type II" MR. URRICO-And on February 18th, the Planning Board voted on a recommendation, and based on its limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal,and that was approved unanimously, again,on February 18, 2014. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, Roy. Pretty straightforward project again this evening. So,hello, Stefanie,how are you? MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter with Tom Hutchins and Ray Aley. We come here this evening with a plan to upgrade the existing store, hopefully as soon as possible. We received approvals three years ago, as some of you may recall, but unfortunately the owner would not allow the applicant to re-locate the building as was originally proposed. Tonight we come to you with a project to demolish the existing structure, which is an old structure, for any of you who have frequented it recently, which is in need of upgrades and a facelift. We plan to build on the existing footprint a better looking building, as is demonstrated before you, which would include a landscaping plan as well as some curbs around the building. Because the structure is a pre- existing, nonconforming structure, we have to come to you for relief. As was demonstrated in the Staff Notes, the first variance that is sought is for front setback relief. The building is actually situated on the corner of Old Aviation Road and Route 9. Route 9 we maintain the setback,but Old Aviation Road, currently we're maintaining 32.4 feet. We're actually moving it back slightly by 30 to be at 33.7. So we're actually making that nonconformity a little better, but we're still staying within that footprint as we had talked about. Permeability is also an item just to mention,because we're looking at the existing site, 30% is required, 2.7 is existing because it's obviously an older plaza. We're improving that slightly to 2.73, but overall when you're looking at these variances, these bulk standards, the focus of the matter is we're taking an old restaurant and we're constructing a new one which will be an overall improvement to the area. I'm going to turn it over to Tom to add anything that I may have missed before we open it up for questions. MR. HUTCHINS-I don't really have anything to add. We'll gladly take questions. The site layout remains very much the same. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/19/2014) MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. MR. URRICO-Question out of curiosity more than anything else. When that KFC was opened originally, it was across the street where Northway Plaza is, or not Northway Plaza,the Queensbury Plaza, where the Olive Garden was. When you moved across the way, did you build this? Was it a new building? MR.JACKOSKI-It was Carrol's restaurant. MR.URRICO-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members at this time? Okay. I 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? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.JACKOSKI-Seeing no one,is there any written comment? MR.URRICO-I have not found any. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I'll leave the public hearing open. And at that point, I mean, it is a fairly straightforward application, and the Planning Board has given us their opinion on the matter. So I'm going to do a polling of the Board,and I'll start with Rick. MR. GARRAND-I think this is an improvement. I've seen all the other restaurants going through their renovations trying to upgrade their facilities. We've done similar things for Burger King, Wendy's in the last few months, and I was just waiting for this to come in. It's going to be a vast improvement, having a little bit of green space in there, too, because in the summertime walking around this building is like an oven. So I think it'll be an environmental improvement. The request is not substantial. It's moderate at best. I'd be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-I would be in favor of it. I think it's an improvement. I wish they could do more with the whole plaza. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I do not see any adverse impacts on the neighborhood or environment. So I would also be in favor of the project. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I'm in favor of the project. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-I would have liked to have seen an improvement in the permeability, but being as how everybody is in favor of it, could have been a green roof. You could have put a green roof in, you know,but anyway, I 'd be in favor of it the way it is. It's an improvement. MR.JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CAB E-I think it's an improvement. I'm in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-All right. So I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-And I'm going to seek a motion. RESOLUTION TO: Approve Area Variance No. 13-2014, M&W Foods, Inc. (KFC / A&W Restaurant), 797 State Route 9,Northgate Plaza,Tax Map No. 302.6-1-43 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from M&W 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/19/2014) Foods, Inc. for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury in order to demolish an existing 3,730 sq. ft. restaurant (KFC / A&W) and construct a new 3,510 sq. ft. restaurant on existing footprint. Relief requested from minimum front yard setback requirements. The parcel will require relief from the front yard setback in the Cl zone as per 179-3-040. Required setback is 75 feet. The proposed is 33.7 feet with a requested relief of 41.7 feet. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, February 19, 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? None whatsoever. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? The applicant has tried to get this restaurant moved. They were denied by the property owner. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? No,I'd say it might be moderate at best. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? I don't believe it'll have any adverse effect on the neighborhood at all. It's a pre-existing restaurant that's been there for many decades. Previously it was Carrols, now it's KFC. The addition of permeability will definitely be a benefit to that area. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Having been turned down by the owner to move the restaurant,I don't believe this is self-created. 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. 13-2014, M&W Foods, Inc., Introduced by Richard Garrand, 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; 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 19th day of February, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/19/2014) MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 14-2014 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED M&W FOODS,INC. (KFC) AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING/BPSR OWNER(S) NORTHGATE ENTERPRISES ZONING Cl LOCATION 797 STATE ROUTE 9; NORTHGATE PLAZA APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A SECOND 75 SQ. FT. WALL SIGN ON THE NORTH SIDE/ELEVATION OF THE PROPOSED NEW RESTAURANT CONSTRUCTION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE WALL SIGNS FOR A BUSINESS LOCATED IN A BUSINESS COMPLEX. CROSS REF SP 11-2014; SV 14- 2002; AV 14-1997; SP 12-97; AV 1379; BP 2002-079 SIGN; BP 2002-080 SIGN; BP 90-322 EXTERIOR ALT.; BP 88-355 YR. 1988, SEPTIC ALTERATION; BP 89-056 SIGN; BP 85-638 SIGN; BP 8308 YR. 1984 ADDITION &ALTERATION WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2014 LOT SIZE 2.73 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-43 SECTION CHAPTER 140 STEFANIE BITTER&TOM HUTCHINS,REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 14-2014, M &W Foods, Inc. (KFC), Meeting Date: February 19, 2014 "Project Location: 797 State Route 9; Northgate Plaza Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to install a second 75 sq. ft. wall sign on the north side / elevation of the proposed new restaurant construction. Relief Required: Parcel will require sign variances as follows: Relief requested from number of allowable wall signs for a business in a business complex. Section 140 Signs. No. of allowable wall signs Allowed 1 wall sign in a plaza per each business Proposed 2 -walls signs for KFC Relief 1 Wall sign Criteria for considering a Sign 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 only one wall sign as is the current on the existing building. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request may be considered 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 self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, AV 13-14: Pending-building setback relief SP 11-14: Pending-demolish an existing KFC restaurant and rebuild a new KFC building SV 14-14: Pending-proposing two wall signs when only one is allowed SP 20-10: Demo of existing KFC/A&W restaurant&construction of a new 3,276 sq.ft. building, 5-20-10 (expired approval) SV 14-02: Placement of two additional wall signs, 3-20-02 Staff comments: 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/19/2014) The applicant proposes to place two wall signs on an existing building in plaza where only one wall sign is allowed. The information submitted shows the wall signs as being part of the new building with one being visible from south bound Route 9 and the other visible from the north bound Route 9. SEQR Status: Type Unlisted" MR.JACKOSKI-Welcome. MS. BITTER-Hi, Stefanie Bitter again. This is all about visibility. Let me just make two clarification points before I do a brief presentation. The sign being proposed is actually only 70 square feet in size. Tom made sure to be particular with that square footage, and as is demonstrated on that photo image,We Do Chicken Right will not be identified on the building. We're only proposing the mug shot and KFC under the red, just for clarification purposes. Not that they don't do chicken right, but going into the variance, again, it's all about visibility. This property, as is this building, is very uniquely situated in the angle that it has on a corner,which is Old Aviation and Route 9. Only having one wall sign would really only allow them to capture the patrons that are traveling north on Route 9 as opposed to those traveling south on Route 9, again, due to the angle of the street, and to be competitive in the marketplace obviously we're trying to not only capture those patrons, but also capture those patrons safely so they aren't already past the restaurant when they're trying to pull into the plaza. It should not be deemed substantial because, as mentioned, because it's a corner, there could be two monument signs. There's only one that's actually maintained by the plaza but we're not proposing another monument sign to be added for this site. Because it assists with safety it shouldn't be deemed to have any detriment to the community,and I'm going to open it up to questions. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Are there any questions,at this time,from Board members? MR. MC CABE-I have a question. The two signs, or at least with this architecture, does the corporate KFC kind of require that look as opposed to choice? MS. BITTER-That's correct. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Could one of the signs have actually just been located on the corner of the building, so if you had reconfigured the outside corner at a bias above that black banner, so to speak, could you have put the sign that way,so it would be parallel with the road? RAY ALEY MR.ALEY-No, I'm required to locate those on the towers. MR.JACKOSKI-That's an architectural significance that the corporate brand requires. MR.ALEY-Right. Exactly. They're trying to achieve consistency nationwide. MR.JACKOSKI-And they wouldn't be willing to put a tower in the corner? MR. ALEY-The old model had that corner tower, and they're trying to bring their image up to the current standard. So they would not approve it when we request it. MR. GARRAND-It provides more visibility,like Steve was saying. I mean, if you had it on the corner there, everybody would see it. The way that is now, it's kind of limited visibility signs due to the angle of the building. MR.ALEY-Unfortunately though the A&E Department at Young Brands doesn't see the way that you and I do. It took months and months and months of negotiation to get them to approve this because it is nonconforming by their model also. We had to stay within the footprint. This is, believe me it was months and months and thousands of dollars trying to get them to approve this site as it is. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members at this time? Okay. There is a public hearing scheduled this evening. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/19/2014) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.JACKOSKI-Seeing no one,is there any written comment? MR.URRICO-No. MR.JAC KO SKI-With no written comment, I'm going to poll the Board. I'll start with John. MR. HENKEL-Yes. I agree with the project the way it is. Definitely the way that building is situated there's a need for both signs to catch the view of everybody on the main drag there. So I agree with it,yes. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I don't think there's any adverse impacts with this proposal. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR.URRICO-I agree. I think it's a very competitive business. The area shows two signs for Panera, two signs for an auto dealership not too far from there. I think Home Depot has multiple signs as well. I think it's consistent with the neighborhood. I'd be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-It seems reasonable to me. I'd be in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I'm in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I agree with my Board members. I'm in agreement with this. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm the only one who doesn't like it. All right. Anyway. I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And I'm going to seek a motion, please. Oh, I've got to do SEQR. Yes. Correct. Thank you. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. 14-2014, M&W FOODS. INC. (KFC) BASED UPON THE INFORMATION AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT. THIS BOARD FINDS THAT THIS WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. SO WE GIVE IT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 19th of February, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. It's too red for me, and it's awfully bright in that neighborhood. All right. Here we go,thank you,though. Can I have a motion for approval of the application,please. RESOLUTION TO: Approve Sign Variance No. 14-2014, M&W Foods, Inc. (KFC), 797 State Route 9,Tax Map No. 302.6-1-43, The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from M&W Foods. Inc. (KFC) for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury in order to install a second 70 sq. ft. wall sign on the north side /elevation of the proposed new restaurant construction. Relief requested from number of allowable wall signs for a business 1s (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/19/2014) located in a business complex. Parcel will require Sign Variance as one wall sign is allowed in a Plaza per building and the proposed is two wall signs. The relief is one wall sign. SEQR Type: Unlisted; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, February 19, 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 sign variance? Minor impacts to the neighborhood are anticipated. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? Feasible alternatives may include only one wall sign, but as the company has branding and requires two wall signs, we believe that two is good. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? The request may be considered substantial relative to the Code. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Minor or no impacts to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? We might consider this difficulty self-created. 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 Sign Variance No. 14-2014, M&W Foods, Inc. (KFC), Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: F. "We do Chicken Right"will be removed from the building side of the sign. G. 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; H. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA's review is completed; I. 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' J. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; K. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign 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 19th day of February, 2014,by the following vote: MR.JACKOSKI-Any further discussion? MRS.MOORE-So clarify that so We Do Chicken Right will be removed and not be part of the sign. MS. BITTER-That's correct. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/19/2014) MR. JACKOSKI-So as a condition we'll make sure that that wording is removed from the building side. AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr.Jackoski MR.JACKOSKI-Now you can leave, Stefanie. All right. Now we're on to our next one. AREA VARIANCE NO. 16-2014 SEQRA TYPE II JAMES, III &KATHLEEN MACKEY AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING/PHINNEY DESIGN GROUP OWNER(S) JAMES, III & KATHLEEN MACKEY ZONING WR LOCATION 5 & 7 GARRETT LANE AND 27 BIRCH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO COMBINE 3-LOTS, REMOVE ASSOCIATED STRUCTURES ON THE LOTS, THEN PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 4,807 SQ. FT. (FLOOR AREA) SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF SP 13-2014; BP 8245 YR. 1983 RECONSTRUCT DETACHED GARAGE; BP 2004-255 DEMOLITION WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.17; 0.16; 0.20 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 289.13-1-16, 17,AND 19 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM HUTCHINS&JACE BROWN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 16-2014, James, III & Kathleen Mackey, Meeting Date: February 19, 2014 "Project Location: 5 & 7 Garrett Lane and 27 Birch Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to combine 3 lots, remove associated structures on the lots,then proposes construction of a new 4,807 sq.ft. (floor area) single family dwelling. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Relief requested from minimum road frontage requirements, Section 179-4-050 Road Frontage. Road frontage Required 50 ft. Proposed 0 ft. Relief 50 ft. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited as Garrett Lane is an existing private road that provides access for the parcel to public roads in the area. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request may be considered substantial relevant to the code as the purpose is for ingress and egress to the lot by emergency vehicles,such as fire trucks and/or ambulances. 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 13-14: Pending-development activities within 50 ft.of 15%slopes. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/19/2014) Staff comments: The applicant proposes to remove structures on three lots then combine them to construct a 4- bedroom home and associated site work. The existing parcel does not front on a public road and requires relief. The information submitted indicates there is access via a private drive Garrett Lane that is noted on the plans as crushed stone estimated at 10 ft. wide -the access to Chestnut Road from Garrett Lane is less than 300 ft. The plans also show the existing and proposed conditions of the site along with elevations and floor plans for the home. SEQR Status: Type II MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board met on February 18th and passed a motion that based on its limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal,and that was passed unanimously as well. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,sir. Welcome,gentlemen. If you could please identify yourselves for the record. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes,Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering, and with me is Jace Brown from Phinney Design Group, who is the project architect. We're here on behalf of James and Kathleen Mackey, who own three parcels at 5 Garrett Lane, or one of them's at 5 Garrett Lane. They are adjoining parcels. They propose to demolish residences on two of the parcels, merge the three parcels, construct one residence,one four bedroom single family residence,that Jace is going to design. The house will be compliant with all aspects of the Zoning Ordinance with the exception that there is no public frontage to any of these properties. The properties are all accessed by private right of way. They have been for some time and that will continue to be the case. Without getting into details, we'll ask for your support for our variance, and if you have any questions, we'll certainly do our best to help,and Jace,did you want to add anything? MR. BROWN-I think that covers it. One comment just being that this project goes from two small lots to one larger one. The larger lot now is much closer to conformance with the intention of the Waterfront Residential district that the residence is within. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions from Board members at this time? MR. NOONAN-27 Birch Road, that's just another piece of property but it's not part of this project. Right? MR. HUTCHINS-Correct. MR. NOONAN-That's down the road a little bit. There's a bunch of other properties in between, right? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. NOONAN-Okay. MR. KUHL-I see on here you have a pre-cast concrete pump stations. Where are you pumping the waste to? MR. HUTCHINS-We're pumping the waste actually to an enhanced wastewater treatment system. It's a P bio filter. I'm not sure if it's the first one on Glen Lake, but it might be the first one on Glen Lake,but I could be wrong. It's a very well received enhanced treatment system, and we've done a number of them on Lake George. I'm not sure if there's one on Glen Lake yet or not. MR. KUHL-Have you gotten through the Board of Health yet with this system? MR. HUTCHINS-No. MR. KUHL-Okay. So that you have to go. You have to go to the Board of Health. MR. HUTCHINS-No,it doesn't have to go to the Board of Health. There's no variances required. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/19/2014) MR. KUHL-Is there going to be a generator on this house? MR. BROWN-We haven't covered that specifically with the homeowner at this time. MR. KUHL-Well, I'm asking you. Because if you're going to have a pump system, and you lose power and you keep showering and using your commodes,up goes your tank. It goes into the lake. MR. BROWN-Yes,your well goes down as well. So you have no water supply at that point. MR. KUHL-You think? MR. GARRAND-You've got these septic tanks right close to the lake. I mean, is that, what's the required distance from the lake for these septic tanks? MR. HUTCHINS-Fifty feet. MR. GARRAND-I don't like to see these things that close to the lake. I think it's, you know, could have been something that could have been closer to, higher up. I mean, the way everything is designed here is everything drains down into the lake,slopes down into the lake on this property. MR. JACKOSKI-But again I think that's a Planning Board matter that the Planning Board is going to be dealing with, not necessarily related to the variance that they're requesting concerning the road frontage. MR. KUHL-Well, I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, but I just like to get my disapproval of it in the record,okay. MR.JACKOSKI-I understand. No problem. MR. KUHL-And what about the pavers,Tom? Are you doing pervious pavers? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. GARRAND-Now look at, the other houses in the neighborhood all seem to be smaller. You're taking two really small buildings and you're putting up this nearly 5,000 square foot behemoth. On top of that, the drawings that were provided to us don't have any dimensions on them whatsoever. So we have no way of verifying the size of this place. It just seems really out of character with the neighborhood. Especially out of character with what's there. This is intended to be camps, seasonal camps,and what you have here is a year round McMansion. MR. HUTCHINS-Well,but we're replacing two camps that are not compliant with setbacks and other aspects of the Ordinance,and we are replacing it on three lots,we're merging into one lot which will never become three lots again, and we're building one house that is compliant with all the setbacks, and a new enhanced wastewater system,runoff controls. I understand what you're saying,but. MR. GARRAND-The old camps,though,when you look at the scale of the old camps versus this with all the decking and the housing and the permeable pavers and everything else you have on this property, it looks like you've just completely used up every square inch of this property except for on either setback of this and the lake setback. It just seems like it's way over and above everything else that's down there. MR. JACKOSKI-But how do we stay consistent, then, if we're going to address the application like that, when we know that at the southern end of the lake, concerning the Merritt house, we granted them practically build right on the lot line, two story home, with all kinds of neighbor opposition and it wasn't, it didn't meet a lot of the setback requirements. So how do we, I don't understand how we keep consistent with. MR. GARRAND-Case by case. MR. JACKOSKI-Case by case. I mean, just down the lake from this one we certainly did an overly large home for the lot at hand, and here this one's meeting all the criteria and they're just looking for road frontage. I don't understand how we stay consistent. They've got three lots. They meet all the, I mean,the Code allows them to do this. They're in front of us because, unfortunately I don't want to see paved roads all around Glen Lake because the runoff I'd rather keep, you know, these 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/19/2014) private roads the way they are, so that we don't have that kind of road frontage where we would even have more development and more traffic and more people traveling the perimeter of the lake because it would be easy to do it. I'd rather have these small roads coming into these various lots. MR. GARRAND-I just think there's a lot of improvements could have been made on this. I mean,the septic could have been put on the back side of the house. I mean,you could eliminate (lost words). MR.JACKOSKI-Is that possible,Tom? MR. HUTCHINS-The septic tanks require a 10 foot setback to the house, which is the only place that I can have 10 foot setback from the house and the property line and the septic tanks is where they are now. I will look at if they could go on the north side. I'm not sure. It might be possible that they could go on the north side which would enhance the setback from the lake, from the lake to the septic tanks. I can't tell you by looking at it right now if it would work because I'd have to study a little. I can look at that. MR. JACKOSKI-Laura, and Staff confirms that those tanks are only required to be 50 feet off the lake? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. HENKEL-What are the other septic systems at the other two camps that you have now? MR.JACKOSKI-Probably cess pools. MR. HENKEL-That's what I'm saying see now you're going to take three pieces of property that can be three separate camps and you're going to better it. MR. BROWN-We're going to do the same with the amount of traffic on the road,using the. MR. HENKEL-Yes,because you're going from three to one. MR. BROWN-Right. MR.URRICO-I guess my question is how does any of this affect the road frontage? MR. JACKOSKI-Correct. Right. This is an appeal of the road frontage determination by Craig Brown,but, I mean,it's all relevant to overdevelopment of the neighborhood. MR. HENKEL-We've got to worry about the environment of the neighborhood. That's part of our, too. MR. GARRAND-Yes,health safety and welfare. MR. HENKEL-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. MRS. MOORE-I did talk to the Fire Marshal in regards to this, how many feet it needs to be, and when it's less than 300 feet,then they don't, it's not an issue. I went further with that and I said so that means when they park on Chestnut, then that means that there's enough line that they can lay to get to the house. MR. JACKOSKI-Right. Okay. Are there any more questions from Board members before we open up the public hearing? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I'd like to open it. 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-I have not seen any written comment. MR.JACKOSKI-Have you had any interaction with the neighbors,especially those that are out back? 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/19/2014) MR. BROWN-Yes. The owner has spoken with the neighbor to the north with respect to the, Mansman,with respect to his intentions for the property. They were supportive,and the neighbors to the south,he's actually been attempting to contact him and has not been successful. I take it they live out of Town. MR. HENKEL-The way it's situated it's really not going to block anybody's view or anything because it's down a pretty good hole there. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,and recognizing Staff's Notes that the slopes were greater than 15%. MR. HENKEL-That's pretty good. MR. JACKOSKI-So how does the third lot work, actually, the 27 Birch? Which one is it exactly? I mean,just looking at the plan,which one is actually considered 27 Birch? MR. HENKEL-This is the vacant one would be over here. MR. HUTCHINS-The southerly lot, this being the northernmost lot, is built on (lost word). I wasn't aware that that address is 27 Birch. I misspoke. MR.JACKOSKI-All right. So these are three contiguous lakefront lots? MR. HUTCHINS-They are three contiguous lakefront parcels. MR. KUHL-Yes,they are. MR.JACKOSKI-Right, I just wanted to clarify that. MR. KUHL-There used to be a house on 27 Birch, but I think they tore it down about 10 years ago, 10 or 12. This cabin with the porch, the one in the middle, is that that brown and yellow one, is that brown and yellow,do you know? MR. BROWN-It's yellow. MR. KUHL-Yes, okay. So there was a house there 14 years ago. They tore it down. They bought that camp. So that 27 Birch did have a house on it that they tore down years ago,since I'm there. MR.JACKOSKI-I just didn't understand the comment when you said down the road, and I was trying to understand how that all worked. MR. HUTCHINS-I misspoke, but all the access is proposed from what's called Garrett Lane, which is a private right of way. MR. KUHL-And is that how you're going to build it, Tom, where the driveway out of this property will just go to that Garrett Lane and not to Birch Road? I mean,you've got a driveway. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes,you've got a wall there. MR. KUHL-Okay. That's the intent is going out to Garrett? All right. MR. JACKOSKI-I think just having some stormwater management control there alone is going to help with the lake, especially given its location on the lake. Any further comments from Board members before I take a polling of the Board? Okay. I'm going to poll the Board. I'm going to start with Kyle. MR. NOONAN-I think it's only going to be a good project. I think with all the modern ways to develop homes and structures on sensitive shoreline properties, I think this is going to help the property. So I'm in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I wrestled with this a little bit,but after I thought about it, it makes sense to me, and I have no problem with it. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/19/2014) MR. KUHL-I would prefer not to see McMansion's coming on Glen Lake,but there's nothing you can do because it's a good project based on the constraints of the whole piece. I just hope that the septic is put in the right place, and that the Board of Health takes a good look at it, but from the variance that we're being asked to approve,which is the road frontage, I have no problem. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes. I also agree with Ron somewhat. I really don't like to see these big, huge mansions either on the lake, but when you're replacing, you know, taking three pieces of property that can be three separate homes and putting one, and putting an up to date septic system, I think there's no doubt this is going to be better for the environment and the neighborhood, so, better spacing. So I agree with the project. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I'm going to take a little bit of a different view on something John said. I think a lot could have been done with this. I think we're going from seasonal camps that didn't have a large environmental impact because people were only there intermittently during the summer season, and we're turning these properties into, you know, very large lakefront homes that have a year round environmental impact on the area. I think there's a lot that can be done to mitigate that. I don't like the septic tanks 50 feet from the lake. That really concerns me because there's a lot of things that can happen. The contours of this property, I mean, everything seems to just flow right down to the lake from the top of this property on down. Something more modest could have been put here. Eventually somebody's going to be living there full time and it's going to have a year round impact on the area. I mean, you're talking everything from, you know, the septic to, you know,the rock salt coming off people's cars when they park in the driveway. That's all going to get into the lake. Based on that, I wouldn't be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-I think there's some valid points made by Rick, but I just think that there's definitely going to be a change to the character of the neighborhood. I'm not sure it's going to be detrimental or undesirable. I think that remains to be seen, but I think we're right into asking it to be as good as possible. I think the benefit sought by the applicant, there are some feasible alternatives. However, I think these benefits far outweigh the detriment to the property. The variance is substantial, and nobody's really talking about the road frontage, because that's the variance that we're dealing with here, and these are pretty typical variances for private roads that are converted. So in dealing with the road frontage variance,which is what we're talking about, I would be in favor of it,but I think some notes should be made as to what we'd like to see in the future on Glen Lake or in this area. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I mean, we can do that with conditions or notations in the motion with the Planning Board. MR.URRICO-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-And I'm going to seek a motion for approval on the project. MR. NOONAN-I'll make a motion. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Kyle. RESOLUTION TO: Approve Area Variance No. 16-2014, James, III & Kathleen Mackey, 5 & 7 Garrett Lane and 27 Birch Road,Tax Map No. 289.13-1-16, 17,and 19; The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from James, III &Kathleen Mackey for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury in order to combine 3-lots, remove associated structures on the lots, then proposes construction of a new 4,807 sq. ft. (floor area) single-family dwelling. Relief requested from minimum road frontage requirements for the WR zoning district. SEQR Type II -no further review required; 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/19/2014) A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, February 19, 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? No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, nor will detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested Area Variance. We assume there will be changes to the neighborhood,but nothing new considered undesirable. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? Feasible alternatives for access are limited due to the property being accessed by a private road. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? This Area Variance request is substantial relative to the Code. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? There have been some questions raised as to the physical and environmental conditions and how they would be impacted. In front of us, looking at the road frontage issue, we say no, but we're assuming the Planning Board and the Board of Health will address those issues. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? This may be considered self-created. 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. 16-2014, James, III & Kathleen Mackey, Introduced by Kyle Noonan, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: As comments to the Planning Board: Attention should be given to the following items: 1. Septic location - confirming that it is to be Code compliant and/or reviewing location to be further from the lake. 2. That we anticipate that the Planning Board is going to pay particular attention to the shoreline buffering requirements of the Town of Queensbury. 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 19th day of February, 2014,by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Is there going to be any further discussion? I think one of the things we've got to clarify with Staff is that the Board of Health does not have to review this application in its current configuration. Correct? 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/19/2014) MRS.MOORE-That is correct. MR. JACKOSKI-So that all Board members know that that's, maybe with moving around of the system of some sort, but right now they do not have to go in front of the Board of Health, only the Planning Board. MRS.MOORE-Their septic information does get reviewed by the Code office,meaning Dave Hatin. MR.JACKOSKI-Right. Okay. Anything else, Staff? MRS. MOORE-I just, my note was comments to the Planning Board, attention should be given to the following items. One, you have septic location, confirming that it is to be Code compliant, and/or reviewing location to be further from the lake. Is that one of your comments? MR. JACKOSKI-And I think the other comment's going to be that we anticipate that the Planning Board is going to pay particular attention to the shoreline buffering requirements of the Town of Queensbury. MRS. MOORE-My other comment,that would be Number Three. The other comment that I had was in reference to the house size, and I don't know if that's something that you want to refer as a comment to the Board, reviewing opportunities to reduce the size of the home? I just was trying to (lost words). MR. GARRAND-No,but for future reference we'd like to see the dimensions on the drawings that we do receive so that we can calculate the actual size of what the house is going to be, we can verify, basically,the facts presented. MRS. MOORE-Okay. So just for clarification for comments to the Planning Board. One is in reference to the septic location and the second is in reference to shoreline buffering? MR.JACKOSKI-Correct. MRS.MOORE-The Planning Board should pay special attention to that. MR.JACKOSKI-Correct. MRS.MOORE-Okay. MR.JACKOSKI-Any further comment or discussion from any Board members? Call the vote,please. AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Noonan, Mr.Jackoski NOES: Mr. Garrand MR. JACKOSKI-And my only other comment, the application is now completed, is under additional project information, Item Number Five, I've got a feeling that Mr. Brown couldn't possibly have filled this out. It must have been Mr. Hutchins,because it notes here that the estimated total cost of the project is $500,000. Does that seem reasonable? MR. HUTCHINS-I'm not sure who put that there. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I was just wondering if Finney Designs might be building these homes for only$500,000. No,you don't think so? Okay. Thank you. It looks like a great project. Good luck. AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-2014 SEQRA TYPE II MARC D. & BETTY R. FUCHS AGENT(S) S. BITTER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S) MARC D. &BETTY R. FUCHS ZONING WR LOCATION 19 WOOD POINT LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REHABILITATE AND STABILIZE EXISTING DETERIORATED CONCRETE PATIO AND STAIRS ALONG THE SHORELINE. INSTALLATION OF A GALVANIZED METAL FRAME ALONG WITH CONSTRUCTION OF A 136 SQ. FT. WOODEN PATIO ON TOP OF FRAME IS PROPOSED. CONSTRUCTION ALSO INCLUDES A 23 SQ. FT. WOODEN SUPPORTING STAIRCASE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF SP 15-2014; BP 2011-009 DETACHED GARAGE; BP 99-524 BOATHOUSE WITH DOCKS &UPPER OPEN PORCH; BP 98-025 DEMO; BP 342 YR 1969 ADDITIONAL DWELLING; BP 276 YR. 1968 SUMMER RESIDENCE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2014 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.61 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 239.14-1-2 SECTION 179-3-040 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/19/2014) STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 17-2014, Marc D. & Betty R. Fuchs, Meeting Date: February 19, 2014 "Project Location: 19 Wood Point Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to rehabilitate and stabilize existing deteriorated concrete patio and stairs along the shoreline. Installation of a galvanized metal frame along with construction of a 136 sq. ft. wooden patio on top of frame is proposed. Construction also includes a 23 sq. ft. wooden supporting staircase. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Relief requested from minimum shoreline setback requirements of the WR zone, Section 179-3-040. Shoreline setback Required 75 ft. Proposed 0 ft. (existing) Relief 75 ft. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may include not reconstructing a shoreline deck and constructing a deck in a compliant location. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request may be considered 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 self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, SP 15-14: Pending-filling within 50 ft.of the shoreline AV 36-10: 480 sq.ft.garage-Relief requested from minimum side setback requirements. 8-18-10 BP 11-009: Detached garage, 7-26-11 BP 99-524: Boathouse w/docks &upper open porch AV 48-02: 20 ft. x 40 ft. boathouse/sundeck and 48 sq. ft. dock. Relief from maximum allowable dock length requirements, 6-19-02 Staff comments: The applicant proposes to rehabilitate an existing concrete shoreline deck with a 136 sq. ft.wooden deck structure. The new structure would be bolted to the existing concrete and also include access by wooden stairs bolted to the existing concrete steps. The applicant has indicated the existing shoreline decks is made of concrete that is in disrepair and to remove and rebuild would cause more shoreline disturbance than the proposed project. The plans show the existing and proposed along with pictures of the current conditions. SEQR Status: 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/19/2014) Type II" MR. URRICO-And the Queensbury Planning Board, based on its limited review, did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. This was approved unanimously on February 18, 2014. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Welcome. MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter hereon behalf of the applicants. The applicants are seeking to revitalize an old deteriorated concrete patio and supporting stairs that existing right on the shoreline. There was a picture that was included in your packet which demonstrates that it's not very attractive as it exists today. What the applicants are proposing to do is provide for an aesthetic improvement. Any restoration of the area requires relief due to its location and size, being nonconforming, pre-existing structure, accessory structure. The proposal, as Roy had identified, is to construct a 136 square foot decking,place it on top of the concrete pad, as well as to construct wooden stairs, 23 square feet in size, over the existing concrete stairs. Before the wooden decking would be placed on top of this concrete patio, there would be a galvanized metal frame that would be placed on the pad to stabilize it, and then the wooden decking would be placed on top of that. The wooden stairs would be bolted to the concrete stairs that are there today. Understanding that you have to evaluate the variance criteria, the proposal provides the least impact to the environment. The other option would be to obviously remove it, which they felt would have a negative effect or could have a negative effect on the lake which they were trying to avoid. Any modifications to this would require relief due to its setback. So it limits the feasible alternatives, and because it will obviously provide for an aesthetic improvement,we feel it will only have a positive impact on the character of the area. I'll open it to questions. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions from Board members at this time? MR. NOONAN-I have a question. MR.JACKOSKI-Go ahead. MR. NOONAN-Is there any concern that the concrete stairs and the deck are going to continue to deteriorate? MS. BITTER-Right. The frame is going to be completed by a dock or decking company. So that's why Devon Dickinson was actually the one that did the design of it, but feels that in speaking with the fabricator that it's something that they will be able to maintain. Obviously based on if there's ice or anything like that that would destroy a deck or a dock, I should say, that we really can't control, but it will be of a certain metal that heat and cold it will be able to handle that to maintain the stability. MR. GARRAND-This lot is way below the permeability that, you know, we're looking for in the Waterfront Residential. They have a golden opportunity here to, while they're working on site to actually increase the permeability on this lot. Have they given any thought to that? They can make it a lot more conforming by actually taking out some of that concrete that's not really doing anybody any good. I mean, it's, a tremendous amount of shoreline buffering can be done here just by removing that concrete. A wooden deck on supports,you know, over the top of concrete doesn't help us out at all. MS. BITTER-Right. MR. GARRAND-I mean,it just still allows everything to run right into the lake. MS. BITTER-Well, it obviously will run within the decking and the splits that are provided, and to start removing the concrete is a concern, obviously, relative to its impact to the lake and the stability of that concrete and where that will go. Similar to removing a retaining wall or something of that instance. So they felt that this was the best proposal and would provide for more aesthetic improvement to that area. MR. HENKEL-So you're not going to secure that concrete at all? It's just going to stay like it is and just put that steel frame on top of that? MS. BITTER-On top of it. MR. MC CABE-That's the securing. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/19/2014) MR.HENKEL-Right. Yes,this could still get taken into the lake if you had ice. MR.MC CABE-You've got the mass there, and with the binding of the galvanized frame,it's not going to. MR.HENKEL-Right,but I'm just saying,that could still go into the lake,could pull it in. MR.MC CABE-My idea, I thought the galvanized frame was a pretty good idea,here. MR. HENKEL-Right,but they're using that to anchor the wood decking. MS. BITTER-Right,to stabilize it. MR. HENKEL-To try and stabilize it from cracking. MS. BITTER-Right,it's a stabilizer,and the wooden decking goes on top of it. MR.MC CABE-Right. MR. JACKOSKI-Ms. Bitter, would you be able to help us understand Site Plan 15-2014? Is that correct,Staff,in the cross reference? MS.BITTER-Is that for the garage? MR. JACKOSKI-Right in the agenda, under cross referencing, before the public hearing notice, we have SP 15-2014,building permit 2011-009,detached garage. What is SP 15-2014? MS. BITTER-That's this application. MRS. MOORE-That's the current application to the Planning Board where it's filling within 50 feet of the shoreline. MR.JACKOSKI-Filling,correct. MRS.MOORE-Hard surfacing. That requires Site Plan Review. MS.BITTER-So I will have to return to the Planning Board for this. MR. KUHL-Are you going to be building new steps or just putting a railing on the existing steps, Stefanie? MS. BITTER-There's actually a design where we're just bolting it to the existing steps. MR. KUHL-You're bolting the railing to the existing steps? MS. BITTER-Yes. MR.KUHL-Okay. You're not building new steps then. MS.BITTER-As is depicted right there. Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Do we have any further discussion with Board members before I do open the public hearing? I do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I'm going to open it. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.JACKOSKI-Is there any written comment, Roy? MR. URRICO-Actually there is one labeled public comment but it's the applicants are my next door neighbors at Lake George and can you tell me exactly where on their property they propose to construct this patio and stairs. I will be unable to attend the hearing tomorrow night. I appreciate receiving the hearing notice for this project, and this is thanks, John Boomer, and then I guess the Zoning Office did respond to him with the map and application information. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/19/2014) MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone herein the audience this evening who would like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one, I'm going to poll the Board. I'm going to start with Ron. MR. KUHL-I think it's an improvement to what's there now. My concern is that the existing concrete is not level at all, and I, without seeing more of an engineering drawing on how they want to fix, attach the galvanized frame to the concrete, I mean, I'm not the engineer, I'm here to approve it. I think it's a good, I think it's an improvement to what's there. My concern is that the concrete is not level at all, and I don't know how they're going to accomplish that task. So, although I am in favor of it with a reservation. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I think we can do a lot to alleviate some of the 40% impermeability on this lot. Improvements can be made. I wouldn't be in favor of it in its current proposal. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I'm kind of in agreement. I think it's easy to say this is an improvement and just rubberstamp it, but I really think we can improve the permeability. I think we can stabilize that concrete a little bit more. I'd like to know more about how the instability in the concrete is going to be prevented to further deteriorate. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-Let's see. They're asking for relief from shoreline setback,but I think it's hard to say yes to this, considering the concrete. Like Ron said it will look better, but I think they're using concrete that has been subjected to the weathering and erosion effects of the Adirondack area here, the freeze/thaw. I don't, again, I'm also not the engineer, but before I'd say yes to a shoreline setback of 75 feet, I think there has to be better plans. So I'm going to say no. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I have to be in agreement with my Board members. I'd have to say also I don't feel too good in approving this project now. I'd say no,not at this time. MR.JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I'm, you know, I thought first about removing the concrete, but I don't know, you know, the road down there is pretty steep. I don't know how they'd, without using a boat, get the debris out of there. That's why I thought the galvanized frame was a,to stabilize the concrete,was a pretty good idea, and I would, since it's pre-existing, the setbacks wasn't there to begin with, I'd approve this project. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, and I'd be against it also, Stefanie. I think that, being a shoreline matter, I think the more we can do to improve the shoreline, re-buffer it and reduce that permeability issue we have on the property, I wouldn't be in favor of it as it is,either. MS. BITTER-So if I understand the consensus of the Board, you're looking at the concrete to somehow be removed to increase the permeability, or is there other areas on the site that you're looking at, since at this point it's really only that pinpoint view that we're focusing because I think that seems to be what everybody's talking about is the permeability. MR. GARRAND-It is a small part of the lot, where you're putting this decking is, but I think overall the lot,you could increase the permeability on this lot in other areas, and I don't want to make any suggestions,but it's just,in my opinion,40%impermeable is a lot on the lakefront. MS. BITTER-And I know that this project was reviewed a few years ago, the site. That's why I was just curious as to,but it wasn't, I don't think,under any of you when you were here. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick's been here a long time. MR. GARRAND-Been here a long time. MS. BITTER-Right, I was just curious,only because it was reviewed. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/19/2014) MR. JACKOSKI-What's in front of us is this particular application, and it seems to me that, pretty strongly,this Board is feeling that it's. MS. BITTER-To maintain the existing condition but to look at the site as a whole for permeability purposes. MR. GARRAND-Very well put. MR. HENKEL-Yes. MR. NOONAN-Yes, I also don't think using deteriorated materials is,you know. MR.JACKOSKI-And quite honestly we're probably getting some permeability on the site now in that area because it is in such disrepair. MR. HENKEL-Yes,correct. MS. BITTER-All right,well, I will request to table the application to see if there's any modifications I can make. MR.JACKOSKI-All right. When would you like to table until? MS. BITTER-Why don't we table it until next month, since I can't table it until next week, I don't think. MR.JACKOSKI-How would that work, Staff? MRS.MOORE-She would need to table it until April's meetings,so for March's submission deadline. MR. GARRAND-They're not going to be able to do anything for five months anyway down there. MR. JACKOSKI-So could I get a motion, please, to table this matter to meet the March submission requirements for the April meetings? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-2014 MARC D. &BETTY R. FUCHS, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: Until the April meeting with requirements that a submission in March be made. Duly adopted this 19th day of February, 2014,by the following vote: MR. MC CABE-I'll make a motion that we table this matter to March to meet the requirements for April. MR. JACKOSKI-So we're going to table the matter to the April meeting with the March criterion for submission. MR. MC CABE-I'll make a motion that we table the matter until the April meeting with requirements that a submission in March be made. MR.JACKOSKI-Perfect. AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-For the Board's consideration under New Business this evening that's not on the agenda, there has been a request for the Board to be approached concerning my personal decision, as Chairman of the Board, under the direction of the Board members, concerning a Sign Variance request on a property on Route 9, and I want to be very careful, here, that we don't get into the particulars of any particular application,because we don't have a public hearing scheduled,but I've been asked that the applicant and/or their representatives approach the Board to give their viewpoint on why my determination that an updated survey was necessary based on the information that I've been provided by Staff is required and that this Board would require an 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/19/2014) updated survey, but the agents would like to address the Board to give their opinion as to why I may have been wrong. Is this Board willing to listen to that request? MR.URRICO-Have we heard this case yet? MR. JACKOSKI-No. Again, as you all know I have the authority to waive the requirement for a survey, an updated survey, an accurate survey, and I chose not to, concerning the information that I was provided to, provided by Staff concerning this application, and it does have to do with setback dimensions and questions concerning the Route 9 corridor and the improvements to the Route 9 corridor and whether the survey is accurate and up to date, as it's a 1980's era survey. I mean, my personal opinion is we have no reason to not listen, but I don't think that we can get into the particulars of the application. It's going to be a little hard to do that, but again, there is no, correct me if I'm wrong, Staff,there is no methodology to appeal the request that a survey be waived. MR.URRICO-Shouldn't it go through Town Counsel first? I mean, I don't know. MR.JACKOSKI-I don't know. This is new to me. We haven't had this issue before. MRS. MOORE-You've never been approached this way, and I've never been asked for the Board to be approached this way, I haven't heard of that in the past, either. An applicant has always come to the, followed the zoning and planning board process, following pre-application meetings and things like that. So I haven't seen this sort of request. In the past for the Planning Board they would typically ask to be a discussion item, and they would be placed on the agenda accordingly. In this case, I don't have that information. That is something that you could look at,but you, as a Board, in the past, as a consensus, have given the Chairman that opportunity to determine survey distance issues. MR. GARRAND-It's always been absolute. The Chairman always made the determination whether a survey is necessary or not. MR. URRICO-And that's the discussion item, and I don't think we want to get into particulars. If that's the issue,whether. MR.JACKOSKI-So what I would propose is that we, as a Board, if it's possible this evening, allow the Board to have the same information that I was given concerning this matter, and then let us, as a Board together, determine whether that request for a waiver of the survey is granted or denied. Would that be fair? Because, I mean,you'd be getting the same information I got. MR. KUHL-Yes,but that's your job to do that,right? MR.URRICO-Yes, I don't think we want to go there. MR. KUHL-It's not ours. MR. GARRAND-Yes,it's the Chairman's purview. MR. KUHL-And you already made a determination, right? So what's the issue? I mean, if you want us to hear it, I mean, if you want us, you want to have the opportunity to come forward and talk about it,and you want us to hear it after you've made your decision,that's fine. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm trying to err to the benefit of the applicant as much as possible, but what I'm concerned with is Staff has made it clear to me that the survey may not reflect the most current conditions of the Route 9 corridor, given the most recent improvements associated with the sidewalks,the road itself,the curbs, all that new stuff,and where this sign actually is located on that parcel, but the applicant has suggested that the State did not take any of their land either, and I don't know how to verify any of that. MR. GARRAND-With the new survey,it's the only way to verify it. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-Is it going to hurt to listen? I don't know. MR.JACKOSKI-We've got to be careful about hearing the application,that's it. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/19/2014) MR. GARRAND-Yes, anything related to the application is going to, it's going to violate open meetings. I mean, it's got to be listed on the agenda, it's got to be publically noticed. If we hear anything at all about an application. MRS.MOORE-As Staff, I agree with that. MR.JACKOSKI-Do we have a meeting,we have a meeting next week? MRS.M00RE-You have a meeting next week. MR. JACKOSKI-So what I would like to propose is that I and Staff get in touch with legal counsel to ask how to proceed with this and postpone any kind of comment regarding this particular application and my determination that a survey, an updated survey was required until next week. If that's okay. Mr. Clements? BRIAN CLEMENTS MR. CLEMENTS-Just a comment. I don't believe that there's an application pending. I don't think they've even applied for it yet. Is that true? AUDIENCE MEMBER-That's true. MR.URRICO-So how have you? MR. JACKOSKI-Because that's what happens. When they are doing the application process, Staff determined that an updated survey was required,then the applicant went back to Staff and said we want to request a waiver being necessary, and so then they come to me and say to me, would you grant a survey waiver request, and I either say yes or no, based on the criterion you all have set for me,and then they go back and then they complete their application accordingly. MRS.MOORE-Right. MR. KUHL-And what did you say,yes or no? MR.JACKOSKI-I said that we needed an updated survey. MR. KUHL-So it's done. The process is complete. Right,the loop is closed. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So,hang on. MRS. MOORE-The other thing is if you're requesting information for next week's meeting, I can also put together a series of information, what has transpired, so that you can see how that process has been working and it has been working with other applicants, and maybe you're not familiar with that process that occurs with pre-application meetings and discussion with an applicant, even prior to, I have project meetings with applicants prior to them making pre-application meetings. So maybe that's something that I need to provide additional information to the Board in that sense. MR. URRICO-Well, this whole process is not written in stone. It's changed over the years. I mean, there have been times when it was absolutely dictated that a survey was required for all applications. So this has changed over the years. MRS.MOORE-That's discussion amongst you,as Board members. MR. URRICO-Right. So that, to me, I mean, I wouldn't mind hearing more about it, but I want to make sure we're on sound legal ground before we do,because if this is just a procedural matter that can be adjusted,then we're in the process of adjusting it again by just hearing this ahead of time. MR.JACKOSKI-I know. MR.URRICO-So I just want to make sure if this is somewhere we want to go with this. MR. JACKOSKI-So what I think I'm hearing is that this Board would appreciate if I contacted legal counsel, with Staff, to determine how to move forward in this regard, with allowing, I don't know how we get this applicant, or future applicant, to address this Board without identifying the particulars of the project and not causing a problem. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/19/2014) MR. URRICO-But we've had cases where people have approached before they even made an application just to take the temperature of the Board or just give us an idea of what was coming, right? MRS. MOORE-That's happened through discussion items, as part of your agenda process. They've been placed on the agenda to discuss with you. MR. MC CABE-In the form of a public meeting,right? MRS.MOORE-In the form of a public meeting. MR. MC CABE-So that's the question here is, is there a public meeting, and it sounds like, no, there isn't. So that should be established. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So I am going to determine that we are not going to hear anymore discussion concerning this particular matter until Staff and I talk with legal, and then is it, do we have time to publish a discussion item for next week's meeting? MRS.MOORE-I don't believe I, I think it's limited. MS. HEMINGWAY-You don't need to publish a discussion item. It just needs to be on the agenda. MR. JACKOSKI-So we need to have it on the agenda, which we could do, if we get legal counsel's advice. Okay. Then I'm not going to move forward with any other discussion on this matter. You can certainly address the Board if you would like regarding other matters, but not in particular to that particular property. Is that fair? Mr. Borgos? STEVE BORGOS MR. BORGOS-Do you want me to come up there? MR.JACKOSKI-Sure,of course, no,that would be great,because we are recording the meeting. MR. BORGOS-Steve Borgos, Town of Queensbury. I'm required by law to tell you I'm a licensed associate real estate broker with Realty USA. I was invited to come to this meeting tonight just to provide some firsthand information about a project, but I've heard all of your requirements and your reasons for postponing. So may I ask just a general question? If,indeed,you're faced with any kind of an application from anyone, if you have a survey done and prepared by a licensed surveyor, even if it's 10 or 20 or 30 years old, and there are certain objects designated on that survey that were there at that time, and nothing has changed about the objects or the location on the survey, would you need a new survey to show that object is still in the same place? MR. JACKOSKI-The answer to that is that there is a reasonable suspicion that the existing survey does not depict current site conditions,and that is coming directly from Staff,and therefore because there is that concern,yes,we would require the survey. MR. BORGOS-Would you require the survey even if you had no evidence to indicate that there might be a reasonable reason to think that has happened? MR.JACKOSKI-I can't theorize. It would have to be project specific. I can't theorize in general. MR. KUHL-But wouldn't it also be determined on the age of the survey? I mean, if you've got a 30 or 40 year old survey, right, and that's your determination when it comes forward whether or not you want a new survey or not. MR.JACKOSKI-That's correct. MR. KUHL-It could be based on age,based on,you know,perhaps something changed. MR. JACKOSKI-It could be as simple as, I mean, quite frankly, if there are no changes, it's just a matter of a current licensed surveyor re-certifying the survey. It doesn't seem like it's that complicated, but I can't determine, on this survey, if there's been any added, I would be looking at things like has there been added macadam, has there been added structures, are sidewalks in the same place. I mean,there's so many things that could changeover 30 years, I just don't know that I can rely on that kind of data. I'm not a licensed surveyor, and this is wintertime. I can't verify what I'm seeing on that existing survey, and I've also been advised by, again, this is a particular 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/19/2014) matter, by Staff that they suspect changes. So I would look at each application on a case by case basis,which I do do. MR. BORGOS-I guess we can't go any further. MR.JACKOSKI-I'm sorry. Okay. Thank you. MR. BORGOS-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Any further discussion or open items from Board members they'd like to address this evening? MRS. MOORE-I do have one item, and this is in reference to zoning maps. You, as Board members, have the opportunity to receive zoning maps either hard copy or on line, and in reference to hard copy,you can choose whether you want a poster size or a smaller size,but I do need to know if you wish to have a hard copy or whether you're comfortable just going on line and reviewing the zoning information as it changes. MR.JACKOSKI-I'm okay with on line. MR. KUHL-I'm on line. MR. GARRAND-Can I get a poster? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. MC CABE-I'd like to get a hard copy of this. MRS.MOORE-Hard copy. Small or? MR.URRIC0-Something they can fit in their binders. Folded up. MRS.MOORE-There's a half poster size. MR.URRICO-I'll use both. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. MRS.MOORE-That's all I had. MR.JACKOSKI-Any further matters in front of the Board? Can I have a motion to adjourn,please? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF FEBRUARY 19,2014, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption,seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 19th day of February, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 33