Loading...
02-26-2014 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/26/2014) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 26,2014 INDEX Area Variance No. 8-2014 Ronald B.&Cynthia F. Mackowiak 1. Tax Map No. 289.11-1-33 and 59.122 Area Variance No.9-2014 Matthew&Samantha Ball 9. Tax Map No. 308.6-1-16.2 Area Variance No. 10-2014 Matthew&Samantha Ball 16. Tax Map No. 308.6-1-27 Area Variance No. 12-2014 Edward R.&Wendy Z. Schmidt 20. Tax Map No. 279.17-2-28 Area Variance No. 15-2014 Christopher Shipley 24. Tax Map No. 309.18-1-16 Sign Variance No. 7-2014 Raymond Hippele 28. Tax Map No. 296.13-1-18 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 02/26/2014) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 26,2014 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY RICHARD GARRAND KYLE NOONAN JOHN HENKEL RONALD KUHL MICHAEL MC CABE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, everyone. I'd like to open this evening's meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. For those of you who have not been here before, it is actually a very simple process. We'll call each application to the table here. We'll have Roy read it into the record. We'll then ask the applicant to add any additional details if they need to. We'll open it up to Board questions and comments. When there's a public hearing scheduled, we will open the public hearing. We will then determine, based on a Board polling, how to move forward, if we can move forward, and then we move on to the next application. So it's fairly simple. I will note that we have no Old Business or no minutes to approve this evening. So we're going to go right to New Business. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-2014 SEQRA TYPE II RONALD B. & CYNTHIA F. MACKOWIAK AGENT(S) CURTIS D. DYBAS OWNER(S) RONALD B. & CYNTHIA F. MACKOWIAK ZONING WR LOCATION OFF HALL ROAD, 9 GLEN HALL DRIVE, SHERWOOD ACRES SUBDIVISION APPLICANT PROPOSES ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING HOME AND SITE. THIS INCLUDES A NEW 288 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE, A TWO-LEVEL 561 SQ. FT. ADDITION, INCLUDES 1sT LEVEL FOR STORAGE, 2ND LEVEL REC. ROOM AND TO ENLARGE 4 EXISTING BEDROOMS WITH 266 SQ. FT. ADDITION 2ND FLOOR EXTENSION. PROJECT INCLUDES RELOCATION OF SHEDS ON PROPERTY. UPGRADE TO THE SEPTIC SYSTEM IS ALSO PROPOSED. SITE PLAN: EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF SP 9- 2014; AV 4-2013; SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2007; SUBDIVISION NO 1-1971 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.26 AND 0.59 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-33 AND 59.122 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-13-010 CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 8-2014, Ronald B. & Cynthia F. Mackowiak, Meeting Date: February 26, 2014 "Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes alterations to an existing home and site. This includes a new 288 sq. ft. detached garage, a two-level 561 sq. ft. addition, includes 1St level for storage, 2nd level rec room and to enlarge 4 existing bedrooms with 266 sq. ft.addition 2nd floor extension. Project includes relocation of sheds on property. Upgrade to septic system is also proposed. Site Plan: Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires PB review and approval. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Relief requested from minimum setback requirements of the WR zone and expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA. Sections 179- 3-040 Establishment of District and 179-13-10 continuation Setback North Setback South Shoreline Required 20 ft. 20 ft. 50 ft. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/26/2014) Proposed 12 ft. 9.93 ft. 27 ft. Relief 8 ft. 10.07 ft. 23 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 an opportunity to evaluate building a home in a compliant location on the parcel. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request may be considered substantial requesting to add a 561 addition to an existing 870 sq. ft. home within a narrow portion of the property in close proximity to the lake. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated as the new construction occurs near the shore side of the property. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, SP 9-2014: Pending-residential additions and new garage-expansion of nonconforming in a cea AV 4-2013: Creation of a nonconforming lot by separating land hooked parcel from main parcel SB 8-2007: Modification Transfer 0.59 acres from a 3.04 acre lot making the 3.04 acre lot non- conforming. 2-26-13 SB 8-07: Subdivision of a 12.74+/-acre parcel into 4 residential.9-18-07 Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a residential addition that includes a new 288 sq. ft. detached garage, a two-level 561 sq. ft. addition,with a 1St level for storage, 2nd level rec room and to enlarge 4 existing bedrooms with 266 sq. ft. addition 2nd floor extension. The applicant has indicated the existing sheds will be relocated on the property where one will be located close to the home and the other one will be located on the larger portion of property near the road. The relief requested is for shoreline, north and south side setback. The applicant has indicated the original home was built in the 1950's and the renovations and addition will update the home to a year round resident with a code compliant septic. SEQR Status: Type II" MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board did make a recommendation that based on its limited review they did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. They do recommend that we look closely at shoreline plantings. And that was adopted January 25, 2014 by a unanimous vote. MR.JACKOSKI-Welcome, Curt. How are you? MR. DYBAS-I'm doing well. How about you? MR. JACKOSKI-I'm well, and just in the interest of full disclosure, I don't know if it was me or my wife, but at one time we owned part of the right of way that is used to access this property. So it may show up in the title search. I just want to make sure people see my name there. We no longer have an interest in the property and haven't had some for some time. Welcome. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/26/2014) MR. DYBAS-Good evening, everyone. For the record Curt Dybas representing Ron and Cindy Mackowiak. The Mackowiaks purchased this parcel, I believe, about five years ago and the original, well, it wasn't a camp. It was a year round residence when they bought it, and in the interim they have negotiated a realignment of the north property line, so that the neighbor's dock is on his property, and it's a deed in your packet. They have also purchased the large parcel in the rear. Primarily the reason is to have a suitable area for a new septic system. Septic system has been designed by Tom Hutchins, and it is a workable system. Tom is waiting for the weather to break so he can dig the test holes and do the necessary peres up on the hill to put the system in. Whether or not this variance is granted, the system will be installed because they're having trouble with the pump line on the existing system, and the owners have said, no matter what,that's going to happen this summer,the new system. A couple of items I want to bring up before we proceed. Some of the numbers on the areas, the two story addition is not 561 square feet. It's 464 square feet, and the lower floor is basically basement storage. The upper floors are rec room. The home area is 1,195 square feet of occupied space, not 870. The garage,the proposed garage is 288 square feet, and the reason the garage is on the drawings is basically that's a future thing,but I've always been told that Boards want to see the overall plan, in its totality. The garage may be built two years from now, five years from now, it depends on finances, I believe. Mackowiaks have recently retired. They're from, I forgot where, anyway, they're going to sell their home and move up here on a year round basis,and their desire is to make this temporary residence their year round residence, and it is very tight, and it was a 50's camp that was remodeled and upgraded to a year round home. There's four bedrooms on the second floor, if you can call them bedrooms. Some of them are very small, and in order to make it more usable they wish to expand the second floor 10 feet toward the lake, and that's where you get that 226 square foot addition versus 266. It's basically a 10 foot by 24 foot addition that is, pushes out over the first floor that is already there. That would take care of what I call the first floor level and the lower second floor. Because of the steepness of the site,we're going to build an addition on the back of this where that garage, that full garage would occur, and the rec room would be above that. So it would be like an upper second floor. It is a difficult site. It is a doable project. We hope to proceed with it. As mentioned, we went to the Planning Board last evening and the recommendation was lakeshore plantings, and I spoke to Ron Mackowiak and he's in full agreement and I don't have a problem with that, and Tom Hutchins was here outside and I talked to him, and when we come back to the Planning Board, hopefully next month, we'll have a planting plan to present to them, and as far as setbacks, I see the 20 feet north and south, and what is basically driving that is this additional parcel that is on the rear. It becomes a lot average. So by the width of the lot, we're obligated at 20 feet, but if you look at the original parcel, it would be impossible to build a residence on there with two 20 foot setbacks because it would be less than 10 feet to even try to get a house on there. So originally when it was laid out, I was took it as that parcel intact, and that's why I drew the 12 foot setbacks and established my new construction lines. I hope that's it. Any questions? MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions from Board members at this time? MR. GARRAND-When was the deck permitted? I don't see any permit for the deck. MR. DYBAS-I don't know. The deck was there when they bought it. MR. KUHL-That deck has been on since 1997. I mean, when I moved in on that lake, the deck was there. MR. DYBAS-I know one of the things that came up was the big tree, and I believe Cindy Mackowiak said one of the reasons they bought this house was because of the tree, and the tree is staying. She refuses to have any parting with the tree,but the deck I had no idea when that was constructed. MR. KUHL-What you said, Curt,was you're showing a garage but you're not going to build it? MR. DYBAS-Not initially,not with this project. MR. KUHL-Okay,and yet you drew lines to where it would be,and what about the structures? MR. DYBAS-The two structures are basically ribbed tent structures. The larger is a 12 by 24 that they use to store their pontoon boat in the winter, and that's the one that will be moved down, it'll be on the larger parcel down by Hall Road,and it'll be easier for access to get the boat in. MR. KUHL-That other property that he bought? MR. DYBAS-Yes. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/26/2014) MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. DYBAS-And the properties right now, you'll notice there's three deeds in your packet. We're waiting for Michael O'Connor to come back from Florida to join this, all these properties together. It's in the works. All the papers have been signed, but we're waiting for Mike to come back, whenever,and if I was him, I wouldn't rush. MR. KUHL-And the septic is going to be pumped up to the new property in the back? Is that what he's going to do? MR. DYBAS-That is correct. MR. KUHL-Is he talking about a generator on that house? MR. DYBAS-Yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. Staff, I look at the map here, and it talks about 18.5 feet to the deck from the lake, and yet shoreline it says 27 feet are proposed. I don't understand that. MRS.MOORE-Because the deck is existing,and then he's only coming out. MR. KUHL-Yes,but don't you have to take the existing,because it's an existing nonconforming. MRS.MOORE-No,so his,the new portion,the new addition. MR. KUHL-Will be 27 feet from the lake. MRS.MOORE-Correct. MR. KUHL-Okay. MRS.MOORE-So that's the request. MR. KUHL-I understand it now. Thank you. MR. HENKEL-Now the stairs that are on the outside of this house here, what are they going to be made of? MR. DYBAS-They're all pressure treated. MR. HENKEL-All pressure treated. MR. DYBAS-The platforms are pavers where you stop at each, there's a door, there's a crawl space entrance halfway down and then down in the front they're both pavers. MR. JACKOSKI-Staff, could you go to the Queensbury.net site and pull up this parcel from the Assessor's locator and see what building permits have been issued on it? MRS.MOORE-Actually I have that. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Could you tell us? MRS. MOORE-Yes. I'll start with 2000, the stake dock; 2000 was a covered porch; 2000 was an open porch, open deck porch, and then in 1988 was an open deck, and I can give you sizes. Sorry, I'll go back to 1988, the open deck was 25 by 12. In 2000 an open deck was 7 by 15, and then in 2000 porch covered was a 15 by 5. MR.JACKOSKI-So it seems that that front deck that's so close to the lake was actually permitted and didn't require a variance? MRS.MOORE-I don't have any other information about the site,other than what's in the. MR. DYBAS-The 12 by 25 would correspond to the size of it. MR.JACKOSKI-But it was permitted? That's what the record says. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/26/2014) MRS.MOORE-I'm assuming,yes. MR.JACKOSKI-Would they be willing to remove the deck to get all of this expansion? MR. DYBAS-One of the reasons they bought the house was for that deck. MR.JACKOSKI-And, Staff,shoreline buffering requirements are 30 feet of the shoreline? MRS. MOORE-For every 50 feet, it's one large tree, one small tree, and then a certain portion of the lot from 35 feet from the shoreline,for every 100 square feet there is a certain amount of vegetation that needs to be. MR.JACKOSKI-There's three layers,correct,low growth,medium growth and high growth? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-It's interesting the Planning Board asked us to look at that specifically. MRS. MOORE-Because they know that you typically ask the same to them. So they just want to make sure it's in your recommendation back to them as well, to ensure that shoreline buffering is discussed and the applicant is aware of that. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Any further questions from Board members? MR. KUHL-Yes,how are you going to treat the runoff from the roofs, Curt? MR. DYBAS-We originally were trying to come up with a plan for stormwater, but with the proximity of the well,we could not get something on it compliant. It's two fold. Number One, this addition that goes on the front will eliminate this shed roof dumping off the front of the house. Everything will now be shed both north and south, and the plan is to use eaves trenches along both sides,both on the existing and the new. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR.JACKOSKI-Curt,can you re-explain the second level rec room? MR. DYBAS-Basically the basement level of that addition, the basement level is at the lower second floor level. Okay, and that's why I'm calling that upper second floor level, in other words nine feet above that level, is this rec room, and the whole purpose of it is to try to get a more meaningful entrance into this residence, higher up, so you can come in and basically walk down through two floors. MR. HENKEL-So that lower shop storage is going to be nine feet high. Is that what you said? MR. DYBAS-Nine feet floor to floor. It's seven foot six poured wall and, you know, a plate and a joist. So you're roughly seven foot eight and a half inch headroom. I mean, it's what fits the grade. If I lower it,now I'm way down below grade in the back. Is that clear, Steve? MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,thank you. MR. DYBAS-Probably the best way to look at it is the north elevation, which is the last page in your packet,which shows the outside stairs in correlation to the floor level, and you can see how it walks down the site. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? So, Staff, for clarification for all Board members,the stairways and the setbacks associated with them do not get counted. Correct? MRS. HENKEL-Should they? They're permanent. MRS.MOORE-They're permanent. MR.JACKOSKI-But if they consider them part of the landscaping,would that be part of the? MRS.MOORE-That's what he's just described as landscaping. So it needs to be clarified. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/26/2014) MR. HENKEL-They're all going to be pressure treated, no cement or anything other than the footings? MR. DYBAS-Pressure treated stairs. MR.JACKOSKI-But, I mean,they're above grade. They're not built into the grade. MR. DYBAS-No,the stringers are sitting on the grade. MR. JACKOSKI-So would we really consider them landscaping? I mean, I understand that that's part of the grade and it makes the grade, but if they're sitting on top of grade, they would not be landscaping. Correct? MRS.MOORE-They're part of the structure,then. MR. HENKEL-So what's the width of those,what's the size of those stairs? MR. DYBAS-Three foot wide stairway to railing. MR. HENKEL-So that brings you three feet closer, you've got a 12 foot setback, now you'll have a 9 foot setback. MR. DYBAS-If you count the stairs,yes. MR. HENKEL-You don't have to count those? MR. DYBAS-This is the first time hearing about counting stairs. MR. HENKEL-They're a permanent structure so they should be, I would assume, included, because they're not. MR. KUHL-Curt,could you make those stairs out of pavers? Instead of pressure treated? MR. DYBAS-Yes,you can do anything. Tear them all out and put them back in in pavers or stone is, well, you wouldn't want to use stone, it would kill you walking on. I mean, it would have to be something fairly uniform to do it. MR.JACKOSKI-So we need clarification from Staff,if we could,whether or not the proposed stairs as they are are part of the setback request for relief or not. MRS. MOORE-They have not been counted as part of this relief request, and they do need to be counted as part of that relief request. MR. JACKOSKI-And they do need to be part, all right. So we have a little bit of a snafu here, Board members,in that we'd be. MR. DYBAS-The stairs are there. MR.JACKOSKI-They're not going to be re-built? MR. DYBAS-No,they're there. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I keep hearing they're going to be pressure treated and they're going to be pavers. MR. DYBAS-They are, they're there. The stairs and the railings and everything are there I said there's 34 stairs from the parking lot to the front door. MR.JACKOSKI-But what I'm saying is are they going to be replaced as new? MR. DYBAS-No. MRS. MOORE-So, again, it's similar to the shoreline where the new portion of the addition needs to meet that setback,and if they're not new stairs,then. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/26/2014) MR. JACKOSKI-We understand that, but if they're fully replaced stairs, then they would be considered new. MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-So they're going to have to keep their old stairs. MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members at this time before I open the public hearing? MR. MC CABE-So,what we're hearing,then,is these numbers for setbacks are correct? MR. HENKEL-Are correct. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Hearing no other questions, I am going to open the public hearing this evening. Is there anyone here who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.JACKOSKI-Seeing no one, I'm going to ask Roy if there's any written comment. MR.URRICO-I do not see any written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So at this time what we normally do is we poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Rick. MR. GARRAND-Seeing all this development on a quarter acre piece of property, I'm concerned a little bit about the runoff,the additional runoff in this area, the possibility of some of the sheds and everything. I mean, I see two sheds here. If they're going to build a garage, I definitely want to see them gone at some point,but it just seems like it's overbuilding on a quarter acre piece of property. I mean, they're trying to make a year round house out of what's traditionally been camps. We're going to lose a lot of permeability in the area. On the balancing test, I think some aspects of this I think can be achieved by other means. Expansion of a nonconforming structure, I mean, do they have to build it this big? I understand it's what they want, but also the deck, I mean, I'm sure they bought the house because they liked the deck, but does the deck have to remain? I mean, that's where most of the relief lies. At this point I wouldn't be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Kyle? MR. NOONAN-Yes, also, you know, kind of agreeing with what Rick has to say. I question the structures with the addition of a new garage, didn't feel that the response to runoff,what to do with it,was strong enough to say we're going to capture it,we're going to do what we can with it. Again, I believe there's probably other feasible ways to go about maybe getting something done to this property,maybe not as big,on such a small lot. So at this point I would not be in favor,either. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I agree, in particular because this is in a Critical Environmental Area. I think we need to be very cautious about moving ahead with projects that are this expansive,and in particular I would like to see some flexibility in terms of giving back some more. What Steve suggested about the deck being taken out would be a requirement for me. Other than that, I would not be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I'm concerned with runoff and I would feel much better if there was a more positive plan to deal with runoff. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes,when I looked at it on paper, it looked like a nice project,but after going up there and looking at that slope and that, and it's a very small sliver of property, and what you're trying to put there is pretty mammoth, especially compared to the other camps. It doesn't fit into the 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/26/2014) neighborhood good. So it's pretty much, tome, it gets the whole criteria. So I would not be in favor of it,either. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Well, there's got to be one guy on the other side of the fence. Personally I like the fact that he bought the additional property and he's going to put the septic up there. I do see on that lake other houses building like this and going year round, but I think you've got to come up with a good way. I mean, I like the fact that the roof is going the opposite way instead of turning to the lake. You're going to have to control your runoff. You're going to have to figure out a way to control that. I mean, I'd be in favor of this property,with the right drainage control. MR.JACKOSKI-So, Curt,if I could just clarify for myself before I give you my opinion,the very face of the existing home on the lakeside is how many feet off of the lake? MR. DYBAS-Twenty-seven, I believe. MRS.MOORE-No,the deck makes it closer to the shoreline. So wherever the deck point is. MR.JACKOSKI-But I'm saying the deck we know is about 16, and we know it's about a 12 foot deck, so the house is about 28, 27 feet, and we have a requirement for homes, if they were new, to be 50 feet off the lake. Yes, so I'm going to have a really hard time putting a very large two story structure right there, 27 feet off the lake. I know it's there and I know it's existing,but if this house were pushed back to meet the 50 foot requirement and built from there, I'd feel better about it being two stories that close to the lake. Unfortunately. So we have four and a half noes. MR. DYBAS-We have a table. MR. JACKOSKI-We have a table. I suspected you were going to request that. Okay. So the applicant has kindly suggested that they would like to request us to approve a tabling of this application, and the tabling would go to when, Curt? That would be the April meeting for a March submission deadline? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. DYBAS-Let's try a May. MR.JACKOSKI-A May meeting with an April submission deadline. MR. DYBAS-There's a lot of questions. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. GARRAND-Curt, with the geography there, it just seems like a tremendous, tremendous problem with the geography for that site. MR. DYBAS-It is a difficult site, but my side of the table, I don't think the request is outlandish because the second floor addition does not increase the footprint at all. What is increasing the footprint is the rear rec room, and one of the reasons that this additional property was purchased was to handle the septic problem. Eventually the garage is a future thing. MR. GARRAND-Yes,that's also kind of worrisome. MR. DYBAS-Well, then, you know, the point of point there would be obviously needs a place to put the pontoon boat. As I mentioned, the larger structure would go down by Hall Road, and the smaller structure could disappear. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, and just so you may or may not be aware, the Johnson camp, which is just up from this,this Board,which is also very close to the lake,this Board also wanted them to move that whole camp to be within that 50 feet. So we are trying to be somewhat consistent with the cottages there. I do think it changes the character of the neighborhood with putting a two story structure so close to the lake. I know you step it back with various heights, but because you, it just feels like it's changing the character of the neighborhood that's up there,for me anyway. All right. MR. DYBAS-Okay. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/26/2014) MR. JACKOSKI-So we have a tabling motion that needs to be made to table this application to an April submission deadline with a May meeting. Can I have someone make that motion? MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-2014 RONALD B. & CYNTHIA F. MACKOWIAK, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption,seconded by Richard Garrand: Tabled until the May meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals with an April submission date. Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,everyone. AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2014 SEQRA TYPE II MATTHEW & SAMANTHA BALL AGENT(S) TOM CENTER, NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) MATTHEW & SAMANTHA BALL ZONING MDR LOCATION BALL BLVD., LOT 2 END OF MICHAELS DRIVE (SHERMAN ACRES SUBDIVISION) APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,900 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING ON LOT 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACRES SUBDIVISION TO BE LOCATED 39 FT. FROM DESIGNATED WETLAND. PROJECT IS ASSOCIATED WITH A SITE PLAN WITHIN AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION WHERE DEVELOPMENT OF 4 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE AND DISTURBANCE WITHIN 100 FT. OF A DESIGNATED WETLAND (REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW). RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SHORELINE/WETLAND BUFFER REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF AV 10-2014 LOT 5; SP 14- 2014; FWW 1-2014; SUB. 4-1990 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 4.27 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 308.6-1-16.2 SECTION 179-4-040 TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 9-2014, Matthew& Samantha Ball, Meeting Date: February 26, 2014 "Project Location: Ball Blvd., Lot 2 end of Michaels Drive (Sherman Acres Subdivision) Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,900 sq. ft. single family dwelling on Lot 2 of the Sherman Acres subdivision to be located 39 feet from designated wetland. Project is associated with a Site Plan within an approved subdivision where development of 4 single family homes and the construction activities include hard surfacing within 50 feet of shoreline and disturbance within 100 feet of a designated wetland requires PB review. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the shoreline/wetland buffer requirements. Section 179-4-040 Shoreline Shoreline Setback-wetland Required 75 ft. Proposed 39 ft. Relief 36 ft. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited as the house to be developed is located entirely within the wetland buffer as well as the significant portion of the parcel is wetlands. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/26/2014) 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, AV 10-14: Lot 5-lack of access to a public highway. SP 14-14: Filling&creation of hard surfaced areas (driveways) within 50 feet of a shoreline. FW 1-14: Disturbance of land within 100 feet of a regulated wetland. SB 4-90: Modification to the Sherman Acres subdivision for a proposed cul-de-sac on Amy Lane to add 50 feet of road frontage to each lot, creating a private driveway. Modifications to approved subdivisions require Planning Board review and approval. 12-16-08 Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a home within 39 ft. of a wetland where a 75 ft. setback is required. The information on the plans shows the location of the wetlands and the home. The applicant has explained the location of the house is situated to request the minimum and still be able to grade the site for site work and septic location. The applicant also explained the parcel was created under previous approved subdivision prior to wetland delineation requirements and the house is located similar to the earlier subdivision. SEQR Status: Type II" MR. URRICO-The Planning Board made a recommendation,based on its limited review they did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And that was approved on February 25, 2014 unanimously. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Welcome. MR. CENTER-Good evening. Tom Center, Nace Engineering, representing the Balls. One clarification that came up last night is there will be a shared driveway with this. Previous approvals for the Balls, who also own Lot One to the north of Lot Two there, that is going to be a shared driveway. That was a condition of their approval for Lot One previously. So if you look, there won't be, that driveway will be eliminated. It will come right off of the existing driveway that's there. So there won't be four driveways stacked up,and that was a previous approval for Lot One when Lot One was before the Planning Board several years ago. As I stated,the Balls own this parcel, the Parcel Number One, and Lots Three, Four, Five and Six, which Five and Six will be coming up next, but this particular location is similar to the approved subdivision plan, albeit we moved the house a little bit further to the west and north. We were trying to minimize the amount of fill and disturbance and also keep the house as close to the septic system as possible. The septic system is greater than 100 feet away from the wetland. It is compliant. It will be a shallow system. We do have good soils. We just have groundwater at 42 inches. So we have to be cognizant of that. We've attempted to locate the house and minimize the disturbance of the buffer by keeping everything close to each other, the septic system and the house. We've also been asked by DEC, we've had DEC out there on the parcels looking at everything we've proposed. They didn't see anything that would be unapprovable. They wanted the Town Boards to have the first shot at the project and then we will have to go back to them for the wetland buffer disturbance, the work adjacent to the wetland. We've also shown on here the limits of disturbance for potential lawn areas, and kept those, you know, parallel to the contours, and what we thought someone who was looking to build a house would be looking for for land, so that we could have it determined and set in stone where the limits of disturbance were,and that is about it for this. MR.JACKOSKI-So to clarify,the DEC is going to issue permits on this project site? 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/26/2014) MR. CENTER-There will be joint application. The reason we put all four lots together is because all four lots are along the same wetland. So we'd prefer to go for one from them to construct on all four lots, or three lots, I should say, and so they will have, it's a joint disturbance permit. It's just for work within the buffer. There is no work planned in the wetlands itself. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Are there any questions from Board members at this time? MR. KUHL-I have a question for Staff. So whatever we do here tonight, if they can't get through the DEC,they don't get a building permit,is that right? MRS. MOORE-They would have to come back and work with whatever DEC's comments were, if it changed what your relief review on the project, if it changed, then the applicant would be back before the Board. MR. GARRAND-Is there any way we could get a recommendation to the DEC? MRS.MOORE-Our recommendation to the DEC? MR. GARRAND-Yes,can we make a recommendation to the DEC? MRS.MOORE-Yes,but it's their permit. It's not binding. MR. GARRAND-It's not binding. MR. CENTER-And we did receive correspondence with DEC that they didn't have any major concerns with the project as proposed. We submitted these same drawings to them and received a letter back from them. MR. KUHL-But it'll still have to go through to DEC for their approval before we will issue a building permit. Correct? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. MRS.MOORE-He can't move forward. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-So, Tom, there isn't any place to actually build on this parcel that's not in the buffer zone,except for where that TP Number Four is? MR. CENTER-Yes, and then in that instance now, because of the separations that you have for the wastewater system, Number One,you have a longer driveway so you have more disturbance within the buffer to get a house over in that location, and then you would be putting your septic system on the opposite corner and you'd have a long distance to run between the house and the septic system. MR.JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions at this time? MR. KUHL-Tom,what's the width of the driveway? MR. CENTER-It is a 10 foot wide, 10, 12 foot wide driveway. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. CENTER-And it's less than the length that would require turnoffs for emergency vehicles. MR. KUHL-How come he doesn't have 40 foot of road frontage,he needs a variance for that? MR.JACKOSKI-He has 50. MR. CENTER-There's 50. MRS.MOORE-There's 50. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/26/2014) MR. KUHL-That's why I just asked how wide is the driveway. You're saying that there's 50 foot of property up on the street? MR. CENTER-Yes. There's 50 foot of property up on Michaels Drive. MR. KUHL-Okay,but that was my question but I phrased it wrong. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes. It is,though, interesting, Ron,that they have 50 feet but with that swoop there, the width of that overall tongue,the majority of that tongue of that property is how wide,Tom? MR. CENTER-I believe it's. MR.JACKOSKI-Twenty,twenty-five? MR. CENTER-Well,actually,the width out at the street? MR. JACKOSKI-No, no. The majority of that parallel line that runs with the Robert and Alice Philo property. It's definitely less than 50. MR. KUHL-They swaled it out to Michaels? MR. CENTER-They swaled it out,yes. MR. KUHL-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-It looks like about 25. MR. CENTER-It may be. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, and the Fire Marshal has reviewed this and has no issues with getting fire apparatus into the parcel? MRS.MOORE-It's less than 300 feet. MR. CENTER-Yes,it's less than 350 feet. MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. CENTER-That was the other thing. The more we moved and started coming back, the more, Number One, the more disturbance in the buffer and, Number Two,you get into issues with access for emergency vehicles. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. HENKEL-And what about these neighboring properties here with Michaels Drive? What kind of water problems do these people have now? MR. CENTER-I believe since the Balls had given permission on Lot Six for a drainage easement and two drywells and a French drain were put in that also goes out to Luzerne Road, and since that system has been installed, I believe, from all the information that we've had, is the issues they had previously with stormwater and groundwater have been alleviated by that system and having done the work out in the Charlton subdivision and the two lots out there that that French drain empties into, there's a lot of water that is drained from that parcel, the cul de sac at the end of Michaels Drive,out to Luzerne Road,and it seems to be a success and working very well in the neighborhood. I believe that most of the neighbors have said they had their sump pumps hardly ever turn on, and see very little water in their sump pump holes. So I believe that that problem was on that previous project,which the Balls did give a drainage easement for across Lot Six. MR. HENKEL-With all the snow out there, I went there and walked and it's just kind of hard to tell right now. MR.JACKOSKI-It's hard. MR. HENKEL-It's really not fair to make a fair picture to say yes or no on this project until really we can see that on the ground. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/26/2014) MR. CENTER-The actual wetland sits further down out in here. The wet area is mostly on the adjacent parcel, which would be the Westberry or Schiavone subdivision, and then the grade starts to drop off in here, and I, you know, we are draining that wetland, and the likelihood that it comes up to that higher level, it's probably wet in the spring, and it doesn't go much over, you know, ankles in the summertime,when you have,you know,your low water mark. MR. JACKOSKI-But it is fair to say the DEC has delineated all of this wetland. So we're very comfortable with the buffer. MR. CENTER-Yes, they have delineated it. They've walked the parcel. They have looked at what we've proposed. This is one of the wetlands that wasn't a wetland when this subdivision was designed. This is a landlocked wet area that the groundwater comes up. It's very sandy soil, and then it goes back down in the ground and like over in Charlton, we're back down to,you know, 15, 20 feet and there's no groundwater, just to the west and south of this parcel. So it's just a small, landlocked area that's built all the way around it. MR. HENKEL-But you did say the water table's pretty high,though. MR. CENTER-It has to do with the soil. The water seems to be trapped in that soil, and,you know, these,the wet area has been left to this small area. You can see on the previous subdivision map,if you want to call that up, on the one that was approved,you can see where they show the wet areas more on Parcel Number Four and goes back further. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,that's this other map you gave us,right? MR. CENTER-That's the other map. The wet area, you know, starts in this area, predominantly down in here,in those areas further down,where it says in the,you know,low seasonally wet area. MR. JACKOSKI-I think the nice thing about this is that the DEC is going to be monitoring it more closely than not. MR. CENTER-Right, and they're words to me is that this isn't a wetland that they have high concern for as far as disturbing the buffer. They're biggest concern is not disturbing the wetland itself. They have no buffer requirements. They have no setback. As long as you're not in a wetland, there is no requirement there. MR.JACKOSKI-Right. MR. CENTER-But they did want to look at the disturbance and have us delineate everything. MR. JACKOSKI-You know, and I think the process and procedure with us having our 100 or 75 or whatever the number is from the wetland is, you know, it's working. That's why you're here and we're able to look at it and the Planning Board will look at it and, okay. Are there any other questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? MR. GARRAND-Yes,a couple of other ones. Do you have test pit data handy? MR. CENTER-We have their soils data from the previous. I did the septic system for the Balls on Lot One. It's along the same elevation per se, and we have the test pit data from the original subdivision. MR. GARRAND-Are you familiar with the history of that whole area and the lawsuits that Queensbury settled for like$1 million in that area? MR. CENTER-Yes, and I believe part of that was why the drainage trench and easement were given to alleviate the stormwater issues, and I believe some of that was the drywells that were installed along that road were old metal cans with very little stone around them and they became clogged over time and did not work. MR. GARRAND-Yes,they just filled up. MR. CENTER-Right,they filled up. MR. GARRAND-There was no place for the water to go. The water table had risen so much everywhere. The water table was at about 36 inches, in that neighborhood. The Town of Queensbury allowed them to build. The Town of Queensbury ate about one million dollars, and 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/26/2014) part of the remediation on that was pushing water this way. All the neighbors, at one point, were pumping all the water towards this neighborhood because this is actually lower land than on the other side of Sherman Avenue. I'm really, really concerned. I'd like to see like test pit data, say maybe this June. I'd love to see what, you know, see the data from test pits in June say this year, because the flooding in those areas is a regular,it's not something, I mean, some years we have easy winters. Some years we have really rough winters, and I just hate to, you know, these people on Michaels Drive,they've been flooded out before,many times. MR. CENTER-Well,this project,we are raising the house up. We are. MR. GARRAND-Yes, your house. The houses that are being built are going to be higher than the existing houses that are there. MR. CENTER-This one, this house and this lot isn't going to shed, necessarily shed water out towards the ones in the front. It's going to go around the house and in the direction of the wetland. MR.JACKOSKI-But, Rick,help me a little bit. Wouldn't that be in the Planning Board's purview? As far as stormwater management development on the site? I mean,we're just looking to authorize. MR. GARRAND-Close to the wetlands, and it goes on to adverse physical or environmental effects. That's what I'm looking at in this. I've just seen too many, you know, too much in this neighborhood,too many bad things happen. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. GARRAND-I'm trying to look out for the neighbors. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other questions or comments from Board members before I open the public hearing? Staff have any more comments? Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I am going to open that public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-And is there anyone here this evening who would like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one,is there any written comment? MR.URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. At this time I'm going to poll the Board, to get a feeling for where we're going. I'm going to start with Mike. MR. MC CABE-I'm not comfortable with an almost 50% relief. I would not be in favor of granting this Area Variance. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. John? MR. HENKEL-I have to kind of agree with Rick. I'd like to see this project,like I said, I walked it and it's really hard to tell at this point. So, I'd like to see it more like in June and I think it's also on the wrong side of the buffer too far and I would not be in favor of the project. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-I think if you move the house further on out than 39 feet from your flag line. The way it is now, I wouldn't be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I would, at this point, think that, you know, with additional review from the DEC coming,based on whatever we say, and the evidence presented with the new stormwater drainage, I would be okay with the project. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-History has taught me to be very leery of any development in this area. The taxpayers have been on the hook for too much money, for overdevelopment, and I wouldn't be comfortable approving this. On the other hand,if I could see test pit data,maybe this May,new test 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/26/2014) pit data in this area, especially between this house and the existing homes, I might change my mind on if I could see some good,hard data. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I don't know if there's a good time to wait until, because there's always going to be an issue. Right now there's snow cover. There's going to be a Spring thaw. I'm sure the water table will be higher than it would be later on in the year. So, I'm not sure test pit data is going to be relevant in deciding this. I'm comfortable with the DEC requirements and the fact that they're going to be looking at this project before the permit is given. So, all in all, I would be in favor of what's been submitted,what we're trying to determine tonight. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. I kind of feel the same as Ron. I'm feeling, because of the oversight of the DEC and it being permitted by the DEC,their stringent requirements to protect the environment satisfies my requirement. There is an incredible amount of land here, given the little bit of development that's being done in this corner. So I know where we stand as far as a polling of the Board, as does the applicant. I guess one of my questions would be now, as we continue the discussion, is could the house be pulled forward and reduce that overall percentage of relief requested? MR. CENTER-I will sit down with the client and try to go more towards the north property line and see if we can, we have a hinge point with where the wetland flagging comes in here. So our southwest corner, if you will, of the house, is always going to, that's kind of the pinch point that I was looking at as being close. Even if we were to rotate it and slide it, we'd still have to be 25 feet off of the property line, but certainly we can rotate it. We can come over to that side and I still, I feel very strongly about keeping the septic system as much in that corner as we can, and trying to minimize the distance. The further west that I go, the higher the house has to go. Therefore the more fill and the greater the disturbance as you trying to get back down to existing grade. So I was trying to limit the amount of disturbance within the buffer by, you know, keeping it in the lower section of the lot, but certainly I think we can turn it and slide closer to the north property line and hopefully pick up a few more feet, if not, you know, maybe 10 feet. I'm not sure what that dimension is going to be. We may have to disturb more buffer, but,you know, we will make some attempts to make those changes and come back to the Board with those. MR. JACKOSKI-And just maybe I should, so we can clarify to give you direction so that you're not going off trying to do something that's not going to work for the Board again, for those members who thought the relief could be too much of a percentage of relief, is there a magic number that could help this application? MR. MC CABE-I would be, 35%would be somewhere where I'd start considering that. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, Mike. So that would require, Staff, and it's a 100 foot buffer, not 75? MR. CENTER-Right, 75. MR.JACKOSKI-So, I guess, Mike,is that,they would have to pull that house 14 more feet toward. MR. CENTER-Yes,we'll attempt to make that work. MR. JACKOSKI-And again it's no guarantee. You don't know what Board's going to be sitting here that evening, but if there is alternatives to explore, maybe they should be explored in addition to that. MR. CENTER-Okay. MR.JACKOSKI-All right. I guess this applicant also has requested a tabling. MR. CENTER-I'll request to table this to a future date. What are the April dates? MRS.MOORE-I have April 16th and April 21st,or 23rd,sorry. MR. CENTER-Can we table it to the 231d meeting,please. MR. JACKOSKI-Does Staff have anything already on that agenda? I mean, we'll do our best to do so to the April 231d meeting. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/26/2014) MRS.MOORE-I don't believe I have anything scheduled for April 23"d at this time. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So can I have a motion, please, for a March submission deadline with an April 231'd request to re-hear the project. MR. KUHL-Can I make that recommendation, Mr. Chairman? MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,sir. Thank you, Ron. MR. KUHL-Thank you. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2014 MATTHEW& SAMANTHA BALL, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption,seconded by Michael McCabe: Tabled until the April 231d Zoning Board meeting with a March submittal date. Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 2014, by the following vote: MR.JACKOSKI-Any further discussion? MRS. MOORE-Just clarification. So right now the proposed setback is 39 feet, and you would like that to be less than 39. MR. MC CABE-About 50. MR. JACKOSKI-What we're suggesting is it's clear that this Board is looking for a minimum relief, and that the applicant is going to need to come back. We can't provide guidance to be specific, because we're not going to be able to guarantee an approval or not an approval. MRS.MOORE-Okay. Thank you. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Staff. AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-2014 SEQRA TYPE II MATTHEW & SAMANTHA BALL AGENT(S) TOM CENTER, NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) MATTHEW & SAMANTHA BALL ZONING MDR LOCATION LOT 5 MICHAELS DRIVE (SHERMAN ACRES SUBDIVISION) APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,900 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING ON LOT 5 OF THE SHERMAN ACRES. PROJECT IS ASSOCIATED WITH A SITE PLAN WITHIN AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION WHERE DEVELOPMENT OF 4 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE AND DISTURBANCE WITHIN 100 FT. OF A DESIGNATED WETLAND (REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW). LOT 5 PROPOSES TO HAVE ACCESS TO MICHAELS DRIVE THROUGH AN EASEMENT ON LOT 6. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR DIRECT ACCESS ON A PUBLIC STREET. CROSS REF AV 9-2014 LOT 2; SP 14-2014; FWW 1-2014; SUB. 4-1990 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 7.73 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 308.6-1-27 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 9-2014, Matthew & Samantha Ball, Meeting Date: February 26, 2014 "Project Location: Lot 5 Michaels Drive (Sherman Acres Subdivision) Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,900 sq. ft. single family dwelling on Lot 5 of the Sherman Acres subdivision. Project is associated with a Site Plan within an approved subdivision where development of 4 single family homes and the construction activities include hard surfacing within 50 feet of shoreline and disturbance within 100 feet of a designated wetland (required PB review). Relief Required: 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/26/2014) Parcel will require area variances as follows: Relief requested from road frontage requirements for direct access on a public street. Section 179-4-050 Frontage Road frontage Required 50' 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 limited due to the location of wetlands on the parcel to be developed. 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 9-14: Lot 2-shoreline setback relief SP 14-14: Filling&creation of hard surfaced areas (driveways) within 50 feet of a shoreline. FW 1-14: Disturbance of land within 100 feet of a regulated wetland. SB 4-90: Applicant proposes a modification to the Sherman Acres subdivision for a proposed cul- de-sac on Amy Lane to add 50 feet of road frontage to each lot, creating a private driveway. Modifications to approved subdivisions require Planning Board review and approval. 12-16-08 Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a home and have the driveway access the lot across an adjacent parcel. The applicant requests relief for not having physical access from their lot to the public highway. The applicant has indicated the access through the neighboring parcel would allow for no disturbance of the wetland on the owners parcel. The applicant also explained the parcel was created under previous approved subdivision prior to wetland delineation requirements. SEQR Status: Type II" MR.JACKOSKI-Welcome. MR. CENTER-Tom Center, again, from Nace Engineering. As stated before, we have been out with DEC on this project also for this lot and for the construction of all four lots. They were acceptable to the location of the driveway, keeping it out of the wetland obviously is a good thing, what we're trying to do here. They would have allowed a permit, certainly, to access at the road frontage and through the wetland,but having the luxury of the owner has, owns all of these parcels, and to try to protect the wetlands, we're proposing an easement to access the buildable portion of the lot in the rear and keep all of,the structure and the septic system within the required separation distances. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/26/2014) MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Pretty straightforward. Are there any questions from Board members at this time concerning this application? MR. HENKEL-I would assume that driveway,is that going to be a paved or is that going to be stone? MR. CENTER-It'll be a paved driveway. MR. HENKEL-And what are you going to do for, is there going to be any kind of, you know, catch basins or anything for the runoff off that? MR. CENTER-We will tip it to the outside and use shallow swales along the driveway, and get it away from the wetland. MR. HENKEL-So tipped towards the Michaels Drive. MR. CENTER-And again, having met with the DEC, Jed Hayden out there, wetlands are a great sponge for stormwater. We create them to treat stormwater. He didn't have a large, any concern about the driveway in relation to the wetland, but certainly if the Board has any concerns, we can have the driveway, you know, tip away from the wetland and use shallow swales to put it back in the ground. We do have, you know, well drained soils on the top surface. So that shouldn't be an issue. MR. HENKEL-Yes,is that in the proposal,then? MR. GARRAND-It drains like beach sand. MR. CENTER-The top portion, yes. There wasn't a requirement for one, you know, for swales, but we certainly can, if it's a condition, that would not be an issue to show grading along the westerly boundary to the driveway to take care of stormwater. MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any other questions at this time for this applicant before I open the public hearing? Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening,and I'd like to open that public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one,is there any written comment, Roy? MR.URRICO-There is not. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, at this time, then, I'm going to poll the Board on this particular application. This time I'll start with Mike. MR. MC CABE-It seems like a responsible thing to do and I would be in favor of this request. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-I like the fact that the proposed housing is outside the wetland buffer zones and the swales you suggest you're putting in I hope you do, and I'd be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I'm in favor of the project. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I'm also in favor of the project, especially if you have the stormwater runoff on that road with the swales there. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, except for the relief being substantial, I think it's just due to the nature of the request,but I think it passes the test,and I would be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/26/2014) MR. GARRAND-Yes, I agree with Mr. Urrico. While the relief requested here is substantial, I think adverse environmental effects can be avoided here. This is away from the other homes, and any damage to the water table or rising of the water table due to the development here is mitigated by the fact that it is quite a distance from these other houses. I would be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So I am, at this point,going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-And seek a motion. MR. NOONAN-I'll make a motion. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Kyle. RESOLUTION TO: Approve Area Variance No. 10-2014, Matthew & Samantha Ball, Lot 5 Michaels Drive (Sherman Acres Subdivision),Tax Map No. 308.6-1-27; The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Matthew & Samantha Ball for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury for construction of a 1,900 sq. ft. single-family dwelling on Lot 5 of the Sherman Acres Subdivision. Project is associated with a Site Plan within an approved Subdivision where development of 4 single-family homes and the construction activities include hardsurfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline and disturbance within 100 ft. of a designated wetland (requires Planning Board review). Lot 5 proposes to have access to Michaels Drive through an easement on Lot 6. Relief requested from road frontage requirements for direct access on a public street. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,February 26,2014; 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 detriment to nearby properties. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? We find this is a very responsible way to handle this request. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? This is a substantial request. However, it's been determined that adverse environmental effects can be avoided. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? And we find minor to no adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions in neighborhood or district. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? We find that the alleged difficulty may be 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. 10-2014 Matthew&Samantha Ball, Introduced by Kyle Noonan, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/26/2014) 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 26th day of February 2014,by the following vote: MR.JACKOSKI-Any further discussion? MRS. MOORE-Do you want to insert the condition that, show grading west side of driveway to take care of stormwater to include such items as swales? MR.JACKOSKI-Is this project going to be going in front of the Planning Board? MRS.MOORE-It does. MR.JACKOSKI-I don't need it in there. I believe they'll take care of those things,but it's up to, I just worry if we put something like that in there and they have another alternative, then they can't move forward because we've requested it ourselves. MRS.MOORE-Okay. That's fine. MR. GARRAND-Make a recommendation. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,we can make that recommendation,but it's non-binding of course. AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Noonan, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Thanks,Tom. MR. CENTER-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-2014 SEQRA TYPE II EDWARD R. & WENDY Z. SCHMIDT AGENT(S) MATT STEVES - VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) EDWARD R. & WENDY Z. SCHMIDT ZONING WR LOCATION 72 SUNNYSIDE NORTH (ROAD) APPLICANT PROPOSES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT IN ORDER TO CONVEY PROPERTY FROM THE NORTH SIDE TO TWO (2) ADJACENT PARCELS OWNED BY RICCIO AND SORESINO. CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY CREATES BOTH PROPERTIES (RICCIO AND SORESINO) TO HAVE ROAD FRONTAGE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SUNNYSIDE NORTH (ROAD). PARCEL 279.17-2-28 WOULD BE REDUCED FROM 0.68 TO 0.62 ACRES; PARCEL 279.17-2-30 WOULD INCREASE FROM 0.19 TO 0.21 ACRES; PARCEL 279.17-2-29 WOULD INCREASE FROM 0.18 TO 0.27 ACRES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE, LOT WIDTH,AND ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF NONE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.68 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 29.17-2-28 SECTION 179-3-040 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 12-2014, Edward R. & Wendy Z. Schmidt, Meeting Date: February 25, 2014 "Project Location: 72 Sunnyside North (Road) Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment in order to convey property from the north side 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/26/2014) to two adjacent parcels owned by Riccio and Soresino. Conveyance of property creates both properties (Ricco and Soresino) to have road frontage on the south side of Sunnyside North Road. Parcel 279.17-2-28 would be reduced from 0.68 to 0.62 acres; parcel 279.17-2-30 would increase from 0.16 to 0.21 acres; parcel 279.17-2-29 would increase from 0.18 to 0.27 acres. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Relief requested from lot size,lot width,road frontage requirements of the WR zone. Section 179-3-040 Lot size Lot width Road frontage Required 0.62 150 ft. 150 ft. Proposed 2 acres 79 ft. 50 ft. Relief 1.38 71 ft. 100 ft. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives are limited as the applicant proposes to provide road frontage on Sunnyside Road North for two other neighboring properties. 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, None Found Staff comments: The applicant proposes a lot line adjustment for an existing 0.73 acres to be reduced to 0.62 acres to provide the 0.11 acres to be transferred to two lots on the west side of the property so the lots would have road frontage. The reduction in lot size to further a non-conforming parcel requires relief. The applicant has explained that the lot line adjustment will convey a portion of the property so 0.09 acres is for Riccio and 0.02 acres is for Soresino. The plan provided shows the lot line adjustment. SEQR Status: Type II" MR. HENKEL-Just for clarification,aren't those numbers transposed on lot size? MRS.MOORE-Yes,they are. Thank you. MR. HENKEL-So the required is two,the proposed is.62. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. It seems pretty straightforward,and welcome, Matt. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/26/2014) MR. STEVES-Good evening, Matt Steves, representing the Schmidts on this application. I'll go through just a real quick history of this, just so the Board understands, and I think there was one clarification. I think in your notes, Roy,you read 50 foot is the proposal. It's actually 79.85 of road frontage. We're not asking for 100 feet of relief. We're looking for 79.85. I just wanted to make sure that was clarified. Real quick, Sunnyside North, if you know the area is,the smaller camp and homes that are up in there, this was part of the Beers subdivision of 1924. You had this really sharp angle in the road that went in front of all the lots as you see on my plan, One through Five and Eight through Thirteen, and that little triangular piece right under the word road is where that road used to be, and it was a road by use, and it was owned by Beers, and then in 1964, Beers conveyed to the Town to straighten out the road. So all the underlying land in front of these lots was owned by Beers. He got the property back because it was all Beers property,it was a private road. At that time, they never conveyed any property to the original lot owners that therefore they would then front on a Town road. So we did the survey at the request of the Schmidts,because of the estate of Frank Zverblis, and property that they had from their father, and see what they had, and we did this and discovered it and said that the best thing to do would be able to convey some property to the neighbors because they're using the driveway. You can see where their garage and house is in relation to the front property line because of where the road is. Everybody comes off of the edge of the pavement and builds,you know,so many feet from that, and that's the whole reason behind this application is the Schmidts wish to convey that property to those two neighbors so then they can have this property and be cleared up for any future issues that may arise. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions from Board members at this time? Hearing none, there's a public hearing scheduled this evening. I'll open the public hearing at this time. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one,is there any written comment? MR.URRICO-There is not. MR.JACKOSKI-Having no written comment, I'll poll the Board. Rick? MR. GARRAND-I don't see how any of this difficulty could be self-created. These property owners weren't here when this was divided up. I don't think the requested relief is substantial at all, and there's literally no other way they can achieve the desired benefits here. So I'd be in favor of this. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I think it's straightforward. It's a good request. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I have no problem with the project as proposed. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-No,it's a good fix. I'm I favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I'm in favor of the project. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR.URRICO-I would be in favor of it as well. MR.JACKOSKI-There we go. I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-I'm going to ask for a motion. RESOLUTION TO: APPROVE,Area Variance No. 12-2014,Edward R. &Wendy Z. Schmidt, 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/26/2014) 72 Sunnyside North Road, Tax Map No. 279.17-2-28; The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Edward R. &Wendy Z. Schmidt for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury.Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment in order to convey property from the north side to two (2) adjacent parcels owned by Riccio and Soresino. Conveyance of property creates both properties (Riccio and Soresino) to have road frontage on the south side of Sunnyside North (Road). Parcel 279.17-2-28 would be reduced from 0.68 to 0.62 acres; parcel 279.17-2-30 would increase from 0.19 to 0.21 acres; parcel 279.17-2-29 would increase from 0.18 to 0.27 acres. Relief requested from minimum lot size,lot width,and road frontage requirements for the WR zoning district. Relief is 70.15 feet versus 100 feet. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,February 26,2014; 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? That no undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood nor will a detriment to nearby properties be created by granting the requested Area Variance. It will produce absolutely no change in the neighborhood because we're not going to change anything,physically,within this neighborhood. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? We don't see that the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved in any other feasible way. We don't feel the applicant can get their own road frontage without this property being conveyed to them. So it's the only feasible means for these people to get road frontage from the Schmidts. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? The request is not substantial. It is minimal relief when you look at the three properties. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? The proposed Area Variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Since it is such a small request for relief. There's nothing that's going to be adversely affecting the lake at all. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? The alleged difficulty was not 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. 12-2014, Edward R. & Wendy Z. Schmidt , Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: C. 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; D. 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; E. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/26/2014) F. 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 26th day of February 2014,by the following vote: MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Any further discussion? MRS. MOORE-Just clarification in reference to the road frontage. So the relief is 70.15 feet, versus 100 feet. MR.JACKOSKI-And, Staff, should we go through the? MR. GARRAND-This Board also finds that there will not be any adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood since it is such a small request for relief. There's nothing that's going to be adversely affecting the lake at all. It is minimal relief when you look at the three properties. It will produce absolutely no change in the neighborhood because we're not going to change anything,physically,within this neighborhood. Also,we don't feel that the applicant can get their own road frontage without this property being conveyed to them. So it's the only feasible means for these people to get road frontage from the Schmidt's. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So we had a motion, we have a clarification of the motion. Any further discussion? So I'm going to move forward and call the vote. AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. STEVES-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-2014 SEQRA TYPE II CHRISTOPHER SHIPLEY OWNER(S) CHRISTOPHER SHIPLEY ZONING WR LOCATION 55 TWIN CHANNELS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN ALREADY CONSTRUCTED 342 SQ. FT. PORCH ON EXISTING HOUSE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF BP 2010- 589; SEPTIC ALTERATION WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.76 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 309.18-1-16 SECTION 179-3-040 CHRISTOPHER SHIPLEY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 15-2014, Christopher Shipley, Meeting Date: February 26, 2014 "Project Location: 55 Twin Channels Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to maintain already constructed 342 sq.ft. porch on existing home. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Relief requested from minimum side setback requirements of the WR zone. Side Setback Required 20 ft. Proposed 9.3 ft. Relief 10.7 ft. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/26/2014) 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 due to the current location of the home and the applicant has indicated the septic system is located on the NE side of the home. 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, BP 2010-589: Septic alteration, 1-16-11 Staff comments: The applicant requests to maintain an existing 342 sq. ft. deck that does not meet the setback requirements. The plans show the location of the existing deck and setbacks. The applicant has indicated a wraparound deck would not be feasible due to the septic location. The applicant did explain that adjoining neighbor to the south side approved of the deck that is in place. SEQR Status: Type II" MR.JACKOSKI-Welcome. MR. SHIPLEY-Welcome, everyone. I'm new to this. So we're going to try this. I originally bought the house in 2011. I let an elderly gentleman stay there. In '12 he was moving out so I tried to hurry up and put a deck on there. I didn't know I had to get a permit. Then I went to a permit for about a year, and then by the time I actually got everything set they told me I had to come for a variance. When I originally put the deck up, I talked to the lady next door. She's a relator. I said that I was going to put a deck up. Did you mind, and she said not at all. She told me she was going to fax a paper in, but if she didn't, I have a copy of it, and pretty much I have my mother who lives with me. She's handicapped and she's blind. The reason for the deck is that's like her walking because she walks around it. Obviously I enjoy the deck,and so far to this point there hasn't been a problem. I've stopped, haven't put rails or anything up yet because I've come here for the variance. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. No problem. We'll open up the discussion to Board members. Are there any questions at this time from Board members? MR. GARRAND-Has the Town been out to inspect it all at,what you've gotten completed so far? MR. SHIPLEY-Well, he's come out. I don't think he's inspected or anything. He came out and said he was waiting for me to get the variance, and then he was going to inspect,you know. MR. GARRAND-And he was going to issue a permit after that? MR. SHIPLEY-Yes,sir. I have to get the variance so I can get the permit,yes,sir. MR. KUHL-Would you explain to me why we're talking about the applicant has indicated a wraparound deck? Why are we talking wraparound deck? MR. SHIPLEY-Well, I originally wanted to do a wraparound because I'm looking for something for my mother to go out and actually get, you know, her good exercise. She is 70, and obviously she 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/26/2014) can't walk on an uneven ground. I was going to do a wraparound around the front of the house and a smaller deck on the back because I would have just made the deck smaller on the back, but the deck would go down, I think it would take 11 feet on the deck, and so I would have done a wraparound around the front and around the side, but I can't do, the northeast side would be the septic tank,and on the other side I'd be even close to impeding on her property on the other side. MR. KUHL-So what you're saying is you're really not going to do anything other than is shown on this drawing,which is a deck on that riverside of the house? MR. SHIPLEY-I'm sorry,what was that? MR. KUHL-The deck is going to be as drawn here on this drawing,on the riverside? MR. SHIPLEY-That's exactly how the deck is,yes,sir. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. SHIPLEY-The only thing that isn't done on the deck is just, I'm going to put glass instead of wood, I'm going to put glass there and put metal rails,like handicap rails. MR. KUHL-Nice. Good. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Any further comments or questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I am going to open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one,is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-Yes. "I, Sandra Austin, residing at 57 Twin Channels Road, the next door neighbor on the south side,have no objections to the above proposed description. I feel it increases value to his and my properties." MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is that the letter you were referring to, sir? Okay. Thank you. Any further discussion from Board members before I close the public hearing and take a polling? Okay. I'm going to poll the Board. I'll start with Roy. MR. URRICO-Normally this is the part where we slap you on the hand for not coming forward, but you explained very well. So I would be in favor of the project as proposed. MR.JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I have no problem with the project. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes. I also have no problem with it. To begin with the house never should have been built that close to the line. MR. SHIPLEY-Well, I believe the same owner owned both, and what happened is one of the brother's wanted his. MR. HENKEL-Yes,so it's not your fault. MR. SHIPLEY-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I don't think this'll have any detrimental effects on the neighborhood at all. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I'm in favor of the project as the project is stated. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/26/2014) MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I'm in favor of the project as proposed. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,everyone. I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-And seek a motion. MR. GARRAND-I can make a motion. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Rick. RESOLUTION TO: Approve Area Variance No. 15-2014, Christopher Shipley, 55 Twin Channels Road,Tax Map No. 309.18-1-16; The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Christopher Shipley for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury in order to maintain already constructed 342 sq. ft. porch on existing house. Relief requested from minimum side setback requirements. The relief required is 10.7 feet from the 20 feet required. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,February 26,2014; 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 whatsoever. It's a minor modification to this home. 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 stated that the positioning of the current septic system prohibits that. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? I'd also say it's moderate at best. It's only 10.7 feet of relief in an area that you won't even see it from the road. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? As I previously stated, it'll have almost no environmental effect whatsoever. It's not going to produce any large amount of runoff. It's not filling any wetlands,nothing like that at all. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? The gentleman before us didn't build this house. I would say it's not self-created. He wasn't the one who positioned the house here or chose to subdivide these lots up. So I would say it's not 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. 15-2014, Christopher Shipley, Introduced by Richard Garrand, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame expires; 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/26/2014) 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 26th day of February 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Congratulations and good luck and thank you. MR. SHIPLEY-Thank you very much,gentlemen. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 7-2014 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED RAYMOND HIPPELE OWNER(S) RAYMOND HIPPELE ZONING Cl LOCATION 959 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RECONFIGURE AN EXISTING 170 SQ. FT. SIGNAGE STRUCTURE WHERE THE EXISTING 92 SQ. FT. OF SIGNAGE WILL BE CONVERTED TO 170 SQ. FT. OF SIGNAGE FOR TENANTS IN THE MOUNT ROYAL PLAZA. THE PREEXISTING STRUCTURE IS LOCATED 8.14 FT. FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND SIGN SIZE. CROSS REF BP 95-1815 50 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN; MULTIPLE LISTINGS FOR SIGNAGE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING DECEMBER 2013 NCI ASSIGNED FILE # SV 63-2013 LOT SIZE 5.13 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-18 SECTION CHAPTER 140 RAYMOND HIPPELE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 7-2014, Raymond Hippele, Meeting Date: February 26, 2014 "Project Location: 959 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to reconfigure existing freestanding sign from 92 sq.ft.to 170 sq.ft. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Relief requested from minimum front yard setback and maximum allowable sq.footage limit of the Cl zone. Section 140 Signs. Front yard setback Maximum allowable sq.ft.limit Required 15 ft. 45 sq.ft. Proposed 8.14 ft. 170 sq.ft. (92 sq.ft.existing) Relief 6.86 125 sq.ft. 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 to build a compliant sign may be considered. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/26/2014) 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, Applicant is in the process of connecting to the Town Wastewater line February 2014 BP 95-1815: 50 sq.ft.freestanding sign; others Staff comments: The applicant proposes to renovate an existing 92 sq. ft. sign structure with a 170 sq. ft. new face sign. The new sign would have about 30 spaces that would be posted for plaza tenants. The current sign is setback 8.14 ft. where relief is requested for size and setback. The information submitted shows the location of the sign, the existing sign design and the new sign with spaces for tenants. SEQR Status: Unlisted" MR.JACKOSKI-Welcome. It's a pretty straightforward application. Would you like to add anything at this time,and if you could,please identify yourself. MR. HIPPELE-Good evening. My name's Raymond Hippele. I own the Mt. Royal Plaza on Route 9. I just want to go over a little history on our sign. Over the years, a number of the business owners came in individually and received Sign Variances. In our opinion, the sign started to look a little messy and haphazard, and I believe the view of the Board was the same from some of the notes on the last variance approval. You can look at the picture that we have in your package. That's the existing sign, and obviously it's getting a little haphazard. The black center, that was the ColorTyme sign. They've gone out of business so they've blacked that out. So we consulted with the Zoning Department and it was recommended that we re-design our sign based on the outlet signs,and that's what we did,and that is the other picture that's included in your package there. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions at this time from Board members? MR.URRICO-So of the sign itself,the whole structure is not changing,it's not expanding? MR. HIPPELE-That's correct,no,the structure is not going to change,no. MR. URRICO-But we're considering more of it, is that why the, that's why we're looking at 170 square feet, as opposed to 92 square feet? MR. HIPPELE-Yes,well,you know, in reality,the way we had to it set up on here, it says 92 existing, but it's really,with the OTB sign on the bottom,which isn't regulated, it adds another 30. So really we have existing 122 square feet. So we'd be moving it from 122, getting rid of all those previous variances,and then it would be 170. MR. URRICO-But the portion that says Mount Royal Plaza, with the pyramid at the top, that's going to remain the same,so it's basically where the sign location is going to be? MR. HIPPELE-Yes. Just like the picture shows,that's how it'll look. MR.URRICO-Okay. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/26/2014) MR. KUHL-So the way it is today, those dimensions, is the way it's going to stay. You're just going to change the face? MR. HIPPELE-That's correct. We're going to take off I Love Pizza, Body Relief,the center black sign the OTB sign,and replace it with a more uniform,pleasing,aesthetically pleasing sign. MR. KUHL-So we're not going to see anybody coming in for Mount Royal variances anymore, this is it? MR. HIPPELE-As far as I'm concerned no. MR. KUHL-All right. I hope so,but anyway,thank you. MR.JACKOSKI-So can you tell me, is it that important to have that much signage allocated to Mount Royal Plaza instead of the tenants? MR. HIPPELE-Well, the structure, the sign, that Mount Royal Plaza sign up top is an internally lit sign that runs through the structure of the large sign. The bottom portion, as you can see from the existing sign,there's steel structure running in different areas. So we can't, on the bottom we can't physically lay something inside that to have an internally lit sign. So the way we went about it was to maintain the existing top and then just add the face of the individual signs below. I hope that answered your question. MR.JACKOSKI-In the current configuration of the Plaza,how many actual separate suites are there? MR. HIPPELE-Thirty, and I will say that most of the time we have vacancies there, I've always had vacancies. So I would say that the bottom portion of this,maybe four or six,would always be blank. So if we just blank that with white blank it's actually not going to fill up to the bottom I would say the majority of the time. I've been there 10 years. So that would go with every year that I've been there so far. MR. JACKOSKI-I just have to wonder,with the small font and that many signs there, if people aren't going to be on Route 9 going kind of slow trying to read all those things on there to see where they're going. MR. HIPPELE-Well,the outlet signs are the same. I have pictures,you all know what they look like. MR. GARRAND-Yes,you don't catch any of that when you're driving by. MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, I'm having a hard time, sitting only two feet from this thing, and I actually can't read the third one down on the left. I know I need glasses, but, it says Community Work and Independence,but that's pretty hard to read. MR. HIPPELE-Yes. Well, they're the same size as, approximately, of French Mountain is eight inches by three foot eight inches. MR.JACKOSKI-Are they going to be green? MR. HIPPELE-No. West Signs just put that as a proposal. MR.JACKOSKI-I just heard you say aesthetically pleasing,so I didn't know if that. MR. HIPPELE-I would assume they're going to be white background with, you know, the lettering on top of the white. Similar to the outlets. MR. HENKEL-The problem I can see with it,when I was trying to pull out there and take a left hand turn, it's tough to see. That's a huge sign, and it almost blocks the view, so close to the road and blocks the view. If it was a little bit open underneath you might be able to peek through and see it, but it's definitely. MR. HIPPELE-Well, existing,if you look at the existing picture,that is the same. MR. HENKEL-Well, I realize that. When I was pulling out of there to take a left hand turn out of there it seemed like, you know, it's, those other signs that you're showing are kind of open underneath,except for that one French Mountain one there. It just seems like a lot of signage. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/26/2014) MR. HIPPELE-If you made the letters any smaller, I think it was zoning told us we'd have to keep to, I think the Code was three inch letters. So they're about as small as they can be, the way we designed it. MR. JACKOSKI-Can Staff tell me, at one point all signs in the Town of Queensbury within two or three more years or five years or whatever it is, there was a master plan to have all signs conforming to the new Sign Ordinance. Where do we stand with that? I've had discussions with Craig in the past where there was some discussion that signage was going to need to conform. MRS.MOORE-As far as like on an annual basis? MR.JACKOSKI-No, I thought there was a deadline,and I don't know who might have. MR. GARRAND-I heard it before, too. It was something that was brought up that at least all the signs I think on,was it Route 9? MR.JACKOSKI-The corridors maybe? MR. GARRAND-Yes,had to be conforming. MRS. MOORE-I've seen the same language in other Zoning Ordinances, and everybody follows a process that,either it's a Sign Variance or it's a Site Plan for a sign. MR. JACKOSKI-So wasn't the Town trying to become more restrictive with the signage and actually trying to get more conformity and actually hold the standards a bit higher? MRS.MOORE-1 don't,I'm assuming that's true. I just don't know what the deadline is. MR.JACKOSKI-I just would hate to approve this variance and then have to have this applicant come back in two or three years or whenever that's going to take effect or be part of the. MR. MC CABE-You're not going to change all the signs up in that area. That would take about 20 years. I mean,that's sign jungle up there. MR.JACKOSKI-But I believe that's what's being contemplated. MR. MC CABE-I mean, they've got everything from billboards to. MR.JACKOSKI-Beautifying Queensbury. MRS.MOORE-The section of the Code says, of non-conforming signs or shall be removed within five years of such effective date. MR.JACKOSKI-And when was the effective date? MRS.MOORE-As of 2009. MR.JACKOSKI-So it's close,right? MRS.MOORE-It's close,yes. MR. GARRAND-That'll be fun. MRS.MOORE-It sure will be. MR. URRICO-We've wrestled with this sign for a long time, and some of us have been around, and our main complaint has always been the size of the Mount Royal Plaza portion of this,and I think as long as we're going into this to try to fix it, I would like to see that change, because it's really, the sign is much bigger than it should be as it is, and the Mount Royal Plaza part,you know, as much as we like to change it, I think as long as we're changing it, I think we should do it the right way, I think, or try to come closer to it. Also at the time, somewhere along the line, OTB added a sign onto here. I think that's what started this, because at first there were no signs of any type there, other than, maybe Rick remembers better than I do, but there was no signs of any type advertising any of the businesses in this Plaza, other than Mount Royal Plaza itself, and then all of a sudden, and we were told that's the way it was going to stay, and then all of a sudden the Off Track Betting sign appeared there without any warning. I don't even think they came to us for a sign change. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/26/2014) MR. GARRAND-I think they did come in for a variance at one point on that. MR. URRICO-And we were told they had to go in there because they were a State business and they basically had veto power over everything,right? Something to that extent. MR. GARRAND-Yes, and I think it was at that point you said we're going to see a variance every single year for this sign. MR.URRICO-Yes. MR. GARRAND-I think you predicted that. MR. URRICO-So if we're a little concerned about this, this is why, you know, this is a great step towards what we wanted to see, but I think some of the concerns you're hearing here are based on the history of it and what is basically a monumental sign. So that's why we're wrestling with it. MR. HENKEL-What's the difference between that and Northgate Plaza? It's about the same size as that and says Northgate Plaza on it. It's a standalone. MR.URRICO-Northgate doesn't advertise any of the other businesses at all. MR. HENKEL-So it probably was standard for that section during that, I think the sign. MR.URRICO-No, Northgate was up already before this got put up. MR. HENKEL-That's right,because Northgate doesn't list the businesses. MR. JACKOSKI-And I think we have to look at each Plaza, so to speak, based on its overall development and all the miscellaneous characteristics of the give and take throughout the process of how they get developed. So in front of us right now is this particular signage. We haven't opened the public hearing yet. At this point, if I could, I'd like to open the public hearing, see if there's any written comment, and then have some more discussion, poll the Board and then see where we go from there. So there's a public hearing scheduled this evening. I'm going to open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one, other than our other alternate,hello, so I'm going to ask Roy if there's any written comment? MR.URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. So at this time we're going to have some more discussion. We'll poll the Board. MRS. MOORE-Just before,you asked for the height of the lettering, and it has to be the minimum of six inches in height. So lettering within each,for each tenant has to be a minimum. MR.JACKOSKI-Does that include telephone numbers? MRS. MOORE-Yes, I'm thinking, lettering and/or logos on freestanding signs of a business complex shall be a minimum of six inches in height. So I would assume that carries over to numbers. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, Staff. MR.JACKOSKI-So I'm going to poll the Board at this time. I'll start with Rick. MR. GARRAND-It seems, at this point, like the most logical thing to do. I would like to see, as Mr. Urrico brought up, or Mr.Jackoski brought up,there was, at one point, a proposal by the Town,you know,to iron out all the signs in the corridor,straighten them all out, make them compliant. I'd like to see the Town follow through with that. I think it would be more uniformity in that area,but also, you know, at this point, I don't think we should penalize the applicant for trying to make this a little bit more appealing. At this point it kind of looks like a haphazard mishmash of stuff that,you know, 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/26/2014) people, business owners themselves threw up. I think at this point,this is an improvement. So I'd be okay. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Ron? MR. KUHL-Well, the way that this, the signs, I mean, shouldn't each vendor, each store have a 45 square foot sign themselves, one freestanding and one on the building? But anyway, in my short tenure here, this is the third time this is back, and I think that this is an excellent fix to the whole idea. Although what you talk about, Roy, is interesting, about reducing the Mount Royal Plaza, but if the people that want their pizza, say, come to Mount Royal Plaza,you want to see that first before you see the pizza. But I think that this is going to cause this gentleman a lot less grief and every time he gets a new renter that they have to come in here and get a variance, which takes our time and costs them a lot of money, and I also see it being consistent with the outlets,which is good. As far as, you know, what the Town wants to do and make everything plain vanilla, you can't do it when the arches are the arches,you know, and the chicken place has chicken wings,but,you know, anyway. So I like this request,and I'd be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I don't mean to open up a can of worms here. I do agree. This is the best solution we've seen in a long time and it's something we suggested a long time ago to try to rectify the signage for the individual places for the Plaza in there who always seem to get cheated unless they were on that sign, you know, there were only a few that were mentioned. So I think it's a better fix. This is going to look nicer. It's going to be better for travelers and shoppers and vendors as well. So I would be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I'm in favor of the project. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I'd like to see the Mount Royal Plaza actually brought up a little bit, and opened up at the bottom there so people could maybe see through there, but, I mean, I'm not going to stop them from moving on with the project. So I'd be for it. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I think the proposed project would certainly look better than what's there now. I drive that many times a day and would like looking at the newer sign. MR. HIPPELE-Thank you. MR.JACKOSKI-So I'd be in favor,but I really would hope that we could come up with a color scheme that's better than that green and neon colors. Something that's more blending with the Mount Royal part of the sign, if we could. Okay. So we do have an opinion of the Board. I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-And I'm going to seek a SEQR recommendation. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 7-2014, Raymond Hippele - Mount Royal Plaza 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 Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this Wednesday,February 26,2014,by the following vote: MR. GARRAND-And I just want to add that you will be tying in to the sewer system? MR. HIPPELE-Say that one more time? 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/26/2014) MR. GARRAND-The Plaza will be tying in to the sewer system? MR. HIPPELE-At this time,yes, it's being designed. We don't anticipate any problems. It should be done in late Spring,early summer,as soon as the ground firms up. MR.JACKOSKI-So is that a condition? MR. GARRAND-No. MR.JACKOSKI-No,not of SEQR,right. AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Now that we have a Negative SEQR Declaration, I am going to entertain a motion for approval of this project. RESOLUTION TO: Approve Sign Variance No. 7-2014, Raymond Hippele - Mount Royal Plaza,959 State Route 9,Tax Map No. 296.13-1-18; The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Raymond Hippele- Mount Royal Plaza for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes to reconfigure an existing 170 sq. ft. signage structure where the existing 92 sq. ft. of signage will be converted to 170 sq. ft. of signage for tenants in the Mount Royal Plaza. The preexisting structure is located 8.14 ft. from the front property line. Relief requested from minimum front yard setback requirements and sign size. SEQR Type: Unlisted; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,February 26,2014; 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 be produced to nearby properties in granting 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 an sign variance? The benefit could be sought by other means, but that doesn't seem practical at this particular time. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? No we do not think that it's substantial. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? No,we do not believe that. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? The difficulty is self-created. However, overall, we feel that this is a worthwhile project. 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 Sign Variance No. 7-2014, Raymond Hippele - Mount Royal Plaza, 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; 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/26/2014) 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 Wednesday,February 26,2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Good luck. MR. HIPPELE-Thank you. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there any other business in front of the Board? MRS. MOORE-I'll just do a quick, with the zoning maps, some of you requested hard copies, you received them this evening. In reference to those that were looking at it on line, the GIS, George Hilton will provide you with an e-mail each time there's an update, it'll go to each Board so that you can look at it in on line, and those that received a map will also get a request, do you want a new map. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. And is there any need for any further discussion concerning the discussion items that were asked of us at the previous meeting. Okay, and just for those of you on the Board,legal counsel was consulted, and Craig, of course, sent out the e-mail to all of us earlier in the week. Okay. Could I have a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF FEBRUARY 26, 2014, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. We are done, and just so that you all know, I didn't call Ron Roy once tonight. On motion meeting was adjourned. Steven Jackoski, Chairman 35