Loading...
05-21-2014 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/21/2014) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 21,2 014 INDEX Area Variance No. 64-2013 Dodge Watkins 1. Tax Map No. 296.9-1-54 Area Variance No. 65-2013 Larry W. Clute 1. Tax Map No. 296.9-1-55 Sign Variance No. 2 2-2 014 Brandon Vanderwerker (e-Spot) 2. Tax Map No. 296.13-1-67 Area Variance No. 8-2014 Ronald B.&Cynthia F. Mackowiak 6. Tax Map No. 289.11-1-33 and 59.122 Area Variance No. 34-2014 Diane and Craig Goodman 11. Tax Map No. 227.18-1-21 Area Variance No. 35-2014 Chris Abele 12. Tax Map No. 227.9-1-12 Area Variance No. 36-2014 Adirondack Mechanical- Bob Kladis 19. Tax Map No. 252.00-1-36.7 Area Variance No.41-2014 Dennis LaFontaine- Martha's Dandee Creme 24. Tax Map No. 295.12-1-3 Area Variance No. 37-2014 Mario DiSiena 30. Tax Map No. 296.9-1-10.1 (Lot 1) Area Variance No. 38-2014 Mario DiSiena 35. Tax Map No. 296.9-1-10.1 (Lot 2) 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 05/21/2014) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 21,2 014 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY RICHARD GARRAND KYLE NOONAN JOHN HENKEL MICHAEL MC CABE HARRISON FREER,ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR.JACKOSKI-Welcome. To those of you who haven't been here in the past,we're the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. The agendas are established. They're on the back table. We do have a form in the back that explains the process. It's actually quite simple. We'll call each application under Old Business and New Business. We'll go through some housekeeping here before we get into the Old Business and we'll bring up each application. I will read the application into the record and we'll ask the applicant to expand on that. We may ask questions. When the public hearing is scheduled we will open the public hearing,take public comment, continue the process of asking the applicant about public comment, and then we will maybe poll the Board or move forward from that point and make a decision. So we do have a little bit of housekeeping, if you wouldn't mind. I'll just start with looking for a motion to approve the April 16th meeting minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 16, 2014 MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF APRIL 16, 2014, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: Duly adopted this 21St day of May, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-All right. Thank you, and then I do need a motion to approve the April 23"d meeting minutes that I was absent for that meeting. So can I have a motion,please? April 23, 2014 MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF APRIL 23, 2014, Introduced by Kyle Noonan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: Duly adopted this 21St day of May, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mr. Garrand NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr.Jackoski MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION-AV 64-2013 DODGE WATKINS&LARRY W. CLUTE 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/21/2014) MR. JACKOSKI-Under Administrative Items, and we'll look to Staff for making sure we're doing this correctly, I do need a motion for further tabling consideration of Area Variance 64-2013, the Dodge Watkins project,and,simultaneously,Area Variance 65-2013 for Larry W. Clute. MRS. MOORE-I would suggest that you table it to the first Zoning Board meeting in July. I did talk with the applicant, the client, the surveyor, rather, and he indicated that he was waiting for both parties to be present to review the changes that had been made and they both need to agree on that before he'll be able to submit. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So we are going to ask for a motion that includes tabling this, these two projects to the first meeting in July,with normal submission deadlines in June. MRS.MOORE-And they're aware of that. MR.JACKOSKI-And they are aware of that. Okay. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-2013 DODGE WATKINS & AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-2013 LARRY CLUTE, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: Tabled to the first Zoning Board meeting in July with data to be submitted by the June deadline. Duly adopted this 21St day of May, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Noonan, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Great. Moving on to Old Business,finally. OLD BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 22-2014 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED BRANDON VANDERWERKER (E- SPOT) OWNER(S) JEFFREY SCHWARTZ ZONING CM LOCATION 980 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REFACE A PREEXISTING NONCONFORMING FREESTANDING SIGN FOR THE NEW BUSINESS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK AND MAXIMUM SIZE LIMITS OF THE SIGN CODE. CROSS REF SP 1-14; BP 13-542; 92-414; BP 93-410; 95-082 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2014 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.84 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-67 SECTION CHAPTER 140-6 BRANDON VANDERWERKER&JEFF SCHWARTZ, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-This application has been read into the record a few times now, and Roy can just read it in,because it might be different,and we'll begin the process right away. MR.URRICO-I'll just read the description and"The applicant requests approval for an already in use 50 sq. ft. sign utilizing an existing free standing sign frame that is located at 14.5 ft. from the front property line; where the maximum size sign allowed is 45 sq. ft. and signs are to be located no closer than 15 ft.from the front property line." MR.JACKOSKI-Great. So this application is quite straightforward. It is simply a size of sign request and a location of setback request, all quite minor. Welcome. If you'd like to address the Board you can,or if would like to just have the Board ask you questions,we'd be more than happy to do so. MR. SCHWARTZ-Okay. I'll address the Board. Jeff Schwartz. Okay. I just wanted to go through. I have your, the list of the notes, and I just wanted to just address it all. Just to take a step back, I want to tell you,the last time when we came in,you know,we didn't think that we needed a setback variance, okay. We had a 1985 survey, and no government entity had taken, ever taken land from me, okay, since that time, okay. I think the issue is that the property lines on this road are based on the centerline of the road. So the property line will change if the location of the centerline of the road changes, so, and the road had been rebuilt since 1985. So anyway, at this point we're six inches behind on the setback. So, anyway, moving forward here, I wanted to address that the, Number One,whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties will be created by granting this variance. I want to note that there's numerous signs on the road that are significantly more noncompliant that this sign. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/21/2014) You can look across at the Glen Drive-in or the Smoke Shop or just many, many signs if you drive down the road. Whether this was self-created, you know, we did, this sign was built in 1985 and approved without a variance. We didn't create this situation. Many signs, there were many signs that were noncompliant and received variances under the old Code, and those people aren't required to come here like us. We followed the rules and everything was compliant. So basically we were just, the change in the law is what made us noncompliant, and also noted it was also renewed subsequently, I think in 1996 or around there. Let's see, there's a note here, Staff comments, sign also has existing external lights which are noncompliant. I guess I don't understand why the lights are noncompliant. Maybe somebody can explain that, then there's another note here,the applicant has been provided with the process for application of Planning and Zoning Board review and the sign that is in use was asked to be covered prior to review by the Zoning Board, as appropriate reviews are required. Okay. We did not uncover the sign without authorization. My agent informed the Town that this business would not be able to financially survive for the next two months without a sign. The Town told my agent that there would be no enforcement taken if we uncovered the sign, and since that time the Town has not contacted us. Okay. Now,going on to the resolution comments. The variance approval is valid for one year from the date of approval. You may request an extension of approval before the one year timeframe expires. I guess I'd like to ask, what's the reason for one year? I'm not, you know, you guys are here every time. I just never heard of anybody only getting a year and have to come back every time MR. JACKOSKI-Sir, it's not that. So if you decide not to take action and actually erect the sign or do the sign as it has been approved within a year, well, then you'd have to come back, but in this case it's a moot point. MR. SCHWARTZ-Okay. So if you approve it,it's the variance that we're,in perpetuity? MR. GARRAND-Yes,it goes with the land. MR. SCHWARTZ-Okay. That's what I want to say. MR.JACKOSKI-Are there any questions from Board members at this time concerning this property? MR. GARRAND-Yes. Who told you there'd be no enforcement action,who at the Town? MR. SCHWARTZ-My agent could maybe. MR.JACKOSKI-So the Town actually told you that it was okay to violate Code? MR. SCHWARTZ-You'll have to talk to Steve about that. I didn't talk to anybody myself personally. MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, you just made comment here on public record that the Town approved you to. MR. SCHWARTZ-My agent. My agent talked to the Town, and then they said what I told you, and then my agent called me back and said that what I just told you, too, that the Town said that they wouldn't enforce it. I told them that they couldn't survive. We'd gone through various, whatever, there were different delays through the project, and these guys were really struggling, and I said these guys aren't going to. MR. JACKOSKI-We understand. We're just curious as to what your comment was. So could Staff please follow up on those comments for us? MRS.MOORE-I will. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Are there any questions at this time from Board members? Hearing none, I do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Mr. Borgos? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN STEVE BORGOS MR. BORGOS-My name is Steve Borgos, resident of the Town of Queensbury and representing Realty USA. I have the pleasure of being the representative of the owner for this transaction, and I've been through this all the way. I support what Jeff has said about the old survey showing that 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/21/2014) the sign,that the building involved has always been in that place since the beginning, and Jeff and I and I guess, I'm trying to think Kyle maybe, no, you didn't go out there with me, a member of the Town Board went out there with me, and we measured this item. By basic math it came to be, we believe from the property line it was 19 or 20 feet, not the 14 feet 6 inches according to the last survey, but in any event, the sign hasn't moved. It's been in the same place. It's received at least three permits over the years. Regarding the size of the sign, I didn't know, and I'm in this business full time, I didn't know the sign had been reduced from 50 square feet to 45 square feet. I know that there are many, many, many signs, most signs in that stretch, exceed 50 square feet. Many of them I believe have been in for a variance. I don't know about the others. I think it's very wise to let them have a pre-existing sign use. The experience I had even right next door less than a year ago, or about a year ago, where the previous occupant left, a new occupant came in, got a sign permit, no problem. I'm sure that's also 50 square feet. I don't see why, all of a sudden, this complaint is here. Certainly I would encourage you to allow them to keep their 50 square foot sign. It's extremely expensive to take off five square feet. It's only a six inch slice across the top,but it's very expensive to change that and understanding your reason for it, and if others can have the variance, I don't know why they couldn't have it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one, at this time, is there anyone here on the Board who'd like to ask any more questions before I poll the Board? All right. I'd like to poll the Board. I'll start with Harrison. MR. FREER-Yes. So I know there was some confusion about surveys and how we defined the setback,but reviewing the standards that we look at,it's not a large variance that you're requesting, either in the setback and the size of the sign, and it's an existing sign, so I think we're complying with the spirit of our job and I would be in favor of approving the variance. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Mike? MR. MC CABE-I have no problem. I think both the setback and the sign size are minimal. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Whereas I don't have a necessary problem with the location of the sign, since most of the signs on that side of the road are in approximately the same location, I do have a problem with the sign being uncovered without getting the variance first. So right now I'm sitting on the fence. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Rick? MR. GARRAND-Looking at the request, I don't think it'll have any adverse physical or environmental impacts on the area. I'd be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-To mirror some comments of my fellow Board members, again, I don't think you're asking for too much relief from both of these requests. So I also would be in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I'm also in favor. I think last time there was a misunderstanding. I don't think we had any problem with the setback or the size. It was the problem with the survey map. That was the question. So,you know,no problem. Very minimal. MR. JACKOSKI-And I'm in favor, too. So at this point, I am going to double check with Staff. Staff, did we complete SEQR in the past? MRS.MOORE-We have not completed SEQR for this application. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So I am going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-And I am going to request a motion for SEQR. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. 22-2014, BRANDON VANDERWERKER (E-SPOT, BASED UPON THE INFORMATION AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE SUPPORTING 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/21/2014) 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 21st day of May.2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Next item,of course,would be to seek a motion to approve these two variances. MR. GARRAND-I'll make a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Brandon Vanderwerker ( e-Spot ) for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury in order to reface a preexisting nonconforming freestanding sign for the new business. Relief requested from minimum setback and maximum size limits of the Sign Code. Applicant requests approval for an already in use 50 sq. ft. sign utilizing an existing freestanding sign frame that is located 14 feet 6 inches from the front property line where the maximum size allowed is 45 sq. ft., and the signs are to be located no closer than 15 feet from the property line. They're asking for 6 inches of setback relief and 5 sq.ft.of allowable square footage for the sign itself. SEQR Type: Unlisted; Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 22-2014, Brandon Vanderwerker ( e-Spot ) 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 21st day of May, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE A public hearing was advertised and held on Wed., March 26, 2014 and Wed., May 21, 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? As I previously stated, I don't believe it will produce any undesirable change in the neighborhood. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? I think it would be a tremendous expensive to move that sign or even try to reduce it. So I don't think other means are feasible. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? This request is minimal at best. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? None whatsoever. The sign has been here for over 20 years. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? I don't believe it's self-created. I think it's a result of where the sign was originally placed. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/21/2014) Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Sign Variance No. 22-2014, Brandon Vanderwerker (e-Spot), Introduced by Richard Garrand, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame expires; B. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA's review is completed; C. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building&codes personnel' D. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; E. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 21St day of May, 2014,by the following vote: MRS.MOORE-I just want to confirm that right now it says 14.5, and you used the term 14.6. MR. GARRAND-.5 is a half foot,right? MRS. MOORE-Okay. I just want to make sure that it's the foot issue and not the tenths. Okay. Thank you. AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Freer, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: Mr.Urrico MR.JACKOSKI-Sorry for the lengthy process. MR. SCHWARTZ-Thank you. We appreciate it. Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-2014 SEQRA TYPE II RONALD B. & CYNTHIA F. MACKOWIAK AGENT(S) CURTIS D. DYBAS, MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR, ESQ. OWNER(S) RONALD B. & CYNTHIA F. MACKOWIAK ZONING WR LOCATION OFF HALL ROAD, 9 GLEN HALL DRIVE APPLICANT HAS REVISED PLANS AND PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE STORY 310 SQ. FT. ADDITION. ALSO INCLUDED WITH THE PROJECT REVISION IS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. 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 IN A CEA. CROSS REF SP 9-214; AV 4-13; SUBDIVISION NO. 8-07; SB 1-71 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 MICHAEL O'CONNOR&CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR.JACKOSKI-This application has been modified since it was last heard. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 8-2014, Ronald B. & Cynthia F. Mackowiak, Meeting Date: May 21, 2014 "Project Location: 9 Glen Hall Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has revised plans and proposes to construct a single story 310 sq. ft. addition. Also included with project revision is stormwater management. Upgrade to the septic system is also proposed. Site Plan: Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/21/2014) approval. Variance: Relief from minimum setback requirements of the WR zone and expansion of non-conforming structure in a CEA. 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 Required 20 ft. 20 ft. Proposed 14.1 ft. 12.2 ft. Relief 5.9 ft. 7.8 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 to locate an addition to an existing home as any improvements to the home in the current location would require a variance. -Previous comments suggested evaluating locating a dwelling in a compliant location on the property as the improvements proposed were substantial in nature. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The applicant's plan revision are no longer related to the shoreline. 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 no impacts are anticipated to the environmental conditions in the neighborhood as the applicant has updated plans for stormwater and erosion control measures as well as including a shoreline buffer planting area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, SP 9-14: 310 sq.ft.residential addition; expansion of nonconforming in a CEA; pending AV 4-13: Creation of nonconforming lot by separating land hooked parcel from main parcel SB 8-07: Modification-transfer 0.59 acres from a 3.04 acre lot making the 3.04 acre lot nonconforming, 2-26-13 SB 8-07: Subdivision of a 12.74+/-acre parcel into 4 residential.9-18-07 Staff comments: The applicant has provided a revised project for a residential addition for a 310 sq. ft. addition. The project includes removing the existing sheds, installation of a new septic system and installation of stormwater measures as needed for the addition. The relief requested is for north and south side setback. The applicant has indicated the original home was built in the 1950's and the addition will update the home to a year round resident with a code compliant septic. SEQR Status: Type II" 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/21/2014) MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. Would you like to add anything at this time, or would you like to turn it over to Board member comments and questions? We have seen the project in the past,but feel free to comment. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of your record, I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor, representing the applicant. With me is Curt Dybas who is the architect for the project, and with us also is Ron Mackowiak who is one of the owners of the property. I'd be glad to go directly to questions by the Board. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mr. O'Connor. Boy, is that a change. It's almost worth granting you approval right now to get that over with. MR. O'CONNOR-You've got to ask a couple of questions. MR.JACKOSKI-And we will. Okay. So here is this parcel. We've seen this parcel before in front of us. They have modified the plan. The new existing footprint is there, and I'm sure we have some questions. MR. GARRAND-Question for Staff. MRS.MOORE-Okay. MR. GARRAND-The roofline's being modified on this. That doesn't increase the FAR at all? MRS.MOORE-No. I mean,it does,but it doesn't make it out of compliance. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Thank you. MR.JACKOSKI-And that's because they have so much land in the back,correct? MRS.MOORE-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any other questions at this time before I open the public hearing? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience, as I open the public hearing,that would like to address this Board concerning this particular application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one, I'm going to go back to the Board, and I guess I'm going to ask to poll the Board. MR.URRICO-I do have one public comment that was sent in,it probably should be read in. MR.JACKOSKI-Was it read before? MR.URRICO-No,it looks like it was sent in on the 20th. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. URRICO-So it says no objections if upgrade to septic is required rather than a proposed. It is important to keep the lake as free of waste as possible. A 310 square foot addition should require improved septic capability,and I cannot read the name on the bottom of this. It looks like a P. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. We'll just say the public comment is to address the septic system, and as you can tell from the application, it is anticipated to be upgraded accordingly. Any other written comment, Roy? MR.URRICO-No,that's it. MR.JACKOSKI-So I'm going to poll the Board,and I think I'm going to start with John. MR. HENKEL-This definitely came back with a little better, I would say it fits in the neighborhood better. You've done a nice job with the stormwater. I'd be in favor. I don't think there's any impact to the neighborhood or to the environment. So I'd definitely be in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/21/2014) MR. NOONAN-Again,yes, the revised plan, I believe, is a plan I am more in favor of. I'd be in favor of this project. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I think the proposal is better than the previous proposal, and I don't see any adverse environmental impacts on this one. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR.URRICO-Yes, I think it passes the test. I would be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes. I'm in favor of it. I don't think it's going to influence the lake, and that was the main view of trying to be compliant with the lakefront setback. So I support. MR.JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-Before I raised a question about stormwater remediation and it looks like that's been taken care of,and so I'm happy. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, it does go in front of the Planning Board as well. So, given the polling of the Board, I am going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-And I am going to seek a motion. MR. MC CABE-I'll make a motion. Approve Area Variance No. 8-2014, Ronald B. & Cynthia F. Mackowiak, off Hall Road, 9 Glen Hall Drive,Tax Map No. 289.11-1-33 and 59.122 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Ronald B. & Cynthia F. Mackowiak for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040 and 179-13-010 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant has revised plans and proposes to construct a single story 310 sq. ft. addition. Also included with project revision is stormwater management. 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 non-conforming structure in a CEA. The relief requested is 5.9 feet on the north setback and 7.8 feet on the south setback. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wed., February 26, 2014 and Wed., May 21, 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? An undesirable change will not be produced to the character of the neighborhood, nor will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by granting the requested area variance. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? Benefit could be sought by the application,but it seems like this is reasonable. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? We don't believe it's substantial. We think that it's moderate. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/21/2014) 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? We think not. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? It is. 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. B-2014, Ronald B. &Cynthia F. Mackowiak, Introduced by Michael McCabe,who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame expires; B. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building&Codes personnel; C. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; 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 21St day of May, 2014 by the following vote: MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, my concern is the roof on the addition, the orientation of it is changing, so that, and you've been given elevations. They're part of the package. The front elevation is an extension of where the second floor ends, and that, some might think, is a horizontal expansion within the 50 foot setback. I'm not sure, I'm late on getting into this thing, but I don't want to have to come back to you. MR. JAC KOSKI-Unfortunately we don't have a determination in front of us from the Zoning Administrator so we can't act on anything else at this point. MRS. MOORE-That's correct. I was not aware. I don't have an answer. It's something that we should discuss with the Zoning Administrator. MR. GARRAND-Just make a note that it gets reviewed. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, well, Craig does review this application. What he's put in front of us as a team here is he's made a determination on this particular application that these are the two items that need to be discussed. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I just don't want somebody to say,hey,you're not supposed to put that wall there,that's the 320 feet. MR. JACKOSKI-I think everyone has acknowledged that this application, this property is staying in the footprint that it's in and we all know that it is a 50 foot setback. Unfortunately we don't have a determination that we can rule on. MR. O'CONNOR-But you're approving it as submitted? MR. JACKOSKI-We're approving this application as it has been submitted and as it has been reviewed with the elevations that are in this packet. MR. O'CONNOR-If somebody pulls that out and say, hey, we need to come back to you for that wall, maybe they could do that,you could do it administratively. MR.JACKOSKI-I can't tell you that,unfortunately until we see that determination. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/21/2014) MR. O'CONNOR-All right, and I sat and listened to your recital of the relief that's given, I didn't hear relief for that part that's a vertical expansion. MR. MC CABE-No,the only thing we have are the two setbacks. MR.URRICO-The setbacks. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes,all right. AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Noonan, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-And, Mr. Mackowiak,make sure you get a small bill from Mr. O'Connor. MR. O'CONNOR-That never happens. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2014 SEQRA TYPE II DIANE AND CRAIG GOODMAN OWNER(S) DIANE AND CRAIG GOODMAN ZONING WR LOCATION 95 PILOT KNOB ROAD APPLICANT HAS INSTALLED A 6,307 SQ. FT. TENNIS COURT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF BP 94-953 SEPTIC ALT.; BP 92-756 3-CAR DET. GARAGE; BP 8760 YR.1984 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2014 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.37 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.18-1-21 SECTION 179-3-040 MR.JACKOSKI-Is the applicant here? MR.URRICO-Isn't this being tabled? MR. MC CABE-Yes,this is going to be tabled. MRS.MOORE-Before you table it,you will need to open the public hearing. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So we will go ahead and open the public hearing. Is there anyone here this evening who would like to address this Board concerning this particular application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.JACKOSKI-I'll open the public hearing. Seeing no one, I will leave the public hearing open,and I will seek a motion to table this matter to the first meeting in July? MRS. MOORE-No, I apologize. There's a tabling. She's written a letter requesting the next date, in June I believe. MR.JACKOSKI-Can we table this to June 18th given the submission deadline has past? MRS. MOORE-All the information is submitted. She just couldn't attend this evening. So it's not a submission issue. MR.JACKOSKI-We already have the agenda set up for June,correct? MRS.MOORE-No. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. We do have a request from the applicant to table this to June 18th. MRS.MOORE-She has a very busy schedule. MR.URRICO-She says to Wednesday,June 18th. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. NOONAN-I'll make a motion. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/21/2014) MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. TABLE Area Variance No. 34-2014. Diane and Craig Goodman, 95 Pilot Knob Road, Tax Map No. 227.18-1-21 at the request of the applicant to the June 18, 2014 meeting, Introduced by Kyle Noonan who moved for its adoption,seconded by Harrison Freer: The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Diane and Craig Goodman for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant has installed a 6,307 sq. ft. tennis court. Relief requested from setback requirements for the WR zoning district. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 21, 2014. The public hearing remains open. Duly adopted this 21St day of May, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2014 SEQRA TYPE II CHRIS ABELE AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) J.ARTHUR NORTON ZONING WR LOCATION 102 ROCKHURST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,021 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. THE HOME IS TO BE TWO-STORY WITH 2,763 FLOOR AREA SQ. FT. PROJECT INCLUDES GRADING, SHORELINE BUFFER,AND OTHER SITE WORK. APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED FOR A SEPTIC VARIANCE FOR PROPOSED PROJECT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF SP 29-14; TBOH SEPTIC VARIANCE (5-5-14) WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2014 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.34 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.19-1-12 SECTION 179-3-040 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 35-2014, Chris Abele, Meeting Date: May 21, 2014 "Project Location: 102 Rockhurst Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,021 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. The home is to be two-story with 2,763 floor area sq. ft. Project includes grading, shoreline buffer, and other site work. Applicant has submitted for a septic variance for proposed project. Relief requested from setback requirements. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variance relief from section 179-4-040 Establishment of Districts: Front Setback WR Required 30 ft. Proposed 17 ft. Relief 13 ft. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the size of the home. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/21/2014) 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested 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 impacts to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, SP 29-14: Pending TBOH 12-14: 5-5-14 Approved Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a 1,750 sq. ft. footprint home with a floor area of 2,763 sq. ft. The home is located 17 ft. from the front property line where 30 ft. is required. The applicant has received a septic variance from the local board of health. The applicant has indicated the location of the home is similar to other homes on Rockhurst and the depth of the lot also determined the proposed house location. The plans show the location of the home, elevations, septic location. Shoreline planting areas are also shown but not labeled on the variance plan. SEQR Status: Type II" MR. URRICO-Also the Planning Board made a motion, a recommendation on behalf of them to the Zoning Board of Appeals for Area Variance No. 35-2014, and based on its limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated by the current project proposal, and that was passed on May 20, 2014 unanimously. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Welcome, Dennis. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. Thank you. I'm Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design representing the applicant Chris Abele who's sitting here with me and the owner, Art Norton, is in the audience. Chris has the property under contract pending various approvals and is proposing the single family residence on the plan that's been provided with elevations and what not. It's a single family residence as indicated. There's a new proposed state of the art wastewater system associated with that which has received approval from the Board of Health. We felt it was important to meet the 50 foot shoreline setback, and the two sideline setbacks are also in compliance. We fall short on the front setback associated with the road, where the garage portion is 17 feet from the property line. This is very much in character with the neighborhood along Rockhurst Road. In fact, this is a somewhat oversized lot for Rockhurst, but nonetheless, we're faced with the request for the variance for the front yard setback. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. At this time, are there any questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? MR. FREER-Yes. So just for the record my wife has a minority interest property at 117 Rockhurst. I have no financial interest in this property, but I just wanted to make it for the record that I have interests that aren't in conflict with this discussion. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Harrison. Any other comments or questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? Seeing none,there's a public hearing scheduled this evening. I'm open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.JACKOSKI-Seeing none,is there any written comment? MR.URRICO-None that I could find. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/21/2014) MR. JACKOSKI-All right. So, at this point, I will turn it back over to the Board. I think, Dennis, would you kind of explain why we simply couldn't push the garage back another five or six feet so that, given there's a deck on the boathouse and there's a patio in the front, why we couldn't, you know, minimize some of this front yard setback requirement by doing that? I understand the design of the house,but if you could do that,would it be possible? MR. MAC ELROY-I guess the question would be, you know, whether that's feasible from your standpoint. This is the house footprint and design that we were provided and we understand your comment and that consideration. MR.ABELE-Originally I was going to try to have a 24 by 24 garage,but that brought it close because I wanted to actually store my boat in there, and then so I reduced that to 22 by 22 to get it back off the road, and,you know,in trying to fit the home in here we complied with most everything that we could, but that 50 foot setback from the lake really squished us a little bit because the lot is only about 106 foot deep, and,you know,we tried to comply with the requirement of,you know,what is it, eight percent floor area, or 22% floor area relative to the,you know,the entire square foot of the lot. So, I mean, and I do want to maintain that deck because that provides a beautiful viewpoint to look over the lake. So if possible I would like to keep this. MR. HENKEL-So you're telling me those trees are not in your way when you're on your deck? There's a lot of heavy, you're going to keep a lot of those trees in that buffer zone, right? You're telling me those trees aren't over 40, 50 feet? MR.ABELE-What do you mean? MR. HENKEL-Well, I'm saying,if you're on your deck,how are you going to look over those trees? MR. ABELE-Excuse me, but I have to take some for the construction of the home, as per the site plan,but also,and there are a couple of dead trees there. MR. HENKEL-Right. MR.ABELE-And the other thing is I do want to limb some of the trees up to,you know. MR. MAC ELROY-It wouldn't be looking over the trees, but there are filtered views from that spot. From my standpoint, and I have experienced this a number of times, and you've maybe heard me say this before, we've got development, we've got zoning that has been created after the development of an area. Now not particularly this lot, but the front setback, 30 feet is not much different than any other residential zone in Queensbury. The zoning regulations do recognize the character of many of the lakefront lots by having some relief in the side yard setbacks with that graduated setback. It doesn't address front on that. I mean, we've got a lot that's 105 feet deep, roughly, and if you have a 50 foot setback, which we complied with, because that's the most important one. The front one, because, it's the character of the neighborhood, the character of the area is,you know, 17 feet is a pretty good setback. MR. HENKEL-Yes, there's no doubt some of those houses are almost on the road. That would still give you,you could still get your 24 by 24 garage,and still push it back. MR.ABELE-Well, see, here's the other problem, too. With it being a walk out, with it being a walk out basement, and with the width of the house having to be tight, there was really no way to put a deck in the middle of the home. So this would be my primary first floor deck area to utilize, you know, when you take your meal out and you want to sit outside. It's the only place I could put it would be behind the garage. So if I take this out, then it really does restrict me in terms of how I use the property. MR. GARRAND-Are you going to be living there year round? MR.ABELE-I don't know. Not initially. Not initially. MR. GARRAND-Okay. I just want to forewarn you, Rockhurst in the wintertime. MR.ABELE-I know. MR. GARRAND-Okay. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/21/2014) MR. ABELE-No, we've been up on the lake since the early 60's. My father had a camp on Seeley Road,you know, and I actually owned one up in Point Comfort,too. So I do know the lake, and,you know, I have a long history with it,but I don't know the future. I mean,initially,no. MR. HENKEL-Are you going to keep all this dockage? MR.ABELE-Yes. MR. HENKEL-And don't you have like a place to sit up in there kind of? MR. ABELE-I do but you've really got to go down and then go back up to it. Well, if I reduce it a couple of feet. I want to work with the Board. I do. MR. FREER-Okay. My question is,when do you plan on having construction? Because if you try to do construction in the summer,you are going to create an undesirable change in the neighborhood and a detriment to nearby property owners. MR. ABELE-Well, I actually, two weeks ago, in talking to your wife, I promised not to do any construction during the summer season. I don't want to do that. The only thing I want to do, and I did disclose this to your wife, was I want to bring in somebody to do a little bit of clearing so I can create a parking area for, you know, vehicles so I can get them off the road, but I don't want to do anything until mid-September. I promised her that and I don't want to go back on that. MR.JACKOSKI-And the good thing here is you're actually building your own home. Correct? MR.ABELE-Yes. I'm a home builder in the Clifton Park/Half Moon area. MR. JACKOSKI-So, Dennis, the only concern I have is when you were looking at the site, snow is a problem up there. Parking clearly is going to be a problem on this lot for, you know, other cars. That driveway is quite short coming off the main road, and if you have a typical F-250 or something in there,that's going to stick out. There's no room to put that thing on this parcel,which is why I'm just a little concerned about if we can just two or three feet, is it even possible? Can we line it up with the front pillars? Does that mean us anything to get some length back into that driveway for parking? I mean, we have this out on the lake right now where we approved the property with a very short driveway, and I don't know how they're going to park on that driveway. It's right there on the road. MR. GARRAND-They won't in the wintertime. MR.JACKOSKI-And it's a one car garage. MR. ABELE-Could we widen the driveway to, you know, to allow maybe, if the need arises, two or three cars abreast of each other? I'd be willing to do that. MR. FREER-You're talking about parallel parking, is that what you're suggesting? Instead of straight in parking and keep the lot as it is? MR. MAC ELROY-No. MR. FREER-Okay. MR.JACKOSKI-I mean,for me, Dennis, I'd rather keep the grass and let them drive on the grass. MR. MAC ELROY-And the grading would allow that. It's a pur flow system. MR. GARRAND-What's the salt going to do to that system? All the water,being under water for five months out of the year? MR. MAC ELROY-I'm sorry,repeat that? MR. GARRAND-Snow,water seeping down into it? MR. MAC ELROY-It's no different than, the treatment takes place within those plastic modules. There are three other properties right adjacent to this that employ that. Two of them are right off the road. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/21/2014) MR.JACKOSKI-I guess Chris,we could maybe, instead take some off the patio in the front and move the whole house forward so you keep your garage deck and you don't affect your one deck. MR. ABELE-Well, unless I, you know, if I do shave two feet off the garage, Dennis, would I still maintain the 10 foot there? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. MR.ABELE-10, 12 foot? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. MR.ABELE-I mean, I could shave two foot off the garage and then I could have a deck that's 10 foot wide and about,what,maybe 12 foot, and see, I really,from an aesthetic viewpoint. MR. GARRAND-You could actually go more to the north. MR. HENKEL-Yes,go to the north. MR.ABELE-Yes,but then I've got big trees there that I'd have to take down,too. MR. JACKOSKI-Well,you've got, well,your p cast concrete there. You probably don't want to build over those. MR.ABELE-Yes. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR.JACKOSKI-You couldn't orient them the other way to gain two feet? MR. MAC ELROY-Possibly. I will mention that in the process of the Board of Health variance, they asked that there be some sort of barrier placed on the down gradient side of those tanks, and that wasn't defined any more than some type of impermeable barrier. Now whether that's a retaining wall, I don't think so. It's some sort of buried. MR.JACKOSKI-You could just hide it,is that what they're looking to do? MR. MAC ELROY-No barrier to. MR. FREER-I was there,and Mr.VanNess suggested that,you know,some kind of an emergency belt and suspenders system so in case they had a problem they could deal with it more expeditiously. MR. MAC ELROY-Now, I don't want to get off the main point here. If that deck was, if the garage area was bumped say two feet further in, into that deck area, and that added to the driveway by that amount, I mean that's better certainly. MR. HENKEL-It's 19 feet. MR. GARRAND-It's an 11 foot request. MR.ABELE-Would that be okay? MR. MAC ELROY-If we could make that change on the fly,yes. MR.JACKOSKI-Well,we have the authority to grant less relief,just not more. Right? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, I can't speak for the whole Board, but that certainly, I think it'll make it a little bit better. Are there any other comments from the Board? I did leave the public hearing open. So I'm going to poll the Board. Let me make the clarification that what we're now seeking is. MR. GARRAND-Eleven feet. MR.JACKOSKI-Eleven feet of relief instead of. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/21/2014) MR. HENKEL-Thirteen. MR.JACKOSKI-Thirteen. MR. HENKEL-So the proposed is 19. And then the relief is 11. MR.JACKOSKI-Because it was 17. So I'm going to poll the Board with that reduction that has been offered by the applicant in the relief. I'll start this time with Rick. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Chairman, this is Rockhurst. Most everything done on there is going to require a variance. It's a very narrow peninsula, and there are very other feasible options. I think what they're doing is shoehorning this house in as best that they can. I do hope they abide by the plantings as outlined in the plan. Beyond that, I don't think this proposal will have any adverse environmental effects. I do hope that we can see some long term follow up on these septic systems that they are putting in up there, and see how they hold up with all the weathering that they get up there on Rockhurst,with all the snow being on top of them for five to six months of the year. So, I'd be in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR.URRICO-I'm basically in agreement with Rick. MR.JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-Like Rick said, everything is real tight there. I don't see that this is out of character with anything else in the neighborhood. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I definitely think he's doing a good job with the size of the property, definitely with the septic system and the stormwater management and it looks good. I'd say go for it. MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes, I can live with this proposal. I will just say that we need to be extremely cautious about parking in the summertime on Rockhurst. It's really not safe if somebody has a problem at the end of the Point, because getting a large vehicle through that summertime traffic parking is very, very difficult. So I would just make sure that whoever is visiting or living there recognize that we cannot afford to put more cars sticking halfway out on that street because we create a real potential hazard,but I do support it and wish you good luck. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-With the change we've discussed, with the 11 foot relief, I am also in favor of this project. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. So we do have a polling of the Board. I am going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-I'm going to seek a motion in just one minute here. Mr. Norton,your family's owned the property for 53 years, right? ART NORTON MR. NORTON-Right. MR.JACKOSKI-We're going to miss you up there on Cleverdale and Rockhurst. You've been a great steward of that nice little very,very natural parcel. So thank you. MR. NORTON-Actually, there are very few buildings on that that are anywhere near that 50 feet from the lake. MR.JACKOSKI-Right. Sothis is a great opportunity for everyone hereon Rockhurst. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/21/2014) MR. GARRAND-Thank you for your stewardship. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mr. Norton, and thank you, Mr. Abele, for trying to make this work. Okay. So can I have a motion,please,for approval of this project. MR. NOONAN-I'll make a motion. Approve Area Variance No. 35-2014, Chris Abele, 102 Rockhurst Road, Tax Map No. 227.9-1- 12. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Chris Abele for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes construction of a 2,021 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. The home is to be two- story with 2,763 floor area sq. ft. Project includes grading, shoreline buffer, and other site work. Applicant has submitted for a septic variance for proposed project. Relief requested from setback requirements. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wed., May 21, 2014; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows: 1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested area variance? No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, nor will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by granting of the requested area variance. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? No other feasible method at this point. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? It is a significant amount of relief being requested, but through discussion the applicant has agreed to change the measurements. So we find at this point not substantial request. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? No adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? This could be seen as self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. 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. 35-2014, Chris Abele, Introduced by Kyle Noonan,who moved for its adoption,seconded by Michael McCabe: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The applicant has agreed to make some measurement changes and is now requesting 11 feet of relief from the front setback. B. 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; 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/21/2014) 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 building 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 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 21st day of May, 2014,by the following vote: MR. NOONAN-At what point should I include the change in relief,at the end,or can I do that now? MR.JACKOSKI-No,you can do it at the end. MR. NOONAN-Okay. I'd also like to add with the condition that the garage be pushed back two feet, eliminating the request for relief of 13 feet be reduced, no, I'm sorry, 17 feet increased to 19 feet. Did I read that wrong? MR. GARRAND-The relief is going from 13 feet to 11 feet. MR. NOONAN-Okay. Let me re-state that. The applicant has agreed to make some measurement changes and is now requesting 11 feet of relief from the front setback. MR.JACKOSKI-Great. AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Thank you very much. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. Just for clarification, though, the change, the final plan that's submitted for signature will reflect that change. MR. FREER-And I planted two trees up there on Rockhurst last week. So you're now going to own the place with the second most trees. He's got the most now. AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-2014 SEQRA TYPE II ADIRONDACK MECHANICAL - BOB KLADIS AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY, ENV. DESIGN PARTNERSHIP OWNER(S) ROBERT & ANGELA KLADIS ZONING RR-5A, LC-10A LOCATION 260 LOCKHART MOUNTAIN ROAD, LOT 7 - GRANGER SB APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,910 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. PROJECT INVOLVES (3) GARAGES - 264 SQ. FT. ATTACHED GARAGE, 1,200 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE, 380 SQ. FT. PORTE COCHERE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. PROJECT INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. CROSS REF SP 30-2014; SB 4-1999 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2014 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 24.86 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 252.00-1-36.7 SECTION 179-5- 020 D DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 36-2014, Adirondack Mechanical - Bob Kladis, Meeting Date: May 21, 2014 "Project Location: 260 Lockhart Mountain Road, Lot 7 - Granger SB Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,910 sq. ft. (footprint) single-family dwelling. Project involves (3) garages -264 sq.ft.attached garage, 1,200 sq.ft.detached garage, 380 sq. ft. porte cochere. Relief requested from number of allowable accessory structures. Project includes construction of a single-family dwelling and associated site work. Relief Required: 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/21/2014) Parcel will require area variance as follows: Number of allowable garages Maximum 1 allowed Proposed 3 Relief 2 Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the garages to a compliant number. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested 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 impacts to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, SP 30-2014: Major Stormwater project; construction within 50'of slopes in excess of 15%-pending Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a single family home with three garages where only one garage is allowed. The parcel is 24.86 acres and the applicant has located a detached garage at the mid- point of the driveway between the house and Lockhart Mtn. Rd. The attached garage is located to the east of the property and is to be for a single car. The porte cochere is to be located at the front of the home at the house entry. The plans also show the septic systems, areas to be graded, areas of rain gardens and swales,well and location of the home with elevations. SEQR Status: Type II" MR. URRICO-The Queensbury Planning Board, based on its limited review, made a motion to the Zoning Board and did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated by the current project proposal. That was on May 20, 2014 and that was passed unanimously. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, Roy. Welcome. If you could identify yourselves for the record, and if you'd like to go through any more of the project or just have questions from the Board. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design, representing Bob and Angela Kladis on this application for a variance for relief from the garage requirements, as per the regulations. As explained, there is a request for two additional, by definition, garage structures. The allowable garage is the 1200 square foot detached garage along the driveway. The applicant has requested to have an attached garage, a single car garage, at the house itself, and then an architectural feature, the port a cochere, it's a covered entry, qualifies as a garage covering, similar to what a carport might be. So that technically leads us to request a variance for that as well. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/21/2014) MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Could you please,where is that actually defined in the Code? Could you read exactly to us so we can all hear the definition of a porte cochere? MRS. MOORE-Yes. Only one garage is permitted per dwelling on lots less than five acres. Garages may not exceed 1,100 square feet. On lots larger than or equal to five acres, garages may be up to 2,200 square feet and in no case shall the garage size exceed the size of the principle structure on the lot. MR. JACKOSKI-Right. So I guess I'm struggling with, because in the past when we have approved out buildings, and I'll use that term carefully, that had a door that was larger than six feet, right, it became a garage. Well,this obviously doesn't have a door. So how is it defined as a garage? MRS.M00RE-The Zoning Administrator determined it was a garage. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So we have the application in front of us. Are there any questions from Board members at this time concerning this application? MR. HENKEL-How big is the shed? Is that going to stay? BOB KLADIS MR. KLADIS-Twelve by sixteen. MR. HENKEL-Twelve by sixteen. MR. KLADIS-If it could, I would like it to stay. I can relocate it as well. MR. HENKEL-Because that would give you another out building. MR. MAC ELROY-I'd just say it again,this is a 25 acre lot. MR. HENKEL-Yes. MR. GARRAND-Is there going to be living quarters in the garage? MR. MAC ELROY-No. MR. GARRAND-Okay,because I see that there's a septic system for it. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. There's a bathroom, a powder room in that,in the garage. MR. GARRAND-What do you use the garage for? MR. KLADIS-Cars. I was told I could have a shop, 10 by 30, right, 30 by 30 garage, 10 by 30 shop. I put that bathroom in the shop bathroom. MR. HENKEL-You're not running a business or anything,just a shop for yourself. MR. KLADIS-No,yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions before I open the public hearing? Hearing none, I do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in this audience that would like to address this Board concerning this particular application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.JACKOSKI-Seeing no one,is there any written comment? MR.URRICO-There is not. MR.JACKOSKI-Having no public comment, I'm going to poll the Board. Mike,we'll start with you. MR. MC CABE-I have no problem. It's 24 acres, and the house next door certainly has a number of out buildings and one of those is a lot bigger than the proposed garage here. MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison? 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/21/2014) MR. FREER-Yes. I don't think it's going to create any adverse effect in the neighborhood or on the environment, and it's certainly a substantial piece of property that you'll have some fun maintaining, or somebody will maintain it for you. So you'll have a need for that. It looks like your wife wants to be able to drive into the house and not have to walk across the sideways, which makes sense in that location, and I think they're being minimalist with the one car attached. So I can support this. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-Maybe I should have asked before, but any part of, I see you also have on here your business, Adirondack Mechanical. Will you be running commercial trucks in and out of that large garage? MR. KLADIS-No. Adirondack Mechanical will be closed December 31St of this year. MR. NOONAN-Okay. Based on the discussion I've heard, I have no problem with this. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-So long as it's not used for any commercial businesses also. I don't ever recall a carport being considered a garage,without the doors. MR.JACKOSKI-That's what's in front of us and that's what we've got to deal with. MR. GARRAND-Okay. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-No, I think he's done a good job with all the hard surfaces with the shedding of the stormwater and it looks like a nice project. I'm all for it. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I think that given the size of the property, in previous applications we've approved multiple garages on property that is quite substantial, and I think this falls in line with that. So I'd be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. MOORE-Could I provide one clarification, just in reference to accessory structures? Residential parcels larger than three acres are allowed to have three accessory structures totaling up to 750 square feet. So the current storage building that is currently on there is considered an accessory structure,where the buildings that we're talking about relief for are considered garages. MR.JACKOSKI-And garages are not. MRS.MOORE-Are not the accessory structures. MR. JACKOSKI-And accessory structures only become garages when they have a door larger than six feet. Anyway,here we go. So may I please have a motion? Approve Area Variance No. 36-2014, Adirondack Mechanical - Bob Kladis, Tax Map No. 252.00-1-36.7. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Adirondack Mechanical - Kladis for a variance from Section(s): 179-5-020D of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes construction of a 2,910 sq. ft. (footprint) single- family dwelling. Project involves (3) garages - 264 sq. ft. attached garage, 1,200 sq. ft. detached garage, 380 sq. ft. porte cochere. Relief requested from number of allowable accessory structures is two. Project includes construction of a single-family dwelling and associated site work. SEQR Type II -no further review required; 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/21/2014) A public hearing was advertised and held on Wed., May 21, 2014; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows: 1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested area variance? No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood nor will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by granting the requested area variance. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an area variance? Not really. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? Again,we don't feel that it's substantial. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? No. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Yes, it is, but the granting will not result in any detriment to the health,safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. 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. 36-2014, Adirondack Mechanical - Bob Kladis, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame expires; B. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building&Codes personnel; C. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; D. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a building permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Congratulations,good luck. MR. KLADIS-Thank you so much. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-2014 SEQRA TYPE II DENNIS LA FONTAINE - MARTHA'S DANDEE CREME AGENT(S) ETHAN P. HALL, RUCINSKI ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) DENNIS LA FONTAINE ZONING Cl LOCATION 1133 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,852 SQ. FT. ADDITION IN ORDER TO EXPAND THE EXISTING SEASONAL ICE CREAM BUSINESS. THE PROJECT INCLUDES AN OUTDOOR FOOD GRILLE, GIFT SHOP, COVERED OUTDOOR SEATING OF 800 SQ. FT. AND RENOVATION 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/21/2014) OF BATHROOMS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, SITE PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS AND FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN THE Cl ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF SP 31-14, SP 51-13, AV 68-11, SP 71-11 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2014 LOT SIZE 2.22 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.12-1-3 SECTION 179-3-040 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 41-2014, Dennis LaFontaine- Martha's Dandee Creme, Meeting Date: May 21, 2014 "Project Location: 1133 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes renovations and construction of a 1,852 sq. ft. addition in order to expand the existing seasonal ice-cream business. The project includes an outdoor food grille,gift shop, covered outdoor seating of 800 sq. ft. and renovation of bathrooms. Relief requested from minimum travel corridor overlay setback requirements, site permeability requirements and for the expansion of a nonconforming structure in the Cl zoning district. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances from the following sections 179-3-030 Travel Corridor, 179-3- 040 Establishment of Districts, 179-13-010 Continuation Front and Travel Corridor Permeability Setbacks Required 75 ft. 30% Proposed 54 ft. 11 in 23.7% (34.6% existing) Relief 20 ft. 1 in 6.3% Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the location of the existing building to be added on to and the lot configuration. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code requirements. 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. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, SP 31-14: Pending Many others Staff comments: The applicant proposes a 1,852 sq. ft. renovation and addition to the existing Martha's Ice cream building. The addition will include an 800 sq. ft. pavilion structure so patrons can eat outside. The renovation will remove a portion of the building towards the north to construct a gift shop and grille take-out window area. The project also includes new landscaping with stormwater, parking area to the west and north, relocated curb-cut, and a renovated bathroom. The plans show the location, floor-plan, elevations and site development. Relief is requested for the front setback and permeability on the site. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/21/2014) SEQR Status: Type II" MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board recommended, based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated by the current project proposal, and that was adopted May 20, 2014 unanimously. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome. MR. HALL-Good evening. My name is Ethan Hall, for the record, with Rucinski/Hall Architecture. With me tonight is Dennis LaFontaine, owner of Martha's Dandee Creme. One thing I would like to make a clarification on is the permeability aspect. The original application, when we were talking about this, when we came in and met with Staff,we determined that the entire new pavement area will be done with porous pavement. We've since re-done the calculations. I'd talked with Laura yesterday before the meeting and this morning and provided her with the updated. With the permeable pavement, we now meet the permeability requirements for the lot. So that area variance would not be required. Just kind of a brief overview of the project. The reason that we need the Area Variance is due to the location of the existing structure, it already sits ahead of the 75 foot required setback. So any expansion of this facility, including the facility expansion that we did a couple of years back, required an area variance. What we intend to do, the existing building is shown in yellow here. The intention is to expand the building to the north, and to align the entire front of the building. We would put the windows in the same way. The entire front facade would then match. We'd take away the old restaurant portion that's on the north end of the building and we'd extend the look of the building, so that it maintains some conformity all the way across the front of the building. The shade structure would be placed immediately north of it. It's an open structure, just something to cover people in case it's raining or in case of inclement weather. Everything that's indicated on this map in pink is the new permeable pavement. We've taken the existing curb cut, which is currently a wide angle curb cut here, and is relatively close to Round Pond Road,which creates some back up problems with people coming in and out, and we've moved it to the north, to the northerly end of the project all the way up here. We've gotten farther away from Round Pond Road, and we've made it so that traffic can circulate all the way around this way and block traffic from traveling in front of the entire facility. The rest of the landscaping that will be done, Dennis is in the process of getting the street trees that we're going to have out here are going to be sculpted trees. They'll be boxwoods that they can sculpt and make them look into different shapes and things. MR.JACKOSKI-Ice cream cones? MR. HALL-Ice cream cones,exactly. That's where he's headed. MR.JACKOSKI-Is the rooster staying? DENNIS LA FONTAINE MR. LA FONTAINE-The rooster's staying. MR. HALL-And then within the parking area there's going to be some additional landscaped trees and lighting and things of that nature. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions at this time from Board members before I open the public hearing? MR. URRICO-I don't know if you have any way of knowing this, but recently they were doing traffic studies over there. They were measuring the number of cars going by. Is that related to your project at all? MR. LA FONTAINE-It isn't related to our project. It's something that they, you know, the DOT's been looking at and they're talking about putting a street light at Round Pond, and, you know, so they're doing traffic studies for that, and I guess,you know, they're doing one now. I think they're doing one for, they just did one for Memorial Day. They'll do one for Labor Day, and then I guess it's going to come sometime this winter. MR. FREER-So my question is do you have any bike parking on your facility? 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/21/2014) MR. LA FONTAINE-We do. Well, I don't have any bike racking,bike racks, per se,but I should have bike racks. MR. FREER-You read my mind. MR. LA FONTAINE-I know. MR. HALL-The area that's around this new shade structure has bollards all the way around it. So we could certainly place a bike rack inside the bollarded area so that it's not in conflict with the vehicular traffic,absolutely. MR.JACKOSKI-Do you have an interconnect with the property to the south? MR. LA FONTAINE-I do,yes. MR.JACKOSKI-So if the curb cut needed to be moved for some reason,and when there is a stop light there,would that be where traffic will be? MR. LA FONTAINE-I would think, the master plan for Six Flags is, at that Round Pond, it's to go all the way there and then we would,you know, I think the best thing for traffic wise would be to close that curb cut that's closer to Round Pond and have our traffic come in from this end of the property. MR. JACKOSKI-It's always a problem heading north and south, and each of us trying to use that center lane and nobody's really. So the pedestrian area, as I'll call it,in front of the revised building, what's the material there? MR. HALL-It's all existing blacktop,and it will stay that way. MR.JACKOSKI-Can it be permeable pavers in order to improve your permeability? MR. HALL-There is some talk of doing that,and, Dennis, I don't know if you can speak to that. MR. LA FONTAINE-Yes, you know, somewhere within the next two years, what I'm planning on doing is putting up permeable, what do you call those things, little paver blocks that'll be permeable,and what we're doing is to a couple of charitable organizations that I feel strongly about, people are going to be able to imprint their names,you know, and the dates and,you know,that are contributing towards that thing, and we're going to lay those blocks out in front of all the lines, so people can have their name,you know, see their name when they come up for ice cream or food. I mean,that's in our plans in the next couple of years,which will all be permeable. MR. FREER-But you're not asking for the permeability waiver based on your revised handling of the north? MR. HALL-Everything in pink here now is all permeable pavement, and with those numbers, Laura, did you get those forwarded? MRS. MOORE-I did, and the Board member has a handout that explains that. So now it becomes 37%and they're only required to beat 30%. So they're 7%better. MR. HALL-Better than what's required. MR.JACKOSKI-And when the house was there, actually the permeability was less anyway. MR. HALL-Right. MR.URRICO-Steve,do you want me to read that in? MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,why don't you go ahead and do that, Roy,thank you. MR. URRICO-In response to our telephone conversation regarding updated permeability calculations for Martha's,the total site is and remains 96,701 square feet. The final building size is 8,389 square feet. The regular paving will ultimately be 42,626 square feet, and porous paving will ultimately be 9,885 square feet, with 50% credit for porous paving, this will be 4,943 square feet. That's 5.11%. The gravel drive in parking will be 4,950 square feet, which is 5.11%, which means the green space and permeable area will be 35,793 square feet, 37%. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/21/2014) MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Any other questions at this time before we open the public hearing? MR. GARRAND-How will the proposed road affect your egress from the southern property, southern end? MR. LA FONTAINE-Are you saying if they put a street light in and put that road in? MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR. LA FONTAINE-Yes,we have,it actually makes it better for us. MR. HALL-Because this on site right now is,because this is all outdoor seating,this is a little bit of a pitch point coming in here. So when this happens in the future, it makes this connection a lot easier to get out. MR.JACKOSKI-A little bit of a pitch point? MR. GARRAND-Yes,and the pole barn,why did you go with the pole barn in the back? MR. LA FONTAINE-Just storage. I have no storage on the property. MR. GARRAND-It looks kind of out of character. MR. LA FONTAINE-Just for me to be able to put racking in there so I can rack stuff. Because I get stuff by the truckload. I'll go to shows and buy stuff by the truckload and I have no place to store it, and I can only get 12 foot rack,you know. MR.JACKOSKI-Can you screen it,somehow,with landscaping? MR. LA FONTAINE-Sure. We're putting shrubs and pines. MR. HALL-There's trees that get planted along back where the big,tall pines were before. MR. LA FONTAINE-That's going in next week. I think there's four footers to start. MR.JACKOSKI-Right. Twenty footers would be better. MR. HALL-I don't know that there's a real good way. Everything in front of the building is asphalt. Everything in front of the building is blacktop. MR. HENKEL-What's the size of that building? MR. LA FONTAINE-Thirty eight by thirty six. MR. HALL-You'd think I'd know, I designed it. Twenty eight by thirty six I think. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I'd like to open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.JACKOSKI-First off, Roy,is there any written comments? MR.URRICO-I do not see any. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one, I'll leave the public hearing open. Are there any questions from Board members before I poll the Board? This is a Type II SEQR. Who hasn't gone first? How about Roy? MR.URRICO-Yes. I see the project coming together really nicely. I think I see minor impacts to the neighborhood. That was always, I remember when it was a restaurant, and going there for breakfast sometimes. Feasible alternatives are limited, I think, due to the location and what you're trying to do there. I think that the relief is minimal. I see minor impacts to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood,and I think the difficulty is self-created only because you need to expand. So I'd be in favor of it. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/21/2014) MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-Well, I don't agree entirely with the parking lot configuration, I think it's going to generate bottlenecks and all kinds of other fender bender issues. You've got traffic going in and out in a position where,you know,you're going to have people parking. Relative to the variance, I just want to make it clear that the applicant has already gotten a permit for the pole barn that they're using for cold storage, and they've made significant strides towards permeability. I think it's very important in this area, permeability, since there is a lot of stormwater runoff that has come off of this property in the past, and that stormwater tends to contain oil and other fluids from vehicles. Whether this request is substantial. That's kind of the tipping point for me. I don't think this request, without the permeability request, I don't think this request is substantial. So I'd be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes. I think the LaFontaine's,over the years, definitely have done a very nice job with that business. There's never any papers blowing around at the end of the night, and I think there's definitely no impact to the environment or the neighborhood. It fits nice in that neighborhood. I'd be definitely in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-I think two bike racks would help with the safety and the welfare of the community, in terms of what kind of traffic you should expect in the future, but that happens to be one of my crusades, so you shouldn't be surprised. Otherwise, I think getting rid of the permeability request was a very welcome move and I would favor approval. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-Also I would favor approval of this project, and it did help with not having the permeability request. MR.JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I think the request is a minimal one. I'd be in favor of your project. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay,and I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. FREER-I'll make a motion. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Harrison. Approve Area Variance No. 41-2014, Dennis Lafontaine, Martha's Dandee Creme, Tax Map No. 295.12-1-3. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Dennis Lafontaine, Martha's Dandee Creme for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes renovations and construction of a 1,852 sq. ft. addition in order to expand the existing seasonal ice-cream business. The project includes an outdoor food grille, gift shop, covered outdoor seating of 800 sq. ft. and renovation of bathrooms. Relief requested from minimum travel corridor overlay setback requirements and for the expansion of a nonconforming structure in the Cl zoning district. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wed., May 21, 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 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/21/2014) variance? No,you're actually bringing welcome business and commerce into the area, and you're actually improving,I think,the nature of the 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? I don't think it's practical,and again, I think myself for sure and my colleagues appreciate the fact that you were dealing with the permeable pavers and the subsequent thought process. So that's good. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? This is the minimum necessary. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? I don't believe it will. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Yes,only with regard to bringing good business. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. 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. 41-2014, Dennis Lafontaine- Martha's Dandee Creme, Introduced by Harrison Freer,who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame expires; B. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building&Codes personnel; C. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; D. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a building permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 21St day of May, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. HALL-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-2014 MARIO DI SIENA SEQRA TYPE COORDINATED WITH PB UNLISTED AGENT(S) J. LAPPER, ESQ. & BITTER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S) SUTTON'S PROPERTIES ZONING CM LOCATION 11 SUTTON TERRACE & 1066 ST. RT. 9 - LOT 1 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE THE FURNITURE STORE BUILDING FROM THE REMAINING BUILDINGS TO MAINTAIN EXISTING SUTTON'S BUSINESS AND RESIDENCE. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A PARKING VARIANCE; MAINTAINING 83 SPACES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SITE IN THE CM ZONE. THE ZBA MAY AGREE TO THE PB REQUEST FOR LEAD AGENCY-APPLICATION REVIEW WILL BE ON 5- 28-14; THE ZBA MAY DO THEIR OWN SEQR REVIEW PENDING RECOMMENDATION FROM PB AND COMMENCE REVIEW; OR IF SEQR REVIEW&RECOMMENDATION WAS DONE BY PB ON 5- 20-14 THE ZBA SHALL COMMENCE WITH VARIANCE REVIEW. CROSS REF SB 1-14; SP 34-14 LOT 1; SP 35-14 LOT 2; OTHERS WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2014 LOT SIZE 5.95 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.9-1-10.1 (LOT 1) SECTION 179-4-090(F) 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/21/2014) JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR.URRICO-Am I reading both of them in at the same time? MR. LAPPER-I think you should. It's really the same project,just two sites. MR.JACKOSKI-Staff,you're okay with that,right? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-Do you want two separate motions for approval? MRS.MOORE-Yes. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 37-2014, Mario DiSiena, Meeting Date: May 21, 2014 "Project Location: 11 Sutton Terrace & 1066 St. Rt. 9 Description of Proposed Project: Lot 1: Applicant proposes to subdivide the furniture store building from the remaining buildings to maintain existing Sutton's business and residence. The applicant is seeking a parking variance; maintaining 83 spaces. Relief requested from the parking requirements for the site in the CM zone. The ZBA may agree to the PB request for Lead Agency-application review will be on 5-28-14; the ZBA may do their own SEQR review pending recommendation from PB and commence review; OR if SEQR review & recommendation was done by PB on 5-20-14 the ZBA shall commence with variance review. MR.JACKOSKI-And so, Roy,let's just stop right there. Staff,what would you like us to do? MRS. MOORE-You are actually you are now uncoordinated because the Planning Board chose to do an uncoordinated review last evening. So they proceeded with their SEQR review and their recommendation to the Board. So now you're, through this process you will complete SEQR Unlisted for this application,and for Lot One and Lot Two. MR.JACKOSKI-So we'll do two SEQR reviews here ourselves, and proceed on, Roy. Lot 2: Applicant proposes subdivision of property in order for the sale of the existing 2.5 story wood frame furniture building. The applicant seeks a parking variance; maintaining 55 spaces. Relief requested from the parking requirements for the site in the CM zone. The ZBA may agree to the PB request for Lead Agency -application review will be on 5-28-14; the ZBA may do their own SEQR review pending recommendation from PB and commence review; OR if SEQR review & recommendation was done by PB on 5-20-14 the ZBA shall commence with variance review. MRS.MOORE-So the same applies. MR.URRICO-The same applies. MRS. MOORE-The Planning Board actually did theirs as one motion, including their subdivision,site plans and variance request. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variance from the following section 179-4-090 Parking and Loading: Parking-lot 1 Parking-lot 2 Required 121 146 Proposed 83 55 47 existing) Relief 38 91 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. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/21/2014) 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 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate to substantial relevant to the code. The applicant has indicated a parking cross-easement is proposed for required shared parking. 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. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, SB 1-2014: 2 lot subdivision,pending SP 34&35-14: pending SB 7-2011: 2 lot subdivision,9-20-11 Many others Staff comments: The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a commercial property where once divided each new parcel would not meet the required parking spaces for the uses on the site. The plans show the location of the new property line, detail the parking spaces for each new lot, and the shared parking areas. The applicant has indicated no site changes are proposed. The project requires SEQRA review, variance review and subdivision review prior to review of the site plans. Staff would encourage a coordinated SEQRA review process as outlined below to occur between the Planning Board and the Zoning Board. Coordinated Review PB seeks Lead Agency status (5-20-14) ZBA consents to PB being Lead Agency(5-21-14) PB accepts Lead Agency status (5-22-14) PB opens public hearing,conducts SEQRA review&provides recommendation to ZBA (5-22-14) ZBA conducts area variance review 5-28-14 PB may conduct preliminary and final subdivision review (6-17-14) PB conducts Site Plan review for Lot 1 and Lot 2 (6-17-14) Uncoordinated Review PB opens public hearing,conducts uncoordinated SEQRA review&provides recommendation to ZBA (5- 20-14) ZBA conducts an uncoordinated SEQRA review (5-21-14) ZBA conducts area variance review 5-21-14 PB conducts preliminary and final subdivision review 5-22-14 PB conducts Site Plan review for Lot 1 and Lot 2 (5-22-14) SEQR Status: Coordinated with Planning Board-Unlisted" MR. LAPPER-Okay. Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper. With me tonight are, behind me, Mario DiSiena, who is the proposed purchaser, and, subject to your approval, and Jared Holycross who is Donna Sutton's son-in-law and the manager of the restaurant. Although we tried to make the procedure as complicated as possible,the project itself is to leave everything absolutely the way it's been functioning for all these years and just separate the buildings so that Mario and his wife can purchase the furniture store building. The goal for the Sutton family is to be able to concentrate on the Marketplace and the restaurant. I didn't get into detail in the application, but Mario owns the Furniture House on Saratoga Lake which is a very successful medium and high end furniture store. He was very familiar with Sutton's operation. It's a very good fit, in terms of the high end customers for both the restaurant and the Marketplace store and the Louis Jewelers which 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/21/2014) was separated a couple of years ago. So everyone views this as areal win/win. The way we drew the odd looking subdivision was to comply with the Queensbury Code in every respect except that there's not enough parking under the Code, but we think there's plenty of parking on the site. So these lines were determined based upon meeting minimum lot frontage, meeting minimum lot width, minimum lot size, minimum permeability. So everything else, all the other requirements comply, but when we went to look at the parking, if you add everything up based upon what the Queensbury Code calls for now,there's not enough parking,but this has always been this way. The uses are compatible,but there's sort of different peak hours for the restaurant and for furniture and the retail and it's always worked, and in order to make this work, what we've proposed as a condition is that there will be a reciprocal parking drive aisle and maintenance easement. So it will all be treated as one site. They will handle that together, and if I'm coming to the restaurant, I can park in any space I want, no one will see other than you what's, on the lines on the map, all the spaces will be available for everybody. It doesn't matter which lot you're parking on. It'll all be plowed and maintained as one lot, and it'll look to the general public like a shopping center like it is now, as one parking lot, available to everybody. So,you know,based upon that, it's always worked, and we think that nothing should change, except that there'll be just a new furniture retailer who's very experienced. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions at this time from Board members before I open the public hearing? MR. HENKEL-The only problem I can see is eventually, down the road, if this doesn't work out, this is a big building,this could be used as quite a few different uses, and then there wouldn't be enough parking. I mean, because you've only got enough parking for basically one business if you add them both together, roughly,you've got 91 and,well, no, relief, okay,but,yes,you still have only the required parking for basically one business there. So could that become a problem later if that furniture store doesn't work out? MR. LAPPER-Parking requirement of five spaces per thousand square feet is really a lot for this kind of a building,especially where you have a lot of merchandise. They have an antique dealer who's in there now renting it as part of the space. It hasn't been a problem, but again, because there's different peak hours for the different uses, and all the spaces on the whole site are available for everybody, it seems, as a shared parking concept, that it has always worked and it should continue to work. MR. HENKEL-Yes,it's a good concept,no doubt. MR.JACKOSKI-Any other questions or comments from Board members? I do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'm going to open the public hearing. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.URRICO-There's no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-No written comment. Is there anyone in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning these two applications? Seeing no one, I'll leave the public hearing open, and I'll poll the Board. MR. NOONAN-I have no issue with the project as presented. I'd be in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I'm also in favor. There's no doubt this is adequate parking for those type of businesses,yes. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I don't see any change to the operation for the general public, and I think the use is going to be great. MR.JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I have no problem. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/21/2014) MR. GARRAND-Relative to the Code, this application might seem substantial, but we're not really changing the physical layout in any way, shape or form, simply subdividing the two properties and the parking configuration's going to remain the same. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So if there are no other comments from the Board, I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. FREER-What about me? MR.JACKOSKI-You talked so much the last time. Sorry. Harrison? MR. FREER-I ride my bike so I don't care about parking. MR. JACKOSKI-Sorry, Harrison. I usually forget Ron. So you're in his seat. I think Harrison said yes. So I'm going to close the polling and then close the public hearing. And I'm going to look for a SEQR resolution. Do we want to do one SEQR for both applications, or do we have to do two separate SEQR's? MRS.MOORE-You need to clearly identify it. If you choose to do both,that's up to you. MR.JACKOSKI-No,let's do one at a time. MRS.MOORE-Okay. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Motion regarding Area Variance No. 37-2014 Mario DiSiena based upon the information presented and a review of the supporting documentation,this Board finds that the proposed project will have no adverse environmental effect. So we give it a Negative Declaration, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption,seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Now for another SEQR resolution concerning the next application. Motion regarding Area Variance No. 38-2014 Mario DiSiena based upon the information presented and a review of the supporting documentation,this Board finds that the proposed project will have no adverse impact and we therefore give this a Negative Declaration, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption,seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Freer, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. For the resolutions for the projects, we do a combined one here. Or do we want to do a separate one? MRS.MOORE-I would keep it separate. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. GARRAND-Different relief. MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-Anyone like to tackle the first one? MR. MC CABE-I'll do it. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/21/2014) MR.JACKOSKI-All right, Mike,thank you. Approve Area Variance No. 37-2014,Mario DiSiena,Tax Map No. 296.9-1-10. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Mario DiSiena for a variance from Section(s): 179-4-090(F) of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes to subdivide the furniture store building from the remaining buildings to maintain existing Sutton's business and residence. The applicant is seeking a parking variance; maintaining 83 spaces. Relief requested from the parking requirements for the site in the CM zone. Relief is requested in the order of 38 spaces. Motion regarding Area Variance No. 37-2014 Mario DiSiena based upon the information presented and a review of the supporting documentation,this Board finds that the proposed project will have no adverse environmental effect. So we give it a Negative Declaration, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption,seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 21, 2014; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows: 1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested area variance? No undesirable change will be produced to the character of the neighborhood, nor will a detriment to nearby properties be created by granting the requested area variance. 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 benefit could be sought by other means,but it's not really feasible. There's no changes actually being made here. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? We do not believe it's a substantial request. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? We believe not. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Not really. It just goes along with the subdivision of the properties. 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. 37-2014, Mario DiSiena, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame expires; B. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building&Codes personnel; C. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/21/2014) D. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a building permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 21St day of May, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-2014 SEQRA TYPE COORDINATED WITH PB UNLISTED MARIO DI SIENA AGENT(S) J. LAPPER, ESQ. & S. BITTER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S) SUTTON'S PROPERTIES ZONING CM LOCATION 11 SUTTON TERRACE & 1066 ST. RT. 9 - LOT 2 APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY IN ORDER FOR THE SALE OF THE EXISTING 2.5 STORY WOOD FRAME FURNITURE BUILDING. THE APPLICANT SEEKS A PARKING VARIANCE; MAINTAINING 55 SPACES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SITE IN THE CM ZONE. THE ZBA MAY AGREE TO THE PB REQUEST FOR LEAD AGENCY - APPLICATION REVIEW WILL BE ON 5-28-14; THE ZBA MAY DO THEIR OWN SEQR REVIEW PENDING RECOMMENDATION FROM PB AND COMMENCE REVIEW; OR IF SEQR REVIEW & RECOMMENDATION WAS DONE BY PB ON 5-20-14 THE ZBA SHALL COMMENCE WITH VARIANCE REVIEW. CROSS REF SB 1-14; SP 34-14 LOT 1; SP 35-14 LOT 2; OTHERS WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2014 LOT SIZE 5.95 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.9-1-10.1 (LOT 2) SECTION 179-4-090 (F) JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-Would somebody make a motion for the next Area Variance No. 38-2014, make a motion. MR. MC CABE-Do you want me to do that one,too? MR.JACKOSKI-You can say it exactly as you did the last time. Approve Area Variance No. 38-2014, Mario DiSiena, 1066 NYS Route 9 and 11 Sutton Terrace,Tax Map No. 296.9-1-10. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Mario DiSiena for a variance from Section(s): 179-4-090(F) of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes subdivision of property in order for the sale of the existing 2.5 story wood frame furniture building. The applicant seeks a parking variance; maintaining 55 spaces. Relief requested from the parking requirements for the site in the CM zone. The relief requested is 91 parking spots for the site in a CM zone. Motion regarding Area Variance No. 38-2014 Mario DiSiena based upon the information presented and a review of the supporting documentation,this Board finds that the proposed project will have no adverse impact and we therefore give this a Negative Declaration, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption,seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Freer, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 21, 2014; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows: 1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested area variance? No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/21/2014) neighborhood nor will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by granting the requested area variance. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? Not really, since we're making no changes here. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? We do not believe so. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? We believe not. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? It's not, it's just a result of re-distributing the property. 6. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Area Variance No. 38-2014, Mario DiSiena, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame expires; B. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building&Codes personnel; C. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; D. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a building permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 21St day of May, 2014 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Freer, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody. They plan on having a closing by July and everyone's excited to reinvigorate both businesses. So,thanks for your help. MR.JACKOSKI-So the next item this evening for everyone,we do have a special meeting planned for June 4th, which is to hear two Appeals that are sitting in front of us. One concerning Fowler's Square and another for the zip flyer off of 149 or French Mountain. We do need a draft resolution to actually have that meeting. MRS.MOORE-Yes. MARIO DI SIENA MR. DI SIENA-Thank you all. MR.JACKOSKI-Thanks. Welcome to Queensbury. MR. DI SIENA-Thank you. MR. FREER-Did you want a motion? MR.JACKOSKI-Yes. 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/21/2014) MOTION THAT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPROVES TO SCHEDULE A SPECIAL MEETING ON WEDNESDAY,JUNE 4. 2014 AT 7:30 PM TO HEAR BOTH APPEAL APPLICATIONS BY CAFFRY AND FLOWER, ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW, Introduced by Harrison Freer who moved for its adoption,seconded by Kyle Noonan: Duly adopted this 21ST day of May, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Freer, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Is there anything else Board members would like to address? Staff, I would like you to follow up on those comments that were made during the presentations tonight that the Town had authorized an applicant to violate,you know. MRS. MOORE-I'll communicate the information to Craig, and then I'll have Craig communicate with Steve. MR. HENKEL-Okay,because Steve never answered that question. MR.URRICO-No,it was not Steve. MRS. MOORE-No, I'm saying that I'll talk to the Zoning Administrator and I'll have him respond to your Chairman. MR. GARRAND-Who in the Town is telling people that? MR. HENKEL-Steve was supposed to answer that and he never did. MR. JACKOSKI-We've got violations all over the place. I mean, how many sandwich boards signs are now popping up on Route 9 every single day. MR. HENKEL-Right. MRS. MOORE-I would find it hard to believe, because during Staff comments and things like that, this is an issue that I identify in Staff Notes, and my Staff Notes are reviewed by the Zoning Administrator. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, again, the real question is, as a Zoning Board, you know, it kind of puts us in a bad position that if it's going to be allowed to happen, why are we forcing people who are actually coming to us to do these things when the enforcement is basically not going to be enforced. MRS.MOORE-I don't believe that's the case. MR.JACKOSKI-We understand that,but it was made in the public record, and it's kind of disturbing. So we should certainly look into it. I mean, it does put us in a difficult spot, and I've got to tell you, what's the recourse? They took the sign, they took the covering down, what's the recourse? And what, is there really harm, but nonetheless. It was stated that somebody directed them in the Town to go ahead and do it. That's a little bit more difficult. MR.URRICO-That's what he said. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes, Mr. Borgos certainly didn't address it. MR. GARRAND-And he doesn't represent the Town. MR. HENKEL-Because he says he didn't get the message,it came through Steve. MR.URRICO-He said his agent. MR. JACKOSKI-Anyway, it's a moot point at this point, kind of, but on the other hand it is, we certainly don't want that getting out. Okay. Can I have a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MAY 21. 2014, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption,seconded by Michael McCabe: 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/21/2014) Duly adopted this 21St day of May, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Urrico, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,everyone,for making yourselves available for another meeting. That's just great. I really do appreciate it. Have a good night. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 38