Loading...
06-25-2014 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/2014) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 25,2014 INDEX Area Variance No. 34-2014 Diane and Craig Goodman 1. Tax Map No. 227.18-1-21 Area Variance No.43-2014 David Mahoney 10. Tax Map No. 301.13-2-51 Area Variance No.47-2014 Stephen O'Leary 14. Tax Map No. 239.12-2-87 Area Variance No.45-2014 Lisa and Ken Lambert 21. Tax Map No. 309.18-1-25 &26 Sign Variance No.48-2014 Russ Faden/Subway and Mr. Bill's 27. Tax Map No. 288.00-1-58 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 06/25/2014) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 25,2014 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN MICHAEL MC CABE,ACTING SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL RONALD KUHL RICHARD GARRAND KYLE NOONAN HARRISON FREER,ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-This evening I'm going to call to order the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for the Town of Queensbury here in the Town Activity Center on June 25th. For those of you who haven't been here in the past, it's actually quite a simple process. We'll call up each applicant. We'll read the application into the record. We will ask questions. We'll ask the applicant to give us some kind of additional information, should they choose to do so. We'll open up a public hearing when a public hearing has been scheduled. There is an information sheet on the back that kind of explains our process, and then we'll poll the Board, possibly close the public hearing, take action and continue on with the next application. So it's pretty straightforward. For those of you who have been here numerous times in the past, I'd like to just make note that one of the local attorneys who spends an awful lot of time here in front of us at the little table, his wife passed away today. So I'd like to just give special recognition to Pat O'Connor,because she's given up a lot of time in her life so that her husband could be herein front of this Zoning Board. So just a moment for Mike O'Connor. Okay. So tonight's first agenda item is Diane and Craig Goodman. OLD 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 DIANE GOODMAN, PRESENT MR.JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Mike to be read into the record. MR. MC CABE-I believe this has already been read into the record last week. Do I have to do it again. MR. JACKOSKI-No, if we've already read it in, that's perfectly fine, unless there's any new information. MRS. MOORE-What I'll do is I'll identify under the Debriefing Notes is that the Board tabled the application at the request of the applicant to receive a full Board and the Board requested supporting information about the application, and the applicant has provided that,which I e-mailed to the Board, and I described a phone conversation with the contractor, and the applicant is here today. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So if we could. Welcome back. And just for everyone, I wasn't at the last meeting, but I have read all the supporting documentation. I've seen the minutes of the meeting. So, for those others who weren't here, I think we can just simply move forward with what we've got in front of us. Do we need any additional information from the applicant? Some clarification? MR. MC CABE-I have some information here. You can read it or I will read it. Okay. This was sent from Laura Moore to Sue Hemingway, and it's supporting information from Diane and Craig 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/2014) Goodman on AV 34-2014. It says, "Board members: Please find attached information from the Goodman's in regard to their variance application. This includes information about other permits obtained by the Goodman's, information about neighboring tennis courts, and the information about the location of the current court. I also spoke with Mr. Goodman today about the information he also indicated they were discussing this with their neighbors and will bring letters with them to the meeting. Also, please note the Contractor Brian O'Connor contacted me today to discuss the project. I explained to him that I would share the discussion with the Board; a record of phone conversation will be placed in the file. As was explained the company has been installing tennis courts for others in the area for a period of time and that no building permit is required for the installation of a tennis court. Thank you, Laura" "An Area Variance is a granting of relief from the dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance. An area variance is heard where lot size, width, setbacks, number and size of structures, etc. are involved. Relief from requirements of the Sign Ordinance for the Town of Queensbury can be applied for in the same manner. An Area Variance application must address the balance between the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood, should the variance be granted. The Zoning Board of Appeals must consider the following criteria when "balancing"the request for relief. 1. Will granting this variance produce an undesirable change in character or a detriment to the neighborhood? No. Other Properties in our neighborhood have tennis courts. Mathew, Herbert and Kahn all zoned WR and all their courts are direct lake side with a direct downhill access to the lake, our front yard is lower than our backyard so water from our court must flow up hill to enter the lake. MR.JACKOSKI-Mike, and I'm just going to stop you right now. Staff, do we need to read that entire document into the record? MRS. MOORE-If all the Board members have read it, I don't know if there's highlight information that Diane wishes to pull out. I know there's one additional court that is not identified in this documentation that she may want to highlight,but,no,you do not have to read that. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I don't want to make poor Mike read that entire thing into the record, and Maria's got to transcribe it all. I mean,we've all received the document by e-mail. We've all seen it. It's part of the packets. Is there any reason to make Mike read it all into the record? MRS.MOORE-No. MR.JACKOSKI-It's been available to the public to review as well,correct? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-So I think, Mike,we'll save you all of that. You'll end up with laryngitis before. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So now I have the two. MR. JACKOSKI-And I'm going to wait to read the public comment until we re-open the public hearing. If that's okay. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Mrs. Goodman, how are you? Is there anything you want to add in addition to that document we've already had? I know Staff made mention of one other additional court that you want to make reference to. MRS. GOODMAN-There is over in Cleverdale. Robin Inwald, she has one, and I think it was written on here,too,Takundewide has tennis courts also, over in Cleverdale. So the other thing that I think was one of our tax records when we pulled it up, we're zoned as a single family residential, and there's nowhere on there that said it was water residential. So for us to know that we were water residential,it doesn't say it on our tax record. MRS. MOORE-It may just bean interpretation. I can pull it up and explain it at some point with her. There is a place where it says zone. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes, it's a single family residence on a waterfront residential property. I think that's what,yes, okay. We've got it. Okay. So thank you. Since everybody's seen the information and we've got the plot plan, survey up in front of us, I believe we've all driven by it and seen it. Oftentimes people have commented about it. So why don't I go ahead and open the public hearing. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/2014) If there's anyone here that would like to address the Board concerning this particular application, please raise your hand. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR.JACKOSKI-And seeing no one, Mike,you have two additional letters to be read into the record? MR. MC CABE-Yes,the first one is from Julia Dewey. "To Whom It May Concern: We are neighbors and abutting properties of Diane and Craig Goodman on the Pilot Knob Road. We have absolutely no objections to their new tennis court and do not feel it is a detriment to the neighborhood. Sincerely,Julia Dewey" MR.JACKOSKI-And which property is hers, Staff? MRS.MOORE-I don't know. MR.JACKOSKI-Is it adjoining or abutting? MR. MC CABE-She said abutting. MR.JACKOSKI-Mrs. Goodman,do you know which one she is,to the south,to the north? MRS. GOODMAN-She is toward the lake,this way,and she's. MR.JACKOSKI-The bottom little house that's down at the bottom there? MRS. GOODMAN-Yes, she would be, if you go to the left with the pointer and up, up, up,down,those two houses,Jimmy Ayers is the next one over and then there's the Dewey's two houses. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So then they go down that side road to get to their parcels,right? MRS. GOODMAN-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. The private right of way. Okay, Mike,thank you. Next one? MR. MC CABE-The second letter is from Bruce and Nancy McClellan. They live at 5 Lakewood Drive, Kattskill Bay, NY, and so they say, Board of Appeals, "Dear Gentlemen, We are writing in support of Craig and Diane Goodman's efforts to gain final variance approval for their recently constructed tennis court, located at their residence, 95 Pilot Knob Rd., Kattskill Bay, Town of Queensbury NY 12844. We live at 5 Lakewood Drive, directly across Pilot Knob Road from the Goodmans. We know it was constructed extremely well, to last for many years and brings to our neighborhood a residential quality of life feel that we desire. We think the tennis court fits in well with the neighborhood and compliments the spirit of lake living. This is visual evidence that living in Kattskill Bay contributes to a healthy lifestyle with strong community values. Bruce and Nancy McClellan 5 Lakewood Drive" MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, and 5 Lakewood Drive is the large elongated parcel to the south of Lakewood Drive,or is it to the north? MRS. GOODMAN-It is actually to the east of,go up. They're the closest house to us,which would be. MR.JACKOSKI-The black roof that's right there? Laura,see where that road is? MRS.MOORE-This one? MR.JACKOSKI-No,down,down,down. MRS. GOODMAN-All right,come down a little bit. MR.JACKOSKI-There they are. MRS. GOODMAN-There they are. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. And do we have any letters or documentation from the neighbors adjoining the parcel directly to the south of the red highlighted parcel? 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/2014) MRS. GOODMAN-They are not here yet. They live in California, but they were here end of May to the beginning of June,and they'll be back as of Saturday. MR.JACKOSKI-And they've seen the tennis court? MRS. GOODMAN-They were, and last year,too,in fact,they played on it last year. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. I'm going to leave the public hearing open. At this time I'm going to ask for some comments from the Board members, if they would volunteer, that were here last time to go first, so that we can get some generalized commonality of everyone. So everybody knows what page everybody's on. So would anyone like to offer their opinions going forward at this point? MR. MC CABE-I was here last week. I feel that the problem was not really caused by the Goodmans. It's kind of late to do anything about it since the court is already constructed, and upon having no problems from the neighbors, I would approve this variance. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mike. Ron,would you be willing to? MR. KUHL-Yes. I think it would be counterproductive to make Mrs. Goodman change the direction and put it within the, without variances. I don't know how we, as a Town, stop building without permits. They sure have enough property to put it other places within regulations, but as I said, I think it's counterproductive to, and very expensive to make them change. So with reservations, I would approve it. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Kyle? MR. NOONAN-Last week I had said I would be in favor of the project, but before I had said that I explained that I thought if the Goodmans had come in sooner we would have helped them figure out where on that property they could put that tennis court so that the relief they were requesting was not so large. That I wouldn't think that, again, not necessarily speaking for the Board, but I don't think we would have granted a variance on the property line. So, but given that it's already constructed and our hands are tied, I'd be in favor of the project. MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison,do you want to go next? MR. FREER-Yes, so I don't agree at all that because it's already been constructed or we're late that we should let that enter. Because we're just adding, we're just going to create more of this, people not following the rules and then saying it's already done and we want to get a variance. So I've ridden by that and it certainly doesn't meet any of the criteria with regard to minimum variances, and I think the stormwater is just one issue and I think we're setting a very bad precedent to approve something because it has already been built. So I don't support this variance. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I also agree with Harrison. I wasn't really in favor of it last week either. I think it's too much relief for one thing. I'd be more in favor if they maybe tore out like a foot and a half towards the road there and added a foot and a half towards their house, I would probably be willing to give them the two feet, but the six inch and also they're asking for a side setback also on the roadside there, too. They're actually looking for too much relief for me, even though I do agree it's a beautiful project, but I think if we allow this to happen other people are going to be doing the same thing and then coming to us after and saying, you know, asking for a variance. So I can't support the project as it is. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I'm going by the balancing test, undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. This is right up against the road. It's obtrusive. It didn't have to be there in the first place. I think it's something that should have been considered before it was even built. Can benefit be achieved by other means feasible? Yes. Move it. It's substantial relevant to the Code, and it is self-created. So I wouldn't be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Great. MRS. GOODMAN-May I say something? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/2014) MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,of course. MRS. GOODMAN-One of the reasons why we chose to put it where it was with Brian O'Connor was because every other place on our property within our lines, we either were going to disrupt our well or we were going to disrupt our septic systems. And we were standing outside many times walking off, putting cones, moving, moving, moving, and the other reason, we had one other place that it might have been,but we would have had to take down a great deal of trees, and we didn't feel that that was the right thing to do either. MR. HENKEL-So septic system's right in the front here,is that what you're saying? MRS. GOODMAN-Yes. MR. HENKEL-How far is it away from your house,there's no way? MRS. GOODMAN-There's two septic systems. One of them is in front of the house that is an old system now,but it's shutdown. The other system is almost an entire backyard. MR. HENKEL-So then you could have put it somewhere else. You said that the septic system in the front is shutdown? MRS. GOODMAN-It's still, it can use,we have a, there was a bathroom downstairs that we don't use, and it is still connected to that and the washing machine, but our well line runs right across the front of our property. MR. HENKEL-So how many feet is the edge of the tennis court from the house? MRS. GOODMAN-Maybe,feet wise, I'm going to guess 20 maybe. MR. JACKOSKI-Mrs. Goodman, this is a tough one. We never like to say no. We try very hard to work with applicants,but even I'm leaning toward no, and I don't know how to rectify this. I'm just as frustrated that the Town, who has to have driven up and down that road daily with all the building activity that goes on on the east side of the lake, didn't address this early on. So I'm going to ask Staff,how did this come to the Board at this time? MRS. MOORE-Because the tennis courts do not receive permits, there's not a building permit requirement to construct a tennis court,and so any. MR.JACKOSKI-No,but we could certainly see that it was being built. MRS. MOORE-Yes, but it doesn't, the reason, what had happened was someone from the Park Commission had called and asked Bruce, can you go take a look at this,this looks like it's in the Park Commission,and it looks like,what is it. So that's how it came to be. MR. HENKEL-But wouldn't they be the ones to kind of take care of the problem a little bit? MRS. MOORE-Who? Not necessarily. The contractor or the applicant, the client would probably call the Town and say,look, I'm building a tennis court,do I need a permit. Normal response would be, no, you don't need a permit, but our Staff is trained to say, dig a little further, where are you putting it,where is it located, what's the square footage, maybe you should come in and see Staff at some point in time. MR. HENKEL-But you'd think the contractor would know this,too,kind of. MR. JACKOSKI-We have this all the time in the Town. I mean, they cut trees down in the setback of a shoreline and they don't need to do that,either,but what are we going to do. MRS. MOORE-Okay. So there's a certain element where the contractor would say I received all the permits for all other elements of a project, and they're aware that a tennis court doesn't need a building permit. So they wouldn't necessarily trigger them to call. MR. HENKEL-I understand that, but you'd think you'd still know if you're going to put something like that on the line,come on. MRS. MOORE-It's a tennis court. I mean, it's not something,they don't look at it as a structure,you know,if it were a shed. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/2014) MR. HENKEL-It's in excess of 6,000 square feet. MRS.MOORE-It's still a contractor looking at a tennis court. MR. FREER-So what, I mean,if it's not a structure,why do they need a variance? MRS. MOORE-It's an accessory structure under the Zoning Code. So it doesn't trigger a building permit. MR.JACKOSKI-Of the zoning district. It's more regulated. MR. FREER-Well, I ride my bike down that road, and, you know, when I saw that tennis court I'm like,this doesn't feel like the Adirondacks. So,you know, I feel badly as well,but,you know,this is sort of pretty drastic relief, and it's not your fault, I'm sure, but the contractor, somebody should have known. MR.JACKOSKI-Can I,this will not go to the Planning Board,correct? MRS.MOORE-No. MR.JACKOSKI-Can we refer it to the Planning Board? MRS.MOORE-I believe you can,yes. I don't see why you can't. MR. JACKOSKI-Mrs. Goodman in the discussions, I mean, since last week when it was clear that the Board wasn't going to approve and there was going to be a no vote, possibly a no vote,have you had any discussions at all about what could be rectified at this point and how to deal with this? Are there any options out there for you and your family, other than tearing it all out and starting all over which I understand is a significant financial burden? MRS. GOODMAN-Number One, I don't think we could financially afford to do that. There's just no other place on our property. We walked it and walked it and measured, and we would have to take out in the back a significant amount of trees and we would disrupt the right of way to our neighbors behind us,it's not up there,which use our road. MR.JACKOSKI-But this couldn't be turned sideways 90 degrees? MRS. GOODMAN-It's our well. MR.JACKOSKI-But the well's way out here,according to this. MR. GOODMAN-No,but our line goes. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, they can dig a line deeper than that to be underneath it. That happens all the time with utilities. MR. HENKEL-This court cost you$38,000,right? MRS. GOODMAN-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,but to put a water line in a little deeper is a minimal an expense, and today they can core under pavement and blacktop and everything else. MRS.MOORE-I mean,the applicant would still require a variance. MR.JACKOSKI-But not 100%, 50%,and 75%. That's drastic. MR. HENKEL-Do you have enough room to take afoot and a half off then add it to the back? I mean, that would give you two feet. MR. JACKOSKI-But two feet's not going to, in my mind, two feet's not going to visually change anything. MR. NOONAN-So if you say yes to two feet, Mr. Henkel will probably say yes, is what he's trying to tell you. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/2014) MR. HENKEL-Are you persuading me? MR. NOONAN-I'm hearing what you're saying,that's what I'm hearing. MR. JACKOSKI-I don't know how that works with the tennis court because you'd have a seam, correct? MRS. GOODMAN-We have a fence. MR.JACKOSKI-No,well, I mean,the fence can be moved,but the seam in the actual surface would be the problem. MRS. GOODMAN-See, I'm not a contractor. I don't know how, I don't know what's directly under the end of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I didn't actually go on the court. To me, personally, the two feet's not enough. So I'm going to be a no vote. I'm sorry. We hate doing this,but it's just drastic for us. MRS. GOODMAN-Can we table this to another time or are we finished? MR. JACKOSKI-You'd have to substantially come in with something significantly different for the Board to address. We can table it,but,at your request we could table it. MRS. GOODMAN-I'm kind of baffled as to how we got this far. MR. JACKOSKI-I can't address that right now. It's sitting in front of us, and unfortunately we're tasked with following the balancing test as Mr. Freer has suggested, and going through all this detail,and this is big for us. It's very rare that we do this. MRS. GOODMAN-Because one of the things that we talked about was like we weren't doing this to be malicious or do it behind anybody's back. We thought we were doing everything the way we were supposed to,because we hired our contractor. We trusted him. We've had a contractor that built our garage. He did our permits. We just put solar in. They did our permits. We had Chris Crandall do our septic system. He did all our permits. So when we hired the O'Connor's we figured they'd take care of whatever needed to be taken care of, and we didn't maliciously go in with, oh,let's see if we can pull the wool over their head,but like if someone else comes in and says, well we built this,well,they did it,why can't we do it,then that would be malicious that they would go in with a concern like, well, we know that they did it, but we didn't know of anybody who did this. We were doing. MR. JACKOSKI-I don't think anyone here is suggesting it was malicious by any means at all. I think unfortunately we're at a point where this is an incredible amount of relief being requested, and if you had come to this Board before you had built it, I'm pretty confident you would have been told no for sure in its current location. MR. HENKEL-How long ago did you build the garage? MRS. GOODMAN-1991 maybe. MR. HENKEL-Okay,now wasn't there a variance needed for that? MRS. GOODMAN-That was taken care of by our contractor. MR. HENKEL-Because there definitely, there's this variance needed for that because you only, you have 19.3 feet here. So you would need a variance side setback,a variance for that,right? MRS.MOORE-I'd have to pull it. I don't know off the top of my head. MR. HENKEL-So you probably had to go through that process then,right? MR. MC CABE-Wouldn't that have been included in our notes here? MRS. MOORE-Yes, actually the only thing that pulls up is a building permit in '92 for a three car detached garage. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/2014) MR. HENKEL-Okay. MRS.MOORE-So it may not have triggered a variance. MR. HENKEL-Back then maybe,yes,the zoning was different. MR. JACKOSKI-The setbacks might have been different, because the waterfront residential might have been,used to be three acre, one acre,crazy stuff. MR. HENKEL-That was the only question I had. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, the will of the Board at the moment is four to three against the application. The applicant has requested a tabling. I don't know what that tabling is going to do,but I'm looking for guidance from the Board members, if we should, it's your prerogative if you want to table it. I just, it probably is wise just to table it because otherwise we're going to say no and then what? Then we go to an Article 78. So we can grant a tabling request to when? MRS.MOORE-You can do the,if you're going to do two July meetings,you can do the second. MR.JACKOSKI-Second July meeting. MRS. MOORE-The second, or table it to August. That gives the applicant an opportunity to maybe come up with some alternatives. MR. JACKOSKI-So if it's tabled to the August meeting, I mean, there's no harm here, right? Because it's going to hang over your head and you're going to stress about it, I understand. MRS. GOODMAN-I have been. MR. JACKOSKI-But July 15th is the submission deadline for the August meeting, but at least that gives you some time to try to come up with some other alternatives. MRS. GOODMAN-Is there only one August meeting? MRS.MOORE-There's two August meetings. MRS. GOODMAN-Okay,because I don't think we're home on the 15th. MRS. MOORE-The Zoning Board meets on August 20th and August 27th. And if you needed to table it for September then you could do it at the August meeting. MR.JACKOSKI-I know you don't have a calendar with you. I'd be more than happy to suggest in our tabling motion that we're going to table it to an August meeting that that the applicant is going to confirm with Staff. If that's fair,that way you don't have to commit to the 20th or the 27th. You can take some time to figure it out. Is that okay, Staff? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-So can I have a motion to do that,please? MR. HENKEL-I'll make a motion. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. So John is making a motion. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2014 DIANE &CRAIG GOODMAN, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Michael McCabe: 95 Pilot Knob Road, Tax Map No. 227.18-1-21, and we're going to table that until the August 20th or 27th meeting, and the applicant is going to make that arrangement with Staff within the next week or so,with a July 15th submission deadline. Duly adopted this 25th day of June, 2014, by the following vote: MR. HENKEL-And we're going to table that until the August 27th, and we're going to have a submittal date of July. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/2014) MRS.MOORE-August meeting. MR. JACKOSKI-We're going to table it to the August 20th or 27th meeting and the applicant is going to make that arrangement with Staff within the next week or so, with a July 15th submission deadline,or 16th,whatever it is. MRS. GOODMAN-I have a question,because I'm a little confused. Obviously I would love to save my tennis court. Are we saying that if we do the two feet or is there something else that we can present to the Board? What do I need from you? What do you need from us, I should say? MR. JACKOSKI-And that's very difficult because we all can't speak to direct as to what to do. What we can tell is that it's clear the Board, this is the second time it's come in front of the Board, and it would not move forward if we took a vote on it. There's going to need to be some way of finding some significant reduction in the relief requested. One of the Board members as requested maybe an additional two feet off the front I think is what he said,but some other Board members have said it's too drastic. It needs some significant re-work. So I think the best thing you can do is come back to us with your absolute best alternative that you just can't do anything better than and then if it gets approved,great,and if it's not. MRS. GOODMAN-Well,with the relief,what do you mean by that? MR.JACKOSKI-Well, I mean,for example,on the side line setback,you're asking for 100%relief. MRS. GOODMAN-We're close to the line. MR. GARRAND-You're on it. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,and in the front you're asking for 75% I think. MRS. GOODMAN-Now,is that because it is,it's crushed stone and that type of thing on the line? MR.JACKOSKI-It's the hard surface, I believe. MRS.MOORE-It's the hard surfacing. MRS. GOODMAN-The hard surface isn't right on the line. MRS. MOORE-But that whole, this whole structure unit, part of the whole structure, is within that many feet of the front property line. So it's literally on the property line, the way the survey measures, up in this corner. This other corner. MR. HENKEL-There is a stake in the ground right there. MRS.MOORE-Right there. MR.JACKOSKI-It sure looks like it's on the line to me. MRS. GOODMAN-Okay. MR.JACKOSKI-But I'm not a surveyor. MRS.MOORE-And that's something that we can discuss at the Staff level. MR. JACKOSKI-Staff is going to try to help. I mean, believe me, this Board works very hard to not work with folks, but this is a big one, and we feel terrible that you're in this situation, but it's, I've got a feeling the O'Connor's won't do this again,either. MRS. GOODMAN-So, now we didn't get any letter or anything from our neighbor to the south of us. Would that make a difference at all? MR. KUHL-No. MR.JACKOSKI-It always helps,but I'm not sure it's going to make that much of a difference. I mean, this tennis court's right there in your face when you hit that road. It's a big change in the neighborhood, for me. Believe me, I live at Takundewide so I know that tennis court, but you generally can't even see that tennis court from the road,and there are 32 families that use it. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/2014) MRS. GOODMAN-Would it be something that vegetation or? MR.JACKOSKI-That's why I was asking if it was going to the Planning Board because that could help screen it,but again,we can't tell you what to do. We have to let you come back to us after working with Staff on how best you feel you and your family can do to make it more congruent with the neighborhood. MRS. GOODMAN-Bruce Frank, I mean, he was over and he thought we were fine, and then we were getting all positive inputs from everybody and we tried to gather as much information as possible to fulfill what we needed to do. MR. JACKOSKI-I have seen, in the past, I've seen this Board, when,you know, 95% of the neighbors all around it in that whole area have supported it, that does, but you've got to have a lot of neighbors saying, whether it's a petition or whatever, I'm not suggesting you do that. I'm just saying I have seen that be significant to sway the Board,but it is about balancing the neighborhood. It is about balancing the effects on the environment. It is about the balancing test. I'm sorry. It's hard. Okay. So I did have a motion. I do have a second. Is there any further discussion on that motion? Call the vote,please. AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. And just for the record,we did leave the public hearing open. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-2014 SEQRA TYPE II DAVID MAHONEY OWNER(S) DAVID AND STEPHANIE MAHONEY ZONING SUBD.APPROVED UNDER R-3 ZONING YR. 1967 LOCATION 15 ALGONQUIN DRIVE, TYNESWOOD PHASE 3 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN EXISTING 220 SQ. FT. ACCESSORY-ROOF STRUCTURE OVER EXISTING PATIO. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ON A LOT SIZE OF LESS THAN 3-ACRES. CROSS REF BP 2013-521 DECK; BP 2007-467 SEPTIC ALT.; BP 2002-623 PORCH; 2002-6252 CAR ATT GARAGE BP 5730 YR. 1979 IN-GROUND POOL WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.48 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 301.13-2-51 SECTION 179-5-020 DAVID&STEPHANIE MAHONEY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 43-2014, David Mahoney, Meeting Date: June 25, 2014 "Project Location: 15 Algonquin Drive,Tyneswood Phase 3 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to maintain existing 220 sq. ft. accessory roof structure over existing patio as a third accessory where only two are allowed. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances from section 179-5-020 for accessory structures: Number of allowable uses on lot size< 3 acres Allowed 2 Proposed 3 Relief 1 Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/2014) 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 may be achieved by removing one of the existing sheds. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request may be considered substantial relevant to the code. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. Where the applicant has indicated they removed a pool and propose to maintain the gazebo structure. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, BP 13-521: Deck,pending BP 07-467: Septic alteration, 1-9-08 BP 02-623: Porch, 2-18-04 BP 02-252: Attached garage, 3-12-04 BP 5730: In-ground pool, 1979 Staff comments: The applicant proposes to maintain a third accessory structure where only two accessory structures are allowed. The applicant has indicated they have two existing sheds on their property that cannot be seen because of the privacy fence that surrounds the property. The plans show the location of the new structure and a photo noting the height at 12 ft. SEQR Status: Type II" MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. If you could, if you'd like to add anything to the record, you certainly may,or we'll just open it and ask questions. It's up to you. Ask away, right? Okay. Fine. MR. MAHONEY-Ask away. MR.JACKOSKI-Does any Board member,at this time,have questions for the applicant? MR. KUHL-I have a question for Staff. If Mr. Mahoney would put two by fours from this structure to the garage,would it then not be freestanding and he wouldn't have to be here? MRS.MOORE-It may be limited by the size of the,then the whole structure would be a garage. MR.JACKOSKI-Does it have to have a heated wall? MR. KUHL-If you put it on the garage,right,then he wouldn't have to be here. Correct? MRS.MOORE-That's a building question. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron, didn't we have that issue with the home on Glen Lake where they wanted a breezeway but because it wasn't a common heated wall,it ended up being a problem? MR. KUHL-No,what they said to us was they wanted height variance on that. MR.JACKOSKI-You're right. MR. KUHL-And if,in fact,we wanted,we didn't want to give them their variance,they would heat it. MR.JACKOSKI-That's right. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/2014) MR. KUHL-And when I went by this gentleman's property, I said to myself, that's almost the same thing. Just run two by fours out of the garage and he shouldn't be here,but anyway. MR. FREER-So my question is, how did this complaint originate or how did it get to us for a variance? It's similar to Ron's, I think. MRS.MOORE-It's through the Building Department. MR. FREER-Okay. MR.JACKOSKI-Can you give us any insight on what happened? MR. MAHONEY-Assessor came onto the property and took a picture of the structure. MRS. MAHONEY-Well, we got a permit for the decks that we're doing for the paved concrete, stamped concrete and more decks. We got permits for everything. MR. MAHONEY-We didn't realize the pavilion, whatever you want to call it, the pavilion was an accessory structure, and we were out of the two building limit. MR. HENKEL-But what do you have in square footage of the other two buildings,these two sheds? MR. MAHONEY-Somewhere around 490 square feet. MR. HENKEL-Now that playhouse,that would be considered a third,wouldn't it? MRS.MOORE-It's a playhouse,no. It does not count. MR. HENKEL-Cause that's basically three structures,four structure's then. MRS.MOORE-The playhouse is not a structure. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions before I open up the public hearing? There is a public hearing advertised for this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.JACKOSKI-Seeing no one, Mike,is there any written comment? MR. MC CABE-I see nothing in the file. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So at this time I'm going to poll the Board and get a feel for where they want to go with it. I'm going to start with Rick. MR. GARRAND-I don't even know if I'd consider it an accessory structure. Are they planning on enclosing it? MRS.MAHONEY-No,it's just for grilling. It's for a table,that's all. No windows,no doors. MR. GARRAND-Well, I can see why it would raise a red flag. Are you planning on putting a pool back in? MRS.MAHONEY-No. MR. MAHONEY-This is where the pool was. MRS. MAHONEY-Yes. It's the same concrete,before you went into the pool,it's the exact same spot. We just. MR. GARRAND-As long as you're not planning on putting another pool in,that would be fine. MRS.MAHONEY-No. We're done with pools. MR.JACKOSKI-They're not planning a pool for now. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/2014) MR. GARRAND-They'd require relief for permeability if they put a pool in. Because they're getting to that point right now. MR. HENKEL-Where are they at permeability? 76.89. MR. GARRAND-And it's considered Neighborhood Residential. I didn't see that in Staff Notes but. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So Rick is a yes. Harrison? MR. FREER-So,yes,this reminds me of the guy that we had to give a third garage to because he had an overhang pull in front of his house,and I see no reason why we shouldn't grant this variance. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I'm also in favor of the project. No problem. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Two 2 by 4's and you wouldn't be here. I'm in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I'm in favor of the project as proposed. MR.JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I don't see any problem with it. I think they've taken pains to protect the backyard. You can't really see it anyway. It's not going to have any effect on the neighborhood. So I would support the project. MRS.MAHONEY-Thank you. You haven't voted yet. MR. JACKOSKI-I don't vote when they, when they're all yeses, I don't have to vote. They only put me on the spot when there's three and three. But I'm in favor of it also. Okay. So I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-And I'm going to seek a motion,please. Thank you, Kyle. RESOLUTION TO: Approve Area Variance No. 43-2014, David & Stephanie Mahoney, 15 Algonquin Drive,Tax Map Number 301.13-2-51. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from David& Stephanie Mahoney for a variance from Section(s): 179-5-020 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury.Applicant proposes to maintain existing 220 sq. ft.accessory-roof structure over existing patio. Relief requested from maximum number of allowable accessory structures on a lot size of less than 3-acres. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,June 25,2014; 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. 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. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? It maybe considered substantial. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/2014) 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? It may be considered 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. 43-2014, David & Stephanie Mahoney, Introduced by Kyle Noonan, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame expires; B. 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 25th day of June,2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you very much. MR. MAHONEY-Thank you. MRS.MAHONEY-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-2014 SEQRA TYPE II STEPHEN O'LEARY AGENT(S) CARL B. SCHODER, P.E. SCHODER RIVER ASSOC. OWNER(S) STEPHEN O'LEARY ZONING WR LOCATION 77 BRAYTON LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 768 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM SHORELINE AND SIDELINE SETBACKS FOR THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. RELIEF IS ALSO REQUIRED FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF SP 38-2014; BOH 9, 2014 SEPTIC VARIANCE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2014 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.32 ACRE(S) SECTION 179-3-040; 179-13-010 CARL SCHODER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 47-2014, Stephen O'Leary, Meeting Date: June 25, 2014 "Project Location: 77 Brayton Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to renovate an existing 980 sq. ft. home adding a 384 sq. ft. loft area and converting an 8X24 foot porch to great room area. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/2014) Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances from section 179-13-10 expansion of non-conforming structure, 179-3-040 Establishment of districts: Shoreline setback Side setback Side setback Required 50 ft. 12 ft. 12 ft. Proposed 27 ft. 3.7 ft. 8.8 ft. Relief 23 ft. 8.3 ft. 3.2 ft. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited as the applicant proposes a new septic system with the project and renovations to the structure are to occur within the existing footprint where relocating the home to a compliant location may cause more disturbance to the site. 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 to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, SP 38-14: Pending BOH 9-14: Septic variance, 2014-031: 768 sq.ft.residential alterations,pending Staff comments: The applicant proposes a renovation to an existing home where relief is requested from the setback requirements for side and shoreline. The applicant has indicated the project includes installation of a new septic system, where an additional pathway from the driveway area is being added and raising the foundation needed due to work for the system. SEQR Status: Type II" MR.JACKOSKI-Welcome. How are you? If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. SCHODER-Thank you very much. Certainly. I'm Carl Schoder, Schoder Rivers Associates, and I'm representing the applicant. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. Is there anything you'd like to add at this time, or would you just like to field questions? MR. SCHODER-If I could give you a brief history,just like a perspective on where we are,that would be helpful, I think. The applicant has purchased this property about a year ago. The property is an extremely small existing lot, had nonconforming conditions on that lot, specific to the variance 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/2014) requests that we're here for tonight. Upon taking ownership of the property and starting to work with the property they discovered that they had some issues with their septic system,which is how Schoder River Associates initially got involved in this. They, again, have a third of an acre and it's mainly bedrock. So a fairly sophisticated type of a septic system would be needed. They also discovered, as per looking through the house that they had purchased, that they had some rotten floor joists and that kind of thing. So that had to be addressed. The bottom line is what they would like to do it, One, improve the environmental issues by way of putting in a compliant septic system, and, Two, bring this house up to a little bit less dated, if you will, of a condition than what it is currently. This was a seasonal residence. It still will be,but it was basically functioning as an older style camp, if you will, and they're trying to improve on that to a certain extent. They are not anticipating increasing the size of this building. They want to work completely within the footprint of the building. With regard to the septic system, we required several variances from the Town of Queensbury wastewater ordinances. Such variances were granted. What we're anticipating putting in is something called the Presby system,which is an aeration system with a sand filter type of an approach. It generates quite clean effluent after it gets through the filter and it also allows for some reduction in footprint,because, again,the site is mainly bedrock and there is exactly one area available. With regard to alternatives that they may have had and the issue of self-creation, which is always a difficult one for me to tackle, they bought this property. They can't put a house anywhere else really on this property of the same size and comply with Code requirements. They really kind of bought in to what is an existing residence. I would defer to you folks as far as if that was self-created or not,but they never did build that in the first place. I guess their only alternative would have been not buying the property, but it is an existing lot, and it was an existing house that has been there for many years. Again, in summary, a septic variance is in place. We are in front of you to seek relief for the existing non-conforming structure. The statements that you have made as far as the amount of relief is factual. I would add one thing as far as this porch is concerned. This is currently an enclosed, screened in porch, really no different than the rest of the building. The Great Room will expand out to include a portion of that, or to include that porch as a portion of what this Great Room is going to be within the building. So, again, no increase in footprint, no increase in roof area. The roof area is there now. Really not a lot of change to the property. The house will be jacked up somewhat, partly due to the need to get enough cover to put a septic tank down adjacent to the house which was part of the variance issue. Grades are simply such, and bedrock is such that we needed to pick the house up to be able to get the tank in and be able to get the tank buried next to the structure. You ask me what time it is, I'll tell you how they made the watch. That was my short presentation. With that,please, any questions? MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. At this time do any Board members have questions for the applicant? MR. GARRAND-I do. MR. SCHODER-Yes,sir. MR. GARRAND-What kind of heat is this house going to have? MR. SCHODER-Good question. I don't know the answer. The applicant is in the audience. What kind of heat does this house have? MR. SCHODER-Electric base board. MR. GARRAND-Will it be a year round residence? MR. SCHODER-It's anticipated to be a seasonal residence. MR. GARRAND-Seasonal only? MR. SCHODER-Correct. The application states as such. MR. GARRAND-What kind of tree removal do you propose during this construction? MR. SCHODER-Nothing in the front toward the lake. In the back only enough to be able to build out the septic system and associated retaining walls. The retaining walls are required as part of the septic system to be able to gain grade and be able to gain separation to bedrock. MR. GARRAND-Which means a couple of those big trees are going. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/2014) MR. SCHODER-In the back, not in the front. We're not touching anything in the front between the house and the lake. MR. GARRAND-What type of foundation do you have under the screened in porch right now? MR. SCHODER-I believe it's at grade. I believe there's a footing and a short wall. I'm not totally sure if it's block or not. We did the civil design. We didn't do the architectural design. MR. GARRAND-Okay. So is there dirt underneath the screened in porch right now,or? MR. SCHODER-I think the floor is elevated. Is it not? I'm not 100%sure. MR. GARRAND-Okay, and what type of foundation are you proposing for the Great Room where the porch is now? MR. SCHODER-I think they would be enclosing that with a new foundation. We should be able to ascertain some of that from the drawings. The architectural drawings were prepared by others, not by our office. So they are included, and if you'd give me just a second, we could probably answer those questions. Let's see,that is existing,and I'm looking at the first two on the existing. I do not see a modification to that, nor do I see, unfortunately, a section through that. There is an existing slab on the proposed section, which would be the Great Room slab. I am not 100% sure that that existing slab may or most likely would extend out toward that porch. I can't swear to that, folks. MR. GARRAND-Okay,and the height on this building will be no more than 19 feet from grade? MR. SCHODER-From grade. MR. GARRAND-Existing grade. MR. SCHODER-I believe whatever,what the application said,what the drawings are saying. MR. GARRAND-Going from 12 to 19. MR. SCHODER-Yes,well under the, I believe it went from 16 or 17 to 19. MR. GARRAND-I mention that because the higher it is,the closer it is to the lake and the higher it is, the more it's,you know, could be obstructing the view of the neighbors from the lake. MR. SCHODER-Okay. Question. The view of the neighbors, where this property sits, there is no neighbor behind this house that would have a view of the lake. This is at the very end of the road. There are two neighbors to the side, either side. Both neighbors, by the way, during the septic system variance hearings, came out very much in favor of this property, and very much in favor of this project, expressed no concerns whatsoever over that, and they were informed of everything, basically,that we have here,the same information was submitted. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Thank you. MR. HENKEL-Is there an existing crawl space there now, is there an existing crawl space under there now,or no? Is that going to be something created with this new? MR. SCHODER-There's wood frame floor with a very shallow, and hesitate to call it crawl space. In the reconstruction,the portion of the house away from the lake would be raised somewhat because of the plumbing to be able to again get the bathroom to the right place so I can get grade, or I can get slope out to the septic tank, but the rest of the property 1 believe will still be the slab on grade that you're anticipating. MR. KUHL-What's the tank alongside the house used for? This is the picture, right, this is the picture of your house? MR. SCHODER-Yes, I would think that the tank on that side would be,that's a good question. MR.JACKOSKI-It's an oil tank. MR. SCHODER-Old fuel oil tank,possibly. It's got electric now,apparently. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/2014) MR. KUHL-So if you're going to go up three feet, you're going to do, what, four blocks underneath? Are you going to do a four block foundation? MR. SCHODER-Something to that effect,yes. MR. KUHL-Probably,or you know? MR. SCHODER-I didn't design the foundation for this. It'll either be concrete or block. It would not be anything other than that, and it would take it up to the elevations or levels that were indicated on the drawings. MR. KUHL-There are things called grinder pumps. You didn't, you don't need a gravity feed on all your pipes. There is a grinder pump to kick them up if you need them. MR. SCHODER-I have a difficulty with grinder pumps from a technical point of view. Grinder pumps wind up disturbing the septic tank to a significant degree. If you're going to pump directly into a septic tank, you should upsize the septic tank to increase the detention time, because of the roiling effect of the grinder pumps. With that said, I don't have enough room to get the required size septic tank in there right now. I have a very tight location, which is why that was not determined. MR. KUHL-I've lived with grinder pumps for 20 years and they're fine. MR. SCHODER-They are. MR. KUHL-But I assume this tank is from the previous, its non-functional oil tank sitting next to the house now. MR. SCHODER-I would assume that that would be a non-functioning oil tank, and if the heat is going to be electric, I would also assume you'd probably remove that tank. It's an eyesore. Honestly I've walked by that tank and I haven't noticed it,but,yes. MR. KUHL-Thank you. MR. SCHODER-You're very welcome. MR. FREER-So the porch that you're turning into a Great Room is on the back side of the house, not the lakeside of the house. Is that right? MR. SCHODER-The porch is on the lakeside. Yes,if you look at that picture,actually,it does. MR. MC CABE-That's an entry porch in the back. MR. SCHODER-There's a small entryway in the back. MR. FREER-Okay. So that's not the porch. You're talking about extending the building out onto what is labeled a deck on our. MR. SCHODER-The building is already a, out to that point. There is a roof over that. That's an enclosed porch with screened windows. MR. KUHL-I think it's a good project. MR. MC CABE-And it's already 27 feet from the shoreline. MR. SCHODER-As it's currently located,yes. MR. FREER-Well, they are going to get closer. They're going to take a porch and make it into a Great Room. MR. MC CABE-Well,it's a closed in porch now. MR. SCHODER-It's an enclosed porch. It's a structure currently. MRS.MOORE-The porch is not getting any closer,the building is not getting any closer to the shore. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/2014) MR.JACKOSKI-But the height of it is. MRS.MOORE-Correct. MR.JACKOSKI-The height is increasing within the 50 feet. MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. MC CABE-It's about two and a half or two feet. MR. SCHODER-A little over two feet. That's about right. MR.JACKOSKI-And the deck that is labeled on these surveys is remaining where it is? MR. SCHODER-Yes. The deck, again that survey was produced by others. We didn't produce that, is actually not truly what I would consider to be a deck, a deck being an open space. This is not at all that. This is an enclosed porch, as with the roof being re-used as such. No change on the outside,other than the. MR. JACKOSKI-So, Staff, do we know what this survey that's been stamped by a licensed surveyor says it's a deck when it's not a deck? MRS.MOORE-Terminology. MR. GARRAND-Because it was probably a deck at one time and they put a porch on it. MR.JACKOSKI-So is the survey accurate for now? It's stamped by a licensed surveyor. MR. GARRAND-As long as the dimensional requirements are correct. MR. SCHODER-I would think it would be valid. I've seen surveyors call things things that aren't necessarily. MR. GARRAND-Yes, it's like we get a lot of requests,you know, one year somebody will come in and say I'm putting a deck in and they'll get relief for the deck and two years later they're back before us because that deck is getting enclosed into a Great Room. MR. SCHODER-Right. I understand. MR. GARRAND-And that's like the evolution of Glen Lake. MR. SCHODER-I do understand exactly what you're saying. Which is why I am making that distinction. In fairness to a surveyor, if that's an enclosed screened in porch with an interior wall that's got screen windows around it,he might misnomer that to be a deck. MR. JACKOSKI-There's no way anybody should call that a deck if it's got a roof and windows. It's impossible. MR. SCHODER-I agree. MR.JACKOSKI-All right. If I'm using old survey data, and that's what I'm feeling like here,how do I know the rest of it's right? MR. SCHODER-The rest of it is right. This was a currently produced survey. This was a survey in the field. MR.JACKOSKI-Then the field dimensions suggest it's a deck. It's not. So it's not accurate. MR. SCHODER-There's a misnomer on the terminology for that,yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Are there other questions from the Board members concerning this application before I open up the public hearing? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Mike, are there any written comments from any of the neighbors? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/2014) MR. MC CABE-There's nothing in the file. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience this evening who would like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one, I'll leave the public hearing open and I'm going to poll the Board. John,we'll start with you. MR. HENKEL-I really don't see any problem with it. I think their new septic system's going to be at least 150 feet from the lake it looks like, and that's definitely an improvement,and they're still using the same footprint, supposedly from the paperwork we've got here. They're not changing that at all, just a little bit of height difference, which I don't see is going to create any problems in the neighborhood or environment. So I'd definitely be in favor of the project. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Harrison? MR. FREER-So I think extending the living space toward the lake on a nonconforming structure and expanding a nonconforming structure that puts the living space enclosed closer to the lake is the wrong way to head with regard to this Board,and so I don't support it. MR.JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I think it's a good project. I think it improves the property without really changing any dimensions. I'd be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I don't think it'll produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood. If they're going to do foundation work, if they're going to do any significant amount of foundation, a feasible alternative would be to reorient the house and move it into a more compliant location. I think the request for relief is moderate. As far as environmental conditions in the neighborhood, I don't think it's going to have any real adverse environmental effect on the neighborhood. The only thing is I'd like the Town just to make sure that they don't exceed that 19 feet on the height of this house. What they propose before us should be what is built here. And that 19 feet is from the current grade,not the finished grade. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, this is really a, it's a good thing that they went to the septic. They're upgrading the nonconforming house. They're not really increasing the footprint, and I don't think it'll have anything but a positive effect on the neighborhood. There's no negatives to it, although it is very nonconforming,but,no, I'd be in favor of this project. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I also would be in favor of the project. I feel that the changes being made certainly would be to help the environment. You're not adding roofs to increase amounts of runoff. So I would be in favor of this project. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. I'd be in favor,too. I agree with my fellow Board members. So, I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. KUHL-I'd like to make that motion,your Honor. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Ron. RESOLUTION TO: Approve Area Variance No. 47-2014, Stephen O'Leary, 77 Brayton Lane, Tax Map No. 239.12-2-87 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Stephen O'Leary for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040; 179-13-010 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes to renovate an existing 980 sq. ft. home adding a 384 sq. ft. loft area and converting an 8 ft. by 24 ft porch to great room area. Relief requested from the minimum shoreline and sideline setbacks for the WR zoning district. Relief is also required for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/2014) SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,June 25,2014; 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. 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? I'd say no. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? No,it won't. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? You have to say it is,but it is non-conforming. 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. 47-2014, Stephen O'Leary, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, 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 25th day of June,2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Jackoski NOES: Mr. Freer MR.JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Good luck. MR. SCHODER-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2014 SEQRA TYPE II LISA AND KEN LAMBERT OWNER(S) LISA AND KEN LAMBERT ZONING MDR LOCATION 36 TWIN CHANNELS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING 473.76 SQ. FT. STORAGE SHED. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF BP 2014-149 STORAGE SHED; SP 37-2014 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/2014) 2014 LOT SIZE 0.14 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 309.18-1-25 &26 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5- 020 LISA&KEN LAMBERT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 45-2014, Lisa and Ken Lambert, Meeting Date: June 25, 2014 "Project Location: 36 Twin Channels Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to complete construction of an existing 473.76 sq. ft.garage/shed, (due to the garage door of greater than 6 ft.a portion of the structure is considered a garage). Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances from section 179-5-020 Accessory structures and 179-3-040 Establishment of districts: Side setback Side setback Rear setback North South Required 25 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. Proposed 3.3 ft. 21.4.ft. 22.1 Relief 21.7 ft. 3.6 ft. 7.9 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 limited due to the lot size and the intent of the applicant to have a retaining wall for bank stabilization on the site. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal to moderate relevant to the code. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicants intent is minimize the environmental impact with the rear of the building acting as a retaining wall for bank stabilization. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, SP 37-14: Pending BP 14-149: Storage shed,pending Staff comments: The applicant requests to maintain an already built garage (due to the garage door of greater than 6 ft. a portion of the structure is considered a garage) of 473.76 sq. ft. where the applicant had constructed a retaining wall for bank stabilization and further developed a shed structure. The building is for the storage of 4-wheeler,lawn mower and the other portion is for wood storage. The applicant has indicated the southern side of the building will be planted and will assist with stormwater from the roof. The applicant has also received support from the neighbor to the north and has indicated it is a benefit as the project stabilizes that side of the property as well. SEQR Status: 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/2014) Type II" MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. Is there anything you'd like to add at this time, or would you just like to field questions from the Board? MRS. LAMBERT-Not really. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. We're nice,don't worry,don't worry. We're find. MR. KUHL-Could they identify themselves for the record? MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,would you,please. MR. LAMBERT-Ken Lambert. MRS. LAMBERT-And Lisa Lambert. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Thank you, Ron. Are there any questions from Board members at this time concerning these three parcels MR. GARRAND-Yes. Staff,you list this parcel as .14 of an acre. MRS.MOORE-There's multiple parcels involved. MR. GARRAND-Are they supposed to be? MRS.MOORE-They're merged. MR. GARRAND-They are merged? MR. LAMBERT-It's all on one now. MRS.MOORE-It is all on one. MRS. LAMBERT-We're just waiting for the final paperwork from the attorney. I've been waiting on that for about a year now,but the deed is all in our name. Everything is there. I'm just waiting for. MR. GARRAND-An attorney's doing that? MRS. LAMBERT-Yes. Well, it was two separate parcels when we bought the house, and we didn't realize that. So when I found out there was going to be a problem, they said it would be in your best interest to merge both. So that's what we did. We got it in our name. MR. GARRAND-I just went up to the County and said I want to merge these properties and they said okay,fine,you're done. MR.JACKOSKI-That's for tax mapping,that's not the deed. MR. LAMBERT-They were both in her name. MRS. LAMBERT-And when we bought the house, only one got transferred, not both. So what we did was we just had to do all the paperwork, and so now it's all one lot. Instead of two separate parcels, it's all going to be one. That's the way we told the lawyer we wanted it. So that's what he did. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,but the deed describes probably two parcels and three,yes. MRS.MOORE-I know on the screen it appears that there's three parcels involved. MR. GARRAND-I just wanted some clarification on that. MRS. MOORE-No, the applicant has explained to me that they've merged it. I have a deed, and it's all related to an attorney. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/2014) MR. JACKOSKI-So is the deed the outline perimeter of the three or is the deed missing one of those three that are outlined up there? MRS.MOORE-I'd have to look at the deed. MRS. LAMBERT-The deed is going to be the back one,the one that kind of goes to a. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay,and the triangular one,where's the triangular one? MRS. LAMBERT-That one goes with the house. MR.JACKOSKI-That's already been transferred. MRS. LAMBERT-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So there were two that transferred originally with the house and now you're adding a third. MR. LAMBERT-And then they gave my mother the back one so nobody could build behind her. MRS. LAMBERT-So that back one is the one that we're waiting on. MR.JACKOSKI-So we could make it a condition that that all gets resolved,as part of the motion. MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. MC CABE-But isn't that back,isn't that just a steep bank anyway? MRS. LAMBERT-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-But it still relates to permeability and all that kind of stuff, FAR. Okay. So, in front of us are the three parcels,two parcels. One eventually to be combined parcel. Anything else from Board members? MR. KUHL-I think you did a nice job finishing it up. MRS. LAMBERT-Thank you very much. MR. KUHL-It looks nice. It looks, it compliments your property. It's clean and neat. It's just unfortunate they didn't know enough to come in before you. MR.JACKOSKI-Or put on a 5 foot by 11 door. MR. LAMBERT-I mean, I've tried to get my truck in there. MR. KUHL-How deep is that? MR. LAMBERT-Twelve feet. MRS. LAMBERT-Well, it's actually, the garage door is closed, and you're inside it's only 11. To the edge of the concrete is actually 12 feet. MR. KUHL-It looks shallow. Do you have storage upstairs? MRS. LAMBERT-We didn't have a garage. So when we did that we thought that would be great for my outdoor furniture and his hunting stuff and all that. MR. GARRAND-Yes,you don't want to try to park a truck in there. MRS. LAMBERT-No. MR. LAMBERT-No, I've tried to change the oil. MR. KUHL-And the right side is where you're going to store your wood, as you're looking at the garage? 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/2014) MR. LAMBERT-Yes. MRS. LAMBERT-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other questions? I do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.JACKOSKI-Seeing no one,is there any written comment? MR. MC CABE-I see nothing in the file. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. I'll poll the Board. Kyle? MR. NOONAN-No problem with the project as proposed. It's fine. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I have nothing. It's a good project as it is. I assume that when the Assessor came around,he's the one that did this,Town Assessor? MR.JACKOSKI-How did it come to us? MRS. MOORE-It could have been. I don't recall. I know it was either the Building Department or the Assessor. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. KUHL-You could have blamed either and we wouldn't have known the difference. MR. GARRAND-I don't think it's going to produce an undesirable change in this neighborhood. So I'd be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-I have no problem with it. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I'm also in favor of the project. MR.JACKOSKI-Oh,come on, everybody? Mike? MR. MC CABE-I'll support this project. MR.JACKOSKI-I'm in support of it also. So, I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. GARRAND-I'll make a motion. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Rick. RESOLUTION TO: Approve Area Variance No. 45-2014, Lisa & Ken Lambert, 36 Twin Channels Road,Tax Map Numbers: 309.18-1-25 &26. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Lisa & Ken Lambert for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040; 179-5-020 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes to complete construction of an existing 473.76 sq. ft. garage due to the garage door being greater than 6 ft. So a portion of this is considered a garage. The requested setback relief is relief of 21.7 feet for the side setback. Side setback to the south is 3.6 feet of relief requested,and the rear setback relief is for 7.9 feet where 30 feet is required. Relief requested from minimum side and rear yard setback requirements. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/2014) SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,June 25,2014; 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? I don't think there'll be any undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? There aren't a lot of other places to put this on the property, especially a structure of this size. Also the configuration of the property, this is a diamond shaped piece of property, so setbacks are going to be tough in this property. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? This request might be deemed substantial numerically. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? I don't foresee any. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? It maybe deemed self-created. 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. 45-2014, Lisa & Ken Lambert, Introduced by Richard Garrand,who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame expires; B. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building&Codes personnel; C. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; D. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a building permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 25th day of June, 2014,by the following vote: MR.JACKOSKI-Are we going to make note that the parcels have to be officially combined? MR. GARRAND-I was going to note that, make it a condition, but as per the applicant they already have the process in motion and I will take them at their word. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So we will not amend or proposed. MR. GARRAND-I thought it would be moot. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/2014) MR.JACKOSKI-Hopefully true. AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Congratulations,good luck. MR. LAMBERT-Thank you very much. MRS. LAMBERT-Thank you. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 48-2014 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED RUSS FADEN/SUBWAY AND MR. BILL'S OWNER(S) FRANK PARILLO ZONING Cl LOCATION 1471 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT SEEKS TO MAINTAIN EXISTING FREESTANDING SIGN SETBACK OF 11.5 FT. FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE AND SIZE OF SIGN 48.24 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK AND SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR A FREESTANDING SIGN. CROSS REF 2014-167 SUBWAY & MR. BILL'S - COWL ALT., SP 52-2011, BP 2011-383, BP 2012-258 LICKIT'S WALL SIGN; BP 2012-257 PYLON SIGN (FREESTANDING SIGN) LICKIT'S ICE CREAM CAFE; BP 2011-383 `LICKIT'S ICE CREAM &CAFE' - COMMERCIAL ALTERATION; BP 2005-522 COWL ALT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2014 LOT SIZE 1.99 TAX MAP NO. 288.00-1-58 SECTION CHAPTER 140 JOHN NATALE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 48-2014, Russ Faden/Subway and Mr. Bill's, Meeting Date: June 25, 2014 "Project Location: 1471 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant seeks to maintain existing freestanding sign setback of 11.5 feet from the front property line and size of sign 48.24 sq.ft. Relief Required: Parcel will require sign variances as follows: Front setback Size Required 15 ft. 45 sq.ft. Proposed 11.46 ft. 48 sq.ft. Relief 3.54 ft. 3 ft. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be achieved by relocating the sign to a compliant location and reducing the sign to 45 sq.ft. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/2014) BP 14-167: Sign&commercial alterations,pending BP 12-258: Wall sign, 6-26-12 BP 12-257: Freestanding sign, 6-26-12 SP 52-11: Ice Cream Shop/ Food Service, 8-2-11 BP 11-383: Commercial alteration,pending Staff comments: The applicant proposes to utilize an existing signage structure to locate a new sign that requires relief for setback and size. The information submitted shows the location and the size of the proposed sign. SEQR Status: Unlisted" MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. Pretty straightforward, but if you'd like to identify yourself for the record. MR. NATALE-Sure. John Natale with Adirondack Sign Company,representing Russ Faden tonight. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. I assume there's not anything you need to add at this time and just open it up for Board questions. Pretty straightforward. MR. NATALE-Yes,pretty straightforward. MR.JACKOSKI-Any questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? MR. GARRAND-Are they really going to put a Subway in with Mr. Bill's? MR. NATALE-Yes. MR. GARRAND-We've got a Subway two miles up the road. MR. NATALE-Yes, but the Subway, isn't that the one out of the service station kind of combination, something like that? MR. GARRAND-There's a barbershop in there. It's right near Wal-Mart. MR. NATALE-Russ Faden owns several other Subways in other communities and has done an excellent job with them. I mean, he's been very successful with them and that's what he decided he wanted to do, because that franchise has been very successful for him. Now the Mr. Bill's, you know, I can't really tell you. They've got the one in South Glens Falls. Somehow he made a partnership there, and why he's trying that out,but I think the big thing with Russ is we've seen,his history has shown he's not,you don't want, especially in a location like this,what we've seen in the past is it seems like you want a long term tenant in there, somebody that's really going to put a foothold in there and really try to make a go of it,and Russ has been very successful with that. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Any further questions? MR. KUHL-What I don't understand, I mean, for the sake of three square feet, why didn't they just black out the sign and make it 45 square feet instead of 48? I just don't understand why people come with three foot variances. It drives me nuts,but,you know,it is what it is. MR. MC CABE-Well,the sign's already built. He'd have to modify the. MR. NATALE-Well,like he said,you could black it out. You could black it out. MR. MC CABE-Yes,but wouldn't that just be considered part of the sign? MR. NATAL E-Typ ically, at least what I've seen in a lot of areas, even if you black it out,you're right. I mean,you're looking at the actual physical graphic part of the signage,you could consider signage, but a lot of towns consider the whole structure,the actual square footage of that signage. MR. FREER-What is our? 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/2014) MR. JACKOSKI-It's a grey zone. Believe me, I'm going through it right now myself, and I'll be in front of this Board. MR. KUHL-But this is an existing vertical sign. MR. NATALE-Yes. MR. KUHL-I understand and I got that. MR. NOONAN-Are you going to run the carhop in the front? Are they going to need all the blacktop they can get for the carhop business? MR. NATALE-Well, I don't know exactly. Again, I deal strictly with the sign. I don't know exactly if he's going to be able to run the carhop the same way it's done. MR. NOONAN-I was just curious. The thought was that he had to move the sign that maybe he shouldn't be able to or couldn't because. MR. NATALE-Right., There isn't really that much blacktop there in front of that. MR. NOONAN-Right. This is also going to be a year round business inside Mr. Bill's,correct? MR. NATALE-Correct. Correct. MR. NOONAN-Was Mr. Faden too busy to come tonight? MR. NATALE-Mr. Faden is a police officer in Saratoga Springs. MR. KUHL-How do you answer his question? He's too busy to come here? MR. NATALE-Well,no. No. MR. KUHL-Okay. I don't care if he's the mayor. MR. NATALE-I'll tell you what, aside from this, I want to make a comment. I've been to a lot of different Zoning Board meetings, and I know you haven't voted yet,but this is the first one here, I'm impressed. I mean,you handle yourselves very well. I waited until, I was last, everybody's out of the room. No, I mean, seriously, I've seen everyone involved in it, and I've rarely seen that in a lot of these meetings. So it impressed me. MR. KUHL-We can only thank our Chairman. He brings out the best. MR.JACKOSKI-Anyway,thank you, Ron. All right, everyone. So we have had comments. We have had Board member discussion. Is there anymore Board member discussion before I open the public hearing? I have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who'd like to address this particular Board concerning this particular application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.JACKOSKI-Seeing no one,is there any written comment, Mike? MR. MC CABE-There's nothing in the file. MR. JACKOSKI-At this time I'm going to poll the Board, and then we'll close the public hearing and do SEQR if this so fits. Who hasn't gone first? Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes, I support this. I don't see any big problems with it. It makes sense and it's quitting time. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I also see no problem with this. It's an existing sign. They're not making any changes really to it in height or size or anything,so,yes,go for it. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/2014) MR. NOONAN-I don't have any problems with the project as proposed. I'm familiar with Mr. Faden's businesses all the way to Warren County, Saratoga County, the numerous businesses that he has. They're all very clean. So I think it's a welcome business on that part of Route 9 as well. So I have no problems. MR.JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-It makes sense. No changes to the sign. So I'll support the project. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I think it would be more of a detriment to try to move this sign three feet and take away that drive aisle than it would be to just leave it there. I'd be in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I have no issues with it. It's a particular project, unfortunately this property's been empty for a long, long time. Hopefully it'll be successful and they make it look, you know, add to the neighborhood. I'm in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. I am going to close the public hearing at this time. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-And ask for a SEQR determination. RESOLUTION TO: Approve Sign Variance No. 48-2014, Russ Faden/Subway&Mr. Bills, Tax Map No. 288.00-1-58; The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Russ Faden / Subway & Mr. Bills for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury in order to maintain existing freestanding sign setback of 11.5 ft. from the front property line and size of sign 48.24 sq. ft. Relief requested from minimum front yard setback and size requirements for a freestanding sign. SEQR Type: Unlisted; Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 48-2014. Russ Faden / Subway & Mr. Bills based upon the information provided by the applicant and the supporting documentation, 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 John Henkel: Duly adopted this 25th day of June.2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Having a Negative Dec, moving forward, I am seeking a motion for approval of this Sign Variance. RESOLUTION TO: Approve Sign Variance No. 48-2014, Russ Faden/Subway&Mr. Bills, Tax Map No. 288.00-1-58; The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Russ Faden / Subway & Mr. Bills for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury in order to maintain existing freestanding sign setback of 11.5 ft. from the front property line and size of sign 48.24 sq. ft. Relief requested from minimum front yard setback and size requirements for a freestanding sign. SEQR Type: Unlisted; Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 48-2014. Russ Faden / Subway & Mr. Bills based upon the information provided by the applicant and the supporting documentation, this Board 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/2014) 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 John Henkel: Duly adopted this 25th day of June.2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,June 25,2014; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows: 1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign variance? No. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an sign variance? No. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? It may be considered,but we're saying it is not. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? No. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? No,this sign was already in existence. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Sign Variance No. 48-2014, Russ Faden / Subway & Mr. Bills, Introduced by Kyle Noonan, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame expires; B. 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 25th day June,2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Jackoski 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/2014) NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Good luck. Thank you. Any other business that Board members would like to bring forward before we adjourn the meeting? Hearing of none, I look for a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZBA MEETING OF JUNE 26, 2014, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption,seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 25th day of June, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Have a good night everyone. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 32