The URL can be used to link to this page

2006-02-22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/22/06) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 22, 2006 INDEX Use Variance No. 69-2005 Linda C. Casse, Sojourn Gift Shop 1. Tax Map No. 303.5-1-62 Area Variance No. 4-2006 Cifone Construction 3. Tax Map No. 308.8-1-21.2, 21.3, 21.4, 21.5, 21.6 Area Variance No. 8-2006 David R. Kelly, MD & Sally N. Kelly 10. Tax Map No. 239.15-1-3 Area Variance No. 7-2006 Schermerhorn Residential Holdings, LP 12. Tax Map No. 309.10-1-45 Area Variance No. 11-2006 Lee Rosen 26. Tax Map No. 227.14-1-24 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/22/06) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 22, 2006 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHARLES ABBATE, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, SECRETARY ROY URRICO ALLAN BRYANT CHARLES MC NULTY JOYCE HUNT LEO RIGBY, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT LEWIS STONE LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. ABBATE-We do have some administrative things. I understand that we have communication from Counsel representing Area Variance No. 69-2005. Would you read that into the record for me, please. OLD BUSINESS: USE VARIANCE NO. 69-2005 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED LINDA C. CASSE, SOJURN GIFT SHOP AGENT(S): HOWARD I. KRANTZ, ESQ. OWNER(S): LINDA C. CASSE ZONING SFR-20 LOCATION 318 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO USE EXISTING BUILDING FOR A RETAIL-GIFT BOUTIQUE AREA. RETAILUSES ARE NOT PERMITTED USES IN THE SFR ZONE. CROSS REF. BP 2005-151 PENDING, BP 2003-536 C/O, BP 2003-384 SIGN, BP 97-3156 FREEST. SIGN BP 95-1774 WALL SIGN, BP 93-038 C/O WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 14, 2005 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY N/A LOT SIZE 0.74 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.5-1-62 SECTION 179-4-020 MR. UNDERWOOD-This letter was received on January 19 from Krantz & Rehm. “Dear th Craig Brown: Confirming our telephone conversation this morning, please schedule Linda Casse’s matter to March to give the Board and your office ample time to consider the documentation which we submitted last evening, as well as to allow the full Board to be in attendance.” And Howard Krantz signed that letter. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I’m going to open the public hearing on Use Variance No. 69-2005. Is there anyone here who would like to address Use Variance No. 69-2005? Would you raise your hands for me, please. I don’t recognize anyone raising their hands. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE NO. 69-2005 LINDA C.CASSE, SOJOURN GIFT SHOP, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 318 Ridge Road. Until the March 15, 2006. Duly adopted this 22 day of February, 2006, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Rigby, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/22/06) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone MR. ABBATE-The vote is seven yes, zero no to table Use Variance No. 69-2005, and as such, Use Variance No. 69-2005 is tabled to the 15 of March, 2006 hearing date, and Mr. th Secretary, I have a couple of other administrative things, and I hope that I have some patience here with the folks in front of me. I’d like to introduce a motion to hold a ZBA workshop on the 8 of March at 7 p.m. in the Community Center. th MOTION TO HOLD A ZBA WORKSHOP ON THE 8 OF MARCH AT 7 P.M. IN THE TH COMMUNITY CENTER, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: Duly adopted this 22 day of February, 2006, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone MR. ABBATE-The motion is passed to hold a ZBA workshop at 7 p.m., Wednesday the 8 of th March 2006 at the Community Center, and, Mr. Secretary, bear with me just one other moment, please. I also would like to introduce a motion. MOTION TO HOLD A ZBA HEARING ON WEDNESDAY THE 29 AT 7 P.M. IN THE TH COMMUNITY CENTER, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: Duly adopted this 22 day of February, 2006, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Rigby, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone MR. ABBATE-The motion is passed, seven to zero, to hold a ZBA hearing at 7 p.m., 29 March 2006, at the Community Center, and for the public, what we have done, for your information, we have extended it from two meetings to three for the month of March because of the case load. I have one more administrative item. I’d like to introduce a motion to request that the Town Board consider revisions to the Town Code to require an as built survey earlier in the construction rather than in the end. MOTION TO REQUEST THAT THE TOWN BOARD CONSIDER REVISIONS TO THE TOWN CODE TO REQUIRE AN AS BUILT SURVEY EARLIER IN THE CONSTRUCTION RATHER THAN AT THE END, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: And the rationale behind this is in order to be proactive and to help to eliminate as many after the fact variance requests as possible that we receive. We feel that an as built survey should be required earlier in the construction of a structure, rather than upon completion. Therefore we request the Town Board examine the subject and consider revisions to the Town Code as necessary. Duly adopted this 22 day of February, 2006, by the following vote: nd MR. BRYANT-I have a question. Are you going to state the phase of construction, or are we talking about the footings for the basement? What exactly? MR. ABBATE-Well, right now, I feel that, from my point of view, it’s only appropriate to place that responsibility on the Town Board and just bring to the Town Board’s, the purpose 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/22/06) of this is to bring to the Town Board’s attention that we’re receiving too many after the fact variance requests, and that perhaps a survey should be required earlier in construction. Now the survey, what it entails, I think probably is up to the Town Board, and probably the Building Inspector rather than us. I don’t have any expertise in that area, to be honest with you, but I’m willing to listen. MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I understand what the goal is. I have some misgivings about it. One, if we do this kind of thing, we should change the name, because then it’s no longer an as built. Because an as built should be done after the structure or whatever it is is built, and I think that’s one reason they were looking for the as built is when it’s all said and done, let’s find out what the story is. I think the other thing that, I don’t know. I’m not sure that it’s going to solve the problem. There certainly should be some kinds of checks accomplished when forms are set, for instance. If somebody’s going to pour a foundation, it would be nice to know whether it’s in a proper place to begin with, but just as we had an instance, I think it was the last meeting, where there were surveys, and the problem is not with the surveying. It was with locating the structure on the ground from the survey, and extra surveys are not going to solve that problem, unless somehow you force them to have a surveyor stake. So I don’t know. I should think it’s a good argument, but I’m not convinced that this is the answer. MR. ABBATE-Okay. This motion that I’m making this evening really didn’t initiate with me. It really initiated with a request from the Community Development Department asking us if we would consider this because they feel it would help them, but thank you, Mr. McNulty. Let me continue. I did make a motion. Is there a second for that motion? MR. BRYANT-I’ll second it. AYES: Mr. Rigby, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate NOES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico ABSENT: Mr. Stone MR. ABBATE-The vote to approve the motion is five yes, two no. The motion is approved. Staff, would you please see that all Town Board members receive a copy of this motion. Thank you very much. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-2006 SEQRA TYPE II CIFONE CONSTRUCTION AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S): CIFONE CONSTRUCTION ZONING SR-1A LOCATION SMOKE RIDGE ROAD, LOTS 19-23 APPLICANT PROPOSES FURTHER SUBDIVISION OF 5 LOTS. PROPOSAL CALLS FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF EACH OF THE EXISTING LOTS APPROXIMATELY IN HALF. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A DUPLEX WITH A ZERO LOT LINE SETBACK OF THE COMMON PROPERTY LINE. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIRMENTS, AS WELL AS MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 22, 2006 LOT SIZE 12.2 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.8-1-21.2, 21.3, 21.4, 21.5, 21.6 SECTION 179-4-030 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 4-2006, Cifone Construction, Meeting Date: February 22, 2006 Project Location: Smoke Ridge Road, Lots 19-23 Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes further subdivision of 5 lots, resulting in 10 lots ranging in size from .51-acre to .95-acre. The proposal would result in 5 duplex structures, or 10-townhouse units, at 2,128 sq. ft. on each lot. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Proposed lot size Min. lot size (1-acre) Min. lot width (150-ft.) Lot 19A (.51-acre) .49-acre 47.42-feet 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/22/06) Lot 19B (.64-acre) .36-acre 44.85-feet Lot 20A (.58-acre) .42-acre 34.48-feet Lot 20B (.55-acre) .45-acre 30.02-feet Lot 21A (.56-acre) .44-acre 63.71-feet Lot 21B (.52-acre) .48-acre 61.04-feet Lot 22A (.65-acre) .35-acre 67.48-feet Lot 22B (.59-acre) .41-acre 67.48-feet Lot 23A (.65-acre) .35-acre 42.26-feet Lot 23B (.95-acre) .05-acre 47.14-feet Additionally, 10-feet of relief from the required 10-foot minimum side yard setback for each of the 10-units (this is the shared property line). All area and dimensional relief, per §179-4-030 for the SR-1A zone. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 15-2004: Approved 4/20/04, proposal for 5 duplexes (10 townhouse units), each unit being 1,736 sq. ft. for a total proposed square footage of 8,680 sq. ft. AV 12-2004: Approved 3/17/04, for 5 duplexes (10 units) on 5 lots, relief from the required minimum lot size of 1-acre for each dwelling unit. Staff comments: As you will recall, this board approved a similar application on April 20, 2004 (see resolution AV 12-2004), essentially allowing a duplex on each of the 5 lots. To be compliant each lot would have had to be at least 2-acres, relief from the minimum 1-acre per dwelling unit for each of the 5-lots was approved. This proposal, while having the same outcome, will result in each unit having its own lot, for the benefit of ownership. This refines the previous variance request by specifying individual lot sizes and widths. It should be noted that the original setbacks (combined parcels) are still identified on the plan, specifically identifying 15-feet side setback from each property line. The setbacks should be shown for each proposed lot. The lots should show 0-feet for the shared, common side property line and 30-feet on the opposite side to be in compliance with the sum of 30-feet requirement. Only lots 21A and 21B have the building footprint located. It appears that lot A would need additional relief of 5-feet from the required sum of 30-feet for the combined side setbacks.” MR. ABBATE-I see that Counsel and the appellant is at the table. Please proceed. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the purpose of your record, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor, and with me is John Cifone and Matt Cifone who are the applicants. Basically, we’re not trying to propose anything different, except for ownership, or the right of ownership. We presently have the approval for the lots that we have, and we have site plan for duplexes on each of those lots, laid out as we have shown on this particular plan. What we would like to do is be able to make each half separately owned. We’re not talking about changing numbers or anything of that nature. When we went through the first variance process, and we went through the site review process, there was a lot of comment that people would prefer to have owner occupied structures there, as opposed to rental structures, and this actually, by chance, is following through on that. This is what we propose. We don’t necessarily know that what appears to be a duplex won’t be owned by the same person, somebody won’t buy both sides, and rent out one side, but it allows us the flexibility to sell each side individually, and it would be up to the buyers as they go, but they will be individually owned. We’ll have 10 separate units, 10 separate dwellings. The same as we would have under our present operation. Each unit will have its own separate septic system. They’re on Town water. They’re fairly substantial units, maybe more substantial than what’s in the neighborhood. They’re about 1500 square feet each. They will each have a two car garage, and we believe that they will be a nice improvement to the neighborhood. We looked at the comments which we received this week from Town Staff as to the dimensions not being shown on the plan. I actually have a plan 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/22/06) with me that incorporates their comments and shows the dimensions as they requested. I’ve got extra copies of it. MR. ABBATE-Pass them on to the Board members for me, would you please. MR. O'CONNOR-My understanding of this, and, Susan, correct me if I’m wrong, but if we get your approval tonight, we’ll have to go back to the Planning Board and file for a modification of the existing subdivision, and a modification of the existing site plans, which will be exactly the same as this. Basically, if you look at what the Section that the Staff was talking about, in this zone, you’re supposed to have a sum of 30 feet for side setbacks, with a minimum of 10. Obviously we’ve talked about the zero setback between the two units. It would be a party wall, common wall. On the outside of the units, we have an excess of 10 on every side, but on a couple of them we do not meet the 30. On Lot 23B, the side setback will be 27.3 feet. So we will ask for relief of 2.7 feet there. On 22A, the setback will be 24.4 feet. So we will ask for 5.6 feet relief on 22A, and also on 22B. On 21A, it’ll be 26.6. So we’ll ask for 4.4 relief on that side line. On 21B, it is in compliance. It is 30 feet, and 20A, it’s in compliance, 20B, it’s in compliance, 19A, it’s in compliance, 19B it’s 28.5 feet. So we’ll ask for relief of 1.5 there. That’s basically it. MR. BRYANT-Are you going to ask for the setback relief tonight? MR. O'CONNOR-We asked for it in our application. In our application, we said the proposed setback will be 25 feet. MR. BRYANT-Is that how it was advertised? Because it’s not in the descriptions. You talk about the setbacks. MRS. BARDEN-I think we identified the fact that they would still have to be compliant with the sum of 30 requirement. They do show a side setback relief of 0 feet for the shared property line, but they did not show, and maybe the map that you’re showing now identifies that sum of 30. MR. BRYANT-So my question is, when it was advertised, did you advertise all these lots individually with all the setback requirements that are going to be? Because all the lots will need the 0 setback on one side, and some of the lots have the other setback on the other side. Not all of them, but some of them. So my question is, was it advertised for this hearing tonight, to review all those setbacks? Because it’s not in the Staff notes and it’s not, you know what I’m saying? MRS. BARDEN-Not specific relief, no. The need for side setback relief has been identified, and the need for 15 feet on the shared property line has been identified. The sum of 30 requirement, the sum of 30 requirement for each of the lots, has not been identified. MR. BRYANT-Okay. Maybe I’m not expressing myself. Okay. Let me try again. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t think they specifically do each lot when they do the advertising. They characterize the relief being asked, on any of these they didn’t specify lot frontage. MR. MC NULTY-I think typically the language that shows up in the ad is the language that shows up on our agenda, and if that’s true, about the last sentence on the agenda item would cover it. MRS. BARDEN-Right. MR. MC NULTY-It says relief requested from minimum lot size requirements as well as minimum side yard setback requirements. MRS. BARDEN-That’s correct. Individual relief wasn’t identified. MR. O'CONNOR-And it was in the application. I think in the application they showed 0 setback, and then 25 on the other side, and except for a fraction of .6 on two of them, they either meet the 25 or exceed the 25. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, Mr. Bryant. That was a good question you raised. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/22/06) MR. UNDERWOOD-I had a question. Do you anticipate that most of these are going to get bought by single owners? I would assume a lot of people are going to buy it and rent the other half out to make their payments. MR. CIFONE-Well, I don’t know. I think maybe that they’ll be single owners. Similar to what’s near Worlco there, off of Bay. MR. BRYANT-Victoria Grant? MR. CIFONE-And Victoria Grant. That’s right. Exactly. Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay, folks. If I may, I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 4-2006, and would those wishing to be heard please approach the table, speak into the microphone and for the record identify yourself and your place of residence. Do we have any folks in the audience who would like to address Area Variance No. 4-2006? Would you please raise your hand for me, so I can recognize you. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ABBATE-I don’t see any hands raised at the present time. Okay. I’m going to move on, then. I’m going to ask Board members for their comments, but before I do, I’d like to inform the public that the comments offered by members are directed to the Chairman only, and comments expressed by the Board members to the Chairman are not open to debate. I’m now going to ask Board members to offer their comments on Area Variance No. 4-2006. MR. BRYANT-Before we do that, can I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? MR. ABBATE-By all means. MR. BRYANT-Can you tell me the size of the adjacent lots across the street from that? MR. O'CONNOR-My recollection, when we did the first application, they were all of this size or approximately the size of the individual units that we’re now talking about. MRS. BARDEN-.7, .7., .7. MR. BRYANT-Do you own those across the street? MR. O'CONNOR-At one time or another, he owned some of them. I think Mickie Hayes and Jaime Hayes own some of them now. MR. CIFONE-No. They own them on Sherman Avenue. We own eight in there, two on Sherman Avenue and six along that side, right now. MRS. BARDEN-These are all about three quarters of an acre, a little less, .7. MR. BRYANT-Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-I’m sorry to interrupt you, but before you start your polling of the Board, you surprised me when you jumped so quickly to the public hearing. For the purpose of your record, I’d like to go over the four tests. One, I don’t think there’s any change in character of the neighborhood. It’s a matter of who owns the units, as opposed to what the size of the units are or what the nature of the units are. I don’t think that there’s any environmental or physical detriment to the neighborhood for the same reason. You’re going to have the units, and it’s a question of who owns them, and whether a person owns both sides or owns one side. So I don’t, are there any alternatives available? The alternative is to build them and have one person own both sides, but I don’t know if that has any real positive impact. It might even, from what comments we’ve had, have a negative impact. Is it self-created? Yes, it is self-created, but we think that what we’re offering is a betterment to the plan that’s already approved. MR. ABBATE-Okay. That’s four. There’s one more. Is the requested Area Variance substantial? We have five statutory requirements, Counselor. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/22/06) MR. O'CONNOR-I understand that. I don’t think, it’s substantial in the sense of if you talk about the number of variances that are required to accomplish this, but as far as the impact of those variances, the cumulative impact of those variances, it’s very insignificant. So I don’t think it is, when you balance things back and forth, I don’t think it is substantial. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Thank you very much. MR. URRICO-I’d like to know what changed between today and 2004 that you’re requesting a different type of lot line or formation? MR. O'CONNOR-My understanding was in 2004 we thought we had somebody that wanted to come in and build and own duplexes, on a rental basis, and that didn’t pan out, and it hasn’t come for since then, and I think John would like to build but not be in a landlord position, and he would like to be able to sell. MR. URRICO-So it’s possible he’ll have 10 different owners? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. URRICO-Or as little as five. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, or he could have one. If somebody comes along and thinks that this is the cat’s meow and they buy all five units or five lots, or all five structures, I guess, 10 lots. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Now, if I could move on, I’m going to ask members to please offer their comments on Area Variance. MR. RIGBY-I have a question, too. MR. ABBATE-I’m sorry, Leo, please. MR. RIGBY-The prior variance that was approved, that would be 12-2004, that was basically an approval for everything the way it stands right now? MR. ABBATE-That’s what I understand. Correct me if I’m wrong, Staff. I think I’m right. MRS. BARDEN-For the duplex, yes. MR. RIGBY-Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to confirm it. MR. ABBATE-All right. No problem. MR. O'CONNOR-And let me correct myself. I think the site plan and variance is very similar to this. This footprint is not exactly as the site plan. MR. CIFONE-The house footprint. MR. O'CONNOR-The house footprint. MR. CIFONE-That’s a little better house. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s a better house, thinking that we’re going to sell it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Then I’m going to ask members to please offer their comment on Area Variance No. 4-2006, and I’m going to, again, respectfully remind the members that precedence mandates that we concern ourselves with the evidence which appears on the record to support our conclusions, and the evidence relied upon should be specifically stated, and this is necessary for an intelligent, judicial review. Additionally, any position you may take must be based on the regulatory review criteria of our laws, and not simply on subjective preferences of liking or not liking a project, and due process guarantees that government ensures a fair and open process, and Board members must make decisions on reliable evidence contained in the record of the Board deliberations. Do I have a volunteer? All right. Then I’ll start with Mr. Underwood, please. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/22/06) MR. UNDERWOOD-I think essentially we’re going to be approving what we’ve already approved prior to this, and last time we were all totally in agreement that there was no problems with what was proposed here. This was Phase II of Smoke Ridge, and it was something that was on the books from a long time ago, and I think in this instance here, although there’s going to be a little problem with the zero setback thing, I think it’s understandable why you want to do that, and I think that the additional numbers that you need, the miniscule amount of footage on the side setback, totality, is not anything that’s going to trigger anything in my mind that’s going to be a negative here. Obviously, as you’ve said, I do recall the original kind of plain Jane designs that were going to go in down here, and these do appear to be much more elaborate and much more pleasing to look at. So I’d be in agreement that this is a good project. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, Mr. Underwood. May I please turn to Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I guess I can essentially agree with Mr. Underwood in his thinking back, we went through the whole thing before with the previous variances, whether it was appropriate to have this kind of a structure in this area or not, and as I recall, we basically decided that this was in character with the existing neighborhood and it made sense to put this kind of a townhouse or duplex in the area. Given that, there’s only really two things that are different here now. One is drawing a lot line down the middle of this structure and the lot so that each unit can be individually owned, and I don’t see that as being anything making any difference from what we’ve previously approved, really, and the only other change is perhaps a few feet here and there on some of these lots that the structure is going to infringe on the total setback for the other lot lines, and I’ll agree that that’s relatively minor. So while it may seem significant, compared with the one acre zoning, compared with what’s already been approved, I think it’s a minor difference and I’d be in favor. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, Mr. McNulty. Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I essentially agree. There’s really not a lot of difference between a duplex on a one acre, where two acres are required, and a single on a half acre where one acre is required. So really the relief is the same. It’s unfortunate that they didn’t think of this in 2004, and it could have been addressed initially and been over and done with, but unfortunately those things happen. So I’d be in favor of it also. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, Mr. Bryant. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m basically in agreement with my fellow Board members. I voted in favor of the project when it first was submitted. I’m still in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Urrico. Mrs. Hunt, please. MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Yes, I’m in agreement with my fellow Board members. I think that very little difference between the 2004 and this year. The relief is minimum. So I’d be in favor. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, Mrs. Hunt. Mr. Rigby, please. MR. RIGBY-I’m in agreement. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Rigby. I, too, will concur with the comments made by the other six Board members. I think the project is a worthwhile project, and I’m also delighted that it’s going to be for single family. I think that’s a positive aspect of it. All right. Having said that, I’d like to do one other thing. I’d like to do this Short Environmental Assessment Form. MOTION THAT THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT INDICATES THAT THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT, AND UNLESS THERE IS A CHALLENGE FROM MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, I ACCEPT THAT BASIS IN ANTICIPATION OF NO NEGATIVE RESPONSES. AS SUCH I MOVE THAT THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM BE APROVED, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/22/06) Duly adopted this 22 day of February, 2006, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone MR. ABBATE-In a seven yes to zero no, the Short Environmental Assessment Form is approved. I’m going to now move on to closing the public hearing for Area Variance No. 4- 2006. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to respectfully remind the members that we have the task of balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area, as well as the fact that State statutes spell out five statutory criteria that must be considered in deciding whether to grant an Area Variance. Having said that, may I please have a motion for Area Variance No. 4-2006. MR. UNDERWOOD-Last time that we approved this, Mr. Bryant made the motion, and I think that this can be done in addition to that motion. I think that essentially what we’re doing here tonight is just approving the change from the last time. So I’ll go ahead and make that. MR. BRYANT-Can I ask a question? Are we going to be very specific about the setback requirements on each lot? MRS. BARDEN-I think you need to, yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-I will read through each one of those, yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, could I suggest that you grant the relief as required and as shown by the map as identified with the date and all that? MR. ABBATE-I think that’s reasonable. I’ll turn to my Board members and see if there are any objections? MR. URRICO-The only thing I ask is I don’t see the relief that’s needed for each of the lots. 19A and 20B, for instance, I don’t see the difference there. I don’t see what the relief should be. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that the Staff notes reflect those numbers, and as long as we read those in addition to that, but the map is going to be reviewed by the Planning Board anyway. MR. MC NULTY-The Staff notes specify the zero setback, but I’m not sure that they specify the other side. MR. RIGBY-The dimensions of the lots are on the plan, though. MRS. BARDEN-Exactly. Correct. MR. RIGBY-So we would know what the relief is. MR. MC NULTY-Right. So if we tie it to the plan, we’re okay. I think we need to do that. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Let’s do it. I think Mr. McNulty may be very right on that. MRS. BARDEN-Excuse me. I think you have to specify the relief on each side setback that’s not identified here. MR. ABBATE-Yes, okay. That’s a reasonable request. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/22/06) MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, we know it’s 30 feet total. So I’ll just say 30 feet minus the 27.3, and they can work out the details later. That’s easy enough to do that. MR. ABBATE-All right. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-2006 CIFONE CONSTRUCTION, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: Smoke Ridge Road, Lots 19-23. The applicant is proposing further subdivision of the five lots resulting in ten lots ranging in size from .51 acres to .95 acres. This proposal would result in five duplex structures or ten townhouse units at 2,128 square foot each on each lot. Under the lots, there will be zero line setback relief required between each of the units because they but up against each other, being duplexes. In addition to that, the side setback relief that is required, and I will read that from each of the units off the map that we received this evening. For Lot 19A, it doesn’t look like that one requires any on that one. On Lot 19B, it will be 30 ft. minus the 28.5 ft. On Lot 20, it does not appear that that one requires any, there’s none listed on the map and on Lot 20B there’s also not any side setback relief. Those are the two wider lots. When we go to Lot 21A, that’s going to require 30 ft. minus the 26.6 that’s shown on the plot. Lot 21B, it’s showing 32 feet. So that does not require any. On Lot 22A, it will be the 30 ft. minus the 24.4 feet shown on the plot, and for 22B it will be the 30 ft. minus the 24.4 feet shown on the plot. On Lot 23A, it’s at 31.6, so that does not require any side setback relief, and on Lot 23B it will be the 30 ft. minus 27.3 feet shown on the plot. It’s generally felt that there’s not going to be that much of a change from what was originally proposed here and it will allow for either dual ownership, if someone purchases both units, or single ownership. So worst case scenario, you would have 10 separate owners. The site plan drawing is drawing S-1 by Van Dusen and Steves, it’s revision Number Four, dated February 20, 2006. Duly adopted this 22 day of February, 2006, by the following vote: nd MR. O'CONNOR-In Mr. Underwood’s reading of that, I’m not sure where the 2128 square feet on each lot came. We were talking 1500 plus the garage, which was 400 on each lot. It’s less than what was read. It sounds like you’re saying 10 townhouse units at 2128 square foot on each lot. What’s shown on the plan is 1500 plus the garage, it’s probably about 1900, I guess, not 2128. MR. ABBATE-Is it listed on here, Counselor? MR. O'CONNOR-I’m just telling the calculation of what’s on there. I don’t think it’s on there. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think as long as we have the acreage. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. You’re giving us the building envelope, and we’ll build within the building envelope. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, build it within that. MR. BRYANT-I just want to amend it slightly. I’d like to identify the drawing , the site plan drawing, S-1, by Van Dusen and Steves. It’s revision number four, dated February 20, 2006. AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Rigby, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 4-2006 is seven yes, zero no. Area Variance No. 4-2006 is approved. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you very much. MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome, gentlemen. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/22/06) AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-2006 SEQRA TYPE II DAVID R. KELLY, MD & SALLY N. KELLY AGENT(S): JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER(S): SALLY N. KELLY ZONING WR-3A LOCATION 8 ROCKY SHORE DRIVE APPLICANTS PROPOSE DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING 968 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AND REBUILD A 1,240 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. BP 2002-854, DEMOLITION; BP 2002-855 DOCK; BP 2004-094 BOATHOUSE; SPR 57-2002; AV 8-2003; SPR 9-2003 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 8, 2006 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.89 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.15-1-3 SECTION 179-4-030 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-We’re in a bit of a predicament here on this one, because it was improperly advertised, the square footage, and I don’t know if that was through the fault of the Town or the initial submission. Do you want to comment on that? MR. LAPPER-Well, what happened, when my very capable associate, Stefanie Bitter, put this together, she was focused on the footprint, on the first floor, rather than on the whole thing. We do have letters in the file from all the neighbors supporting the application, but obviously if the Board feels that it’s deficient in terms of notice, we’ll have to come back. Dr. Kelly’s here and was hoping to have a hearing, but we just learned of this today when we saw the Staff notes. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think the only comment would be if someone wasn’t aware of that, I don’t know if it would have affected it, but as you said, the letters are here. MR. LAPPER-Yes, and the application is correct, in terms of all of the Floor Area Ratio, all of the numbers. It’s not even close to the Floor Area Ratio variance. It’s just the cover letter wasn’t clear. MR. ABBATE-I will leave it up to the Board. The applicant, in the Staff notes, proposes a 2662 square foot single-family residence. MR. LAPPER-That’s right. MR. ABBATE-But I’ll leave it up to the Board. If they are uncomfortable, I can ask Counselor request a tabling and I’ll put you in as quick as possible, but I’ll leave that up to the Board members. We can either hear that this evening, and we have, for the record, made this noted, what Mr. Underwood’s concern was. Let me just go down the Board real fast. Mr. Rigby, do you have any problem if we hear this this evening? MR. RIGBY-No, not at all. MR. ABBATE-Mr. McNulty? MR. MC NULTY-While I personally don’t have any problem, I think we may be vulnerable because somebody reading the advertisement and saying, they’re going to tear down a 968 square foot building and put up a 1200. That’s not much difference, and that’s not what the case is. MR. ABBATE-You’re reluctant. MR. MC NULTY-I’m reluctant. I think the proper thing probably would be to re-advertise. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Bryant, may I have your view, please. MR. BRYANT-I agree with Mr. McNulty. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Urrico? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in agreement with Mr. McNulty as well. MR. ABBATE-Mrs. Hunt? 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/22/06) MRS. HUNT-I have reservations. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Counselor, what I’d like you to do for me, then, is to formally request a tabling, and I will, as you should know by now, we’re having four meetings for the month of March. DAVID KELLY DR. KELLY-David Kelly, and I understand the predicament, but if this changes your concerns at all, I did type up a detailed description and delivered that to many of the neighbors, so they are clear what the project was. I have copies of those letters if that would help. MR. ABBATE-Well, the problem, I thought, was well stated by Mr. McNulty. I think we’re talking about a legal issue here. I think it would be, we would be safer, let me put it this way, I would feel a heck of a lot more comfortable if this were to be re-advertised properly, and I will make every effort to get you in, Staff, I know we have a big schedule. Is there any possibility of getting these folks in? Can we get them in on the 15 of March, and then, we th haven’t advertised that to the public yet, our meeting for the 15, have we, Sue? We have? th How about the 22? All right. Counselor, here’s what I’d like you to do for me, please. nd Would you formally request a tabling? MR. BRYANT-Just out of curiosity, Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question? MR. ABBATE-By all means. MR. BRYANT-I would be interested in knowing whether there are people in the audience that expected to hear something and are here for the public hearing, and maybe it might be wise to open the public hearing and get everything on the record, and then table it. MR. LAPPER-If you’re going to do that, you should let us present our case. MR. BRYANT-Absolutely. MR. LAPPER-I mean, I know we have some neighbors who are here in support tonight, and I presume they’d come back. MR. ABBATE-Well, then that puts me in a dilemma, then. We can’t have it both ways, guys. MR. MC NULTY-I agree. I think it’s a case that unless you did another total re-presentation the next time, you might better just do it properly the first time. MR. ABBATE-Yes, I would agree. I think I would feel comfortable, Counselor, by you requesting, if you requested this Board for a tabling, and then what I will do is reschedule it for the 15 of March, if that’s okay with you. th MR. LAPPER-Yes. We request that it be re-advertised for the 15 and apologize for any th inconvenience to the Board. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Counselor for Area Variance No. 8-2006 has requested formally that we table the application, Area Variance No. 8-2006, until the 15 of th March. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-2006 DAVID R. KELLY, MD & SALLY N. KELLY, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 8 Rocky Shore Drive. Until the 15 of March. th Duly adopted this 22 day of February, 2006, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Rigby, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/22/06) ABSENT: Mr. Stone MR. ABBATE-Okay. The vote to move Area Variance No. 8-2006 to the 15 of March is th approved by a vote of seven yes, zero no. As such, then Area Variance No. 8-2006 is moved for re-scheduling to the 15 of March 2006. th AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-2006 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS, LP AGENT(S): J. LAPPER, ESQ., J. MILLER, T. NACE OWNER(S): ST. ALPHONSUS ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH ZONING MR-5 LOCATION SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PINE STREET AND LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT 40 TOWNHOUSE APARTMENT UNITS WITH ASSOCIATED UTILITIES, ROADS, PARKING, AND SITEWORK RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR THE MR-5 ZONE. CROSS REF SPR 2-2006 WARREN CO. PLANNING FEBRUARY 8, 2006 LOT SIZE 4.87 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-45 SECTION 179-4-040 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; R. SCHERMERHORN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 7-2006, Schermerhorn Residential Holdings, LP, Meeting Date: February 22, 2006 “Project Location: Southwest corner of Pine Street and Luzerne Road Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes a 40-unit multi- family housing project, specifically, 5 apartment buildings with 8-units apiece. Associated parking is proposed at 86 total spaces. Relief Required: Relief is requested for additional parking spaces in excess of the required 60 spaces for the 40- units (1.5 spaces per dwelling unit in the MR zone). The request is for 86 spaces total, this is almost 30% over the required 60. “No use may provide parking in excess of 20% over the amount specified in this section.” 20% of 60 is 12 spaces, totaling 72 spaces. Therefore, the relief is for 14 additional spaces beyond the 20% overage of 72, for a total of 86 requested. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 2-2006: Site plan review for the project is pending (2/28/06 PB mtg.). Staff comments: The applicant stresses the point in the application that two parking spaces per dwelling unit is a necessity. Two spaces per dwelling unit is 80 spaces, 6 spaces less than requested. It seems that the 6 spaces on the Northeast corner can be eliminated and lessen the amount of relief sought. These spaces don’t seem to be associated with any of the apartment buildings. The Board should consider tabling this application to request a recommendation by the Planning Board. This project may change with Planning Board input from a preliminary site plan review and eliminate the additional parking requested.” MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form February 8, 2006 Project Name: Schermerhorn Residential Holdings, LP Owner(s): St. Alphonsus Roman Catholic Church ID Number: QBY-06-AV-7 County Project#: Feb06- 35 Current Zoning: MR-5 Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to construction 40 townhouse apartments with associated utilities, roads, parking and site work. Relief requested from maximum parking requirement for the MR-5 zone. Site Location: Southwest corner of Pine Street and Luzerne Road Tax Map Number(s): 309.10- 1-45 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to construct 40 townhouse apartments with associated utilities, roads, parking and site work. Relief is requested from maximum parking requirement for the MR-5 zone. The site requires 60 spaces where 1.5 spaces per unit and the applicant proposes 86 spaces where there would allow for 2 spaces per unit. The information submitted indicates the applicant has constructed similar units and 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/22/06) finds that 2 spaces per unit is adequate and discourages parking on grass. The plans show the location of the buildings, parking arrangement, access and septic locations. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. Warren County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 2/14/06. MR. ABBATE-I see that Counselor and the appellant is at the table. Would you be kind enough please to identify yourself and your place of residence. MR. LAPPER-For the record, attorney Jon Lapper and Rich Schermerhorn of Queensbury. Very simply, we’re here to talk about 14 spaces which we think is relatively modest. The green space required here would be only 30%, and you could have 70% impermeable, and we’re so far from that. It’s not even close. So it’s not an issue that we’re jamming too much stuff onto the site. As you’re aware, Pine Street and Luzerne are both thru streets that people take shortcuts to get from the City over to the Northway. So it wouldn’t be feasible to have on-street parking. This is just a way of taking care of any additional parking needs on site. Rich, he’ll get into this, but in his experience in owning other apartment complexes in Town, feels that he needs a minimum of two spaces per unit with some extra overflow for visitors, and that’s why we’ve proposed the 86 units. This is just his way of addressing his needs on his site, and we think it’s modest, based upon the fact that there’s very good screening on the site now, and we’ve proposed screening along Pine Street, but the 14 spaces won’t be noticeable in the neighborhood, but it will be important to take care of the traffic on the site. Let me just hand it over to Rich. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Rich Schermerhorn for the record. Simply, if I could get the extra spaces, it would be appreciated. According to Staff comments, they request six spaces less, I certainly could live with that, too, but again, I’m coming in with the honest approach. I certainly could come in and not ask for any variances whatsoever, and, you know, possibly have the people park on the lawn and all that sort of thing again, but, not to say I can’t live without them, but I’ve been doing this long enough and it would be appreciated if I can get the extra spaces, and one thing I want to point out. I don’t allow RV parking, boats, snow mobile trailers or any of that sort of thing. So if anybody thinks that the parking spaces might be for that, it’s not. It’s just, we find with experience, most people tend to have two cars today, and if they have even a teenage child, they seem to have it. So it’s just, I’d rather have enough parking space, but that’s all, but I certainly can be flexible. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I was going to do a little change this evening, but maybe I’ll stick with the procedures. I was going to open the public hearing first and listen, but I think what I’ll do is stay with the procedures, and contrary to what I just mentioned, I’m going to ask the members of the Board if they have any questions for the appellant. Do we have any members of the Board who have some questions for Mr. Schermerhorn? MR. URRICO-Are all the apartment units the same, are they one and two bedroom? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. They’re town home style. They’re two bedrooms. MR. URRICO-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Then I’ll open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 7-2006, and if any of the folks in the public would like to raise some issues or address this issue, would you do me a favor? Raise your hand and I’ll be more than delighted to recognize you and I’ll ask you to come forward. Do we have anyone? Okay, madam, may we start with you, please. Please identify yourself and your place of residence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED SANDRA MALLIE BEATTIE MS. MAILLE-My name is Sandra Maille Beattie. I live at 12 Pine Street, Queensbury. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MS. MAILLE-I would like to know why we have to fill up every space there is in the Town of Queensbury. I own 1.39 acres. We had deer in the back yard. We had rabbits, wild turkeys, which the lady that owned the house before me, Marie Valley, she used to, we all enjoyed 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/22/06) them. We do not have that now, and we have terrible traffic on the street already. We don’t need anymore, and we don’t want anymore. Really, it’s terrible the junk, the crap along the road. Nobody bothers to pick it up but myself. I go down every Spring and clean up each side of the street, chase the kids out of the cemetery. We’re going to have an influx of more children, and we’ve got two little children, that’s all we have on the street. Everyone is pretty much near senior citizen, except the young couple with the two children, and I just don’t think we can handle more traffic. For an example, last summer, there were two young men wheeling on their motorcycles going lickety split down the road, and I had to go out, and when I went down, by the firehouse, there laid one of them. That’s the kind of traffic we’re having, and they speed constantly. What’s this going to do? This is going to make more problems, and it’s going to, that’s a watershed there, almost, and keep the water out of the, I have a big pond of water every Spring anyway. We all feel the same way, every one of us. We don’t want anymore traffic than we can handle, and that’s really all I have to say at this time, but I think you better think twice about allowing them to have all these new homes put in when nobody wants them. The cemetery’s vandalized constantly. What’s this going to do? More traffic? And he says they won’t park on the street, but they will. They park up and down any time they feel like it, and we don’t want anymore houses. I like the rural part of it as it is. I was born and raised on Smith Street, which was called Burke Line. It was called Burke Line Park, 64 years ago. My father built our home. Then he built one on Luzerne Road, and I love it. I’ve lived in Virginia. I’ve been all over the country, and there’s no place like home, and I don’t want it ruined. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. CAROL TOSSIE MS. TOSSIE-My name’s Carol Tossie. This is Dan Foote. We both live at 71 Luzerne Road. We’ve got a couple of issues that we’re concerned about, and he’s saying five buildings and four of the apartments each, one to two bedroom apartments in each. So we’re talking average two to three people per apartments, so approximately 120 people in these buildings, more or less, we’re guesstimating, okay. So that’s 120 more people, about, on that corner, a corner that has no traffic light, that already has a heavy traffic problem. The transfer station is open three days a week and there’s always lines of traffic there, because there’s no sidewalks there. There’s a lot of foot traffic, people walking up and down that area, and again, with no sidewalks and stuff, you’d have an increase in foot traffic there. He also made a point it is a through way for people trying to get a short cut through to the highway. You can hear the highway noise there. People don’t always mind the speed limit there. If you’re on that trying to get in and out that corner, traffic is going to be horrendous, absolutely horrendous. You’re going to have an increase in risk of accidents there, and not just automobile accidents but personal accidents from people walking around. These buildings, I really am not sure about the plans, eight buildings, eight apartments per building, so we’re talking double level, and from what I saw, the glimpse of the plans I could see, there’s not going to be a whole lot of trees and stuff left around them. Personally, that’s going to reduce our privacy tremendously. It’s also going to increase in trash and smell and noise. It’s going to really be a detriment to the neighborhood. The parking variance, I understand that he wants more space to park, but more space means, basically, you’re giving them approval to bring more cars in which, again, more cars, more noise, more smell, more pollution on that already busy, filthy corner. I like having the trees there. It helps reduce some of the mess from the transfer station and some of the noise from the highway. You take that down, that’s significantly reducing the enjoyment we get out of living where we do. We, because it’s apartment buildings, who’s going to screen the applicants? We take a lot of pride in the appearance of our property. To invite 40 new neighbors in that may or may not have that same pride in the property is really something we’re very leery about. That’s really it. I’m worried about the noise. I’m worried about the trash. I’m worried about the caliber of people that are going to live there. I’m worried about the quantity of people that are going to live there. I’m worried about the increase in risk to the people already living in the neighborhood, security issues, and I’m worried about safety issues of anyone, including the new people who may be moving in there. I think it’s really something that should be thought about. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Did you have something, sir, that you wanted to say? DAN FOOTE MR. FOOTE-No, she said it. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/22/06) MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much. Your comments are duly noted. MS. TOSSIE-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Do we have anyone else in the public? WILFRED KLEIN MR. KLEIN-My name is Wilfred Klein. I live on 12 Newcomb Street, on the other side of the cemetery. I had one question. Is this apartment complex approved? I mean, is this a done deal that this can be built without any further variances? MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s not a done deal as to the number of apartments. MR. KLEIN-Okay. I guess my other question is, why are we asking for a variance for a parking area that we don’t have the approval to build buildings themselves? In other words, we don’t have the okay to build buildings, why are we worried about a parking spot first? MR. UNDERWOOD-The MR-5 zone does permit apartment buildings to be built there, but as far as the actual number that can be built there, that’ll be a Planning Board issue. They’re asking for relief from, in other words, right now they give relief for 1.5 parking spaces, and they’re requesting two parking spaces per unit. MR. KLEIN-Right. Well, most of the people here have the same opinion. It’s not the number of parking spaces, it’s the number of the units and the number of vehicles that are going to be added to the traffic flow and the number of people that are going to be added to the community, and the number of children that are now going to be on extra bussing, more traffic in the morning, more traffic in the afternoon, in an area that’s already highly congested with traffic, and there’s no relief in sight from that. I was just wondering why we were getting a variance for buildings that we didn’t even have approval to build yet, or they haven’t been given approval to build yet, and why it couldn’t be tabled until they decide how many buildings can be built there, and go from that. MRS. BARDEN-Do you want me to address that? MR. ABBATE-All right. Let’s take Staff first, please. MRS. BARDEN-The variance is for additional parking only, which request exceeds the requirement for the MR-5 zone. The project will be reviewed by the Planning Board on the 28, next Tuesday night, and we’ll talk about a lot of these site issues. Traffic is something th that you mentioned, but procedurally the applicant has to come for their variance first. Seek a variance, and then go for the project. MR. KLEIN-And that’s the only variance that they’re required to have for this complex? MRS. BARDEN-That’s correct. MR. KLEIN-So they can technically put the 40 units on this piece of property, under the present zoning? MRS. BARDEN-That’s correct. MR. KLEIN-So we’re looking at, then, the possibility of 80 more vehicles traveling right now a side road, like she said, that has no curbs and sidewalks. You’re right abutting on Luzerne Road. They’re very busy roads and they get busier every year, and there’s no way to alleviate that pressure. You start getting kids running up and down the roads with that traffic, you’re asking for trouble. It’s not a pretty sight. Most of the people here are speaking out for the same thing. We really don’t, it doesn’t seem like an appropriate use of this land to put apartments in that many multi-dwelling units. If it was something where they put in single family homes and cut it into four lots and kept it a residential area, because there’s no apartment buildings in that area, and we’d kind of all like to keep it that way. So that’s basically what most people are saying. I just didn’t understand why they were, it seemed like they were putting the cart before the horse by applying for a variance for a parking lot that they didn’t even have approval for the buildings. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/22/06) MR. ABBATE-Staff said it well, it’s a procedure. MR. KLEIN-Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you so much for your comments. Yes, sir, you were next. Would you be kind enough to come to the table, speak into the microphone and identify yourself, please. TOM CLUM MR. CLUM-My name is Tom Clum. I live at 73 Luzerne Road next to Dan Foote. I can only add to what has already been spoken about what they’ve brought up. My contention is, with the corridor project next year, the number one problem that we have right now is the EMS building that’s going in there, which takes up three fourths of the property, and we’re going to have probably ambulances going out in the middle of the night and we, I guess that’s a done deal there, but we’re going to also have with the traffic of this complex coming in there, with all the additional cars, Crossover Road’s going in there. They’ve already predicted 15% of the traffic off the Northway is going to be coming down that Crossover Road. That’s going to create more problems, and also with the industrial park, that’s where all these trucks are going to go. They’re going to come down Pine Street. They’re going to come down Crossover Road, and that’s a concern, and what’s been mentioned where they cut out, they’ll probably cut out 90% of the trees and whatever’s back there, and that’s going to just make it noisier, and the safety concerns should come first, if there’s going to be that much more traffic, and that many more cars, it’s ruining the neighborhood. We’re used to living there with the quiet and the EMS building is going to take away the majority of that, and this thing of more kids, more traffic, and after a while, people from Albany and New York City are going to start coming up there and start dealing drugs, whether they want to believe it or not, they will. Easy access to the Northway. Why go into Glens Falls to get your drugs when you can go right to Exit 18, and that’s what’s going to happen, and as one person mentioned, the screening, they can screen all they want. They’ll think, those people are nice, they’ll get in there and they’ll be trashed, and we know somebody that lived in one of his apartments that put down, I think it was like a $900 deposit, and only got back $200 of it because they had to do steam cleaning and had all this other stuff to do, requirements of those buildings, and I don’t see how people can live that way, but anyway, all the things that have been brought up so far, there’s going to be a lot more traffic, and Luzerne Road is going to be trucking zone, and a lot more traffic, and I’ve seen cars go through there at 60 miles an hour, passing, as I’m trying to get out my driveway, and it’s, the concerns are right there and they’ve been mentioned already. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, can I just say something for the benefit of the public? All of your concerns, when you talk about congestion and screening and traffic and lights and school buses are valid concerns, and those are really issues for the Planning Board. I mean, we’re only looking at a very small portion of the project, and that relates to 14 parking spaces. The building is allowed in that zone, and that’s really all I can say, but all the neighbors are making valid points, but they’re really points for the Planning Board and, you know, that’s where you should be stating them. MR. CLUM-So basically the Planning Board will make the decision. If the variance is passed, then they get the information, and then whatever we say, they’ll probably say, no big deal, they’ll pass it anyway and he gets in? MR. BRYANT-Well, no, they consider the public. MR. CLUM-There’s only probably 90,000 other places that he could build on elsewhere where there isn’t going to be these concerns. MR. ABBATE-Do you have any other comments you wish to make? MR. CLUM-I guess not. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, sir, very much, and do we have any other members of the public, please, who would like to address? Yes, sir, please. Please come to the table and identify yourself and your place of residence. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/22/06) JOHN O’HANLON MR. O’HANLON-Good evening. My name’s John O’Hanlon. I live at 10 Pine Street, and if we’re just talking about parking, I’d just like to say it’s ridiculous I think, I mean, if you’re going from, what, what are we going from, 60 to 80 cars? I mean, I think 60 is totally out of the question. To go to 80 cars like what all my neighbors are saying. It’s just too much in one neighborhood in a single family neighborhood. It’s too many cars. If that’s all we’re talking about tonight is parking, I’d just like to tell you, it’s just too many cars in one neighborhood. I mean, you don’t have 60 cars within a two block radius, and if you people were to spend the night at the corner of Pine and Luzerne Road, and see what kind of traffic we have there, and to put another 60 or 80 cars in there is totally insane, and to address any other issues, I’m wasting my time, right, right now? MR. ABBATE-You still have time. MR. O’HANLON-No, to address another issue I mean, all we’re talking about is parking, right? MR. ABBATE-If it’s appropriate, I’ll allow it. MR. O’HANLON-No. I mean, I have other issues with the building, but you’re just talking parking tonight? MR. ABBATE-Well, listen, you’re a member of the public, and we’re addressing Area Variance No. 7-2006. If you have concerns, let it out. MR. O’HANLON-All right. Well, you’re putting, what, four apartments in there? Suppose there’s one child in each apartment or two children in each apartment, that’s another, where are these kids going to play, in the transfer station? The cemetery? My back yard or my neighbor’s back yard? Where are they going? They get home from school at, what, three, four o’clock in the afternoon. The parents get home at five, six o’clock at night. Where are these kids going? How about summertime when the parents aren’t home. Where are these kids going. You’re going to have, what, 80 kids. Supposing there’s one child in each apartment? That’s 40 kids. Just say 40 children. There’s not a sidewalk around there. Where’s everybody going? And septic system. How can you put a septic system in for these apartments, in that little area right there for 40 apartments. How can you put a septic system in with no sewer? I don’t understand it at all. Where’s the leach field? Where does this leach to? That’s about all I’ve got to say. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else in the audience who’d like to be heard? Yes, sir, please. Be kind enough to come to the table, speak into the microphone and identify yourself and your place of residence, please. JOHN LEVENDOS MR. LEVENDOS-My name’s John Levendos. I live at 14 Pine Street. My concern is with the traffic, too. I’m the one with the two kids on the block. Right now the school bus comes, picks them up and drops them off right in front of the house. With this project, because of traffic, it’s going to make the kids have to walk down to that corner, and with no sidewalks, they would be pretty much walking in the road and that street is not even legally a two lane street. There is a lot of traffic. There is a lot of 18-wheelers that do come barreling down that road to go to Bare Bones next to the transfer station. It’s just one of those things where you hate to get a call because you’re kids are walking back off the school bus and an eighteen- wheeler’s coming up the road and hits them. Like I said, that’s definitely not a zoned two lane road. It’s not as wide as regular two lane roads. Without the sidewalks or anything, where are the kids going to walk? That’s about all I’ve got right now. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Your comments are duly noted. Do we have any other members of the public who would like to be heard on Area Variance No. 7-2006? Yes, please. Come to the table, identify yourself and your place of residence, please. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I live at 37 Alexy Lane, and I guess that’s on the other side of the cemetery. The applicant, initially, I take issue with the statement that 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/22/06) you have to come here first before you to the Planning Board. Nowhere is that specified in the Ordinance, and I can tell you, three administrations removed, it was the other way around. You had to go to the Planning Board before you went to the Zoning Board. So, there is precedent for going to the Planning Board first, and I really think, all you’re hearing here tonight are Planning Board issues, and they should be put to bed before you address the issue of a variance on number of parking places. The applicant has mentioned two bedroom apartments. I don’t know you if you have a plan of the apartment, floor plan of the apartment, but what other kind of rooms are there being proposed? To rent two bedroom apartments is not the easiest thing in the world. People like space. The other thing I think the Planning Board should address is the issue that these facilities do not become transient type facilities. That is people are permanent residents here. They’re not used for transient. Two bedroom apartments are popular transient units. That’s something we should be careful of. We’re talking about residential development here. Having on-site wastewater, I see here on the plan it looks like a septic tank for each unit, and then a series of leach fields. I don’t know how that figures. That’s not cost effective. That’s not State of the Art. I have no idea why that’s on there. Again, it’s not a Zoning Board issue, but these things have to be addressed by the Planning Board, and you should do exactly what’s being recommended, table this until the Planning Board takes a look at it. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Yes, ma’am, please. Would you come to the table, speak into the microphone and identify yourself and place of residence. LOIS HAMMOND MS. HAMMOND-My name is Lois Hammond and I live at 16 Pine Street, and you mentioned that apartment buildings are allowed in MR-15 I think it’s called, which is where this is zoned, and is there any, because I’m not sure, is there any minimum amount of land to support one apartment building or eight dwellings or? MR. UNDERWOOD-I would assume that the Planning Board, when they review this, which they will be doing, they’re going to make a determination, based upon what’s on the lot, as to the capacity of the lot and what can actively be built there, reasonably. A lot of the concerns that are being brought here tonight are not our purview, but the septic and things like that are very important, as you know, as homeowners. You have quite a substantial space that your individual units take up in your yards. So, I mean, I think there are going to be constraining points that the Planning Board will review when they have their meeting. MS. HAMMOND-Well, the only reason I’m asking is because he’s asking for, instead of the 60, or 40 units, asking for 86. Well, if there’s only one building with eight units, would that, that would not be the number of parking slots that he’s asking for. You’re saying, you’re using this number of, what is it here, 14, you’re talking about six spaces on the northeast corner. If they were eliminated, it would only go from 60 to 72 parking spots. MR. UNDERWOOD-The number of units will be based upon the number of apartment dwellings that are created on site. MS. HAMMOND-Right, but it just seems to me, how can you give a variance for that number of parking slots when you’re not 100% sure that five buildings equals 40 units will be allowed? If there’s only one building, do you see what I’m saying? MR. MC NULTY-Yes, and what I was going to suggest is, should we decide to grant this request, what we might do would be to grant a request to have two parking spaces per unit, rather than the total number. That would leave it flexible so that if the Planning Board, when they looked at it, said, no, we’re not going to allow what you’re looking for, we’ll give you half that many units, then our approval might then automatically then cut down, not to say that that’s what we’re going to do. MS. HAMMOND-I understand that, but. MR. MC NULTY-There is a way to get around that. You make a very good point. There’s no point in approving 80 some units or parking spaces if he’s going to have only a quarter of the number of units or something. MS. HAMMOND-Right, and my other comment was I believe the lawyer in one of the previous cases mentioned that there were four tests to grant a variance, and you said there 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/22/06) was five, and I only caught the first one because the first thing he said was, did, and maybe this just applies to the variance, but does this bring about a change in the character of the neighborhood? And does that only apply to the variance that you are discussing or the project? MR. ABBATE-It applies to the project. We have, I don’t think we made it clear, did we, the five statutory requirements? MR. MC NULTY-I was going to say, really, it applies to the variance. MR. ABBATE-Yes, it does. MR. MC NULTY-And not to the project. MS. HAMMOND-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Yes, and let me, since this is a big discussion this evening, so that everybody’s reading from the same page of music, let me just briefly tell you what they are, so that we all know. One of the first things, and we have no choice. New York State law mandates we must consider each of these things. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties be created by the granting of the Area Variance? Number Two, can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an Area Variance? Number Three, is the requested Area Variance substantial? Number Four, will the proposed variance have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Number Five, is the alleged difficulty self-created? This consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the Board of Appeals but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the Area Variance, and that, ladies and gentlemen, are our guidelines. MS. HAMMOND-Well, I know you had mentioned them before. MR. ABBATE-Did that clear it up for you? MS. HAMMOND-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Good. MS. HAMMOND-I just didn’t know if it applied to the project or just to the variance. MR. ABBATE-Now you know. MS. HAMMOND-Yes, and the variance which would allow more cars, would, in my opinion, bring about an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, and the physical aspect of the neighborhood would definitely be changed by allowing more cars for this project. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much, and I do believe we had another hand up. Is there another individual in the public who’d like to address Area Variance No. 7-2006? Apparently not. All right. Counselor, would you come to the table, please, and would you like to address, give you an opportunity to address some of the comments that were made. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. Very briefly. Most of the comments talked about the land use and not the parking spaces, and the last speaker talked about more spots equal more cars. What Rich is saying is that there’s going to be more than one and a half cars per unit anyway, and he just wants a place to put them, and he’s at 61% permeable and only 30% is required. He could do other things on this site that would have a lot more land. Originally this was purchased by the Church for a cemetery. It’s not needed for the cemetery, so that’s why they’re selling it to Rich so that they can take raw land and turn it into cash for the Church purposes for Rich. It’s in the MR-5 zone. Most of the discussion about zoning, why this area is appropriate for this type of apartments, and as you know from past projects, Rich does pretty high end and expensive apartments and they’re all rented in Town. So there’s obviously a demand for apartments. Because this is near the services on Main Street, which has been rezoned to the Mixed Use Zone, which should have more and more service commercial uses over time, the Veterans Field area was rezoned and transferred to the City for industrial. So there’ll be more jobs there in close proximity. It’s an appropriate location 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/22/06) because it’s near Main Street, because it’s near other services, it’s near the bus route. It’s an appropriate place for apartments. In terms of the traffic issue, I think what some of the speakers alluded to, what the Town is in the process of doing is creating a new cut through street when the EMS gets relocated, and the 15% of the traffic on Main Street that they were talking about is the correct number. So they did read the reports that the Town has prepared, but what that is talking about is that 15% of the traffic would come off of Main Street because it goes on the west side of the Northway, to get to Luzerne Road and to go west to where the concentration of residences are. Right now a lot of those people use Pine Street because that’s the first left you can make when you come off the Northway. That’s the cut through street, but once the new street is put in, there’ll be a four way traffic light there. So that would become the new cut through and that’s going to be going through an area that the Town is building that’s going to have the new EMS and probably a couple of industrial buildings, and that should relieve traffic. That’s going to be built in the Spring, and that should relieve traffic on Pine Street, because anyone that’s heading west would take that new street, rather than taking Pine Street, and that’ll become the cut through, and that’s the intention of it, and that’s why it’s going to be signalized. Pine Street is not signalized, but in terms of the appropriateness of this area, it is MR-5. The 61% permeable instead of 30% is a big difference. So Rich is not maxing it out, and there’s no variances required for septic or anything else. Everything else is in full compliance, and obviously the Planning Board will look at all the design issues. We think that the request that we’re making tonight is modest, with 14 extra spaces, and Rich has said that, when we started out, that if you wanted to take out the six spaces that the Staff had indicated on the northwest corner, that could be done, and then it would be two per unit, as Mr. McNulty said, and if that’s the compromise that the Board would be comfortable with, we could do that. MR. SCHERMERHORN-And I’m just certainly following the procedure, but just for the record, four out of five projects that I’ve brought in over the last 15 years have come first to the ZBA for the approval, but it was always contingent upon Planning Board approval. So a lot of the people’s concerns certainly I know I’ll be drilled by the Planning Board with these concerns. Again, like I said, I could live with six less. Could I live with the one and a half, and would it work most times of the year? Yes, but there are plenty of times, holidays, certain times, when parking lots get full, and, you know, I guess, if people were just to look at some of the properties that I have locally, they’re always picked up. The lawns are kept up. The gardens, they’re kept up, and I’d prefer not to have people parking on the grass, and again, like I said, if we catch a boat or an RV, it’s right in our lease. They’re not even permitted on the property. Commercial vehicles are not permitted on the property. So we do a very good job of screening and taking care of these properties, but certainly, I know I have a lot of issues to cover when we get back to the Planning Board, and again, I’m just being honest, coming in here. I could certainly just bring the project in, not see this Board at all, and go forward and then later on you find out that there’s crushed stone areas that someone’s added, and they’re parking on the lawn or whatever. I’m just being up front with what I would like. So certainly if you could grant me the approval with the contingency that the Planning Board approve this, I think it would only be fair, based on past experiences that we’ve had, until maybe the procedure changes, but I’m just following the regulations at this time. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. BRYANT-I have some questions. MR. ABBATE-Yes. Go ahead. Please do. MR. BRYANT-This is for Staff, actually. This Paragraph 10, where you took this comment relating to no use may provide parking in excess of 20% over the amount specified. Is that saying, at that point, that to have the 72 spaces would not require a variance? MRS. BARDEN-That’s right. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So everything above that would require a variance? MRS. BARDEN-That’s right. They’re allowed 20% overage. MR. BRYANT-Okay. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/22/06) MR. URRICO-I have a question, too. The request you’re making for two spaces, you say that’s based on experience, or is there a study of some sort that you were referring to? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, just my ownership of almost 20 years now. Well, let’s just look at it this way. If you have just, a, one person, that lives in the apartment, if they have a friend come over, it’s just nice to have an extra space, but generally we do get a lot of single people but we also get a lot of couples, and a lot of people today, and I certainly know my household, we have two vehicles, my wife and myself. So I’m just doing things as a practical approach. Again, like I said, the one and a half is just very tight. I mean, there may be three days out of the week it’s perfectly fine, but you get towards the weekends, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and maybe kids are home or kids are over visiting their parents or whatever, friends, it just gets tight. That’s all. MR. URRICO-Do you have any management control over that? Is there a lease? You mentioned a lease prevents commercial parking there. What about the number of cars that each household can have? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Each apartment is permitted to have parking for two cars, and then that’s why we have the extra for the guest parking, but they are permitted to have a space, two spaces. So, I mean, two spaces is permitted. It is in the lease, and our lease is, if anybody’s rented from me, and I’m not sure of the gentleman that was spoke about that didn’t get his security deposit back, but I can assure you we have a procedure and a lease that is well documented and proven over 20 years, that an individual, if they violate that lease, I follow that lease and I expect the people to follow that lease, and then if it doesn’t work, you know, we go from there, but we do have rules and regulations and they do work, but again, I can compromise. I always do, I mean, if you feel it’s too many, but again, four out of five of these projects have been approved under the procedure that how we’re doing it now, contingent upon Planning Board. Planning Board may get a hold of this and say, Rich, gee, satisfy the neighbors. Could you add some buffering here, would you consider taking six spots here, seven here. They may say that, they may not, but again, I’m just here. I’m being up front. I’m being honest. I don’t have to be here tonight. I could just simply follow the letter of the law, save money on blacktop and go about my business, but certainly I’ve been doing this long enough. I have over 700 units now, and, you know, people talk about need for apartments, and this Queensbury is growing. There’s no doubt about it, but I also, and I don’t mean this in a negative way, and I’m not being sarcastic, but I think the public sometimes needs more involvement in the community. They only seem to come out when there’s a crisis. When there’s an accident on a street corner. People only seem to voice their opinions after something’s happened. The property’s been vacant for some time. This community’s growing. I mean, there are times I’d like to not see change, but change happens, but at least I’m willing to work with people to some aspect. So I think, you know, I can’t help that the zone is here. There is a demand for these units. They are good people. I think probably everyone in this room may know one person or another that may know somebody that lives in one of my apartments. We have teachers. We have lawyers. We have doctors, and they’re not transient people. You do get a few that they’re there for a year. That’s our minimum lease, and they may move on, but I can tell you, I have a lot of solid people. I have people in the Meadowbrook Apartments that I built that have been there almost 13, 14 years now, and with the housing economy, we have to ask ourselves, if we’ve had 40 year historical low interest rates in the last six to seven years now we’ve been in this building, why are people still renting. Now with the rates going up and housing getting more expensive, people need housing. There’s a demand for this type of housing. So this isn’t anything that’s just where it’s a transient thing. These people, they call them home. These are decent people. It’s just unfortunate sometimes I think that people, as soon as the word, and I’ve been doing this 20 years. It seems like I get the most amount of people in concern when the word “apartment” comes up. If it’s a housing development, I’ve done 50, 30, 84 unit housing developments, and I’ll have at most a handful of people who will show up, but as soon as I mention the word “apartment” it’s characterized as, well, it doesn’t fit with the neighborhood. Well, I didn’t pick the zoning in Queensbury. The public needs public input. There was a Comprehensive Land Use Plan that’s been worked on for years. Now there’s some flaws in it, I agree. Our Town Board’s working on that, and I think I showed some of my ability of concerns for area, or neighbors. I had a very controversial one on West Mountain, and, for the record, if, now if the moratorium wasn’t passed, legally I believe I would have gotten West Mountain passed. I had every “I”, every “T” crossed, every bit of information that the public asked for, but I chose to back out of that application for the simple fact that I felt it was putting the Planning Board in a position that maybe they didn’t feel comfortable doing, even though I believe they would have done their job like they’ve 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/22/06) done the last 20 years I’ve been here, but I also felt for the public, although I feel some of the public, a lot of them lived a mile and a half away from the site. They didn’t want it. I listened. I backed out of that application, but that was purely, purely, I had every right to take that application forward, but I also had a lot of respect for some of the Town Board members that believed there was flaws in that, certain area, so I backed out of it. So I am human, but this one here, is simply MR-5, it’s zoned Multi-Family. The whole property behind it is. It’s been that way for, this parcel has not changed in, I believe this one’s been this way for almost over 12 years now. So this isn’t something that just changed overnight. So I would just ask that if we could, again, I can compromise, but if you could help me, as far as contingent upon Planning Board. We go to the next step. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much for your comments. I’m going to move on, and I’m going to ask members to offer their comments, and I would like to inform the public that the comments offered by members are directed to the Chairman only, and that comments expressed by Board members to the Chairman are not open to debate. I’m going to ask members to please offer their comments on Area Variance No. 7-2006, and again, I respectfully remind the members of what our precedence mandates that we concern ourselves with. May I start, please, with Mr. McNulty. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Well, again, the issue before us tonight is simply whether or not the applicant can have more designated parking areas than what the current regulations require. The question is not whether he can build apartments in this location or not, and as was pointed out earlier, most all the comments that came up were good concerns that should be heard, but they belong before the Planning Board, which we’ll look at this, even though this project is allowed by Code in that area, that he can build apartments. He still has to get the approval of Planning Board. So that’s a place a lot of these issues will be aired again, and consideration will be given to traffic and number of units and that kind of thing. So the only thing we’re looking at tonight is whether or not the applicant can have more than the 1.5 spaces per unit that the Code requires, and I think in this case we’ve got somebody that has built apartments for a number of years, there’s no reason to disbelieve what he’s saying about his experience, that given an apartment on average that apartment’s going to have two cars, and the only real question is, is that second car going to be parked on blacktop or it is going to be parked on the lawn, and I think that’s probably going to be the case regardless, even if he restricted in his lease how many cars an applicant might have, or an apartment dweller might have, he’s still going to end up with a tendency towards two cars per apartment building, or apartment unit. So in this case, covering some of our criteria, whether there are two parking spaces allowed or one parking space per unit, I don’t think is going to have an effect on the neighborhood. It’s just a question of whether it’s on grass or on blacktop. If anything, the question of effect on environment, it’s going to be a positive effect. Rather than parking on grass and destroying some vegetation, it’s going to be parking where somebody should park. I would be opposed to approving the gross figure that’s mentioned. I would not be opposed to approving a resolution that would be based on X number of spaces per apartment unit, and if you take the amount that the applicant’s requested, and listening to his point that he needs two per unit for the residence and he needs a few extras for visitors, if you divide 40 apartments into the 86 that he’s requesting, that comes out to 2.15 spaces per unit, and what I would suggest is a resolution that would authorize 2.15 spaces per unit. That then leaves it to the Planning Board to decide whether they want to approve the total number of units or cut it down, but it avoids anybody having to go through this tonight about number of parking spaces. So, on that basis, I would be in favor of a per unit parking space resolution. MR. ABBATE-2.15. MR. MC NULTY-2.15. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank, Mr. McNulty. May I turn to Mr. Underwood, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think last month when you were in you were asking for the same thing on the project down on West Mountain Road, and at that time, I guess, you know, to gain a sense of what’s realistic, I think that two parking spaces probably is realistic for any household for any type of dwelling that’s being created here in the community. Last month we referred that project to the Planning Board, and I know there was substantial neighborhood opposition to what was going on, what was proposed down there, and I think you did make the right decision on that one. I would have to somewhat agree with you that, you know, in an MR-5 zone, apartment buildings are appropriate. I mean, they are permitted, and as you’ve said, it’s been 12 years since that zone was changed to MR-5 down 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/22/06) there. However, you know, we were given, you know, we do get some commentary from Staff notes, and they asked us, you know, they said that we should table this, in lieu of the Planning Board looking at this for their review, and I think that that might be appropriate to do this here this evening. I would think that you’re probably going to end up with some apartment buildings down there. You may not get as many as you’re proposing here. I think that, you know, some of the questions that have been raised this evening, regarding the septic, regarding the actual build out of what’s appropriate for this parcel, need to be addressed by the Planning Board. I think that, you know, in some respects when you come in here with these requests, you know, your request to us isn’t inappropriate, as far as I’m concerned. I think it’s reasonable, but I think that when you come in here and you create these drawings that show a maximum number of apartment buildings, it does create, in people’s mind, the question as to, you know, how many and what shape or form you’re going to finally end up with on the project. So I think it would be appropriate for us to send this on to the Planning Board. I think once the Planning Board signs off on a number of apartment buildings, I don’t think that probably most of us would have a problem with the request for two, but I don’t think I want to give it yet. MR. ABBATE-All right. You’re referring to site plan review for the Planning Board? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Underwood. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-Yes. In order to be consistent with the previous applications along these lines, I’m going to be in favor of tabling this as well until we hear from the Planning Board. The only comment I’d like to make is that the spaces don’t create the cars. Cars create the need for the spaces, and the number of cars is determined by the number of units, and until we know the number of units, we won’t know the spaces required. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Urrico. May I move on to Mrs. Hunt, please. MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Well, I listened to all my Board members, and I kind of agree with Mr. McNulty. I think that we could pass it, but with 2.15 which would solve a lot of the problems. Depending on how many units the Planning Board accepted, we would have passed 2.15 parking spaces per unit. I would go along with that. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mrs. Hunt. Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree, somewhat, with Mr. Urrico and Mr. Underwood, only because of the public comment relative to all the issues that they have, congestion and so forth. It might be wise to go to the Planning Board first to resolve the actual configuration before we talk about parking. With that being said, if we were to decide tonight, based on the Code, you’re allowed 72 on that area, and the argument that the applicant has put forth relative to the project is that every unit is going to have approximately two cars and so forth and so on, but that’s based on the flawed premise that all 80 drivers are going to be there at the same time, and that’s highly unlikely, in that size of a complex. Everybody works different schedules, have different activities and so forth and so on. So 72 spaces is, in my view, a sufficient number for 40 apartments. So I would vote against the application to exceed the 72 that they’re allowed. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Rigby, please. MR. RIGBY-You were here last month, and you basically gave us the same presentation, pretty much, as this one, and very convincing last month about the need for two parking spaces per unit, and I feel that you’re probably correct, that there is a need for two parking spaces per unit. I would be in favor of granting the variance at that two parking spaces per unit, with a maximum of 40 units, and contingent upon Planning Board approval. MR. LAPPER-Perhaps as a compromise, we could offer, if we took off the six spaces that the Staff talked about, and we would be at two per unit, so that we could get done tonight, procedurally, so that this could go to the Planning Board and let them decide on the number of units. We could agree to take those six spaces and say that you would approve two per unit, and perhaps that would be something, as a compromise, the Board would be comfortable with. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/22/06) MR. ABBATE-So that’s your compromise, two per unit? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Are you finished, Mr. Rigby? I’m sorry. MR. RIGBY-Yes, just as long as we would make the motion contingent upon Planning Board approval, two parking spots per unit with a maximum of 40 units. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Let me try this. Is there any real objection by this Board that perhaps we should send this Area Variance to the Planning Board for a site plan review, with the recommendation that, based upon Counselor’s compromise, recommending two vehicles per unit? Is there anyone who would really strongly object to that on the Board, moving this to the Planning Board for a site plan review with the recommendation of two parking spots per unit? MR. URRICO-Wouldn’t that be 80 spaces, though? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. ABBATE-How did we figure that, then? What would be the number? MR. RIGBY-There’s 40 units and it would be two spots, which would be eight units above, it’s actually asking for eight spaces variance. MR. LAPPER-Of the 72. MR. ABBATE-Eight spaces per unit? MR. RIGBY-No, two spaces per unit, forty units. MR. ABBATE-Two spaces per unit for 40 units. MR. MC NULTY-For a maximum of 40 units. If it was two per unit, he would get 80. He can have 72 without coming before us. So the only difference is eight, we’d be granting him the extra eight. MR. ABBATE-Right. MR. MC NULTY-If he got permission for the maximum number of apartments. MR. LAPPER-We asked for 86 and now we’d take 80. MR. ABBATE-So the recommendation to the Planning Board. MR. MC NULTY-Yes, but it’s not the Planning Board that determines the number of spaces, it’s this Board. I guess to answer your question, I wouldn’t vehemently oppose passing it to the Planning Board, but I think it’s totally unnecessary. If you base the approval here on the number of units that the Planning Board approves, you can be fairly confident the Planning Board is not going to approve 160 apartments. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. If you were to condition it two per unit, that doesn’t leave you wide open that they’re going to give me 80, because if they take a building away, they want me to do less density, you haven’t approved 80. MR. RIGBY-My only concern would be that we have more units. That’s why I said 40 max. MR. ABBATE-And that could be our condition. I just threw it out just to cover all the bases. Okay. Let me move on. I think we have, this is Unlisted, Mr. Secretary. So we’re going to have to go through a, if you would be kind enough to do that for me. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Under the form here, Will the proposed action comply with the existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? No, because the variance is for an additional 16 parking spaces. I think we would have to modify this as you submitted it. So, we would be, we would simply be saying two parking spaces per unit, up to the maximum 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/22/06) decided by the Planning Board, at their review of this project. What is the present land use in the vicinity of the project? It’s commercial, and residential. Describe: The area is located in the southwest corner of Pine Street and Luzerne Road. Does the action involve a permit approval, or funding, now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal, State or Local)? The answer should be no on that. Does any aspect of the action have a currently valid permit or approval? No. As a result of the proposed action, will existing permit/approval require modifications? It should be no, but I think we should note in there other than that the Planning Board will determine the number of units. MR. ABBATE-So noted. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Does the action exceed any Type I Threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” The answer on that should be, I don’t think so, no, I would say no. “Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” It will receive coordinated review by the Planning Board. MR. UNDERWOOD-Not coordinated review, independent review. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Independent. Okay. So the answer on that would be no, then. “Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? There was some concern noted by the public as far as that goes. MR. MC NULTY-Yes, but the action that we’re talking about is the approval or denial of the extra parking spaces, not about the apartment complex. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. The parking places, I would say no. “C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” The parking places certainly aren’t going to have an effect because they’re not going to be seen. There’s buffers on the property. “A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” I don’t think so. I mean, it is a forested plot at the present time. It’s zoned MR. So I guess they can do it down there. “Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified?” I would say no. “Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” No. All right. So I guess we’ve got to vote on it. MOTION THAT AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT INDICATES THAT THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT, AND UNLESS THERE’S A CHALLENGE FROM MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, I ACCEPT THAT BASIS IN ANTICIPATION OF NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: Duly adopted this 22 day of February, 2006, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. Rigby, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone MR. ABBATE-In a seven yes to zero no, the Short Environmental Assessment Form is approved. The public hearing is now closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? MR. ABBATE-By all means. MR. BRYANT-You asked a question of the Board members before we got into this environmental thing relative to would anybody object to sending it to the Planning Board with a recommendation, and I just wanted it noted for the record that I would object because I don’t agree with the two spaces per unit, and primarily, and this is the basis for that 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/22/06) decision. It’s recommended in the Code that they have 1.5, okay. What they’re actually allowed is 1.8. So they’re looking for that .2 on a flawed assumption, and that assumption being that all 80 drivers are going to be home at the same time, and that’s highly unlikely under any circumstances. So I would, I’m in favor of sending it to the Planning Board to determine the size of the complex, but I’m not in favor of recommending the two spaces per unit. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bryant. Your comments are duly noted. I closed the public hearing, and I’m going to now ask for a motion, and I’m going to respectfully remind the Board members that we have the task of balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area, as well as the fact that State Statutes spell out five statutory criteria that must be carefully considered in deciding whether or not to grant an Area Variance, and having said that, I’m going to ask for a motion with conditions as stated, and again, in seeking this motion I’m going to respectfully remind the members that we have to be very careful with the balancing act, and as part of this motion, I’m going to advise the applicant that there will be conditions, and I would really like you to listen carefully, and the conditions for approval are going to be cited, and for the record, Counselor, you understand, to this point, what the conditions are, are you willing to accept these conditions, for the record? MR. LAPPER-That the Board would approve, but with the conditions of 80, two per unit maximum, no more than 40 units. That is acceptable. MR. ABBATE-That’s correct. Let the record show that the appellant has acknowledged the conditions as part of any motion to approve. Now I’ll move on and ask, is there a motion to approve, with conditions, Area Variance No. 7-2006? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-2006 SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS, LP, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Southwest corner of Pine Street and Luzerne Road. The applicant is proposing a 40 unit multi-family housing project, specifically five apartment buildings with eight units a piece, and the associated parking that he is currently proposing for that would be two parking spaces per unit. The Statute allows 1.5 spaces with an overage of up to 20%. I’m moving that we approve two parking spaces per unit with the stipulation that there will be no more than 40 units on this piece of property. Also with the understanding that this is subject to any reduction in number of units or other modifications that the Planning Board may make when they review this project. In considering this, we’ve considered whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the increase in the number of parking spaces, and I would suggest that that is not the case. If anything, assuming this apartment complex is constructed, that the additional parking places we’re allowing would improve the character of the neighborhood, in that we would be avoiding people parking on lawns or other vegetation at the location. Second item is whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other means feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an Area Variance, and I think it’s been established that general experience has shown that there will be roughly an average of two vehicles per apartment unit, and there’s probably no feasible alternative to change that number of average cars per unit. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. I would suggest that it’s not substantial in that the current Code, with the 20% overage, would allow 72 parking spaces for a 40 unit complex, and what is really being requested is simply eight more spaces. So it’s a relatively low number. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Again, I think that if anything the request will improve conditions because it avoids people parking where they should not park. Whether the difficulty is self-created. In this sense, I don’t believe it is, and that question can be answered differently if you were talking about whether or not apartments should be built here, but we’re talking about whether or not we should allow additional parking spaces, and I think we’re accepting the idea that it’s given that there’s going to be a need for more than 1.5 parking spaces per unit. So I think, considering those factors, and limited by the conditions that we’ve placed on this, I move approval. Duly adopted this 22 day of February, 2006, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Rigby, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/22/06) NOES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico ABSENT: Mr. Stone MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 7-2006 is five yes, two, no. As such, Area Variance No. 7-2006 is approved with conditions, and let the record show that the appellant has agreed to these conditions. MR. LAPPER-I have just one quick question. The six spaces that we’re going to eliminate are the northwest corner that Staff has suggested, just so that we’re clear about that. MR. ABBATE-Okay. That’s a matter of record. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. ABBATE-All right. In view of that, then, Area Variance No. 7-2006 is approved with conditions. MR. LAPPER-Thank you very much. MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thank you. Mr. Abbate, just a question. Going forward to the future, should it be maybe my position or somebody, if we want to change procedure, which I’m happy to do, because it makes sense what you say, go to Planning Board first. MR. ABBATE-Well, Mr. Schermerhorn, let me express this to you. I am working very diligently on changing procedures with Community Development Department, and I’m going to also address is again tomorrow at 10 o’clock in the morning. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Okay. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2006 SEQRA TYPE II LEE ROSEN AGENT(S): ETHAN HALL, RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S): DONNA ROSEN ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 165 PILOT KNOB ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING 1,166 SQ. FT. CAMP AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 1,782 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. THE EXISTING LOT IS BISECTED BY THE WARREN/WASHINGTON COUNTY LINE. APPROXIMATELY 5,058 SQ. FT. OF THE 10,629 SQ. FT. LOT IS IN WARREN COUNTY AND 5,571 SQ. FT. OF THE SAME IS IN WASHINGTON COUNTY (TOWN OF FORT ANN). CROSS REF. N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 8, 2006 & WASHINGTON COUNTY JURISDICTION LOT SIZE: 0.244 ACRES (0.10 ACRES TQ) TAX MAP NO. 227.14-1-24 SECTION 179-4-030 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 11-2006, Lee Rosen, Meeting Date: February 22, 2006 Applicant “Project Location: 165 Pilot Knob Road Description of Proposed Project: proposes to demolish the existing seasonal camp and rebuild a 1,782 sq. ft single-family residence. Relief Required: 9.25-feet of relief from the minimum side yard setback of 20-feet is required, per §179-4- 030 for the WR-1A zone (the dimension on drawing C-1 is taken from the side property line to the structure, the relief identified is taken from same to the 1-foot roof overhang (the dashed line parallel to the building footprint). Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/22/06) None Staff comments: The existing camp is nonconforming with respect to the side yard and shoreline setbacks. This proposal is a modest increase in size from the existing. It is setback further from the shoreline resulting in conformity with this requirement. The proposed side setback is increased from the existing condition, however relief is sought, this is due to both the lot being only approximately 68-feet wide and the presence of a spring on the East side, which prohibits squaring the house on the lot. The applicant has included an approval dated July 9, 2003 and issued by Washington County Department of Code Enforcement for repair/replacement of an existing disposal system. It is my understanding that no further review of this project is necessary by the Town of Fort Ann.” MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form February 8, 2006 Project Name: Rosen, Lee Owner(s): Donna Rosen ID Number: QBY-06-AV-11 County Project#: Feb06-34 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes demolition of existing 1,166 sq. ft. camp and construction of a new 1,782 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. Relief requested from side setback requirements. The existing lot is bisected by the Warren/Washington County line. Approximately 5,058 sq. ft. of the 10,629 sq. ft. lot is in Warren County and 5,571 sq. ft. of the same is in Washington County (Town of Fort Ann). Site Location: 165 Pilot Knob Road Tax Map Number(s): 227.14-1-24 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes demolition of an existing 1,166 sq. ft. camp and construction of a new 1,782 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. The new building is to be 51 ft. 2 in. from the shoreline where 75 ft. is required and 11 ft. and 9 ½ in from the south property line where 20 ft. is required. The existing lot is bisected by the Warren/Washington County line. The applicant explains that approximately 5,058 sq. ft. of the 10,629 sq. ft. lot is in Warren County and 5,571 sq. ft. of the same is in Washington County (Town of Fort Ann). The information submitted indicates a new septic system was installed in 2003 with the intent to reconstruction of the home to a year round residence. The applicant also indicates the hard surfacing will be reduced overall on the site due to the reconstruction of the home. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, 2/14/06. MR. ABBATE-You have apparently approached the table. Would you be kind enough to speak into the microphone and identify yourself and your place of residence, please. MR. HALL-Good evening. My name is Ethan Hall. I’m a partner with Rucinski Hall Architecture. I reside in the City of Glens Falls. I’ll address the project just kind of briefly. I think Mr. Underwood read everything into the minutes that pretty much pertain to the project. I would like to make one comment. Staff notes say that the presence of a spring on the east side prohibits the squaring off of the house on the lot. I would just like to clarify that. Actually it’s the location of the existing sewage disposal system that prohibits us from squaring off the building on the east side. MR. ABBATE-Rather than the spring. MR. HALL-Than the spring, correct. We have to maintain a 20 foot setback, clearance distance between the sewage disposal system and the structure. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Duly noted. Thank you. MR. HALL-As it was stated, Mr. Rosen and Mrs. Rosen own the property now. The camp is in a pretty serious state of disrepair. The roof’s been leaking for a number of years and it is in the process of falling into the kitchen. The building does not have a permanent foundation under it. It is pretty much set on piers. It is open underneath. There is no heat source in the building at this point, and it’s really only used during the summer months. It is their desire to use this as a year round residence, mostly for a weekend house, but perhaps for week long stays or something along that line. The 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/22/06) existing house does not meet the 50 foot setback from the waterfront. It is 48 feet 9 inches to the existing stairwell which would be on the south side. We would be carrying everything down and completely rebuilding, adding a full foundation frost wall. There will be some mechanical space in the foundation so it will not be a full foundation, and we will be bringing it back so that the overhangs and the building does meet the 50 foot waterfront setback, but we would still require, based on the location of the sewage disposal system, we would still require the side yard area variance. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. I’m going to now ask members of the Board if they have any questions for the appellant. Please. Okay. If none of the members have any questions for the appellant, I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 11-2006, and would those wishing to be heard be kind enough to raise your hand, and I’ll recognize you, come to the table, speak into the microphone and identify yourself and your place of residence. Do we have anyone in the public this evening? Yes, sir, please come to the table, speak into the microphone, and identify yourself and your place of residence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-My only question is whether or not the mean high water mark has been mapped on this plan. MR. HALL-The original survey was prepared by Paul Tommell, Tommell Associates, and they do map the edge of the water line. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, but that’s not the mean high water mark, and it’s the mean high water mark that we have to measure the setback from, and that should be mapped here. It’s not necessarily the water’s edge. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the public who’d like to address Area Variance No. 11-2006? PETER BROTHERS MR. BROTHERS-Peter Brothers, Ward One. I just wanted to ask the Board if there is understanding as to what the Floor Area Ratio is on the parcel, the building? MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s currently existing at 19.2%, and it will be 18.5%. So a little less than what’s there at the present time. MR. BROTHERS-Okay. All right. MR. HALL-And that is overall for the site. You do have two area ratios. MR. ABBATE-We understand that. MR. HALL-We’re bisected by the Washington and Warren County Line, right through the middle of the house, as a matter of fact. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Your comments are duly noted. I’m going to ask members, then, now, to offer their comments, and again, I’d like to inform the public that the comments offered by members are directed to the Chairman only, and comments expressed by the Board members to the Chairman are not going to be open to debate. So I’m going to ask members, now. MR. BRYANT-Can I ask a question? MR. ABBATE-Yes, I’m sorry, Mr. Bryant, by all means. MR. BRYANT-The side setback that you’re requiring now, the relief is actually less than what you have existing, is that correct? 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/22/06) MR. HALL-That is correct. MR. BRYANT-Okay, and when you talk about Floor Area Ratio, the actual structure that’s in the Town of Queensbury is actually smaller than what’s existing, proportionally. MR. HALL-Proportionally, once the new building is constructed, yes, it will be. MR. BRYANT-Okay. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Well, since you started, Mr. Bryant, I’m going to call on you first. You might as well continue. MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a good project. You’re moving the house back from the lake. You’re achieving that setback requirement, and you’ve lessened the impact on the side setback from your existing situation, and I would be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Mr. Urrico, please? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in agreement. I think this is the kind of project that’s nice to look at. It improves the property. It mitigates the variances needed. I think it’s a good project and I would be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Urrico. Mr. Underwood, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’d be in agreement with my other Board members. I think it’s a modest request. We don’t see too many modest requests up on Lake George. So, it’s refreshing. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. All right. Mrs. Hunt, please. MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I have to agree with the previous Board members. I think it’s very moderate and I think it’s a good project, and I think it’s asking for minimum relief. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-I basically agree. I think it’s a project where the request, at this point, is the minimum required. We’re not building a huge mansion. It’s a reasonable sized dwelling for the property and a great project, and I’d approve. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Mr. Rigby, please. MR. RIGBY-I agree. It’s a great project. You could be asking for a McMansion like we all talk about all the time, but you’re not. It’s a very modest request. It’s an improvement. I’m in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much. I would agree entirely will what all the Board members had to say, but before I move on, I think, if I’m not mistaken, I think this borders on, I think Washington County may have some part of jurisdiction on this, am I correct? Staff, help me out, please. MRS. BARDEN-They do have a septic alteration, and that’s in your packet. Other than that, I don’t believe that they need any further review or any additional permitting from the Town of Fort Ann. MR. ABBATE-Are you suggesting, then, that it would be not necessary, I was going to recommend that perhaps if we decided to do an approval that perhaps we should contingent it upon approval of Washington County? You don’t feel that’s necessary? MR. MC NULTY-It would be the Town of Fort Ann, and I don’t believe they have zoning. MR. HALL-That is correct. MRS. BARDEN-That’s correct. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/22/06) MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. I just threw that out, folks. Let me move on. I’m going to close the public hearing for Area Variance No. 11-2006. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to request that the members remember the task of balancing the benefit, the five statutory requirements that we’re guided by, and I’m going to ask if there is, in fact, a motion for Area Variance No. 11-2006. MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a motion. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mrs. Hunt. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2006 LEE ROSEN, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: 165 Pilot Knob Road. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing seasonal camp and rebuild a 1782 square foot single family residence. The relief required. 9.25 feet of relief from the minimum side setback of 20 feet is required per Section 179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone. I think that this benefit could not be achieved by any other means because of the existing sewage disposal system. I don’t think there’ll be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or nearby properties. I think it will be an improvement. It’s a modest request. It will not have any adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions, and it’s self- created only in that the Rosens want to build a new home. Duly adopted this 22 day of February, 2006, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. Rigby, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 11-2006 is seven yes, zero against. Area Variance No. 11-2006 is approved. MR. HALL-Thank you very much. MR. ABBATE-You bet. Now, I have some administrative details I have to attend to, folks, if you’d just be patient with me. CORRECTION OF MINUTES December 21, 2005: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 21, 2005, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 22 day of February, 2006, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone December 28, 2005: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 28, 2005, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Duly adopted this 22 day of February, 2006, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/22/06) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone MR. ABBATE-Again, ladies and gentlemen, before we leave, remember that we have our Workshop on the 8 of March for SEQRA, and then we have three meetings for the month of th March as well. They include the 15, the 22, and the 29. All right. Having said that now, thndth I’m open to open forum, if the questions are appropriate. Yes? JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-You’re concerned about as builts being done at a present time, or that which requires a certified survey. MR. ABBATE-Right. MR. SALVADOR-Part of that certified survey on these waterfront properties is going to be the mapping of the mean high water mark, because that’s where we measure setbacks from. We don’t measure them from the water line. If I may, shoreline is defined, in our Code. Shoreline is the mean high water mark at which land adjoins the waters of lakes, ponds, wetlands, rivers and streams within the Town. Further, the mean high water mark of Lake George, the fixed annual mean high water elevation of 320.2 feet above mean sea level. It’s in the Code. There’s no, everyone should know it. Every one of these builders, contractors, architects should know this. It’s in the Code. It’s defined, clearly, to the tenth of a foot. That’s how accurate it is. Now when Bruce Frank goes out and he measures these as built conditions, he’s going to measure it against the mean high water mark. Now if these people haven’t used that in their application, these people have not sought a variance for shoreline setback, because they’re going to be measuring from something they call the, what was it, on the drawing? MR. URRICO-The water’s edge. MR. SALVADOR-The water’s edge. The water’s edge moves, depending on the season of the year, the topography of the land, but the mean high water mark never moves. That’s fixed, and that’s what you measure against. Now we can say, do you remember the White application? MR. UNDERWOOD-I do. MR. SALVADOR-Remember that? The surveyor came in here, prostrated himself, okay, and admitted to a mistake that he really didn’t make. He really didn’t make that mistake, okay, because it was unclear where they were measuring the setback from. That’s all. The other thing, I just wanted to mention that in reviewing the Seaboyer. MR. ABBATE-The Seaboyer case I’m not going to entertain. The public hearing has been closed. I’m not going to entertain that, Mr. Salvador. The public hearing has been closed. I will not entertain any comments on that case. MR. SALVADOR-I understand. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Your other comments are all noted, and I promise you this, the sea level, water mark comments I will bring to the attention at 10 o’clock tomorrow morning, Community Development, and I will make every effort, also, to bring your comments, which I think are well founded, to the Town Board as well. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. You said something tomorrow 10 o’clock on Seaboyer? MR. ABBATE-I have a debriefing tomorrow at 10 o’clock. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. MR. ABBATE-The Community Development Department gets to have my presence. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you, folks, I do appreciate everything. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/22/06) On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Charles Abbate, Chairman 34