Loading...
2008.04.23(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/08) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23, 2008 INDEX Area Variance No. 1-2008 Brian McCall 2. Tax Map No. 302.08-1-39, 38 Area Variance No. 20-2008 LeRoy and Katharine Cormie 15. Tax Map No. 301.18-1-71 Area Variance No. 15-2008 Steven Hipp 18. Tax Map No. 289.07-1-3 Area Variance No. 18-2008 Lynette and Scott Wiggins 24. Tax Map No. 301.18-1-62 Area Variance No. 17-2008 Ronald J. DuFour 27. Tax Map No. 303.16-1-75 Sign Variance No. 16-2008 Ken Ermiger d/b/a Adventure Racing 33. Tax Map No. 295.12-1-5.2 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/08) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23, 2008 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT JAMES UNDERWOOD, CHAIRMAN JOYCE HUNT RICHARD GARRAND GEORGE DRELLOS JOAN JENKIN BRIAN CLEMENTS ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll call to order this meeting of the Town of Queensbury Zoning rd Board of Appeals, and tonight’s date is April 23. First off, let me do a quick review of our procedures in general. For each case I’ll call the application by name and number. The Secretary will read in the pertinent parts of the application, as well as Staff Notes and Warren County Planning Board decision if applicable. The applicant then will be invited to the table and asked to provide any information that they wish to add to their application. The Board, then, will ask questions of the applicant. Following that, we’ll open the public hearing, and I caution the public hearing is not a vote. It’s a way to gather and understand the information about concerns real or perceived, and it’s a way for the Board to make a decision. As always, we’ll have a five minute limit on each speaker, so that that basically tells us everything you want us to know in those five minutes. A speaker may speak again if, after listening to other speakers, the speaker believes they have new information to present. Following that, we’ll read correspondence into the record. Then the applicant will have an opportunity to react and respond to the public comment, and then Board members will discuss the variance request with the applicant. Following that, the Board members will be polled to explain their positions on the application, and then we’ll close the public hearing, unless there’s a reason to leave it open, if it looks like the application will be continued to another meeting, and then we’ll either have a motion to approve or disapprove or table the vote. All right. Just a couple of housekeeping chores we’ve got to do here. We’ve got three sets of meetings, and the first one that we’re going to do here is approve these minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 20, 2008 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 20, 2008, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: rd Duly adopted this 23 day of April, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Urrico March 26, 2008 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2008, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: rd Duly adopted this 23 day of April, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/08) March 19, 2008 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 19, 2008, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: rd Duly adopted this 23 day of April, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. All right. The first item on the agenda tonight is under Old Business. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II BRIAN MC CALL AGENT(S): ALBERT S. MUGRACE OWNER(S): BRIAN MC CALL ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 274 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN 2,550 SQ. FT. METAL ADDITION; 3 WORK BAYS AND STORAGE TO THE EXISTING TIRE REPLACEMENT FACILITY/OFFICE/STORAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF: SPR 64-07 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: JANUARY 9, 2007 LOT SIZE: 0.67 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.08-1-39, 38 SECTION: 179-4-030 AL MUGRACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT th MR. UNDERWOOD-We had previously heard this on March 19, and we also have left the public hearing open. We had asked the Planning Board to review this project for us, and we were provided with minutes from the Planning Board at their meeting, and that was Site Plan 64-2007, also Brian McCall. They basically made a motion to table that Site Plan, and their minutes were provided to us for information. They did not make any significant recommendation to us, but I hope everybody read through those minutes so you have a general idea of what they were looking for, as far as more information. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 1-2008, Brian McCall, Meeting Date: April 23, 2008 “Project Location: 274 Quaker Road While the Planning Board has not provided a formal recommendation, the minutes from their April 15, 2008 meeting were provided to this Board on April 16, 2008. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of 2550 sf addition to the existing Auto Service Facility. Relief Required: Applicant requests 1.8 feet for relief from the 50 foot minimum total side setback requirement and 1556 sf of relief from the maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio requirement for the Highway Commercial, (HC-Int) zoning district. Specifically, the applicant is proposing a 35% FAR for the site. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the structure in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: There appears to be ample area available for construction in conformance with the setback requirements, and, it would appear as though a smaller addition (994sf) would meet the FAR requirements. . 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for 1.8 feet of setback relief from the 50 foot requirement may be interpreted as minimal (3.6%). The proposed 35% FAR total may be interpreted as moderate. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/08) 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: No letters of support were submitted with the application materials. Given the apparent sharing of access aisles with at least three adjacent properties, effects on such arrangements should be considered. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SPR 64-2007 pending 2550 sf addition to Auto Use SV 59-2001 8/22/01 setback relief for sign in ROW SPR 44-1998 8/18/98 Auto Service Use ( Tire Warehouse ) Staff comments: Given the apparent limitations for the parking and drive aisles on the site together with the Floor Area Ratio relief on a site with 90% impermeability, the Board may wish to consider seeking a recommendation from the Planning Board prior to acting on the variance requests. It would appear as though the on site areas for Stormwater Control are limited and will be further tested with the addition to the building. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys have anything more you want to present to us? MR. MUGRACE-Good evening. My name is Albert Mugrace. I’m the architect responsible for this. One of the things we’ve undergone and prepared was the actual stormwater management report, and that was submitted to the Planning Board. I’m not sure if you are aware of what that implies there, but we managed to contain most of the newly generated runoff in a basin that was designed, and all the things that we’re done, we’ve investigated, you know, possibly doing something with the four parking spaces that are questionable on the west side, and of course we’ve been in front of the Planning Board a couple of times. So I don’t know if you want to add something. BRIAN MC CALL MR. MC CALL-My name’s Brian McCall. Some of the concerns, the stormwater management report was a major concern for some of the neighbors. The report that was submitted does contain any additional runoff, as Al has stated. I know the lighting issue has been addressed. My feelings with the Planning Board, they didn’t have any negative comments about anything, and I interpret that as a positive recommendation from them. They were saying that they couldn’t make a recommendation based upon the variance that we’re asking for, but upon the concerns that were conveyed to them, they didn’t have anything negative to say, and I took that as positive. MR. UNDERWOOD-I had a question for you, because, you know, I looked at your plan and, could you get a copy in front of you guys so you can look at it, and I’ll just explain what I was thinking about on this, as far as a practical solution here. You guys can look at it in front of you. I realize what you’re trying to accomplish here is you want to have those two bays for bigger trucks and, you know, heavier vehicles that you need more space in the back there, but if I’m looking across the back of your drawing there, and I’m seeing that, you know, you’ve got a length of 36 feet, then a length of 16 feet, and then a length of 23 feet across the whole back there. I would anticipate, you know, I don’t know how busy you guys are at any given time, whether you’re going to have, ever going to have big trucks like filling that whole thing, you’d probably have room to work on four of them, you know, with those bays in the back there, or is it going to be something besides work bays in the back? MR. MUGRACE-Well, I’ll answer first, and then I’ll let Brian have a rebuttal here. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/08) MR. MUGRACE-The thirty-six feet is actually the two working bays. The 16 feet signifies that dotted area which is presently a loading dock. MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re going to remove that, though? MR. MUGRACE-Yes, we’re going to remove that and basically the, I call it the rear portion here, that will be primarily for storage, tire storage. Am I right? MR. MC CALL-Correct. ROBERT MC CARTHY MR. MC CARTHY-It just squares off the building. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. I realize what you’re trying to do, and I think you have to understand that, you know, with the impermeability issue with us, with the 35% build out ratio there, with your Floor Area Ratio, what I was going to suggest was, and just put forth the concept to you, for you to think about it was, the 23 foot wide section there that you’ve got, as storage, you know, and plus you’ve got the dumpster back there behind. I was wondering if you couldn’t leave that blank back there. So then you could back your tractor trailers in to that space there for your deliveries. That would relieve you with the problems that you have with Minogue’s on the other side there, on the west side there. I didn’t know if that was something that, you know, you guys might want to think about, you know, as a possibility for the traffic issues and the flow issues that the Planning Board also had concerns with. MR. MC CARTHY-Unfortunately, our main reason on proposing this addition is not only for the two bays, is the tire storage area is kind of vital to our operation, and it’s very necessary for us, and with your concern with tractor trailers coming in, I know our neighbor on the Minogue’s side, his tractor trailers are there quite a bit, and they actually pull up, say the aisle like this, you know, instead of having any trucks, a tractor trailer may come in, they pick up used tires, where most of our deliveries are from the smaller box trucks, but maybe once or twice a month we have a tractor trailer come in, but in the event of that occurring, we can have them pull up, so it won’t be protruding on any of our neighbor’s property. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right now are you in a position where you don’t have the storage capacity for your tires, you’re bringing them over from your other stores? MR. MC CALL-Correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-When you need stuff to be stocked and all. MR. MC CALL-Correct, and our industry is changing quite a bit with proliferation of tire sizes. Maybe five, ten years ago it might have been 20, 30 sizes. Now there’s close to 100, and we’re not just say like a Firestone dealer. We carry several different major brands, and we just have to have that capacity to compete with, you know, Wal-Mart and Sears and some of the larger tire chains and everything. MR. UNDERWOOD-Does anybody else want to ask any questions? MR. GARRAND-I’ve got a couple of questions. The drainage pipe between your property, Minogue’s and the Time Warner property, when is that slated for replacement? MR. MC CARTHY-I can answer that. Robert McCarthy, Counsel. There was an agreement that went, that was circulated between all the parties, about a few months ago, a couple of months ago, and I think we’re just waiting. Everyone has agreed to it. I think it’s been signed by everyone, at least that I’m aware, but I okayed it, and we’re just waiting for the Town to move on it, and I think the Town is actually the one that’s going to be steering the ship here. So we’d be more than happy to work with them going forward and get it done as soon as possible. MR. GARRAND-Okay, because part of your stormwater management plan is going to involve this culvert. MR. MC CARTHY-Correct. MR. GARRAND-And also the fact that, you know, consistent with the Meyers study consistently says that inflows are higher than the outflows as far water in this area, and 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/08) as you probably already know, there’s some litigation currently against the Town of Queensbury in this area because of flooding. MR. MC CARTHY-Well, this is supposed to resolve that. That’s why it was designed, and I believe the Town, once again, was the one that’s steering the ship. They’re the one that designed it. Their engineer designed it. So hopefully it will alleviate those issues. MR. GARRAND-All right. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else? MRS. JENKIN-Yes, I thought that when you were here before, you had said that you could do with one less bay. Didn’t you say that you could, with the addition, you could make that just one bay rather than two bays? I thought I remembered you saying that you could if you had to reduce the size of that? MR. MC CARTHY-Somehow it was originally, and I think it was just stated before that there was supposed to be three bays, and it’s really two bays. I don’t know if that’s what your recollection was or not. MRS. JENKIN-So now it’s two bays, rather than three. Had you thought about going up for storage? MR. MC CALL-For our business, with the way you’d stock tires, in storage, it’s very difficult to close to impossible to have a second story up there and to bring up the tires either upstairs or a conveyor belt. That really our facility probably wouldn’t permit it. MR. MUGRACE-There are (lost word), also, which come into place when you start stacking up above a certain height, or going to a second story. MRS. JENKIN-And the other consideration was the parking. Because you’re very low on parking and I noticed in the minutes that you had said that you might consider making parallel parking on the west side. MR. MC CARTHY-When we talked to the Board, we were flexible, and you can see that from the minutes. We’ll do what the Planning Board wanted. We can do it on the other side, I guess it’s the. MRS. JENKIN-But you haven’t added any other parking. So where do employees park? MR. MC CARTHY-The number of spaces, and the architect will discuss that, meets the qualifications of the building. MR. MUGRACE-Yes. We did a study, based on the Zoning Ordinance requirements for parking, and we meet that requirement, with the addition. As a matter of fact it’s noted here on the plan itself, on the parking, it would be right here. MR. CLEMENTS-Are there still 12 parking places as there were in this one you handed to us? MR. MUGRACE-Yes. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-What do you plan on doing with large trucks, if you’re going to be working on them, when they’re done working on them? I mean, you’ve got to have some place to put them, right? MR. MC CALL-When you say large trucks, we’re not going to be working on dump trucks or big box trucks or anything. They’d probably be parked as a normal customer’s car. Yes. When I say refer to trucks, you know, we’re referring to like Escalade trucks and Suburbans and a large van, like 15 passenger vans and stuff like that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, so not big RV’s and stuff like that. MR. MC CALL-No, we’re not going to be, like dump trucks or tractor trailers or anything like that. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/08) MR. MC CARTHY-But one other comment that might be made to help the Board. The extra two bays does not necessarily mean we’re going to have additional work. It’s the work that they’re doing on the lifts that they have currently is just not safe. So they need the stronger, the bigger powerful lifts for these vehicles. They do, do it now. They do do it where it is, but, you know, there is a question of how to do it. So it’s not that we’re going to have, because there’s two extra bays, thousands more people coming. That would be great if they did, but it’s not necessarily designed for that. MR. MUGRACE-The facility is pretty dated, and one of the thoughts here that we’ve been tossing around is to not only improve it, you know, internally with the addition of these two bays, but also do something externally, you know, to aesthetically improve the building somewhat. That’s what we’ve got there, and it’s one of the ideas that we’re investigating right now. MRS. JENKIN-So how were you going to improve it? What were you going to do? MR. MUGRACE-Well, right now the building, I don’t know if you’re familiar with the building, but it’s just a basic metal building. There’s nothing interesting there. There’s maybe a little bit of brick in the front here. We’re going, the look of it will be changed pretty drastically, as you can see here, you know. We plan on possibly doing some (lost word) finish, which is that stucco finish, you know, improving the fenestration, the windows, doors, put in some kind of fascia on top there, you know, with the signage, and doing the same thing over here, on this portion of the building and also along on both sides, and that’s a totally different elevation than what’s there now. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else have any other questions? Okay. I guess I’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on this? Sure. Go ahead. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN ROB MINOGUE MR. MINOGUE-I’m Rob Minogue from Minogue’s Beverage. I’d like to state about the coming in of tractor trailers and of delivery trucks and large trucks, and that, those trucks right now currently have to come on to our property in order to park. They don’t park to the east side of the building, of the Tire Warehouse building. They park to the west side between Tire Warehouse and Minogue’s. I submitted a series of photographs at the last Planning Board. I don’t know if you all had a chance to see them? MR. UNDERWOOD-We did, yes. MR. MINOGUE-Okay. There was, I didn’t have an opportunity, prior to that meeting, to submit photos, additional photos which I wish I had. I have those here tonight, and if you could take a look at them, I could explain it, and it’s quite congested. This is another tractor trailer, different tractor trailer than what was submitted in my series of photos that I presented last time, and the tractor itself in the picture is sitting outside my overhead door, in the rear of my building. The picture was taken standing at my overhead door, and that shows a pretty good indication of where tractor trailers can go under present conditions, and the other photos that I had as well depicted where the vehicles park, and I have a serious concern as well with, and I’ve mentioned this before, is with the height and the setback of this structure, going back into, towards the end of their property and easement and coming in off Everts Road, navigating the turn. It’s going to present complications. As it stands right now in winter, which was in the series of photos that I had presented, it shows where the snow goes. It shows what the area is to make a safe turn there, and it’s seriously compromised at this point right now with the storage containers at the rear, and those are a non, they’re a non-permanent structure. They can be moved. Once a building goes there, that baby’s there for a long time, and it’s going to complicate, further complicate what I, as a neighbor, am dealing with right now, and when my trucks pull in, I am on my property, and there was a concern raised that, and pictures presented last, at the Planning Board that I was over on their property. My driver with a forklift probably did cross a line on that. That’s currently being taken care of. We’re unloading on our side of the building. I’m having him turn around in the rear parking lot, and once the culvert is replaced, we can’t do it at this present time, but once the culvert is replaced, our rear property in the back is going to serve as our unloading area. So there won’t be any blocking of any easement which we don’t currently do right now, and there won’t be any subject, any concern of crossing the line, the property line. MR. UNDERWOOD-So that side entry way is going to be eliminated on your part? 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/08) MR. MINOGUE-No, in the rear of our building. In the rear of our building. We’re going to move our dumpster to the rear of our building, to the back further back, and we’re going to unload in the back parking area. So, there won’t be any issue, on our part, as far as encroaching on their property or crossing over the property line or causing any difficulties in that area, and it should be duly noted that in order for them to use the existing bays as they are currently, they have to back their vehicles out onto our property each time that a vehicle comes out of one of those bays. It’s just, that’s part of it. There’s just not enough room for them to do that right now, and prior to all of this starting, when this first began in the beginning, all of their employees parked in my rear parking lot, and now they’ve since moved and taken up their existing parking spaces that they have available, and it’s limited what they have for their customer parking, and right now they don’t have sufficient parking, and I’m not seeing anywhere in the plans how it’s going to work on a functional basis, being there every day, seeing what works and doesn’t work, with an addition put on to that building. I’ve said before that I think that the removal of those storage containers would provide the ample parking that they would need for their customers, for their employees, and during the wintertime would provide, should provide an ample area for designated snow placement, and that’s it. That’s pretty much what I had to say. MR. UNDERWOOD-Does anyone have any questions? All right. Anybody else wishing to speak this evening, on this issue? Okay. Do you guys want to come back up? Do you want to give any response to what he was asking? MR. MC CARTHY-Yes, just very briefly. It’s the same things that we’ve heard for the last three or four meetings that we were at, well, three Planning Board and here. The parking for the lot is statutory. It’s in your book. It meets that. Is it tight? Yes, it is. I’m not disagreeing with that. However, their pictures, we have pictures, and they’re doing what we’ve done. They’re rectifying the problem by telling their people not to park. We can do the same thing. It was a tit for tat. We were hoping to be a good neighbor. Unfortunately, there’s some issues. One of the members at the Planning Board meeting said, you know, that’s a concern for good neighbors, or something to that effect, and that’s what it is. The parking is what it’s supposed to be for this unit. We will address all of those issues at the Planning Board. MR. UNDERWOOD-How many employees do you guys have right now, working there on a daily basis? MR. MC CALL-There’s seven employees there now. MR. UNDERWOOD-So pretty much everybody drives their own car to work I would imagine. MR. MC CALL-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. GARRAND-One of Mr. Minogue’s concerns was snow removal. Where is the snow going to go from your facility? MR. MC CALL-Where it goes now. There’s actually plenty of room for the snow removal. He actually, his accusations are full of inaccuracies. We have enough room to move this, our snow that falls on the lot. They’ll probably be going the same where it is now. In contrast to what he was saying, he actually puts a lot of his snow on our property. Up on the front here, he had it going all the way back, going down towards the easement, with the snow bank, and the snow’s really not an issue. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. MR. MC CALL-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I had a question. This picture right here, this truck is right up against Minogue’s wall right there. Is there another place that that tractor trailer could be parked? MR. MC CARTHY-Yes, actually. Can I take a look at that? What was discussed with the Planning Board was to have those type of trucks, which only come maybe once or twice a month, on the other side of the property. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/08) MR. CLEMENTS-Over towards the Adirondack Wine Merchants? MR. MC CARTHY-Yes. MR. CLEMENTS-That was my question. MR. MC CARTHY-And my client is indicating there’s a question as to whether or not that is even a truck that would deliver to us, because we don’t recognize it. Usually the trucks that come are relatively the same trucks. MR. MC CALL-They have the logo on them and everything. MR. MC CARTHY-So, I’m not disagreeing. We just can’t tell. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are there any other questions from Board members? MRS. JENKIN-You say you could park it on the east side, but with the bays there, where would you park them, the tractor trailer, and still be on your property, if you said you parked it on the other side? MR. MC CALL-On this side here? MRS. JENKIN-Yes. MR. MC CALL-These doors over here, they’re, say out of the four there, only one of them is presently used. That’s actually where we actually do have most of our deliveries on this first door here. These ones are inactive. They’re really not used. So it can pull up, this side as Mr. Minogue’s (lost words). MRS. JENKIN-When I was there today, there were trucks all along there. MR. MC CALL-Okay. MRS. JENKIN-Parked perpendicular to the building. I don’t know what they were there for. MR. MC CALL-I’m not sure, but when we do get deliveries, we can have the trucks pull right up along here, because these bays aren’t used. MRS. JENKIN-And then the other question I had is, if you’re building this, this addition is going to be a storage unit, storage on the east side. Where will the trucks park to unload so that you can put them in the storage area? There’s no door. MR. MC CALL-The same place as I indicated, if they come up this right of way, they can pull up along here, or if they come in this way, they can drive down this side. MRS. JENKIN-So, on the east side of the building, that’s all storage now, is it? MR. MC CALL-Yes, correct. MR. MUGRACE-This is all storage, and it’s all continuous. MRS. JENKIN-It’s all storage? MR. MUGRACE-There’s no real wall here. I mean, we do show wall there, but there’s plenty of openings. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. So you’re just adding to your storage space, then. MR. MUGRACE-Right. MR. MC CALL-Correct. MR. MC CARTHY-Those overhead doors haven’t been used for years. It was part of the original building’s concept. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-Is there any way to assure that all your deliveries would occur on that east side over there, so you wouldn’t interfere with Minogue’s? MR. MC CARTHY-We can, you know, talk to whoever it is that’s coming in. Can I make sure that happens 100% of the time, you know, just as if their drivers come in, you know, I’ve been up here on Labor Day weekend and Memorial Day weekend. Their parking lot’s crowded and I kind of shoot into the Tire Warehouse to park to go get something for the weekend. Yes. Can we do everything we can do, but will it happen once or twice, I don’t want to say to the Board, yes, it will never happen, but we can make sure that our drivers come in, if they do come in the wrong place, that we can tell them to go back out and come back in the right place. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce, you had a question? MRS. HUNT-Would there be a problem in taking 1.8 feet off, so you wouldn’t need a variance for your side relief? It might make it a little bit easier, too, with trucks coming in, if they had a little bit extra space. MR. MC CARTHY-It just squares off of our building. I mean, the front of it is this. So aesthetically, a foot and a half. I mean, if that was a situation that was a deal breaker for the Board, we would consider it. It would be just probably a little bit more in construction costs, footings and so forth, but it’s something that we might have to consider. We just, aesthetically wanted to make the building one. MR. MC CALL-Squared off. MRS. HUNT-I just thought it might make it easier for deliveries, if they’re delivering there, if they had a little extra space. MR. MC CARTHY-1.8 feet, I mean, I understand what you’re saying, but I think it would be very minimal. MR. MUGRACE-It’s not going to help much. If it were 10 feet maybe. MR. GARRAND-Right now, when I went by the site and looked at it, when the snow was out, the area back there was so rutted I didn’t want to take my personal vehicle down there, it was so bad, and there was little or no clearance going through that easement with those dumpsters there. It was a nightmare getting back there. MR. MC CARTHY-And that’s what we’re here for. I mean, we want to clean up the site. That’s part of what the Planning Board wanted to see, that we’re going to clean up the site, and do the necessary repairs. There’s also the pipe that’s coming through, which means a lot of that stuff is going to have to be dug up and repaved and so forth. So that’s the goal here. We want to make it a building that’s presentable for the Town. It hasn’t been repaired in some time, and this is just one part of it, you know, one unfortunate requirement before we can start construction. MR. CLEMENTS-So at this point are you saying all the containers that you have out there, all those containers will be gone except for this one dumpster that you have here? MR. MC CALL-Correct. MRS. JENKIN-Well, that’s where the addition is going. Right? MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anybody else? Is that it. Can I just ask a question of Mr. Minogue. If all those deliveries were going to occur on the east side, opposite from where they are now, would that be a big help to you, none of them occurring over on the Minogue’s side? MR. MINOGUE-I’m sorry? What’s that now? MR. UNDERWOOD-I would ask them, you know, I asked them if they would have their deliveries on the east side of their building, as opposed to the west side, over adjacent to your building, if that would be acceptable to you, as far as helping the flow of traffic over there? MR. MINOGUE-Well, right now, I don’t know so much, their deliveries being. MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me, could you get on the microphone? 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/08) MR. MINOGUE-I don’t know so much right now the entry and exit points on their property, as it sets, if they go to the east side of their building. A truck pulls in off Everts Avenue, tractor trailer, and the exit point of that tractor trailer, to go back onto Quaker Road, I’m not so much sure it’s going to navigate the turn in the front of that building. MR. UNDERWOOD-Through the parking, yes. MR. MINOGUE-And I would just like to show this photo here, because this might, this will indicate another truck pulled alongside my building, and it might refresh their memory as to being a delivery truck of theirs, being that the driver and one of their employees is pictured in front of it. It’s parked right where that tractor trailer was. So, in response to your question, I don’t think it’s feasible that a tractor trailer can pull in and out of that property safely, especially if they have employee cars parked on the east side, because they have to park somewhere. Customers have to be parked somewhere. They’re not all going to fit in the front. They can’t park on the west side because they’re on my property, right on the line, and as far as the snow removal goes, I’m sure the Town of Queensbury’s seen front, me having front loaders in the front of my building taking snow and moving it, placing it over to the west side of my building, and in the rear, I take it and place it to the west side of the building. I do not push snow on his property, and where he’s saying that that might go, if there’s a couple of snowballs that roll over on his property, maybe so, but I take my snow and I remove it. I plow on my property, and I remove it, and I place on my property once I move it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thank you. MR. MINOGUE-Did I answer your question? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, thank you. MR. MINOGUE-Okay. Thank you. MR. MC CARTHY-What I indicated, and I made clear, that we just don’t recognize it. We didn’t say that it wasn’t a delivery truck. We just don’t recognize it from the picture you provided, and I made that abundantly clear, and I still don’t know what the picture looks like. MR. MUGRACE-A truck that was parked here, parallel parked, could easily pull into here and then go out this way. MR. UNDERWOOD-But they would probably have to back in there. You wouldn’t be able to access through the front past your parking. Do you think you can swing that? MR. MUGRACE-This will be a little tight to negotiate here, definitely, but I don’t (lost words) what size trucks are. I mean we went with like a light duty truck. This is not, a 55 foot trailer is not going to negotiate that. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m just thinking you could pull in off Quaker, come straight up through the access way and then back down into your east side there. That might be solution. Yes. Okay. Anything else you would like to add? Or do you want us to give you our decision? I’m going to poll the Board, then, I think what I’m going to do is go down the ranks of the Board and see what the pleasure of the Board is, whether you want to make a decision on this, or whether you think they should modify their plans significantly from what they’ve proposed here. So I’ll start with you, Brian. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. I have a tendency to agree with a couple of people here. Craig, for one, says that a smaller addition would meet the FAR requirements. I also think that there is a lot of congestion in there right now, and putting that addition in there, particularly on the southwest corner, where the right of way goes through, I would think that making it smaller so that there would be some more area right there for a turn would be preferable. MR. UNDERWOOD-So you’re talking about possibly offsetting, bringing the building in a little bit, so you wouldn’t have a pinch point on that corner? MR. CLEMENTS-Yes, and making it smaller. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/08) MR. CLEMENTS-I don’t know if I agree with 994 square feet. I know that their requirements are more than that, but I think that maybe something ought to be done here. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan? MRS. JENKIN-Yes. With the size of the lot and the use that you’re putting this property to, I feel that the addition is too large. I would be inclined to recommend that one bay, and just the width of that, and even though you say the parking is adequate for the spaces, you really don’t have an awful lot of parking for your employees when you have even employees, and if you only had one bay and cut it back, it wouldn’t infringe on the right of way at all, and you would have to cut, I’m talking about cutting your addition in half, which may not be adequate for you, but then you would, it would provide more parking in the back for whatever you needed it for, and a little bit more space. It’s really crowded in there, and if you parallel parked the, you had parallel parking for the east side, the west side, that would not give you five, or four spaces anymore. You’d probably only have three spaces at the most if you’re parallel parked. So that’s going to cut down on your spaces. With the snow removal, the problems with the delivery trucks, I just feel that it’s too big an addition for the size of the property, and again, you need to think about neighbors, and try to listen to neighbors, too. So, I would be against this addition right now, the way it stands. MR. UNDERWOOD-George? MR. DRELLOS-Well, the first thing I looked at, when I looked at these plans, was if we can cut it right in half, one bay, that was my first, right off the bat to look at this plan. I don’t know if it’s feasible for you, if you could get away with that, and maybe you could even widen one door from a 12 footer to a 14 foot wide door. I don’t know if that’s possible, just to gain a little more access for, you know, trucks, and the parking. If you’ve got seven employees, you’ve got seven cars. I don’t know where you’re going to park those cars either. So there were some concerns. I figure if you could cut it in half, maybe you could use some room in the back for some additional, for trucks, even parking on the side or something, and could swing around a lot easier, around the building. You wouldn’t have to try to back in, because tractor trailers, they’re tough to back in in tight spots like this. You’ve got to go on someone else’s property. You have to. There’s no way you’re going to just back on your own and try to get in there. It won’t, I just can’t see it happening. So that’s my feeling. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I agree with the comments that have been made about making the size smaller, but I would also like the Planning Board to give us a recommendation, too, look at the parking and make their suggestions before I made up my mind. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich? MR. GARRAND-I was wondering about that myself, why the Planning Board didn’t come to us with any firm recommendations about this, or any real direction in which to go. I’m looking, as much as I can, at this, and I have to go by the balancing test on this. I don’t know if benefits can be achieved by other means. I don’t know if a smaller addition would do. I don’t see it’s going to make any undesirable change in the neighborhood. I do see it’s substantial. I can’t see any adverse physical or environmental impacts because of the stormwater management plan, but on the last one, this could be deemed self-created, so that’s three out of five, and just on that basis alone, I have to agree with the other Board members. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Speaking for myself, I think maybe what you’re going to have to do is go back to the drawing board and think about how you might reconfigure this, how you might shrink it down, or if that’s a possibility. I know you’re going to be going back to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review in the future anyway, and I think that the Board probably would be amenable to a smaller addition on the back of there. I don’t know what you can live with or if you really needed the two bays and the big storage space in the back there. I understand what your needs are, but I think we have to balance that versus the neighborhood and the effects on the neighbors. It’s kind of an overbuilt situation down there and I know that’s not your fault because I mean you’re on a small lot there. There’s a large amount of impermeability there. I think the water issues are going to be dealt with by the Planning Board. They didn’t really have any concerns that that’s probably going to be something that can be dealt with, but the big issues that they were still concerned with were traffic flow and keeping everybody happy 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/08) here, and, you know, that’s the balancing test. As Rich put it, if your three out of the five don’t balance, then we just really can’t accept what you’re proposing, but if you want to come back, you know, I’ll leave it up to you, whatever you want to do. MR. MC CARTHY-Well, I think we need a little direction as to what you’d consider. I mean, 954 feet would not require anything. So we’re asking for 1556. I don’t want to keep on coming back and saying, well, what about these plans, what about these plans. If there’s something that you’re, you know, the middle of that, is that something that you’re? MR. UNDERWOOD-If you were limited to one bay, maybe a little bit wider, as was suggested, you know, that would relieve that pinch point on the southwest corner as Brian said, and I think that’s part of the problem. As far as the width of the building there, I mean, you’re talking 34 feet in width. So I’m thinking that’s probably going to shrink you down to probably take 16 feet off of that probably, I would imagine, by the time you put the façade on the building. If you’ve still got storage along that whole east side there, on those bays, and, you know, I don’t know if your future needs are going to mean using those bays for car, you know, working on changing tires and stuff like that. I would assume that’s, partial equipment, partial storage there. You may just have to live with a smaller amount of what you’re asking for here. MR. MC CARTHY-So it’s not necessarily the two bays. It’s just the size? MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I think it is the two bays because of the intrusion up to that southwest corner and that pinch point there. I mean, I think that’s, I don’t know what the square footage change is going to be with only a single bay. You may be fine. You may not need any relief from us. MR. MC CARTHY-Well, the 1.8 feet we can bump the building in. I mean, if we’re going to make some changes, that might not be an issue. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I don’t think that 1.8 foot is going to, is anybody concerned with the 1.8 feet? I don’t think that’s really a concern for us, but I’m thinking the big thing is the square footage and, you know, it would give you a little bit more parking place. I’m thinking in the sense of, even though you propose to put that green space on the back of there, it might be more realistic to use it for parking for your employees there, and, you know, free up some of that stuff out in front. MR. DRELLOS-And if you’re looking at a 12 foot door, you need four feet on each side. So you’re still talking 20. So it would be 20 feet addition, instead of 34. So you’d lose 14 feet here. MR. MC CARTHY-You’re talking, I mean, we would, I think the bays are more important to us. So if we took a little bit off the back here, is that what you’re referring to? Is that the side? MRS. JENKIN-No, the whole width of it. MR. MC CARTHY-Yes, but I mean here, or are you talking here? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m talking, you’ve got it now 34 feet wide on the back of there, but you’d have to take, if you took off one bay there, you’d be taking off essentially about how many feet? That’s a 12 foot bay you had on there now, or 14? MR. MUGRACE-Well, it’s a 14 bay, actually. MR. UNDERWOOD-Fourteen bay. MR. MC CARTHY-I think it might be more beneficial if we just shortened the building on this side and then a little bit more parking. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I think everybody’s still hung up on the width back there because of that pinch point on the southwest corner. MR. MC CARTHY-Well, it wouldn’t be, if you took off here, obviously the back of the building would be shrunk. MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re talking on the Minogue’s side? 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/08) MR. MC CARTHY-No, from where the 23 is, if you took off, whatever the number is, I don’t know, 10 feet or something like that, this back area would be shrunk. MR. UNDERWOOD-But I think the issue is more the Minogue’s side, you know, that’s the side that it needs to get hacked off on, you know, if you’re going to cut something off. MR. MC CARTHY-Well, then how about, just once again, just so we can make sure the plan’s right, if we bring this in the same 10 feet. So then the building wouldn’t be squared off, but it would be. MRS. JENKIN-But then you’re not allowing for anymore parking, either. MR. MC CARTHY-Well, I hear what you’re saying, but, I mean, the statute’s the statute, how many parking spots you need, and we meet it. So I would, that’s why I had originally said move this in and we’re able to put a couple of parking spots in there. MRS. JENKIN-Right. MR. MUGRACE-Might I add that we’re not considering any parking inside of bays either. That total parking does not include anything inside the building. So you’ve got additional cars basically being serviced in those areas that are not in the count. MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re servicing four at a time right now? In essence that’s what you’ve got now? You’ve got four service bays? MR. MC CALL-Yes. There’s four overhead doors, and a concern, I realize that. MR. MC CARTHY-One more time. How about, you could split the difference, take a little off the back, a little off the front, and still keep the two bays, instead of taking 10, I’m just, hypothetically, whatever the number is, 10 feet here, 10 feet there, push this in 10 feet, push this in 10 feet, and then you get relatively what I think you’re looking for, a little bit more room here, but, and you still might get some parking back there. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’m going to make a recommendation that you guys come up with some proposals for us, then. In the interim, I don’t think we’re going to vote on this. I think we’re going to table this for some future meeting. I would suggest that you get together with the planning, you know, Craig, are you going to get together with them on this anymore, or do you have any suggestions? MR. BROWN-If they’d like to, yes. We’ll sit down with them. Just so I know, when I do meet with them, I understand your concerns to be the southwest corner of the building. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. BROWN-And the traffic accessibility in that area. Just a thought. Do you think the Board would benefit, or does the Board think you’d benefit, by having the applicant supply like a truck turning radius template for any vehicle they anticipate making deliveries there, just to make sure everything’s going to fit on the site? It’s more of a Planning Board thing, but I know there’s accessibility concerns here. So I’m sure they can certainly come up with that information, as far as, you know, how would a tractor trailer function on this site. MRS. JENKIN-That’s a good idea. MR. UNDERWOOD-If we took 10 feet off of that southwest side there, inset the building 10 feet in, what’s that going to do to their Floor Area Ratio requirement? That’s going to narrow it down some. MR. BROWN-Yes. It’s going to improve it. If they come in 10 and 10 on both sides, that’s 680 square feet off of the 2550. So they’re getting closer to that number. So the percentage may be 32, 33 when they get there. MR. GARRAND-They’re actually almost in there. MR. BROWN-They’re getting closer, yes. Absolutely. MRS. JENKIN-So then you would pave that area. I’m talking about the southwest. You’d pave that area, because then you’d actually be putting cars in that bay, in the two 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/08) bays, right? Because you’d pave that area, which would give even more room to drive around that. That would be paved. MR. MC CARTHY-Well, we’ll have to take a look at the numbers, meet with the Town again, and just see if it’s feasible, you know, because obviously construction costs are high, but it does meet, once again, I know you want to be a good neighbor, but that shouldn’t be the pivotal situation here. It’s one out of the five things, but, in the same breath, well, we do it but we’ll change, you know, we have snow on their property, but we change. We park on their property but we’ll change. The same goes for us. MR. MC CALL-And with his concern of our tractor trailers, we have one company that comes with a tractor trailer and like I said, it’s one every two weeks, or it could be once a month. It may come once a month, or, the way Rob is making it sound like we have tractor trailers pulling in every day on this property. MRS. JENKIN-Well, I think what Craig suggested would be useful for us, too, is if you could put in the drawings the turning radius and where you would have the trucks go. I think that would be really good. MR. MUGRACE-Well, yes, I mean, the design that we did was based on those turning radii. We’ve already investigated those. We didn’t show on the drawing here. MRS. JENKIN-Well, maybe you could show it for us. MR. MUGRACE-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’m going to make a tabling motion then, and do you guys have a specific time period you’re going to need to submit those new plots to us or, I mean, I don’t know when you’re going back to, are you going back to the Planning Board before they’ll be back to us again, probably? MR. BROWN-No. MR. MC CARTHY-No. MR. BROWN-No, they can’t go forward with the Planning Board until they’re done here. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. MC CARTHY-One comment on that. The Planning Board made it very specific that that’s not what they wanted to do is give a recommendation. I don’t know what their basis was, but they made it very clear that that’s not what they believe that they should be doing. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. When would you be able to submit, like how soon? What date would be good for you, Craig? th MR. BROWN-Well, the next available deadline is May 15, for a June meeting. So if they think they can make that date, that’s fine. If they don’t think they can make it until th June 15, that’s up to them. MR. MUGRACE-We shouldn’t have any problem meeting that deadline. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So that’ll be the first meeting in June we’ll set them up for. MR. BROWN-If you’d like to table it until then, sure. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I’ll make a tabling motion. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-2008 BRIAN MC CALL, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Drellos: 274 Quaker Road. For the information as we requested from them. We’ll put them on th the agenda for the first meeting in June and make sure your submittals are in by May 15 to Craig Brown. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of April, 2008, by the following vote: MR. MC CARTHY-Do you have a date for June? 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/08) MR. BROWN-Whatever the third Wednesday is. I don’t have a calendar. MR. UNDERWOOD-The third Wednesday of the month it will be, yes. AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Jenkin, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Urrico MR. MC CARTHY-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II LE ROY AND KATHARINE CORMIE OWNER(S): LE ROY AND KATHARINE CORMIE ZONING: SR-20 CURRENT; OLD SR-1A YR. 1988 LOCATION: 25 FAWN LANE, SHERMAN PINES, PHASE 3 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN ENCLOSED PORCH. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 2007-498; AV 35-2006 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 1.96 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.07-1-3 SECTION: 179-4-030 LE ROY AND KATHARINE CORMIE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 20-2008, Le Roy and Katharine Cormie, Meeting Date: April 23, 2008 “Project Location: 25 Fawn Lane, Sherman Pines, Phase 3, Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 216 sf enclosed porch on an existing deck. Relief Required: Applicant requests 10 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum rear setback requirement of the 1988 SR-20 zoning requirements. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would gain an additional, enclosed recreation area. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include construction of the porch addition in a compliant location. (?On the back of the house towards the easterly end of the home?). 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for relief is similar to the relief granted in AV 35-2006 for which the applicant proposed construction of an open deck. The deck in that application is the deck on which this current proposal is located. When viewed relative to the code, 10 feet of relief is a 50% request for relief. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: As the proposed porch is to be located behind the home and on top of an existing deck, minimal adverse impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/08) AV 35-2006 Deck addition approve 6/21/06 BP 2007-498 Porch addition pending Staff comments: The proposed porch is located on the deck which was granted relief in AV 35-2006. Minimal adverse impacts are anticipated as a result of this action. Is approval required from a Homeowners Association? SEQR Status: Type II” MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you guys want to explain to us anything else? So this is the deck that we gave you permission for, and now you want to close in that deck? MR. CORMIE-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-And you’re not going to put another deck on the back of that deck, right? MR. CORMIE-I’m not going to. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I figured closing it in was probably going to be enough. MR. CORMIE-Yes. It’s just not as usable in light of current. We’re also, we’re new to the neighborhood. We’ve been there three years. We didn’t realize just how much pollen there was and just how much, and we both, and I think it’s just, it hasn’t caused, certainly, the onset of allergies, but they’ve certainly intensified. Maybe it’s we’re aging or something. I don’t know. I’ll speak for myself. I’m aging, but, yes, it would just make the space more usable, and the only difference in profile is obviously there would be a roof, the same pitch as the existing roof, but down a notch, so that it would blend. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody have any questions? MR. CLEMENTS-I just had one. Craig had asked the question, is approval required from a homeowners association. Have you found out about that? MR. CORMIE-Yes, it’s not. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. MR. DRELLOS-You can build this right on top of a deck? MR. CORMIE-Yes, I have to beef up some of the supports on the deck, and I’ll certainly make sure that’s done correctly for Building and Codes, yes, although I anticipated maybe having to do that down the road, and I always overbuild everything, and since I’m doing the building, you know, it’s like when it was inspected, the addition, I was told by two different inspectors, boy, this is a lot more than you needed to do, and I said that’s because I’m building it for me and not for you, but, yes, I tend to over do things. So it has two more supports than it’s suppose to have, and a beefed up joist system as well. MR. DRELLOS-So you were on the Board when you gave them relief for the deck? MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Yes, I made the resolution. MR. DRELLOS-So it’s pretty, it’s in the same spot. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. All right. If there’s no other questions from the Board, I’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on this subject tonight? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-We don’t have any correspondence, I take it, Joan? MRS. JENKIN-No. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I guess I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-And any additional comments? I guess you’ve told us what you needed. So, I’ll poll the Board, then. Joyce, what do you think? MRS. HUNT-Yes. Well, I was on the Board when we approved the deck, and I don’t think the 10 feet of relief really counts for much when you have all that common area behind that’s lawned and landscaped. I would have no problem with it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich? MR. GARRAND-I don’t see that we’re expanding too much here. We’re just building on top of what’s basically already been there. Granted it’s 50% relief, but I don’t see it being any major detriment or change to the character of the neighborhood. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-George? MR. DRELLOS-Yes, I feel the same. Since you gave them relief from the deck, there’s really no change except the height. I’d be in favor, too. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan? MRS. JENKIN-I feel the same way. It’s definitely going to help you and with your allergy problem, and also the black flies. I don’t think it’s an undesirable change in the neighborhood. It probably will add a little bit to it, if you make it a part of the house. So I have no problem with it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I agree with the rest of the Board. I would have no problem with it, either. There were no negative comments from neighbors. As someone already said, you have a common area out behind there. It would fit in very nicely. So I’d be in favor of this. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I, too, am going to be in favor of it. I went through the same thing you did with that late onset asthma thing, and I had it for about three years horribly, and I couldn’t believe how bad it was, and mine went away. So hopefully yours will, too, but in the interim, this is going to help you. So I think that, you know, the Board doesn’t have any problem with your request. So I’ll make the motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2008 LEROY AND KATHARINE CORMIE, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: 25 Fawn Lane, Sherman Pines, Phase 3. They’re proposing to close in a 312 square foot deck on the back of an existing Single Family Residence, and they’re still going to be needing that 10 feet of relief where 20 is the minimum per Section 179-4-030, for the SR-20 zone in the Sherman Pines subdivision. This request is that they’ll be able to close in the deck, due to onset of allergies, and it will make living out there much more pleasant for them. This will be located in the same area as the previously requested open deck, and will just be simply closing that deck in. Although it’s quite close to the property line, we recognize that the forever wild area in the back there is not going to be built on or disturbed in the future and the Homeowners Association has also signed off that it’s not any problem to do what you’re requesting this evening here. So I would move for its approval. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of April, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Urrico MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. You’re all set. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/08) MRS. CORMIE-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-2008, SEQRA TYPE: II STEVEN HIPP AGENT(S): ETHAN P. HALL, RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTS OWNER(S): STEVEN HIPP ZONING: SFR- 1A LOCATION: 103 TEE HILL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,088 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR A SECOND GARAGE. CROSS REF.: BP 2007-680 STORAGE BUILDING WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 1.96 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.07- 1-3 SECTION: 179-4-030 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 15-2008, Steven Hipp, Meeting Date: April 23, 2008 “Project Location: 103 Tee Hill Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1088 sf freestanding garage. Relief Required: Applicant requests 188 sf of relief from the 900 sf maximum allowable size for a garage and for relief to have a second garage on the property. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would gain an additional garage. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include an addition to the existing garage, currently at only 480 sf. A 420 sf addition is possible. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The requested 188 sf of relief from the 900 sf maximum equates to a 20% variance while the request for a second garage is a 100% relief request. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Impacts on the neighborhood are uncertain at this time. What will the building be used for? Will any business operation be conducted from this building or property? 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2007-680 garage pending BP 2006-800 2040 sf SFD c/o issued 9/7/07 Staff comments: What will be the extent of tree clearing and driveway construction associated with this project? Are Pace Builders planning to operate from this site? Why won’t an addition to the existing garage work? SEQR Status: Type II” MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Fill us in on what you want and why you need it. MR. HALL-Good evening. My name is Ethan Hall. I am a partner with Rucinski Hall Architecture. With me tonight is the applicant, Steven Hipp. What Mr. Hipp is looking for, he’s recently moved, purchased the property from Pace Builders. They built it as a 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/08) spec house. Mr. Hipp bought it from Pace Builders. He’s moving up north from New Jersey, moving up here. He’s got a lot of stuff he’s bringing with him. He has a boat that he’s bringing up. He’s got several ATV’s, a couple of motorcycles, a classic car, lots of stuff that he needs to store. The existing garage is an attached garage. It’s a two car garage attached to the house which was designed by my firm. There’s enough room inside the garage to get his personal vehicle and his pickup truck in, but that’s it, and actually right now, because they’re moving up, all their stuff is in the garage. So the cars are sitting outside. What they’re looking for is just a building to store their personal affects in, so that it’s not sitting out on the lawn. We took a look at what he had and the items that he needed to store, and this is the size of the building we came up with. We’ve met the setbacks. We’ve tried to set it back from the road so that it’s not in a visible location. We didn’t want to affect the look, the aesthetics of the house, and we set it back so that it’s a straight shot in off from the driveway. The amount of clearing that’s going to be done is there’s some sumac that’s out there that is going to be cut down, and it’s scrub brush. The tree line that’s along the neighboring property is going to stay just like it is. The intent would be that the boat and the other trailers and whatever would just be backed into the driveway and right straight into the garage. There’s not going to be a turnaround built or anything like that. It’s going to be a straight extension off the garage, off the driveway that’s there. MR. UNDERWOOD-What did you store your stuff in back in Jersey, down south? STEVEN HIPP MR. HIPP-I had a garage back home, at my existing house. Right now I have it in storage, and I’m paying for it back in Jersey. I had plenty of room for most of the stuff. Plus I had a shop back home. So I had places to put, but now things are, I didn’t want to have to put like pods or sheds and stuff. I just wanted to put, make it look like the house, aluminum side it, you know, lights and everything, bushes, trees, whatever I have to do. MR. HALL-That’s the intent. The design of the building is meant to match. They’re going to have the same aesthetics. We’re going to have a nice roof pitch on the front. We’ve got windows in the sides. It’s going to have the same vinyl siding that’s on the building that’s there now, to match it, asphalt shingles on the roof. We’ve got a couple of windows looking out the front. So we’ve got it kind of trying to match the aesthetics of the house more or less. MRS. JENKIN-So you’re going to have storage up on that upper level? MR. HALL-We’ll be utilizing room over attic trusses for storage, up overhead. MR. CLEMENTS-Excuse me. You have some stairs going up there from inside? MR. HALL-From inside. The stairs will only be inside the building, not on the outside. MRS. HUNT-And the driveway will be extended. MR. HALL-Right straight back. MRS. HUNT-Right straight back. MR. HALL-Yes. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Hipp, what do you do for a living? STEVEN HIPP MR. HIPP-I’m a mechanic. MR. GARRAND-Mechanic. MR. HALL-One of the questions that was asked in Staff Notes is, is Pace Builders planning to operate from this site? No. Pace Builders was the original contractor, and they will be the contractor to build this addition. That’s how it’s set up. They came to me to ask me to do the design for it, for Mr. Hipp. They won’t be operating out of there, and there won’t be any business operating. It’s just for him to store his own personal equipment in. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-Craig, total build out on that property, they’re subject to the 22% FAR on this property? MR. BROWN-No, not on this property. MR. UNDERWOOD-They’re not on this property. MR. HALL-No. We’re in an SFR-1A. I did do a Floor Area Ratio. Right now, it’s a 1.96 acre lot. Right now their FAR is like 4.8 or something like that. MR. UNDERWOOD-I know like my lot is 1.93, and I’m subject to the FAR, and mine was like 14,000 square feet or some crazy number like that. MR. HALL-Right. Yes, I think even with the addition we’re like at 7.9 or 8% or something like that. We’re well under, and it’s a long, I mean, the setbacks are, it’s a long ways to the back of that lot. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Board members want to ask any questions? MR. DRELLOS-That one garage door, how wide is that, is that 16 feet? MR. HALL-Sixteen feet wide. MR. DRELLOS-Sixteen feet wide. MR. HALL-Yes. MR. DRELLOS-How big is your boat? MR. HALL-It’s a 38 foot? MR. HIPP-No, it’s 26 foot. MR. HALL-Twenty-six foot, with the trailer and the (lost word) and everything and the motor behind it. By the time we get all done, we’re 36 or 38, 33. MR. HIPP-The classic car in the center, and three classic motorcycles. So that I don’t hit anything backing in. That was the only intent. MR. HALL-Yes. The intent is just to have one big door to hit when you’re backing in a trailer and trying to hit a smaller door. MR. DRELLOS-Can the upstairs be livable or no? MR. HALL-No. It won’t be finished off. There won’t be any plumbing in it. It’s just, it’s strictly storage. MRS. JENKIN-And then is that going to be a little lower than your house? Will you go down to it, or will it be on a level? MR. HIPP-It does slope a little bit. MRS. JENKIN-It does slope down a little bit. MR. HIPP-Yes. MR. HALL-Yes, it drops down a little bit. We’ll have to do enough grading so that any water that comes down that driveway, you know, we can push that off so it doesn’t come back into the drive. The last thing I want to do is design him a garage that fills up with rain water. MRS. JENKIN-Yes. The problem is, is ice build up in the winter. Because we have that in our house. MR. HALL-Yes. It’s not a paved driveway. It’s a crushed stone. MRS. JENKIN-It is? Okay. MR. HALL-Yes, it’s a crushed stone gravel driveway so it’s not an issue with that. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/08) MRS. JENKIN-That’ll be better. MR. CLEMENTS-Is that the way you’re going to leave that, too, when you continue that driveway down, you’re going to leave that crushed stone? MR. HALL-With crushed stone? MR. HIPP-I haven’t even decided. Actually I would like to pave it in the future, sure. I wanted to put like a basketball court for my son, with a hoop, so he can play ball in the driveway, but other than that, I mean, so that, yes, I probably would pave it, yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Does anybody else have questions? MR. DRELLOS-You’re going to come right straight from the driveway right into it? MR. HALL-Yes. There won’t be a turnaround or anything made. The boat will just be backed right up the driveway and right back into the garage. MR. DRELLOS-So you’ll have to take a bunch of these trees in the back out. MR. HALL-Not, the big trees that are in the back there, no. Those are significantly farther back. It was kind of tough, when I was taking the picture, to get that, but in the lower picture, you can see the corner of the house. You can just barely make it out there, and all of those trees that you’re looking at are right on the property line. So this, those pine trees that you see are going to stay. There’s a bunch of scrub, you know, it’s mostly brush, sumac and, you know, some small saplings and stuff, and that’s what we’d be taking down, not the big hedge row between the two properties. That’s all going to stay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else, questions? Okay. I’ll open up the public hearing, then. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on this subject? Sure. Would you come up? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN ANDERSON MR. ANDERSON-My name is John Anderson, 31 Yorkshire Drive. I actually own the property that’s directly next to Mr. Hipp’s house, 113 Tee Hill. My real concern is I don’t want to stop anybody from improving their property and getting the maximum use out of it that they can, but my real concern is what that garage could be used for, in terms of a business, auto repair shop. Mr. Hipp said he’s a mechanic. So, you know, I would be concerned about that kind of a usage, and even if Mr. Hipp says he’s not going to do it, what kind of a situation does that set up for the future owners of that property and what could possibly be used in the future. Also, I was concerned about the runoff. His architect mentioned water in the garage, but where is the water going to go that’s created from the runoff of the roof? Is that going to be channeled over to my property or a neighbor’s property? That type of thing, and also I do think that the situation was self- created. I mean, I met Mr. Hipp once, and he’s a very nice guy, hardworking guy. I admire his existing garage because it dwarf’s mine in size. It was overbuilt by, I’m not sure what the measurements of the existing garage is, but it’s substantial. So, you know, knowing that he had all this extra stuff that he’s bringing with him up from New Jersey, where did he expect to put it? So why wouldn’t he buy a property that would better enable him to store his equipment and his cars in a better place? So that’s pretty much my concern. So, I think the Number One concern of mine is what the garage could be used for in terms of business usage and that type of thing. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak? Any correspondence at all? MRS. JENKIN-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-Nothing. Okay. Then I guess I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys want to come back up and respond to his concerns? 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/08) MR. HALL-I’ll speak to a couple of them. As far as it being used for a commercial use, in that zone we couldn’t, no one could run a business from there, and you can correct me if I’m wrong. You can correct me if I’m wrong. You can’t run a business out of there without Zoning Board Approval. So if somebody moved in and bought that, they’d have to come here to get an approval to have any kind of a commercial use in a Single Family Residential zone. Obviously, if somebody moved in and just started doing that on their own, the neighbors could call up the Town and say there’s a business use going on in our neighborhood, and zoning enforcement would come over and shut it down and make them come through this Board to get that approval or denial, however that would be set up, and Steve’s got, it’s for his own personal stuff. He’s not going to, he works as a mechanic, eight, ten hours a day. He doesn’t want to come home and do it at night, too. As far as the roof water coming off the building, we’re going to install eaves trenches, French drains along both sides, so that the water comes down, goes into the ground. It’s a very, very porous soil out there. When we did the perc tests for the septic system, the water perked at about three minutes per inch which is, that’s great. I mean, it’s good gravelly soil. The water drains off fairly well and is going to drop right into those, and the same coming off the edges of the driveway. I mean, if, in fact, it does get paved, we would put swales along the edge of the driveway to contain any of that water, get it into the ground before it runs off. MR. CLEMENTS-You don’t have that in these plans right here now, though, right? MR. HALL-As far as the eaves trenches? MR. CLEMENTS-Right. MR. HALL-Yes, we can add that. I mean, I don’t know if it’s on that set of plans there or not. Brian, it’s probably not on the Site Plan. I didn’t, but we can add that, that’s certainly something we can put on the drawings as a condition. MR. GARRAND-I have to echo Mr. Anderson’s concerns, because I’ve seen instances where a barn was approved for a property, and shortly after it was constructed there were four pickup trucks, three trailers, about a half dozen lawn tractors. This place just looked like a sales for lawn equipment, and it was in a residential area that this was approved for, and it wasn’t what this Board anticipated, and it’s what the applicant told us wasn’t going to happen there. That’s most recently in my memory, after an approval like this. MR. HALL-And again, you know, if, in fact, that is the case, that can be brought to the Zoning Board, you know, the zoning enforcement officer’s attention that it looks like there’s a commercial use being run out of the property. It’s not the intent. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else? MRS. JENKIN-Well, my concern was the drainage, but if you say that you’re going to make sure that there’s, because with more blacktop or however you’re going to put concrete or wherever on the driveway, there will be runoff, and if you make sure that there’s good ditches and everything so it doesn’t go on your neighbor’s property, that would be extremely important. MR. HALL-Absolutely. MRS. JENKIN-That would be a condition. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else? Okay. Then I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-And I guess I’ll poll the Board. Brian, do you want to go first? MR. CLEMENTS-Sure. I think this looks like a good project. I can commiserate with you about having a boat. I have one in my side yard right now I’d like to put under cover, too. I think that, with the condition that the proper drainage is put in there, and of course you wouldn’t be able to use it for any kind of a commercial kind of thing because you’d have to go for a Use Variance anyway. Other than that, I would favor this application. MR. UNDERWOOD-Joan? 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/08) MRS. JENKIN-Okay. I also feel that the condition needs to be put in about the drainage. I don’t think it’s an undesirable change in the neighborhood because it’s well back from the road, and it’s well back from the neighbor’s house, too. It won’t be, and you’re not taking a lot of trees down. You’re not changing the character at all. The request is substantial because of the second building, but you’re trying to make it look like the other home, and I think that I’ve seen that when the second garages have been built to house all this stuff that people have, and it really does improve the character more than anything else. I don’t think it’ll have any adverse physical or environmental effects, and it probably is self-created because we all have too much stuff now, especially when you’re a collector. So I would be agreeable to this variance. MR. UNDERWOOD-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Yes. I think the fact that it’s a second garage, your other garage is attached to the house and is not visible from the street. So this really would not look like two garages. I don’t think the request is extensive, and I don’t think there’ll be any bad effects on the neighborhood or community. I think this is going to be an attractive addition. I would like to add a condition to the variance, though, that it would not be used for commercial purposes, and I would be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. George? MR. DRELLOS-I would be in favor of this project. The only one I would have a problem with is whether the request is substantial. I think it’s pretty good sized for a garage, 1,000 square feet, or a little over that I think, 1,088, yes. It’s a pretty good sized garage. It wouldn’t take much more to be a small house, actually, but, I mean, for your boat, and I understand that, and so I would be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Rich? MR. GARRAND-While I am a bit leery about that, I would also agree that there would have to be a condition for no for profit activities take place from this structure. I do have some reservations, but at this point I’d be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-My only concerns with it would probably be the fact, I mean, you’ve portrayed it as a storage barn, you know, it’s got the two overhead doors, and as far as, if you want to be wrenching on your own vehicle, that’s fine, but I wouldn’t expect to see, you know, other people’s cars worked on in your free time, etc. The neighborhood over there is essentially Rural Residential and, you know, it’s a responsibility of you. I mean, you’ve got all the toys to play with and stuff like that, but remember you have neighbors and it’s not a free for all out there. You’ve got almost two acres of land. This building, even though it’s a big request because it’s a second garage, in essence, it’s set well back from the road. It’s not going to have any effect on the neighborhood character as far as I see, and I think as long and you’re reasonable with your use of it, and you use it for what you have asked for, then I don’t really have a problem with it, either. I mean, I guess I could ask you to build it at 900 square feet, but it probably wouldn’t be able to accommodate the three vehicles. So I think there was a thought process involved with the request. It wasn’t just simply picking a number and going with it that way. So I’ll thank you for that. Plus I think the fact that it’s going to look like a house, you know, you’re going to take the time to make it look nice, and certainly when you’ve got all those things, like we all have, it’s better than having crap scattered all over two acres of land for everybody to look at, and I think I would just request that you maintain it properly and don’t use it as a free for all contest. Does somebody want to make a motion? MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-2008 STEVEN HIPP, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: 103 Tee Hill Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 1,088 square foot freestanding garage. The applicant requests 188 square feet of relief from the 900 square foot maximum allowable size for a garage, and for relief to have a second garage on the property. Whether this could be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant, he has made the point that it could not be. There will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood or character. The building is going to look like the house, and it’s way back from the road. The request is substantial in the fact that it’s for a second garage, but the two garages that he has now are not visible from the street. So it will not look like a second garage. There will be no adverse physical or environmental 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/08) effects on the neighborhood or community, and it’s self-created only in the fact that Mr. Hipp wants a place for storage. I would like to add a condition that no commercial use of this freestanding garage would be used, and that all stormwater be contained on site from the new building. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of April, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Urrico MR. HALL-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II LYNETTE AND SCOTT WIGGINS OWNER(S): LYNETTE AND SCOTT WIGGINS ZONING: SR-20 LOCATION: 30 FAWN LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN ABOVE-GROUND SWIMMING POOL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 2008-078 POOL; BP 99-002 SFD; BP 2002-648 DECK AND PORCH; BP 2006-698 RES. ALT. 2-CAR GARAGE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.23 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.18-1-62 SECTION: 179-5-020 LYNETTE WIGGINS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 18-2008, Lynette and Scott Wiggins, Meeting Date: April 23, 2008 “Project Location: 30 Fawn Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 15 x 30 above ground oval pool. Relief Required: Applicant requests 12.17 feet of relief from the 20 sf minimum rear setback required for a pool. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would gain a pool. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited due to the location of the home on the lot. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The requested 12.17 ft. of relief from the 20 ft minimum equates to a 61% variance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: The property to the rear of this lot is shown as “common area,” presumably under the control of the Homeowners Association. The pool is proposed behind the home in a fenced in yard and minimal adverse impacts are anticipated. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2008-078 pool pending BP 2006-698 2 car garage addition c/o issued 2/6/07 BP 2002-648 deck & porch addition c/o issued 9/25/02 BP 99-002 SFD c/o issued 4/6/99 Staff comments: 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/08) Note additions to survey map ( Garage, deck and porch ) appear to have been added by property owner? Does the map submitted accurately reflect current site conditions? SEQR Status: Type II” MR. UNDERWOOD-Anything you wish to add, or do you want to tell us what you’re proposing here? MRS. WIGGINS-It seems pretty laid out. We just want to put an above ground pool in the back yard. There isn’t a lot of space in the back yard. We decided to do an oval pool, if we could, instead of a round pool, to try and minimize the variance that we’d need. We do have a couple of neighbors, one on one side of us that has a pool, and one that’s a few houses down that did end up getting a 10 foot variance. So this is pretty close to that. That’s it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Staff noted that you had, the garage, deck and porch were not on the survey. Is that just, were they there when you purchased it, or were those added on later on? MRS. WIGGINS-They were added on, yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but they have a building permit and all? MRS. WIGGINS-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MRS. WIGGINS-I do have a copy of the garage plan that we submitted when we did that. I don’t know if that’s something that you want. MR. UNDERWOOD-We’ll take your word on it. MRS. WIGGINS-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any questions from Board members? MR. DRELLOS-You have a fence already around the property? MRS. WIGGINS-We do, yes. It’s open on one side, because when we finished the addition, the gentleman who was supposed to come back and finish it never came back. So once we get the pool, if that goes through, then we’ll go ahead and finish the fence. MR. DRELLOS-What is it, a six foot fence? MRS. WIGGINS-Six foot. MR. DRELLOS-Six foot, and the pool is four feet high? MRS. WIGGINS-Yes. MRS. HUNT-I have a question. You have a shed, and I think you said that was going to be moved? MRS. WIGGINS-It is going to be moved. We’re going to put it kitty corner, five feet from the property line, towards the edge of the garage. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else? MR. GARRAND-What’s the position of the filter and all that going to be, relative? MRS. WIGGINS-The filter will go at the very end by where the shed is and where the garage is, hoping to put it at the end there, because I didn’t really want to put it by the house, because I wanted to make sure that that was open, because there’s really not a lot of space from the pool to the actual house. So that seems to have the most space right there, so, at the end. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/08) MR. GARRAND-Can you hear your neighbor’s filter at night? MRS. WIGGINS-No, I can’t, actually. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Because those lots are rather small, and a lot of times some of the people have pools and you can hear somebody’s filter grinding away in the middle of the night. MRS. WIGGINS-No, I never have, and they also have a fence. I mean, I don’t know if that would make a difference, we have a fence and they also have a fence. So hopefully that would minimize that. MR. GARRAND-I know some people utilize putting the filters in sheds in order to minimize noise. MRS. WIGGINS-Well, the other thing is the shed will be kitty corner in that property, in that area, so that may block some of the noise, too. I don’t, I’ve never looked into putting the filter in the shed. So I’m really not sure. MR. GARRAND-Yes. Anything you can do to minimize the impacts on your neighbors is good. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else? All right, I’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on this subject tonight? Seeing no one, we have no correspondence I would take it. MRS. JENKIN-No. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Just in general to the Board, I think everybody’s pretty much on the page with these. In other words, we’ve granted numerous pool requests through the years, and traditionally we, unless there’s some major opposition from the neighborhood, we usually don’t have a problem with it. MRS. JENKIN-The thing is that the lots are so shallow. It really, it’s quite amazing, and it’s a very private back yard right now. MR. UNDERWOOD-I guess we can blame the Planning Board, because they approved it. Right? The subdivision. Anybody else have a problem with it, or any other concerns? MR. DRELLOS-Yes, I don’t have a problem with it. MR. CLEMENTS-No, I think I just wanted to add that there’s common area behind that, and, you know, that’s a buffer kind of, too. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, not everybody in that subdivision has that common area, though. So, I mean, that’s something to be concerned with if we get some down the road, you know, then you’re going to have to do the balancing test more on the small lot. MRS. WIGGINS-We have quite a large area behind us. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. All right. Anything anybody wants to add? Does somebody want to make a motion, then? MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me. Did you want to close the public hearing? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. GARRAND-I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-2008 LYNETTE AND SCOTT WIGGINS, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Drellos: 30 Fawn Lane. The applicant proposes construction of a 15 by 30 above ground oval pool. The applicant is requesting 12.17 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum rear 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/08) setback required for a pool. For the balancing test, can the benefits be achieved by other means feasible? It doesn’t appear so. Will this pool addition produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood or character to the nearby properties? Many of the other neighbors in this subdivision have pools and those that abut to the common area, it doesn’t seem to have any undesirable change to the neighborhood. The request might be deemed substantial, given the amount of relief asked for here. Will the request have adverse physical or environmental impacts? Well, we haven’t had any yet from any pool additions in this area. I haven’t seen any, and I don’t foresee any adverse impacts with the addition of this above ground pool, and this difficulty may be interpreted as self- created, in that it is the applicant that wants the pool. So I move that we approve Area Variance No. 18-2008. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of April, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Urrico MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. You’re all set. MRS. WIGGINS-Okay. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Go get your building permit. AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II RONALD J. DU FOUR AGENT(S): TONY CATONE OWNER(S): RONALD J. DU FOUR ZONING: UR-10 LOCATION: 16 LYNN AVENUE APPILCANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2-CAR GARAGE WITH OVERHEAD STORAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 2006-240 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: APRIL 9, 2008 LOT SIZE: 0.17 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.16-1-75 SECTION: 179-4- 030 RONALD DU FOUR, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 17-2008, Ronald J. DuFour, Meeting Date: April 23, 2008 “Project Location: 16 Lynn Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of an 832 sf freestanding garage. Relief Required: Applicant requests 8 of relief from the 10 sf minimum side setback requirement of the Urban Residential (UR-10) zone. Note: The plot plan shows a 3 foot setback to the garage while the application materials show a 2 foot setback. Clarification is needed. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would gain an enclosed garage / storage area. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a smaller structure and relocation to a more compliant location….(nearer the center of the property ). 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The requested 8 feet of relief from the 10 foot requirement equates to an 80% variance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: A letter submitted with the application from Adrianne Borho appears to acknowledge the proposed construction, however, Town records indicate the listed owner of 14 Lynn Ave to be Girard. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/08) 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2006-240 SFD c/o issued 9/7/06 BP 2008-071 832 sf garage pending Staff comments: Note: Town records show the proposed garage to be located on a separate parcel of land (303.16-1-74.1). If approved, parcel consolidation must be a condition of approval, otherwise additional area variances will be necessary as well as a Use Variance to allow an accessory structure on a parcel prior to a principal structure. SEQR Status: Type II” “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form April 9, 2008 Project Name: DuFour, Ronald J. Owner(s): Ronald J. DuFour ID Number: QBY-08- AV-17 County Project#: Apr08-13 Current Zoning: UR-10 Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 2-car garage with overhead storage. Relief requested from side yard setback requirements. Site Location: 16 Lynn Avenue Tax Map Number(s): 303.16-1-75 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The a Applicant proposes construction of a 2-car garage with overhead storage. The garage is to be located 3 ft. from the side property line where a 10 ft. setback is required. The plans show the location of the home and the proposed garage. The applicant included a letter from the neighboring property indicating no objection to the project. According to the suggested review criteria of the NYS General Municipal Law Section 239L applied to the proposed project, Staff recommends no county impact based on the information submitted. Warren County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Tim Lawson, Warren County Planning Board 4/11/08. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. The question I would have for you is are those two lots joined together? MR. DU FOUR-Yes, they are. What happened was, I own property on 14 Lynn. I own the three lots, they were three 50 foot lots. As you know down there the lots are very small. So, what I did was when I sold that piece of property to, which it says Girard, which is now Borho because he passed away the year I built his house. He had a motorcycle accident. That’s his fiancé that lives there right now. So what I did was I split that middle parcel up and gave myself 30 feet and gave them 20 feet, and they were supposed to do that with the County when we did that. They never did. This year we got our taxes. My wife, again, asked them to join it. She went up and did all the paperwork. So it should be done. I don’t know what happened there, but they kind of overlooked it the first time. MR. UNDERWOOD-So do we really need this side setback relief, then, if that’s the case? MR. BROWN-Yes, absolutely, and I would, again, suggest that, you know, prior to us issuing a building permit, that we have this all cleared up and we get a consolidation deed and all that stuff. MR. UNDERWOOD-If it’s consolidated, then that? MR. BROWN-Still need the setback relief. MR. UNDERWOOD-You still need it. MR. DU FOUR-And I’m asking for three feet, not the two feet. That’ll give me room. This summer I’m going to put, fence in the whole yard, and that’ll take care of, you know, of room to get beside that garage. I also, the reason, being that I’m trying to put that where the location is, is to meet the setbacks, I tried putting the garage layout all the way to the rear, meeting the rear setback, but where my steps are, in relation to the house, my rock 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/08) wall is like seven feet out from my house, and where the steps are, it comes again, another seven feet, to where it would be really, really tight to get my vehicle in that second bay, and also it would take a lot of room away from my yard, which is only 80 feet at this time, for, you know, my two young kids to play, and stuff like that. To put that garage all the way to the rear, which, like I said, it wouldn’t be really feasible for me, as far as getting my vehicles in the garage, but also concerns would be an additional $2,000 to $2,500, depending on who I went with, to continue my blacktop to the garage, and also there’s a stump there that’s about 30 inches in diameter which would be another, about $500 to remove, and again, I’d have to move my shed and also my kids’ playground that they’ve got back there. I do, at this present time, have my driveway, which is blacktop, pretty close to the line, and to do that 10 foot setback, I’d be like right dead center of my driveway. Like I said, I do have a letter from Adrian Borho, who lives on 14 Lynn now. I have lived in the neighborhood since I was born. My father owned quite a bit of property down there at one time or another. So, I do like the area for my kids and stuff like that, and I’m just trying to get as much use out of my property as possible for what little bit of property I do have. The reason I’m going a 26 by 32 garage, I do have a classic car, plus our two vehicles. I plan on putting all three vehicles in there in the wintertime, and right now my classic car is sitting in a storage unit and I’m paying $130 a month on it. So, other than that, everything’s going to match the house, siding, you know, I’m going to have 30 year architectural shingles on it, windows, the whole nine yards. It’s going to have a stairway going up to the storage area on the rear of the building, instead of taking up space inside the garage, which will be consistent with the Building Codes, as far as railings and all that stuff, and landings. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any Board members have questions at this time? MRS. HUNT-I have a question. What is the width of your blacktop driveway? MR. DU FOUR-It’s 20 feet. MRS. HUNT-Twenty feet. MR. DU FOUR-Yes, it’s 20 feet. MRS. HUNT-It looks wider. MR. DU FOUR-No, it’s 20. MRS. JENKIN-Now you said the garage, you’re going to put three vehicles in it? MR. DU FOUR-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-But it looks like there’s two doors. MR. DU FOUR-There’s two doors, and what I’m going to end up doing is actually putting my antique car on swivels, and it’s going to swivel into the back. That way there I’ve got room for all three vehicles in the winter, and probably chances all my car will sit out anyway, and, at this time, you know, as far as storage purposes goes, my eight by ten storage shed is like bulging at the seams right now with, you know, a lawn mower and snow blower and all that stuff, too. So that’s why I actually went from a 24 to a 26 wide, to get a little more room there, and not dinging, and banging the doors. MR. CLEMENTS-And the stairs that you show here on the back are on the outside of the building? MR. DU FOUR-Yes. They’re on the outside of the building. That was, too, instead of going to a 34 or 36, to drop it down to a 32. MRS. JENKIN-What are you going to do with the area above the garage? MR. DU FOUR-It’s just going to be for storage. Unfortunately, when I built my house, we hit ledge, so I couldn’t put a full basement in. I’ve got a four foot crawl space, and believe it or not it’s pretty difficult to get down in there with kids toys and all that good stuff. MR. CLEMENTS-Is this door crossed off here? You’re still going to have a door on this side? MR. DU FOUR-Yes. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/08) MR. CLEMENTS-This 3 0 door right here has got an X. MR. DU FOUR-We were going to put that on the front. Depending on where they allow us to put the garage is depending on where I put that entrance door. We were discussing possibly putting it in the front, but that would actually take away from the 26 foot, the purpose of me going a little bit wider. MR. GARRAND-There appears to be ample room to move it towards the center of their property more for less relief. When we grant a variance, the variance follows the property. The property owner next door, you know, may not like it years from now. I mean, this is the sort of thing that’s going to be here for many, many years. You never know what’s going to happen in this neighborhood, and, you know, a garage, you know, your neighbor looking at a two story garage, from their property there, you know, they may not like it, you know, it has the potential to devalue the property next door, and that’s one of our considerations, too, is the character of the neighborhood. Is there any way it could be moved towards the center more? MR. DU FOUR-As far as looking at it, I mean, if I moved it to the center more, you know, it’s just going to make it that much more difficult to get into that second bay, with my cars and as it is I’m going with eight foot wide doors on it to actually try, to make that second bay would be pretty difficult. I’m actually trying to pull in on an angle, and with the setback that I’m asking for, I’m already going to end up doing that. The more I go away from that setback or extend that setback more, the farther back I’m going to have to go with the garage to make that corner, and so I’m looking at more expense. I started out at one price, and then the next thing I know, I could do it on a monolithic slab. I got the permit in and they said, you’ve got to put four foot frost walls and then, you know, I was looking at another $2,500 for that, and I started out with one price, and it just keeps on snowballing. MR. GARRAND-Welcome to construction. MR. DU FOUR-It’s crazy, but I can’t see where, you know, I’m lenient because I want to get the garage up, but, you know, I want it, I want to make it as easy as possible, as far as getting vehicles and stuff in there. To put it where I want to put it is going to be pretty much in line with her garage that’s next door. She has a one and a half car garage with attic space up on top. So I’m trying to keep it all in uniform with my neighbors. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. MR. DU FOUR-Yes, thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else have questions? All right. I’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on this subject? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-We do have that one letter, right? MRS. JENKIN-Yes, do you want me to read it? MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. “To Whom It May Concern:” March 13, 2008 is the date, “I, Adrian Borho, of 14 Lynn Avenue, give permission for Ronald and Tanya DuFour of 16 Lynn Avenue, Queensbury to build their garage as close the property line as they find necessary.” That’s signed by Adrian Borho. MR. UNDERWOOD-So it looks like there’s still going to be about over 20 feet between her garage and your garage, in essence? MR. DU FOUR-Correct. When I did the separation of the properties, that was one of the contingencies, that we had to have at least 20 feet from the garage to the property line. So that’s why we met that. So it’s going to be at least 23 feet plus. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. DRELLOS-You couldn’t sneak the garage over just even a couple of feet, two, three feet? 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/08) MR. DU FOUR-I mean, the farther we go, the farther back, like I said, we’re going to have to go, because of the grade of the house is three feet higher than the driveway. So I’m going to have to cut that material out, which is getting close to the septic system. So I’m trying to keep that as far away as possible to stay away from the cost, as far as excavation work also. MRS. JENKIN-What kind of fence are you putting in? MR. DU FOUR-It’s going to be a stockade, six foot fence, or, I mean, I don’t know. I’m not actually, she’s got one idea and I’ve got another. So I don’t really know at this time exactly what kind of garage. She was, actually the neighbor was talking about putting a garage up, or a fence up, and she was going to go with a stockade fence. MRS. JENKIN-The concern is, with a six foot fence there, when it’s a solid fence like that, you’ve only got three feet, and then you’ve got snow. In the winter, it’s going to pile up against the fence, and that three foot area is going to be really unusable. Now it’s open, but. MR. DU FOUR-Right. MRS. JENKIN-Then it’s going to be. MR. UNDERWOOD-How about the width of the garage, because, you know, with the two doors, I don’t really see why you’ve got to have that separate access door, you know, on the front. You could stick it on the side, and that would solve that problem, even narrow you down a little bit. I don’t think it’s going to, as far as where you’re proposing the building, it doesn’t make any sense to shift it back behind the house. I mean, you’ve got a small yard anyway, and it’s going to chop that down. MR. DU FOUR-Yes. I mean, as far as where the man door goes, is really ineffective of where. MR. UNDERWOOD-He’s not really going to affect the side setback, where you propose to put it. MR. DU FOUR-No, correct. MRS. JENKIN-Could you make it narrower? MR. DU FOUR-The garage itself? No, because it’s already, I mean, a regular two car garage is 24 by 24, and the purpose of going a little bit wider was to, you know, have a little more room for the doors and to put stuff on the sides. The trusses are already at Curtis Lumber. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Any other questions from the Board? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-And I guess I’ll poll the Board. George, do you want to go first? MR. DRELLOS-Could you make, instead of 26, make it 24, but go deeper with it? Just to make up the difference? Do you know what I’m saying? What is it 32 feet, it’s pretty long now. MR. DU FOUR-Yes. It’s 32 feet right now as it is. MR. DRELLOS-Well, I guess my main concern is just it’s so close to the property line, three feet. That’s pretty substantial, as far as that goes. I mean, I don’t know if he has an option of moving it, maybe narrowing the garage down a little bit, but if there is no other option, then I guess I would be in favor of the project. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I think I feel the same way. It’s really close to that line, but with the way the property is and the way the house is right now, it looks like the best possible spot. So I guess I would reluctantly be in favor of it, although I think they may have some problems, as Joan said, with snow and things like that, if you put a fence up there, but it 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/08) is, as I looked at it, it’s really quite a distance from the other garage next door. So, I don’t think it would look as bad because you don’t really know where the line goes down through there. So I guess I would be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I have to agree with my two fellow Board members. I would agree with it. I think the point has been made about a stump that would have to be removed and the angle of getting into the garage, and so I would be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Joan? MRS. JENKIN-I think it’s going to be a very imposing structure, especially when the house next door is a very small home, and then you’ll have, you have your home that’s up higher, and it’s a very large home, and adding to the garage, adding the garage to that piece of property, when that’s also going to be a very large structure, I think it’s going to be kind of overpowering for your neighbors. I would like to see it a little smaller, myself, or longer, and narrower. I don’t know. I don’t think that I’m in favor of this. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich? MR. GARRAND-I’d have to agree with Joan. I think her choice of words imposing was right on the money on this. I go through the balancing test, and the first one, whether benefits can be achieved by other means feasible. I think it is feasible. So, I’d have to be against this at this point, this current proposal. MR. UNDERWOOD-In looking at the design of it, it is, as has been mentioned, pretty close to the property line, but I mean, I don’t think you could do anything, I mean, if you want a two car garage, 24 is about as small as you can go unless you’re going to park mini cars in there or something like that. I think that, you know, even if we made it two foot narrower, it’s still not going to make that much difference. You’re only going to increase the setbacks by two feet on the property line, and I think it would just be incumbent upon you, if we give you approval for this, that you build it in the right place, because, you know, you’re right on the margin there. I mean, all the snow’s going to go off on the neighbor’s yard and it’s not something that we normally see. I mean, down on that part of Town, I mean, there’s plenty of examples of two car garages on small lots. I mean, you’re not going to be the only one down there, but it’s probably something that we don’t want to see on a regular basis, but, in this case here, I think, you know, you have a need for the garage. It’s a small lot. What are you going to do? As you said, you don’t have storage space in the cellar. So, it’s certainly convenient to have that storage space above the garage as proposed. So I guess I’ll reluctantly go along with it. Does somebody want to make a motion? MR. CLEMENTS-I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-2008 RONALD J. DUFOUR, Introduced by Brian Clements who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 16 Lynn Avenue. The applicant proposes construction of an 832 square foot freestanding garage. The relief required is the applicant requests eight feet of relief from the 10 foot minimum side setback requirement of the Urban Residential UR-10 zone. Note: The plot plan shows a three foot setback to the garage while the application materials show a two foot setback. Clarification is needed. I believe we’ve done that. I’d also like to make the condition that if approved the parcel consolidation must be a condition, because if it isn’t, otherwise, other additional variances will be necessary. Looking at the balancing act, will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties? It doesn’t look like it would. Can the benefit sought be achieved by a method feasible for the applicant other than the Area Variance? I don’t think so. This is a small lot. So it looks like the best possible spot for it. Is the request substantial? It is, but looking at the setback of the garage next door, it really has a 20 foot distance from that other garage. So I would say that, even though it’s substantial, it would be all right. Will it affect the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood? No. Is the difficulty self-created? I would say, yes, it is, but I would say that we should approve the variance. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of April, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/08) NOES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Garrand ABSENT: Mr. Urrico MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. You’re all set. MR. DU FOUR-Thank you. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 16-2008 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED KEN ERMIGER d/b/a ADVENTURE RACING AGENT(S): STEFANIE BITTER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S): KEN ERMIGER ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 1079 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 96 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN INCORPORATING A 32 SQ. FT. BLOCK LETTER MESSAGE BOARD. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT FOR FREESTANDING SIGNS. CROSS REF.: BP 2008-053 SIGN; SUP 3-2006 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: APRIL 9, 2008 LOT SIZE: 5.60 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.12-1-5.2 SECTION: 140-6 STEPHANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 16-2008, Ken Ermiger d/b/a Adventure Racing, Meeting Date: April 23, 2008 “Project Location: 1079 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of an 96 sf freestanding sign. Relief Required: Applicant requests 32 sf of relief from the 64 sf maximum allowable size for a freestanding sign per section 140-6 of the Sign Ordinance. Criteria for considering an Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would gain additional advertising signage. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a smaller sign and/or an increased setback from the property lines. Perhaps relocation of the sign out of a parking space and into the landscaping area would be possible. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The requested 32 sf of relief from the 64 sf requirement equates to a 50% variance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Will the granting of the requested relief trigger other, surrounding commercial properties to request similar relief? 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Special Use Permit 3-2006 Amusement Center c/o issued 9/7/06 BP 2008-053 96 sf sign approved 3/28/06 Staff comments: Has the sign or a portion of the sign been constructed already? SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted” 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/08) “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form April 9, 2008 Project Name: Ermiger, Ken d/b/a Adventure Racing Owner(s): Ken Ermiger ID Number: QBY-08-SV-16 County Project#: Apr08-15 Current Zoning: HC-Int. Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 96 sq. ft. sign incorporating a 32 sq. ft. block letter message board. Relief requested from maximum size requirement for freestanding signs. Site Location: 1079 State Route 9 Tax Map Number(s): 295.12-1-5.2 Staff Notes: Sign Variance: The applicant proposes construction of a 96 sq. ft. sign incorporating a 32 sq. ft. block letter message board. The applicant will be utilizing the existing sign to add a reader board where the size sign allowed is no greater than 64 sq. ft. and the total sign proposed would be 96 sq. ft. The information submitted shows the sign to be located 41 +/- sq. ft. from the Route 9 Property Line and 34 +/- ft. on the north property line. According to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law Section 239L applied to the proposed project, staff recommends no county impact based on the information submitted. Warren County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Tim Lawson, Warren County Planning Board 4/11/08. MR. BROWN-And just a clarification on the Staff Notes. The Sign Permit, Building Permit 2008-053 for the 96 square foot sign, that’s a typo. That hasn’t been issued. That’s still pending. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Stephanie, has, that part underneath that’s already there? MS. BITTER-I was going to clarify that. It is actually the sign, if you’ve gone to the site, that’s the sign that’s actually at issue today. I actually went to the Town today to try to talk to Craig, but I don’t think he was there today. Everybody deserves a day off. The sign permit had been applied for in February, and then a variance was applied for in March and I assumed that it was issued to the owner, and it didn’t come to our office, and that was my bad. When I went there today, Sue Hemingway had informed me that unfortunately the file was still there and it just hadn’t been reviewed as of yet. I’m not sure if that’s because of the variance that had come in. I’m not really sure of the particulars. MR. UNDERWOOD-So was that the original sign that was permitted then? MS. BITTER-This is a new sign, compared to what was there originally. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. That’s what I thought. MS. BITTER-So that’s why we had submitted the permit before we submitted the variance, because I was trying to allow it to have some leeway. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Board members have any questions about what’s going on or what the process was, how we got to here? MRS. HUNT-This is the sign that is going to be? MS. BITTER-This is the sign. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s there. MS. BITTER-The only thing that’s being requested is actually what I call the block letter message board, which is this area here, that the applicant’s trying to add that for purposes of announcing birthday parties, special events, as well as specials. His thing is that obviously this is a big tourist community. That’s one of the great things about this area, and these tourists obviously don’t know what the specials are. They’re not reading the newspaper to keep up to date. So this will allow them to know, you know, a day pass will be $25.00, giving them an opportunity to stop at the facility, and as you’re aware, if you’re driving up that corridor, a lot of the other facilities there do have similar message boards. I was driving there tonight. There’s Fun Spot, Sport Plex I think is what it’s referred to as now, the next lot. There’s also restaurants up the road, Sweet Basil, China Buffett, that have these block letter message boards. So that’s something we’re trying to incorporate. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-So prior you just had that upper section on there, and the old sign that was there? MS. BITTER-Right, it was actually a different shape. When I actually looked it up on the picture on line, it was more of a diamond shape, to say. MRS. JENKIN-So this, where you want to put the new sign, that was actually the base? MS. BITTER-Right, it has the base that’s there. MRS. JENKIN-That was going to be the base. MS. BITTER-Right. MRS. JENKIN-And did they anticipate putting another sign on? MS. BITTER-They weren’t sure. It was something, I don’t know. I wasn’t a part of the design process, but I know it came up after the fact. MR. GARRAND-I don’t think you were a part of the planning process, because Mr. Vollaro asked Mr. Lapper. MS. BITTER-Right, I did see that in the Staff Notes, that at that time there was no anticipated changes, but you know in a couple of years, things change. I did see that as well, and the one thing I did want to point out, I know it’s in the application, but just to draw the Board’s attention to it. The original sign was 15 feet from the property line. Mr. Ermiger had pushed this sign back an additional 25 feet. So where it’s located right now is 41 feet from the actual property line. So it’s even further back than a normal size sign of 64 square feet would be located. MR. CLEMENTS-Was the sign where that pile of rocks is right now? Was that where the first sign was? MS. BITTER-I believe so. That’s at least what the picture, right there in the right hand corner, gives me the idea that that’s the location. MRS. JENKIN-So the question, has the sign or a portion of the sign been constructed already, it’s all been constructed. MS. BITTER-Right, it’s there. I cannot tell a lie. MR. CLEMENTS-But, I have a question for Craig. The dimensions on this sign right now, as you look at it right now, it doesn’t have the bottom part on here. This is going to be lettering here, although it’s all ready to be filled in. The top part of the sign says it’s 12 foot by 6 foot. Seventy-square feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-Minus the angles. MR. CLEMENTS-Minus the angles. Can you tell me what the square footage of that part of the sign is? I mean, it’s supposed to be, 64 square feet is the Code, right? MR. BROWN-Right. That’s the maximum allowable. MR. CLEMENTS-I should ask you if you know that. MR. BROWN-Well, based on this drawing, I guess you can’t really tell because they don’t give you that straight side of the house kind of angle, before you get to the roof. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. So it’s less than 72 square feet. MR. BROWN-Less than 72 square feet. MR. CLEMENTS-So that would almost be in compliance if they didn’t put the, have the bottom part of this thing in there? MR. BROWN-If it’s 64 square feet, that would be in compliance. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, as you mention, a lot of other places have got these, you know, event signs underneath around Town, but I mean, it’s, every time we do another one it sort of puts the stamp of approval on them all. MR. CLEMENTS-I have to say, though, as I drove up and down the road, and looked at the other signs there, there are some signs that are larger than that sign, some that are quite a bit larger, and there are some that are, you know, some that are a little bit smaller, but there are a lot of them that are that size. MRS. JENKIN-With the addition you mean? MR. CLEMENTS-With the addition. Well, I don’t know, whether they had variances for those, but I haven’t been here that long. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else have anything they want to ask? MRS. JENKIN-So, Craig, if it was moved back, they, then a larger sign would be allowed? MR. BROWN-No, maximum is 64 square feet. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. MR. DRELLOS-But because it’s moved back, the appearance looks to be smaller, farther back. MR. BROWN-That’s what you’re going to decide tonight. MR. UNDERWOOD-And it’s all one business. It’s not like it’s separate businesses operating out of the same joint. MR. DRELLOS-Well, that’s the way it appears anyway. I think it fits in. I don’t really see a problem with it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Well, I’m going to open the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TOM MC DONOUGH MR. MC DONOUGH-Good evening. My name’s Tom McDonough. I live at 28 Twicwood Lane. I also operate a business right across the street, 1088 State Route 9. I took the file today and I didn’t see any pictures in the file of what the sign was, and I thought the sign he already put up was already approved. I have no problem with the sign the way he put it in. It looks good. The only question I would have is, and it’s not that far off of a variance, if as Craig says it’s only about, what 67 square feet, angles off and everything else. MR. BROWN-What’s proposed is 96 total, with the top and the bottom reader board, and what’s allowed is 64. MR. MC DONOUGH-Okay. Well, the only question there is whether or not you’re going to establish a new standard for signage, but quite frankly, the sign is a nicer looking sign now than the one that he had before, that he’s replaced, and he also moved it back towards the, well he moved it back away from the road. It does look pleasant. So it’s up to you people. I’m not complaining against Ken. He’s a good businessman. I don’t want to cause him any difficulties. MR. GARRAND-Could I ask you a question? MR. MC DONOUGH-Sure. MR. GARRAND-What are your plans for increasing the size of the sign in front of your business? MR. MC DONOUGH-Well, that opens a question, because, quite frankly, I’m a lawyer. So it’s not a problem, and I’m going to be 75. So that’s not a problem either because I’m not looking for business, okay. I think what the point you’re going to be addressing with 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/08) respect to that is not only the 96 square foot issue, okay, it’s not just going to be the community on Route 9. It’s going to be the community on Quaker Road, Aviation Road, Route 9 below the intersection, and quite frankly, if it’s done decently, maybe the Code ought to be changed, because it’s not, the sign that you see there, that’s proposed, which is this one right here, which if I had a picture of it I probably wouldn’t have even appeared here tonight, it’s in the purview and venue of what goes on on the corridor, okay. Now, this may not go for all the areas in the Town, and you try to address all the areas with the one brush of the paint, but you asked me a question. Am I going to make a new big sign? No. MR. GARRAND-Well, thirty years ago, what would you have done? MR. MC DONOUGH-Well, now I was here 30 years ago when they put the Sign Ordinance in, and we had the greatest antique sign, we also operate Graycourt Motel which is right across the street. We had an antique sign there which had rotating lights, the old bulbs, you know, marquee, 1940’s type of thing with the circle on the top with a big “G”. Made us take all that stuff off and finally said, hey, just took the sign out and got rid of it. Today it would be a landmark. They tried to do the same thing with the rooster at that time down at the Martha’s. They wanted them to take the rooster. They said the rooster hasn’t done anything, hasn’t even crowed at six o’clock in the morning. They left the rooster. Okay. So I guess times do bring your attention to different issues. Thirty years ago, well, let me say this, 30 years ago, Route 9 as you see it today didn’t exist. th We’re there, this is our 45 season in the Graycourt Motel. I don’t want to give you history on this, but Aviation Road didn’t exist, okay. That little road that comes down next to McDonald’s was Aviation Road. Okay. The area where, they’ve got a new area right on Route 9 didn’t exist. Miller Hill was a hill that was barren on both sides of the road, except for Ray Supply and what is now the, well, McDonalds was there. MR. GARRAND-Zayre was there. MR. MC DONOUGH-No, Zayre didn’t exist. MR. GARRAND-Didn’t exist then? MR. MC DONOUGH-Didn’t exist. As a matter of fact the old Miller House, on top, which is known as Miller Hill, there was a house there. That was the Miller Family who owned from there all the way down to Glens Falls. None of that development was there. So if you ask me what, 30 years ago, I wouldn’t have even thought about this 30 years ago. It wasn’t one of those things that would even be in your imagination, and you thought you imagined pretty good when you were young, okay. So you put me back in another spot. I can’t answer your question. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Thank you. MR. MC DONOUGH-You’re very welcome. As I said, if the picture was there, I probably wouldn’t have come here, but you all have a good night. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. We’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-I guess we’ll poll the Board and see what you want to do. Rich, do you want to go first? MR. GARRAND-Sure. I’m not really into setting precedents on this. I think the sign being pulled back is a positive move, but I don’t agree with setting any kind of precedent on this. I can see right now, the Sign Ordinance was put in for a reason, and basically Route 9 is a reflection of what this area is. It’s what the tourists see when they drive through here. At this point, I wouldn’t be in favor of this variance. MR. UNDERWOOD-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have to agree. I don’t like to give a variance after the fact. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/08) MS. BITTER-Can I just correct that for a second, because we haven’t put the message board up yet. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, it’s just blank now. MS. BITTER-Right. There’s nothing up. MRS. HUNT-I thought I saw something today. MS. BITTER-There’s this sign that’s there. MRS. HUNT-No, I saw something underneath today. MS. BITTER-This is actually there? MR. UNDERWOOD-The white is there, yes. MRS. HUNT-No, there was some lettering there, I forget, now, what it said. MS. BITTER-That wasn’t brought to my attention. I’m sorry. MRS. HUNT-But anyhow, yes, and I think that we don’t want to set precedent. We don’t set a precedent, but every time we make an adjustment in the size of the signs, other people want to do the same thing. So I would not be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I think I would be in favor of this. As I said, I looked at the rest of the corridor there. There were a lot of signs that were the same, similar size to this. There were many that were larger, a couple that were smaller. I think that the setback is a good idea. So, all in all, I guess I’d be in favor of this. MR. UNDERWOOD-Joan? MRS. JENKIN-I think the comment was made that it’s within the purview of the neighborhood. I think there’s a lot of touristy things going on there, and I think that adding this would not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood, just because it’s announcing to everybody in this touristy area what’s going on. I don’t think it’ll have an adverse physical or environmental effect to anything. I think that their probably, if they didn’t have it at all, it would not make the same benefit to the people because they wouldn’t be able to announce what’s going on. I think that it’s not out of line to ask for this extra, and I would be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-George? MR. DRELLOS-I would tend to agree. I would have to be in favor of it. I don’t think there’s an adverse effect. I think it kind of goes with the rest of them in the area. I guess I would say to Craig that if you’re getting a lot of these Sign Variances, maybe the Town should go back and just re-look at the Code and maybe they should just move it up a little bit to meet what’s happening today. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, when you look at this, we kind of put the cart before the horse on this one, and in essence I think, too, we have to be careful. The Code book is supposed to be, and I think especially with signage, we’ve been real careful. We’ve done some screw ups even on our Board, like when we did Home Depot with the two signs down there, and things like that, and, you know, it’s one thing if you’ve got multiple businesses on site, but the signage up on top pretty much spells out what you’ve got to play with, when you go to the Adventure family fun center, and as far as down below, most people go to the family fun center, you know, for specifically birthday parties and special events. It’s not something that the kids go to every day of the week or something like that. Whether they have free go karts or a snack bar open, try us out, day pass $25.00 or go karts lake george.com on the bottom, I think you could have made that sign a lot more compliant in size. It didn’t need to be nearly as large as what you have there at the present time, and so I think what I would like to see is that you come back with a proposal to shrink that sign down to half or eliminate it completely. I don’t think that it’s out of our purview to consider the fact that, you know, Great Escape’s going to show up and say, well, we’re going to have our specials, you know, saying Americade, or you know, or whatever the special youth group is that’s attending or something like that, or some big festival that’s going on. Marquee signs are supposed to be marquee signs for 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/08) certain places, and there are places for those in Town, but I think for us to reinvent the wheel, after we’ve established, you know, the Sign Code is pretty specific what we’ve been trying to do. It’s a clean up act is essentially what we’ve been doing, and it’s not to make more of a Coney Island atmosphere than we already have or we used to have. So, at this point, I’m not going to be in favor of it. So either you’re going to have to have them pull it or come back with a different proposal, or we can just have the vote. If it goes to a tie vote here, that’s a no vote, in essence. MS. BITTER-All right. I think I’ll take the Chairman’s concerns and actually request that it be tabled until at least I can bring it back to the applicant at this point. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think the other thing you can consider, too, is, I mean, you can always put up temporary banners out there that have the same thing on them, you know, and you could have different ones for different events, and that’s a possibility. You can always put up a temporary banner out underneath there and accomplish the same thing. It doesn’t need to be lit up. It is a seasonal business. I mean, they’re open year round with the part in the back I’m sure, but in essence it’s a seasonal business, but at the same time I don’t think we want to do this for everybody because I can just see a snowball effect of everybody coming in and asking, you know, I want to be able to announce my special events. If it snowballs, like you said, all over Town, that’s not what I’m trying to do here with the Sign Code. So, you want to table it? MS. BITTER-Yes, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I guess what we’ll do is I’ll make a tabling motion. MOTION TO TABLE KEN ERMIGER d/b/a ADVENTURE RACING, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: 1079 State Route 9. Tabled to the first June meeting with a submission deadline of May th 15. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of April, 2008, by the following vote: MR. UNDERWOOD-How soon do you want to come back with something else? th MS. BITTER-I guess I’d have to make the resubmission by May 15, if I modify it. So probably a June meeting. MR. UNDERWOOD-June. AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Urrico MS. BITTER-Thank you very much. MR. UNDERWOOD-And remember, we’re probably going to have seven people by then, because we just named somebody else to the Board. So then you’re going to have the oddball vote. MS. BITTER-I’ll take that into consideration. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. DRELLOS-Motion to adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, James Underwood, Chairman 39