The URL can be used to link to this page

1999-04-21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 21, 1999 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE BONNIE LAPHAM, SECRETARY ROBERT MC NALLY DANIEL STEC CHARLES MC NULTY MEMBERS ABSENT CHRIS THOMAS PAUL HAYES EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CHRIS ROUND PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. STONE-First order of business is a formal resolution for the appointment of the Secretary of the Zoning Board. MOTION TO APPOINT BONNIE M. LAPHAM AS THE SECRETARY OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: Duly adopted this 21 day of April, 1999, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas MR. STONE-Okay. We will hold off the matter of the approval of minutes, because a number of people, we’ll hold that off until next month. OLD BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 16-1999 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A T.L. CANNON CORP. OWNER: AFTAB BHATTI ECONO LODGE PROPERTY, AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES OFF PREMISES SIGN TO ADVERTISE APPLEBEE’S RESTAURANT AND LOWE’S HOME IMPROVEMENT WAREHOUSE AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 3/10/99 CROSS REF. OFF PREMISES SIGN NO. 1-99 TAX MAP NO. 72-5-13 LOT SIZE: 1 ACRE SECTION 140 MR. STONE-I am told the applicant requested that this be tabled until next month, and having said that. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 16-1999 T.L. CANNON CORP., Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec: Tabled until no later than the May meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. We understand that the applicant has been asked to obtain a statement from New York State DOT that they can or cannot put a sign up on the Northway directing motorists to Applebee’s and Lowe’s. Duly adopted this 21 day of April, 1999, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-1999 TYPE II WR-1A CEA MAY SUPPLY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE HONEYSUCKLE LANE, ASSEMBLY POINT APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE CARPORT AND SHEDS AND PROPOSES EXPANSION AND RECONSTRUCTION. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF. SPR 14-99 SEPTIC VARIANCE – TOWN BOARD 4/19/99 SEPTIC VARIANCE – PUBLIC HEARING 5/3/99 BUILDING PERMIT NO. 98-633 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 4/14/99 TAX MAP NO. 8-5-11 LOT SIZE: 0.57 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79 DENNIS DUVALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STONE-As we start this, let me make note that we are going to hear this application, even though we have a policy that any time a variance is required for a septic system it is first heard and approved or denied by the Board of Health, which is the Town Board sitting as the Queensbury Board of Health. Because of information given to us by a member of the Staff, which will be read into the record, we believe that we can hear this thing in anticipation that approval will, in all likelihood, be given by the Board of Health for the septic variance. MRS. LAPHAM-This is April 5, 1999, Zoning Board of Appeals, RE: May Supply Sewage Variance “Dear Board Members: May Supply has currently applied to the Town Board, acting as the Board of Health, for a variance of a new septic system to allow the water from the lake to pass under the sewage line to the septic tank. In order to do this, she is required to obtain a variance from the Board of Health. The variance application is a relatively minor request. My Office will advise the Town Board that it is minimal and recommend approval. It’s just a matter of timing, and her hearing will not be until May 3. The septic system will meet all other aspects of the Sewage Disposal rd Ordinance, and therefore, the variance she has applied for is a very minor variance, which I believe she will receive approval for. If you have any further questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, David Hatin, Director, Building and Code Enforcement”. MR. STONE-Chris, this seems to be a different version of the letter I got with Staff Notes. Is that the latest one? MR. ROUND-This is slightly different. That was a draft version. That shouldn’t have been distributed. MR. STONE-Okay. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 17-1999, May Supply, Meeting Date: April 21, 1999 “Project Location: Honeysuckle Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove an existing carport and reconstruct an enlarged addition. Relief Required: Applicant requests 13 feet of side setback relief from the 20 foot minimum setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, §179-16. Also, since the existing structure does not meet the setback requirements, the applicant is requesting relief for expansion of a non conforming structure, §179-79. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to reconstruct and expand their existing residence. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a reconfiguration of the proposed addition. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 13 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood are 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.): Site Plan Review 99-99 4/27/99 pending Septic Variance 99-9 5/3/99 pending Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action, the proposed demolition and construction actually improves a 3.21 foot setback to a 7 foot setback. The increase in living space requires the applicant to demonstrate that a compliant system can be placed on the property. The applicant has shown that a compliant system can be placed on the property with the exception that a septic variance involving a sewer line/water line crossing is required. A letter from David Hatin, Director of Building and Codes, enclosed herewith, recognizes that the proposed system is adequate in size and substance with the exception of the required variance. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Duvall? 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) MR. DUVALL-My name is Dennis Duvall, and I am May Supply’s agent. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other conditions you want to make, comments you want to make about the application? MR. DUVALL-No. I think we’ll let it stand. I hope everything’s clear. MR. STONE-This is a private system? MR. DUVALL-That’s correct. MR. STONE-It is not part of the Queensbury seasonal water district in that area? MR. DUVALL-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Okay, and the pump is in the house, not in the lake? MR. DUVALL-That’s right. MR. STONE-So there’s a suction, and you said earlier that Mrs. Supply had signed a waiver of? MR. DUVALL-That’s with the septic variance, yes. MR. STONE-Yes. So when that’s heard, there will be a, that will be entered into the record, and I know we’re not talking about the septic variance, but we normally wait until after that’s done. That’s the only reason I’m asking. MR. DUVALL-No, I understand. MR. STONE-Okay. Any questions of the Board? MR. MC NALLY-How many floors will the new addition be? MR. DUVALL-One floor. MR. MC NALLY-Did you ever give any thought to moving the structure over, further away from the line? MR. DUVALL-It’s adjoined to the house at that point, and if we put it on the other side, I think we’d be just as close to the property line on the other side. MR. MC NALLY-As I look at it, you’ve got 60 feet from your new addition to the other line. Is that wrong? MR. STONE-Yes. How wide is the lot? MR. DUVALL-The lot, I think, is about 94 feet at that point. There are a lot of trees on the other side of the house, at that point. MR. MC NALLY-No, I’m not saying on the other side of the house. On the same side, just further from the line. There’s no foundation. There’s nothing there, except a roof. MR. DUVALL-Right. MR. MC NALLY-So there’s nothing, really, that obligates you to build it beneath the carport. MR. DUVALL-No. We're going to remove the carport and try and build it in about the same footprint. MR. MC NALLY-I see. So you’re not even going to use the existing structure. MR. DUVALL-No. It’s falling down as it is. Bonnie saw it today. MR. STONE-So the back of the house, the east side of the house, is going to be just as close to the line as it is now. The extreme east corner of that, behind the. MR. DUVALL-Is that Honeysuckle, toward Honeysuckle Road? 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) MR. STONE-No, toward the lake. MR. DUVALL-Toward the lake? Actually it’s going to be seven feet further from the lake. MR. STONE-No, I understand the Honeysuckle point is. I’m talking about the point on the other side. I mean, as you look at this thing, it appears to me that you’re not changing the back part of the house. MR. DUVALL-That’s right. MR. STONE-Living on the lake, that’s the front of the house, but that’s, I know this house is a strange configuration. MR. DUVALL-Yes. MR. STONE-Any other questions? MRS. LAPHAM-If you’re dealing with a carport, would it change, you know, and made these two bedrooms and moved it over, as it has been suggested, would it ruin the floor plan of the house? MR. DUVALL-It would affect it, yes. We might have to make more alterations inside. MR. MC NULTY-If he moved the garage over, like you’re talking, I think the first thing he would do is cover the main entrance, the house on that side. MR. MC NALLY-This is going to be living area, right? MR. DUVALL-It’s going to be a one stall garage, and a living area. MR. MC NALLY-So it’s going to be used as a garage. MR. DUVALL-A one stall garage, two bedrooms and a bathroom. MR. STONE-Is the south side of this construction parallel to the line? It’s going to be seven foot from front to back? MR. DUVALL-It should be, yes. MR. STONE-Okay. I mean, it’s hard to tell. MR. DUVALL-It’s hard to tell, but I believe it will be. Yes, it’s a little more than three feet now. So we’ll have about seven feet. MR. STONE-It’ll be a uniform seven feet, that’s the point I’m getting at. MR. DUVALL-Yes. MR. STONE-Any other questions? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody speaking in favor of this application? Anybody in favor? Anybody opposed to this application? Anybody opposed? Any correspondence, Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-No. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Okay. Lets talk about it. Lets start with Chuck. MR. MC NULTY-Looking at the house, it strikes me that what they’re proposing is going to improve the appearance of the house. It is going to improve the setback, and as I mentioned earlier, I think if they moved it any further over, they’re going to have to reconstruct the main entrance to the house on that side. So it strikes me that this is probably the only practical place for it to go. So I’d be inclined to approve. MR. STONE-Dan? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) MR. STEC-Well, I agree with Chuck that they are improving the setback on that side of the line. So that makes it easier to consider. Also, I think their alternatives are very limited. I think you’d be looking at a significant change to the floor plan of the house. It’s located pretty far back from the lake. So I’m not concerned about its visual impact from the lake, and I’m inclined to approve. MR. STONE-Mr. McNally? MR. MC NALLY-I agree. They’ve said it all. MR. STONE-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I tend to agree. I think it’s a good project. I don’t see any neighbors complaining. I think it will be an improvement to the neighborhood, actually, because those sheds are, and the carport is rotten and ready to fall down. Mr. Duvall showed me that this afternoon. So I would vote in favor. MR. STONE-Okay. I certainly agree with the rest of the Board. The only comment I would make, I would have loved to have heard from the neighbor on the south. As I say to people, we always hear enough negative, when somebody doesn’t like something. If they like it, we kind of like to hear that, too. It just makes our job a little bit easier, but having said that, I certainly see no reason to deny this application. Who would like to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-199 MAY SUPPLY, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec: Honeysuckle Lane. The applicant proposes to remove an existing carport and construct an enlarged addition, and requests 13 feet of side setback relief from the 20 foot minimum setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16. The existing structure does not meet the current setback requirements, so the applicant is also seeking relief for expansion of a nonconforming structure under Section 179-79. I move the approval for the following reasons. First, the applicant would be permitted to construct and expand their existing residence. Second, the feasible alternatives are limited. While they could reconfigure the entire addition to center it more on the lot, given the fact that the main entrance of the home would thereby be blocked, it’s simply not feasible to have any other alternative. The relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance. They’re asking for 13 feet of relief where they should have a 20 foot setback, but the current setback is something a little bit over 3 feet. So this new addition is going to move it back further from where it currently is to approximately 7 feet. The effects on the neighborhood or community are minimal, and certainly on balance, the interests of the applicant are paramount. The difficulty is not self-created since it’s a problem of the existing structure that causes them to have to place the current addition where they’re planning it. For these reasons, I move the approval, conditional upon compliance with the Town Sewage Disposal Ordinance, or their securing a variance under the Ordinance. Duly adopted this 21 day of April, 1999, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas MR. STONE-There you go. MR. DUVALL-Okay. On behalf of Mrs. Supply, I thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-1999 MR-5 JEFFREY D. HOWARD OWNER: JEFFREY D. HOWARD UNDER CONTRACT TO KAREN WITTE WEST SIDE OF BAY ROAD, ACROSS FROM MAIN ENTRANCE TO ADIRONDACK COMMUNITY COLLEGE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 900 SQ. FT. OFFICE BUILDING AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM BOTH THE SHORELINE AND WETLAND REGULATIONS AND THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FROM THE TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE. CROSS REF. SPR 12-99 AV 95-1990 SPR 32-91 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 4/14/99 TAX MAP NO. 60-7-4.3 LOT SIZE: 0.35 ACRES SECTION 179-18, 179-60, 179-28 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JEFFREY HOWARD, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 19-1999, Jeffrey D. Howard, Meeting Date: April 21, 1999 “Project Location: Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 900 sf office building and seeks setback relief. Relief Required: Applicant requests 45 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum setback requirement of the Travel Corridor Overlay zone, § 179-28 as well as 40 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement of the Shoreline and Wetland regulations, § 179-60. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct an office building and conduct a business therein. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited, given the overlapping setbacks. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 40 and 45 feet of relief from the 75 foot requirements may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be attributed to the pre-existing lot and the overlapping setbacks. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV118-89 res. 10/18/89 dog training facility – tabled SPR32-91 res. 5/28/91 professional office – approved SPR12-99 res. 4/27/99 professional office – pending Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Relief on both the front and rear of the property may be interpreted as substantial, as both setbacks have clear protective intents. The front Travel Corridor setback is to protect the accessibility and visual impacts to the community and specifically on Bay Road, the TCO setback is to be maintained as open space. The shoreline setback is in place to protect the stream from disturbance and contamination. However, the pre-existing nature of this lot does not afford any feasible alternatives. The building and amenities do not appear to be excessive and this use would appear to have the least impact of all of the permitted uses in this zone. A previous application depicting a similar project configuration (SPR-32-91) was approved. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Okay. Gentlemen. MR. NACE-For the record, my name is Tom Nace with Nace Engineering, and Jeffrey Howard with me, the potential owner. It’s under sales contract. MR. STONE-Okay. Anything you want to add? MR. NACE-No, I believe this, we went through the same process before. Agreed the setbacks are, or the relief is moderate to substantial. However, all the setbacks, if you put them together, there is no buildable are on the parcel. The project is fairly small. It’s a small office building. The intent is for an insurance office. I believe you have one employee, at this point? MR. HOWARD-Yes, one. MR. NACE-Just one. Most of the business is conducted over the phone. So traffic in and out of the site will be minimal. We’ve tried to protect the wetland and the stream corridor in behind, using gravel parking surfaces, putting some infiltration devices to catch the runoff. The septic system does meet the required setback from the wetland. I think that’s all I have. MR. STONE-How long has this lot been owned by the present owner? Do you know? MR. NACE-Since I did the original site plan for her back in the latter part of 1990. MRS. LAPHAM-Has she actively tried to market it before now? MR. NACE-Yes, I believe. I've seen signs on it, Levack realty signs have been on it over the years, and I know she, originally when she got the approval, she tried to market it, and there seemed to be no interest. MR. STONE-Is that lot fill? MR. NACE-I don’t think so. We dug some test pits on it for the septic, and it didn’t appear to be fill, no. MR. STONE-Just the way it sits there. MR. NACE-It’s an odd, because it’s between the highway cut and the stream, that has dug a channel down through the other side. It appears to be a high mound, but I think it’s natural ground. MR. STONE-In looking at your drawing, Mr. Nace, and the stream itself on the back side, it looks steeper than the drawing would indicate. Maybe I don’t read two foot increments very well, but it seems to fall off very quickly behind it, which is just an observation. Because it seems that the flat part of the land comes right up and then it drops down immediately to the stream in the back. Did you notice that? 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, which doesn’t make it any easier to do anything with. MR. STONE-Right. I understand, but this doesn’t look as steep. MR. NACE-No, it was done from an actual survey. Quite frankly, it’s been several years since I walked the property. So I better not comment. MR. STONE-Well, mine was yesterday. Any questions? MR. MC NALLY-You’re proposing the driveway and the parking area be gravel? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-And be maintained as gravel? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-And the current land slopes toward the stream. MR. NACE-That is correct. MR. MC NALLY-Will it be graded at any other way? I don’t know where else you discharge water. MR. NACE-Well, there are two drywells, and those are low points in the back, in the final grade. So, yes, it will be graded so that all of the gravel area drains to those drywells. Okay. The covers of those drywells will be a foot or so below the existing surface, or proposed surface. MR. STONE-How steep is the driveway going to be? I mean, looking at it. MR. NACE-I apologize. It’s been a while. These are the simply the same plans that were approved before. It appears probably about four to five feet of rise, and this is drawn at twenty scale. So, in 40 feet, 50 feet, about 4 feet, it’ll be about an 8% driveway. MR. STONE-The current right-of-way for the Travel Corridor Overlay is up on the hill I assume, up on the flat portion? MR. NACE-At the property line, yes, part way up the hill, not all the way up. MR. STONE-Not all the way, part way? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. LAPHAM-What’s going to be in the building? I mean, I understand it’s a 900 square foot office, but I mean, a bathroom, a minimal kitchen, two or three rooms? MR. HOWARD-Actually, it’ll be two offices, a small conference room, and a large outer office for file cabinets, copier, secretary, that’s it. MR. STONE-All this in 900 square feet? The size of an allowable garage in the Town of Queensbury. MR. HOWARD-Right. MR. STONE-No further questions? I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody want to speak in favor of this application? In favor? Anybody wishing to speak opposed to this application? Opposed? Hearing none, is there any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Dan, your turn. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) MR. STEC-Well, it appears from the shape and size of the lot that, indeed, the applicant’s options are very limited. I don’t think that there is a location on the lot where a structure could be built without requiring some amount of setback. So, as far as, is the difficulty self-created, I don’t think so. I think that, again, you’ve got to be mindful of the Overlay, and maintaining the setback from Bay Road, and of course, mindful of the wetlands and the setback there, but the scope of this project seems such that there’ll be minimal negative impacts on the neighborhood. The relief is fairly substantial, but again, I think the alternatives are limited, and I’m inclined in favor of supporting this variance request. MR. STONE-All right. Mr. McNally? MR. MC NALLY-I agree. This is a pre-existing, nonconforming lot. So, to put a building up with current requirements is almost impossible. The proposed application is modest, and they center it in the way that it does the least harm to the brook and to the Travel Corridor. I was just concerned, though. What is to prevent Mr. Howard or someone you sell to paving the parking area? Paving the driveway, and all the water goes shooting off into the brook? That would cause harm. MR. STONE-We can make the variance contingent on that. MR. NACE-Can I address? Because that was an issue that came up in the previous site plan. The drywell structures are sized, the drainage is sized, as if it were a paved driveway. I believe, if you go back in the minutes, the gravel was a concession to the previous Planning Board, that they wanted some additional assurance, I guess, but the drywells are sized as if it were paved. MR. MC NALLY-If we were to make a proposed motion contingent upon ensuring that drainage is captured in the drywells, irrespective of whatever happens to the land in the future, would that be a problem? MR. NACE-Not from an engineering standpoint. MR. HOWARD-Then I don’t have a problem. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. STONE-Okay. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I think the other Board members have said most of it, and I just want to add that it seems to me we would either approve this variance or we would have rendered the applicant’s property unusable and unsaleable, which isn’t right either. MR. MC NALLY-That’s a good point. MR. STEC-I agree. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I hear what everybody is saying, but it bothers me that we’re granting a fair amount of relief from two setbacks. It also bothers me that we’d be cutting into the 75 foot Travel Corridor Overlay there because there’s nothing else right close to this spot that is into that Overlay now, and it strikes me that these setbacks were set there for a reason. I guess on that basis, I’m inclined to oppose. MR. STONE-Okay. I’m inclined to go along with Chuck. The reason is because, just because somebody owns land doesn’t mean that we have to give a variance to put it on a lot, a piece of property that is encumbered by our zoning law. I mean, 45 feet of relief from this minimum setback is a great deal. We have no idea, I mean, the Town Fathers, in their infinite wisdom, have said that Bay Road is likely to become even more of a thoroughfare than it is now, and they are leaving room for the future. We're seeing this right now down in on the Corinth Road. We’ve got all kinds of problems down there because we didn’t anticipate the growth of the area. Here we’ve got it in place, and we’re being asked to say, well, 75 feet really isn’t important. We can cut it down to 30 feet, and I’m not really inclined to do that. I just think when somebody buys a piece of land, they should be cognizant of what the zoning is and what the potential is, and I’m just not inclined to say, okay, there’s a problem here. Lets grant a variance. That’s not why I sit on this Board. I think we’re too close to the water on the other side. I think we’ve got an area back there which is quite wet. Obviously, the stream flows very steadily. I just think we have a problem here. MR. NACE-May I ask a question? 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) MR. STONE-Sure. MR. NACE-I’m not aware of what the existing right-of-way is on Bay Road at that point. Are you? MR. ROUND-It is significant, and to address that comment, I don’t know that, again, I’m not the highway, it’s a County highway. It’s got to be in excess of 100 feet right now, the right-of-way. So the 75 foot Travel Corridor Overlay setback for this it would be my opinion that it’s aesthetic rather than set aside for future highway improvements, because if you look, there’s already, there’s room on the paved surface right now for two lanes in either direction for ample supply for shoulders. MR. MC NALLY-And there’s actually a fair amount of space between the paved portion and where they’re proposing to put up this building. It’ll be generations before anybody needs that space, if ever, on that end, in my opinion. MR. STONE-Well, we are talking, I mean, there is, the sewer is creeping north. The Town Board just gave permission to move it further up Bay Road, beyond Cronin. So it is certainly coming in this direction. I don’t know what side of the road it’ll ever be on, and I don’t know how that might impact it, but it is going to, eventually it will be sewered up that way. MR. NACE-It would probably be, as a sewer design engineer, it would probably be in the shoulder area of the road itself. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-See, I don’t see what else could really be put on that property. MR. STEC-It strikes me that this is a very modest, minimal impact compromise, which allows the land to be used for a business purpose, but yet without a significant impact on certainly the environment. I think that this particular use lends itself to very minor impact, as far as traffic, runoff, but I agree. I think that, it’s my understanding that that Overlay is more of a line of sight thing than it is a future road expansion. I think that there’s plenty of room there for a four lane highway, without significantly being impacted by granting this level of relief. MR. STONE-I guess I would like to see, Chris, I would like to see the actual right-of-way lines and the TCO setback. I mean, on this thing, I’m not sure I know where they are, and probably was done maybe even before the Travel Corridor Overlay was put in. MR. NACE-I’m not sure, but we can certainly get that information and come back to this Board. MR. STONE-Yes. I would like to see that. It would help me. Because right now, it appears to be three, two, and that’s a defeat. MR. NACE-We’d just as soon table and come back with additional information. MRS. LAPHAM-When she bought that property, were these setbacks in place at that time, in 1990? MR. STONE-I don’t know. When does the Travel Corridor Overlay go back to? MRS. LAPHAM-Everyone keeps saying it’s a nonconforming, pre-existing. MR. ROUND-It was amended in 1990 and ’91. I assume if it was established in, I’m not sure if it was established in ’88 as a part of the original Ordinance. MR. NACE-I think there was. I’m not sure of the wording at that time. MR. STONE-Okay. So it may have been in place at that point, we’re saying? MR. ROUND-Right, yes. MR. STONE-Are you gentlemen and lady willing to table this thing until we get information about this? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. MR. STONE-Because it would help me. Would it help you, Chuck, if you saw this? MR. MC NULTY-It might. I’m not sure. It’s worth finding out. MR. MC NALLY-We can’t pass this at seven, two, can we? 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) MR. STONE-Three, two? No, we cannot pass it. We have to have a majority of the Board. We have to have four minimum. MRS. LAPHAM-We should table it anyway. MR. STONE-We should table it, yes. MR. MC NALLY-It’s not a majority of the Board? MR. STONE-Of those present? No. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. I don’t have a problem. MR. STONE-It took me a while to learn that, Bob, but that’s what it is. Having said that, would you be willing to table it until next month? Until we get that information? MR. NACE-Sure. MR. HOWARD-Sure. MR. ROUND-Do you want to go next month, or do you want to come back on the 28? th MR. STONE-He could come back next week. MR. NACE-Okay. MR. ROUND-There is another meeting this month. MR. NACE-I wasn’t aware there was. MR. STONE-Yes. MR NACE-Sure. MR. HOWARD-That would be fine. MR. STONE-You’ll have it by then? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-1999 JEFFREY D. HOWARD, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: Until the meeting of April 28, at which time the applicant will have provided right of way and travel th corridor overlay setback dimensions, so that we can all look at them. Duly adopted this 21 day of April, 1999, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. HOWARD-Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-1999 TYPE II HC-1A PIZZAGATE, INC. PIZZA HUT TERRY RYFA OWNER: HERBERT SHEINBERG 863 ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 720 SQ. FT. ADDITION AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE REQUIREMENTS. ALSO THE APPLICANT PROPOSES RELOCATION OF THE EXISTING CURB CUT AND REQUESTS RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) STRUCTURE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 4/14/99 TAX MAP NO. 71-1-9 LOT SIZE: 1.24 ACRES SECTION 179-28, 179-66, 179-79 RICHARD JONES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 21-1999, Pizzagates, Inc. Pizza Hut Terry Ryfa, Meeting Date: April 21, 1999 “Project Location: 863 NYS Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 720 sf addition to an existing restaurant and seeks setback relief and access separation relief. Relief Required: Applicant requests 19 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum setback requirement of the Travel Corridor Overlay zone, § 179-28. Also, the applicant is requesting 50 and 50.5 feet of relief from the 150 foot minimum separation distance between access points. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct and utilize the addition and reconfigure the access to the site to alleviate potential traffic hazards. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a reconfiguration of the proposed addition and drive. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 19 feet of relief from the 75 foot TCO setback requirement may be interpreted as moderate. 50 and 50.5 feet of relief from the 150 foot access separation requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood 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.): AV 16-1996 res. 3/27/96 – 30x40 deck denied Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Although the requested TCO relief may appear to be moderate to substantial, the width of the State right of way, at this property, is substantial. This proposal should not present a significant impact on any reconfiguration of the highway. The proposed separation between access drives could be present potential traffic hazards, however, this proposal appears to be increasing the existing separation from the drive to the north. SEQR Status: Type II” MRS. LAPHAM-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form Pizzagates, Inc. Herbert Shinenberg, Queensbury Area Variance No. 21-1999, County Project Number April 99-26, Current Zoning: Highway Commercial One Acre Community: Queensbury: Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 720 square foot addition and seeks relief from the Travel Corridor Overlay zone requirements. Also, applicant proposes re-location of existing curb cut and requests relief from off-street parking and loading requirements. Site Location: 863 Route 9, three quarters of a mile north of Aviation Road Tax Map No. 71-1-9 Staff Notes: A copy of the pertinent sections of the site drawing is included with the summaries. The applicant has proposed to provide an addition to the south side of the existing structure. The County Planning Board has seen projects on this site previously that had this addition between the roadway and the existing structure. The previous applications were recommended for denial. The applicant requests a variance since the existing structure is within a 75 foot Travel Corridor Overlay. Staff is of the opinion that the issues presented by this application are of a local nature only. Local Actions to Date (if any): Public Hearing set for April 21, 1999 County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Terry Ross, Warren County Planning Board. MR. STONE-Thank you. Before I entertain the applicant, I want the public to recognize that this is somewhat different than the one we just heard, in that the existing building is already in the Travel Corridor Overlay. This is different than this one we had before. So as you listen, be aware of that. Having said that, gentlemen. MR. JONES-Yes, good evening. I’m Richard Jones, the agent for the applicant, and this is Terry Ryfa from Pizzagates. Basically, what we’re looking at is an addition as has been indicated to the south side of the building. I believe the setback is actually 11 feet and not 19. I think we’re 64 feet from the property line. MR. ROUND-I don’t have a copy of the plan in front of me. Can I borrow one? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. JONES-I think the 19 feet was to the corner of the existing building. That would be the corner of the existing building. That would be a 19 foot setback, within 19 feet of the 75 foot. MR. MC NALLY-All you’re looking for is 11 feet of relief, then? MR. JONES-Yes, 11 foot of relief on the building addition. The existing corner. MR. STONE-That’s from the northeast corner to the line? 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) MR. JONES-Yes, that’s where it adjoins the existing building. MR. STONE-That’s 11 feet, you’re saying? MR. JONES-Yes. MR. STONE-Have you got a scale, Chris? MR. ROUND-Okay. The building setback line is at 50 feet. MR. JONES-Right, and then the Overlay is 75. MR. ROUND-Right. MR. JONES-Right. MR. ROUND-I mean, the addition falls within the two. MR. JONES-Right, and it’s about 64 feet from the adjoining corner. MR. ROUND-Yes, you’re correct, and it’s 64 feet from the right-of-way line. MR. STONE-So we need 11 feet of relief is what we’re looking for? MR. ROUND-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. STEC-Since we’re doing the housecleaning down here, looking at your plan, I've got the map a little different from the curb cuts. I've got 52 and a half for the curb cut to the south, instead of 50 and a half. It says 97 feet 6 inches. MR. JONES-Yes. MR. STEC-So that 50 and a half should be 52 and a half. MR. JONES-I’m not sure if I’m following. MR. STEC-The relief sought would be 50 feet and 50 and a half, and that should read 50 and 52 and a half. MR. JONES-Right. MR. STEC-Okay. I just wanted to make sure I was following. MR. JONES-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. JONES-Basically, in realigning the curb cut, what we’re attempting to do is align it into the center of the parking lot. Currently, when it comes in, you have an extra width in there, and people double park behind other vehicles and that type of thing. So what we’re trying to do is align that so we actually have a balanced parking lot off of that entry. We feel we’re improving the condition because we’re relocating it further to the south, away from the curb cut to the north which goes into Ray Supply. The curb cut to the south goes into a small garage located at the Motel. So we do feel that we are improving that by relocating that to the south. MR. STEC-It’s more centered overall. MR. JONES-Yes, it is. MR. STONE-Is the second freestanding sign coming down? MR. JONES-Yes, it is. MR. STONE-You’re not going to ask for a variance for another one? MR. JONES-No, that other freestanding sign actually is for the Lighthouse building which will be coming down as part of this project. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) MR. STONE-I understand. I just wanted to be sure it was coming down. That’s all. MR. MC NALLY-So you’re basically shifting the entrance 16 feet south or so, about 16 feet south? MR. JONES-That’s correct. Yes, I think the building addition is 12 feet, total, from the existing building to the south face, and then we’re bumping the entry out to coincide with the. MR. STONE-The addition is going to go into part of where the parking lot is now? MR. JONES-Right, and then we’re shifting the parking into that drive lane, that extra wide drive lane that’s there. MR. STONE-And the retaining walls that are on the property are still going to be there? I mean, you’re still going to, not use all of the? MR. JONES-Right. We're maintaining all of the retaining walls. Basically all of the paved area remains. We're reconfiguring the parking so that it works. Currently, they have a gravel stone pit in the back which is a disaster. They can’t get around the ends of it, for parking. We’ve reassembled the back area for the pick up of the dumpster area, and basically tried to realign all of the parking. We’ve increased the green area where we’ve taken out the Lighthouse. So the permeable area is actually being reduced with what we’re doing, or non-permeable, excuse me. MR. MC NALLY-I've noticed a problem, from time to time, with traffic backing up onto Route 9 because cars coming in and out of parking spaces or stopping to let people pick up pizzas or things like that. How would this plan, if at all, deal with that issue? MR. JONES-Well, one of the things that we’re doing is increasing the parking along the south side where the Lighthouse is. The basic parking, we’re pulling it back and increasing the parking on the front side of this, where the two buildings had originally, or the parking area between the two, we’re increasing that parking area. The total parking that we’re required to have for the building is only, I think, less than 30 vehicles, and we’re up near 50 vehicles total for the entire site. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MRS. LAPHAM-When you take down the Lighthouse, that’s going to be green space? MR. JONES-Yes. MR. STONE-Will it be planted with other than? MR. JONES-At this point, we’re looking at grass, but we certainly could entertain other plantings, if that was desired. MR. MC NALLY-You’re planning to be comparable to the existing side in front of Pizza Hut? MR. JONES-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Tree and grass? MR. JONES-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. STONE-Any other questions? I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody who wanted to speak in favor of the application? In favor? Anybody want to speak opposed to the application? Opposed? Any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Bob, we’ll start with you. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) MR. MC NALLY-I’m in favor of the application. When the Lighthouse was there, I always thought it was a mistake to have a single entrance for two businesses, and if they take down the Lighthouse, which could be a current existing business there if they really wanted to get a tenant, and the traffic flow would be worse than the way it used to be, the 11 feet of relief from the Travel Corridor Overlay that they’re asking for is truly minimal. Because the State right-of-way for Route 9 in that area is so wide, again, I don’t see any possibility that it would ever interfere with the use of the roadway. It’s got 75 feet plus a larger right-of-way already. If they maintain it with the green space that they have indicated, and they get rid of the Lighthouse, it’s going to be a favorable result. It’s going to be good, and I don’t think by moving the driveway 16 feet you’ll impact on Ray Supply or the Motel, particularly since it’s an existing business already. So I’m in favor of it. MR. STONE-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I’m in favor of it. The aesthetics will be improved considerably. I really think that if the Lighthouse were a viable building for a business, then something would have been done about it before now. It’s just standing there vacant becoming an eyesore. It looks worse every time I go by. I will be delighted to see it go away, and I think this would be a big improvement. I agree with Bob. I don’t think the traffic problems are going to be worse. I think they’re going to be improved. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-While I’m not inclined to second guess the people who put the Travel Corridor Overlay in, and I’ll just assume that they’re concern was room for widening the road or whatever. Nevertheless, as you pointed out, the existing building is already into the Overlay, and I think the collective changes proposed are going to make an improvement to the property. So I’m inclined to say yes, too. MR. STONE-Dan? MR. STEC-I agree with my fellow Board members. I think that all in all the proposed change is an improvement on that site. I’m not terribly concerned with the setback. Again, there’s a large right- of-way on Route 9 already, and the existing building is there. This business has been a good neighbor to the community for many years, and I think that their proposal here reflects that relationship that we’ve had with them, and that they’re looking to try to make an improvement for traffic flow, and it makes it real easy to approve, since the Lighthouse will be coming down, and it will just simplify flow in that whole entrance way. So I’m in favor. MR. STONE-I think it’s a very positive project. I mean, we’re taking a lot, this is one lot that you own, and we’re going to take off one business. So we’re only going to have one business on that lot, unless you come back and make an impassioned plea in the future, and I don’t think it’s going to happen. I think it’s going to help the cut distance, because Ray Supply, as you point out, is a much busier, more active driveway than the one to the south. The one to the south, even if it were directly from the Motel, it’s still going to be a minimal amount of traffic, and I think it’s a good idea, and I also like the idea that we’re going to have one less freestanding sign in the Town of Queensbury, which is something which is near and dear to this Board’s heart. So, having said that, I’d ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-1999 PIZZAGATES, INC. PIZZA HUT, Introduced by Daniel Stec who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: 863 New York State Route 9. Project proposes the construction of a 720 square foot addition to an existing restaurant, and grant the relief sought. Specifically, the applicant is requesting 19 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum setback requirement of the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, Section 179-28. Also, the applicant has requested 50 and 52 and a half feet of relief from the 150 foot minimum separation distance between access points. My reasons for proposing this be approved is that there’s a clear benefit to the applicant in that permission to construct and utilize an additional parking area and alleviate potential traffic hazards would be granted. Feasible alternatives seem to be limited, and in fact I think this proposal is the optimal alternative. Is the relief substantial to the Ordinance? Eleven feet of relief from the 75 foot Travel Corridor Overlay setback requirement may be moderate. However, granted that the setback for Route 9 is so large already, and the relief for 50 and 52 and a half feet from the 150 foot access separation requirement is actually an overall improvement of the current situation, in that the new curb will center the access into the parking lot and between the other two curb cuts, and I feel that the effects on the neighborhood would be minimal. In fact, I think traffic flow in general on that stretch of Route 9 would be improved, and I move that we approve their request for variance. While the difficulty may be self created, it shows an intent to try to improve an existing situation, and I would ask the Board to stipulate that approval of this variance is contingent on the removal of the Lighthouse, and removal of its freestanding sign associated there. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) Duly adopted this 21 day of April, 1999, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNally, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas MR. STONE-There you go. TERRY RYFA MR. RYFA-Thank you very much. MR. MC NALLY-Good luck. MR. RYFA-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-1999 TYPE II WR-1A JOHN STAALESEN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE GLEN LAKE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3,626 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO EXISTING (870 SQ. FT. ) CAMP. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. ALSO RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM THE SHORELINE AND WETLAND REGULATIONS. CROSS REF. SPR 15-99 TAX MAP NO. 43-2-1.1 LOT SIZE: 1.42 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79, 179-60 RON RUCINSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 18-1999, John Staalesen, Meeting Date: April 21, 1999 “Project Location: Glen Lake Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 3626 sf addition to an existing 870 sf camp, construction of a new drive and parking areas, construction of a new sewage disposal area and on site stormwater management. Relief Required: Applicant requests 27.5 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement of both the WR-1A zone, § 179-16 and the Shoreline and Wetland regulations, § 179-60. Since the existing structure does not meet the setback requirements nor will a portion of the addition and the proposed expansion is well in excess of 50% of the existing floor area, relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure is requested, per section 179-79. The allowable 50% expansion to the existing camp would be 435 sf. The applicant is requesting 3191 sf of relief from this 50% requirement. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to significantly increase living space of the existing camp while maintaining its present location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternative may include removal/relocation of the existing camp, reconfiguration of the design to a compliant location, a smaller floor plan and no construction. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 27.5 feet, (55%) of relief from the 50 foot shoreline setback requirements may be interpreted as substantial. Approximately one half of the proposed addition is within the 50 foot shoreline setback. 3191 sf of relief when compared to the allowable 435 sf, is substantial, (733%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Substantial effects on the neighborhood 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.): Site Plan Review 15-99 4/27/99 pending Staff comments: Moderate to substantial impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Given that there is an existing camp to which the applicant is proposing an addition, there appear to be alternatives to this proposal. A 870 sf camp within 25 feet of the lake has far less impact than a 4500 sf home will have. It appears that a comparable size home may be relocated to a compliant location on the property. If approved, referral to the Planning Board for issues relating to the impermeable areas within 50 feet of the lake may be considered, in order to identify any stormwater concerns. As per a 4/12/99 phone conversation with the applicants’ agent, the floor plan will be reconfigured to eliminate the second kitchen depicted in the original submission. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Applicant? MR. RUCINSKI-Good evening. I’m Ron Rucinski. I’m John and Judy Staalesen’s architect. John and Judy are with me tonight, as is Ethan Hall from my office. Let me give you a little bit of background, which I know really has no bearing on zoning, but somewhere around two years ago or so, Judy Staalesen has been diagnosed with a severe arthritic condition that will probably get worse, and they made a decision to put their home in Wilton on the market. When they built it in the mid 80’s, they expected it to be the last house, but with Judy’s condition, they made a decision that they 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) had to get to a smaller house, and to a one story house, stairs are just too large a problem, a large house is just too much for her to take care of. So their house was on the market, and they were casting about for what to do when this parcel on Glen Lake came for sale, and when it came for sale, they made an offer. The offer was accepted, but the seller refused to sign a sales contract. He said, when you’re ready to close, we’ll close, and in the mean time, I’m not even taking it off the market. So the Staalesen’s made a decision. Instead of coming to the Zoning Board, we could have had a sales contract, and we would have been here first, but they made a decision to buy the property and then go through the procedure. So that they wouldn’t lose the house. We relied, for what that’s worth, we relied on the tax map, that said it was an 1.44 acres. It’s a little less than, or roughly three quarters of an acre site. That’s background. I might add also that the Staalesen family is a large family. They have six children, and almost as many grandchildren as I have. I've got 19. I think they’ve got 14 or something like that, and their social life revolves around their family. So that although they’re not quite empty nesters, they’re coming close. They need a lot of space, weekends, and during the week they only need space for themselves. So they need a lot of space sometimes, and the rest of the time, they need a small amount of space. The square footage numbers that were presented to you include a three car garage, almost 900 square feet, and storage space that amounts to, and I don’t have that number down, concrete, but I’m going to say it’s somewhere in the neighborhood of 700 square feet, because they’re coming out of a house that had a basement. They’re going into a house that will be slab on grade. This house will not have a basement, so they’ve got to build on grade storage space, and because of Mrs. Staalesen’s health, we are not even considering a second floor. So that’s just some background, and I understand the zoning goes with the land. It doesn’t go with the owner. The site, as it’s now constituted, is at St. Mary’s Bay, right at the inlet end of the lake. The inlet’s right here, where the property line is, and the Bay comes around here. They really only have one neighbor, over here, and we’ve shown the beginning of her home, which is a seasonal, year-round home. She uses it, and she has an existing detached garage that’s roughly the size of the (lost word). On the site is an existing camp, which is setback at its closest point from the shoreline about 10 feet, and there is a second building, this is shown in yellow. There’s a second building that’s a bunkhouse, that is roughly 14 feet from the shoreline, and there is a paved, concrete deck area that connects them, that is shown here in gray, along with dock facilities, and I’ll show you some photographs, the retaining structure (lost words). This dark blue line indicates the setback lines, as they’re presently constituted, and we have drawn a red line in here which shows the footprint of the proposed addition. We're proposing to eliminate the bunkhouse, eliminate this concrete deck area, retain the camp. The camp has a very tiny bedroom. It’s not even big enough for a double bed. A bathroom, a modest kitchen, which we had expected to retain, as like a summer kitchen, a place that you could do snacks, and a living/dining room, and the game plan with the house is that that would become a playroom, a game room, a place for the grandchildren to hangout while the parents do their thing in the rest of the house. The house itself, the new house itself, is three bedrooms, a master bedroom and two bedrooms, two baths and a half bath, a large screened porch, which is part of the square footage, a small greenhouse, and then the storage room and the garage that were referred to, and we’ve shown that in yellow. The setbacks of this proposed addition would be, I should point out there is a patio area out back. It might be pavement or it might be deck, but in any case. The setbacks for the proposed addition would be less than the setbacks of the existing camp, well, the existing camp would remain the same, but would be less than the setbacks of the existing bunkhouse. Again, as we look at the footprint over here, you can see the red line and how that relates. MR. STONE-You mean the setback would be more. MR. RUCINSKI-More, yes. I’m sorry, yes, the setback violations would be less. The setbacks would be more. So we’re moving the hard-surface deck back. We're moving the footprint of the building back. Maybe I should, at that point, switch to the photographs, because where we’re concerned and you’re concerned it’s a magnificent lot, and we’re all concerned about the impact it would have on the lake. I’m going to pass, I've got two sets here that I’ll ask you to share, and I’ll talk about. This drawing matches this one, except I’m showing you where the photograph is taken from, and this diagram I gave you matches that drawing. I’ll leave one set of these here, if you have any questions. The first photograph is just taken from the vicinity of Glen Lake Road. You’re looking at the site as it existed roughly a month ago, and we’re just showing you what the view is from Glen Lake Road to the lake. There is no view of the lake. You’ll notice the large pine trees along the shoreline. This photograph, Photograph Number Two, was taken from roughly in here, is what the view would be from the proposed addition, if it met the setbacks, and as you can see, there’s not much of a view of the lake. MR. STONE-Except that that shed is going. MR. RUCINSKI-Yes, the shed is going, but you don’t see the lake. You see the Bay, but not the lake. MR. STONE-Okay. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) MR. MC NALLY-I see. MR. RUCINSKI-Again, if you’re looking at, in here is St. Mary’s Bay. The lake is out there. MR. STONE-Water’s water. MR. RUCINSKI-Well, that’s true, water’s water. Photograph Number Three is what that view changes to, if we placed the building where we have shown it in this drawing, and as you can see, the view of the lake is substantially increased. Substantially. Photograph Number Four is taken from roughly what is the present patio, looking east toward the only immediate neighbor that they have, Mrs. Spadero’s house, and you can just barely see her house through the trees. That’s her dock that you’re seeing in the photograph. Picture Number Five is taken from the shoreline on the opposite side of St. Mary’s Bay, looking toward the property, just about directly opposite that peninsula that shows up so finely in the photograph, and that is the view that you would see, that the neighbors from across St. Mary’s Bay would see, although those houses are substantially higher, higher in elevation than the bank, and again, neighbors to the east are not even visible with the tree (lost word), nor is much of the existing cottage, nor much of the existing bunkhouse, and keep in mind that that picture is taken this way, and there’s the cottage, there’s the bunkhouse. The proposed addition is behind those. It’s not going to be visible, or barely visible. MR. STONE-How many of these trees would go? MR. RUCINSKI-None. None on the shoreline. There are a couple of trees, there’s a major tree right here that would have to go. A couple of smaller trees. They’re on the Glen Lake Road side of the property. MR. STONE-Is that the one on Picture Six, that’s behind the camp, or no? MR. RUCINSKI-Yes, the one without leaves. MR. STONE-The one without leaves. MR. RUCINSKI-Right, that one goes. There’s no way we can save that. That’s also where the septic tank is now. This second picture is taken, or Picture Six is taken from the shoreline right near the inlet, and shows the peninsula and the existing cottage, and the first time we really see the neighbor’s house, and again, the addition would be here, it probably would block this view of the neighbor’s house, but would have no effect on the view of the lake. Number Seven, we just threw in there. That’s basically looking in this same direction, but it’s taken from here on the peninsula, so that you can see in more detail how the existing camp blocks the view of the proposed addition, or at least partially blocks the view of the new addition. Again, in Picture Number Seven, when we built the house and the addition, you can see Mrs. Spadero’s garage back here. Maybe we block the view of her garage, I don’t know. We weren’t able to take pictures from the lake. The ice had just gone out, and we didn’t have a boat in the water yet, but we’ve taken these next pictures, Eight and Nine, were taken again, from across the lake, looking into the cottage, into the site, and again, if you look on the left, you see the camp, as you might see it from the water, or at least from the water in St. Mary’s Bay, and you see the bunkhouse as you might see it from the water. The addition is behind all that. So you’re not going to be seeing anymore building than you’re seeing right now. Picture Nine is that same photograph, taken from a slightly different angle, and using a zoom lens, zoomed in, and the corner of this addition, right here, is just about at the right end of the blue plastic that’s covering something, and that’s what you would be seeing. Except it would be a little further back from the shoreline, roughly 10 feet, and those pine trees that are on the shoreline would stay there, as they are. We have no intention of touching them. The residence itself, the bunkhouse will go. The camp itself, the floor plan would really not change, except we’re taking this deck out. There’s an existing screened porch, the bedroom, the living/dining area, the kitchen and the bath. We’d probably keep the refrigerator and maybe a sink in the kitchen, just as a place to keep soda and cold drinks and what not. Other than that, it would stay the same, except the exterior of it would be refinished, redone to match the siding, the finishes of the camp construction. We’d replace the windows, replace the combination storm/screen windows on the porch, replace the siding to match the new residence, and probably replace the roof. Also, it would blend in to the appearance of the (lost words). I think I've shot my wad. I’ll stop there. MR. STONE-A couple of questions I had earlier, Robert Wilson, that’s the person who owned the land from which it was bought? That’s what it says here. MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. I didn’t see your name there at all. Where’s the drainage field right now? Where will it be? 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) MR. RUCINSKI-Right now there is, I have no idea what the details are, but right now there’s a sewage disposal system of some kind right there. It seems to be working. Our proposal, we’ve done our test pits and we’ve done our perc tests, and like 90% percent of the engineering, and the tile field for the residence would be here, sized for a four bedroom home. MR. STONE-It would not be under the driveway, in other words? MR. RUCINSKI-No, no. We’d put a septic tank here, run it through an effluent pump, and pump it up to a tile field here, and we’ve got the data on here. The soils were six to seven minutes. For stormwater management, there would be no additional water going into the lake. We would put French drains at all the eaves lines, including the eaves lines of the existing camp, and we would put in a system of drywells, and again, we’re like 80% designed. We don’t have a final design, but we have a conceptual design, but we would put drywells at strategic locations and capture stormwater runoff, and we’ve indicated preliminary (lost words), which you can’t see on there with all the color, but you should be able to see on your prints, that would control the runoff to those drywells, unless there were a major, major storm, and then we’ve indicated how it would overflow. So if we get the 500 year storm or the 100 year storm, we might get some overflow into the lake, but the normal rainfall would be captured, contained, and put into the ground. The sand on the site, we’ve done test pits. The sand, in this portion of the site, is gorgeous beach sand. It should be a marvelous build here. As we get back toward this part of the site, the sand, the soil is still sand, slightly gravelly, and I believe is fill. I understand at one time it was a huge hill. MR. STONE-I have a question of Staff. Is that septic field okay, relative to the property line? MR. ROUND-Based on the information we have, he’s going to comply with the setback. MR. STONE-He will comply. Okay. Which is how much, just for my? MR. ROUND-Ten feet. MR. STONE-It’s 10. I thought it was. Okay. MRS. LAPHAM-I just need some clarification. The lines that you drew, those would indicate if the structure was in compliance? Those are the setbacks? MR. RUCINSKI-These are, yes. MRS. LAPHAM-Right here? Okay. Those would be the setbacks. MR. RUCINSKI-Are the setback lines. MRS. LAPHAM-Would the proposed house fit within those lines, and the septic system and all be in compliance? Is such a thing possible if you didn’t need to save the camp? MR. RUCINSKI-Putting it on one story, no. MRS. LAPHAM-But would it be considerably less? MR. RUCINSKI-Yes, the violation would be less. MRS. LAPHAM-Considerably less, wouldn’t it? MR. RUCINSKI-But it would still be violations, but we would be creating a whole new violation, because now we would have the camp as a second building on the site, for space that they need, and there’d be no physical connection between the camp and the rest of the house, which if you’re going to have your grandchildren playing in the playroom over here, and it’s not physically attached to the house, it’s really not a good idea. I mean, it’s important to them that it be connected, and we’d create a whole new zoning violation if we had two separate buildings. MR. STONE-You understand why the kitchen matter came up, because you’re only allowed a one family house. This is a one family house? MR. RUCINSKI-This is a one family house. MR. STONE-That’s why the kitchen, I imagine, came up, right? MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. We expect to be able to leave it, because it was a one family house, but if that’s a major issue for the Zoning Board. Lots of people have cooking facilities in their family room and cooking facilities in their kitchen, but if that’s an issue, we’ll. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) MR. STONE-Any questions of the applicant? MR. MC NALLY-The total square footage of this proposed house is about 4500 square feet? If I understand your application? MRS. LAPHAM-I come up with 4,496 square feet, and then you said there was a 900 square foot garage that we subtract from that, is that true? MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. Out of that gross square footage, roughly 900 square feet is garage, and somewhere, there’s a large storeroom/heater room space here that has got to be 6, 700 square feet, and there’s a screened porch that is probably 350 or 400 square feet. The actual living quarters are 2400 square feet, additional living quarters. MR. MC NALLY-I don’t understand what you mean by that, when you say “additional”. MR. RUCINSKI-Well, over and beyond the existing camp. MR. MC NALLY-Forty-four hundred on top of that? MR. RUCINSKI-No, no. MRS. LAPHAM-Twenty-four hundred on top of that. MR. RUCINSKI-Actually living quarters are about 2400 square feet. MRS. LAPHAM-Plus the 870. MR. STONE-So it would be 3200. MRS. LAPHAM-Thirty-three. MR. RUCINSKI-Yes, of living quarters. Well, keep in mind that we’re eliminating the bunkhouse as part of that 870 square feet of existing building. MRS. LAPHAM-It didn’t look it when we were out there. The bunkhouse is part of the 870 square feet that is already there? Isn’t the cottage 870 square feet, and then the bunkhouse would be? MR. RUCINSKI-That 870 square feet I think even includes the well house. MRS. MOORE-Yes. The only thing that the actual residential structure is 630 something? MR. RUCINSKI-That sounds about right. MR. STONE-Okay. I mean, the plan says 870 for all buildings. It does say that. What’s the, I’ll tell you where I’m coming from at the moment. I just think this is excessive, and I’m trying to find a way to make it palatable to me, and I wonder why the old cottage has to be kept, and why you can’t extend that space and put it on the back side, or even move the cottage if it’s sentimental, but I don’t. MR. RUCINSKI-Well, I don’t think, as a practical matter, that the cottage could be moved, but it’s just, it’s there, 600 some odd feet of usable space that you can’t afford to walk away from it. MR. STONE-Okay. You have not appeared before this Board, sir, before, and we are quite concerned about closeness to water bodies. We speak as a group, we are quite concerned, I think I speak for the group when I say that. You’ve got a camp which is extremely close to the lake right now. You’re not proposing to make any modification to that, and you’re asking for a huge, my term, addition of property, some of which is still within the 50 foot setback from the lake. I have some concern that there seems to be little willingness to take this fairly large sized piece of land and not use it in a better way, as far as protecting the lake is concerned. MR. RUCINSKI-We did a number of studies on all (lost word) before we came to this, including removing the existing camp. The value of the existing camp is just an investment that my client doesn’t feel he can afford to walk away from. He has usable space that will help meet his space needs, considering his family situation. MR. STONE-And I think, I’m getting ahead of myself. I should ask the Board if they have anymore questions, and we’ll go to a public hearing if you’re done with your presentation. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) MR. RUCINSKI-I mean, could we move it back five feet or ten feet? Yes, I suppose we could. Again, we’re looking at the views that my client has of the lake, and we’re also looking at the impact of this construction from people on the lake, and to their neighbors, and again, as I was trying to demonstrate with the photographs, we don’t see that it has a large impact on either the neighbors and their view of the lake, and their view of the property. Nor do we see that it has a large impact on the view from the lake toward the property. MR. STONE-I should get to the public hearing, unless there are anymore questions. MR. RUCINSKI-The thing that happens is that when we meet the setback, if we try to meet the setback, the buildings become disconnected, and that creates another problem. MR. STONE-We hear you. MR. MC NALLY-Do you have with you any elevations showing the building as seen from the lake? MR. RUCINSKI-No, we have not progressed that far. I just didn’t want to spend his money doing elevations when I don’t know if I have a floor plan that’s going to fly. MR. MC NALLY-It’s proposed to be a one floor structure? MR. RUCINSKI-One floor. MR. MC NALLY-Are you going to have a peaked roof facing the lake? MR. RUCINSKI-It would have a gabled roof. I’m not sure which way the gables would face. MR. MC NALLY-It would be glassed, I take it? MR. RUCINSKI-It’s safe to assume that, yes, this whole south side would be glass, basically glass. MR. MC NALLY-A large part. Sure. MR. STONE-Any other questions? If not, let me open, are you done, sir, and I will open the public hearing? MR. RUCINSKI-I’ll be here as long as you want me to. MR. STONE-Okay. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody in favor of the application? Anybody in favor of the application? Please come forward, state your name. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BETTY SPADERO MRS. SPADERO-Okay. I’m Betty Spadero of Glen Lake Road, St. Mary’s Bay, located next to the adjoining land in discussion. I am very much in favor of this project. I have studied the plans. To me, they’re extremely well done. They answer the purpose as to the water drainage, which I have a little problem with in my own land, but they have taken care of it for them. The way the plan is set, it would not affect my experience of looking out at the lake whatsoever, because my house is slanted so that I can look out that way, directly. If it’s put back, it would not, really could not see the lake itself. Naturally, you’d see the Bay out front, but they would not be able to see the main part of the lake. So, I would say that this construction, their plans have been well done, and I’m in favor. MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else in favor? In favor? Anybody opposed? Opposed to this application? BERNARD RAHILL MR. RAHILL-Lou, I just have a question. I don’t have my sword out tonight. So I’m neither opposed nor in favor. Bernard Rahill, from Queensbury, and with regard to the last project that you discussed, the Pizzagates, Inc. I was just wondering why it wasn’t suggested that the owner plant some trees on the property to make a streetscape, because we do have a Master Plan. MR. STONE-This is out of order for this particular application. MR. RAHILL-Okay. Well, with regard to the other application, I see here also, also relief is requested from the shoreline and wetland regulations. Now you’re very deeply involved in lakes, and you know that current research indicates that the Great Lakes are suffering because the wetlands on 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) the Great Lakes are suffering. Consequently, if we have a small lake, and there’s any kind of damage done to the shoreline or the wetland on a small lake, we’re going to have some sort of reaction, environmentally, and I’m just wondering, your more expert in this area than I am. Do you have any thoughts or comments about this? MR. STONE-I will state them at the time when we get to my comments, but you’re saying, your concern, if I may re-phrase, you’re concerned that there might be a negative impact on the wetlands if this project were allowed to be approved? MR. RAHILL-Well, yes, and the wetlands do clean the lake. MR. STONE-True. Thank you. Anybody else opposed? BILL MILLER MR. MILLER-I’m neither for or against, at this point. My name is Bill Miller. My property is approximately 500 feet east of this gentleman’s property. I’m very familiar with it. It’s a beautiful piece of property, and I can’t understand why he can’t stay with the 50 foot setback, or awfully close to it, and still have adequate room for whatever he would like to build. I had all kinds of problems with you people when I wanted to build my new home there, but that’s not my feelings. I’m against crowding the lakeshore. I’m trying to keep the setback like it should be. MR. STONE-So may I count you as against, as the application is currently constituted? MR. MILLER-I guess you’d have to put it in that respect. Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MILLER-That’s the only question I had. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MILLER-I don’t know what the acreage is of that particular plot. MR. STONE-Eight tenths of an acre. MR. MILLER-It’s only eight tenths of an acre? MR. STONE-That’s what the record said, I believe you said that’s what you found out when you got into it and surveyed it. Yes. MR. MILLER-All right. MR. STONE-It seems bigger. MR. MILLER-Yes, it does. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Miller. Anybody else opposed? Anybody opposed? Any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-All right. We’ll start with you, Bonnie. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, first of all, I think you did an excellent job presenting a very difficult case. I have a lot of problem with this. I think it’s excessive. I think it is overuse and abuse of the lake and the lakeshore. The lines drawn very clearly show that it could be reconfigured and put maybe even they would still need variances, but they might not be, it wouldn’t be so excessively out of compliance as it is now. Nowhere is it written in stone, it’s my understanding, that a cottage has to stay. So that would eliminate the problems of the two buildings, and that is my feeling. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I basically agree with Bonnie. I think it’s excessive where it is. It looks as though it could be moved back and if not conform, at least come very close to conforming. I understand that would change their views, but I don’t think just getting a good view is justification for encroaching on the 50 foot setback. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) MR. STONE-Dan? MR. STEC-Well, here in Queensbury, we have many zoning issues in our Town, and it’s always been my opinion that it’s the buyer’s duty and responsibility to know the property zoning, when they purchase it, before they start planning, and the zoning does go with the land. I fully appreciate your medical condition, and compliments to your presenter. He did a fine job and made a good argument from, in my opinion, a weak position, but what bothers me is that, again, roughly half of the proposed addition is within the 50 foot setback. Yet, for Waterfront Residential, eight tenths of an acre is a decent sized lot, and if it’s not entirely re-locatable within the setbacks, it would be pretty close, and the way I look at this is, what would happen if every Waterfront Residential owner wanted to propose a project similar to this? I don’t think an approval would be fair to the neighbors on this lake or to the neighbors on Lake George, and I think it’s our duty, on this Board, to try to be as fair and consistent as we can. Today is the six month anniversary of my membership on the Board, and I think, at least in my opinion, this is the most aggressive proposal that I've seen, and I think it’s too aggressive, and I’m not inclined. MR. STONE-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I sympathize with the applicant wanting to build a home so that they maximize their views and get as close to the lake as possible, and I also sympathize with the person with arthritis needing living space that they can get around in, but Dan hasn’t been here long enough to know that everyone wants the best view of the lake, and we’ve had applications two feet from the lake, three feet from the lake, ten feet from the lake. As you put it as close to the lake as possible, you’re going to get the best damn view you’ve ever seen, but the zoning law is designed, at least in part, to protect the lakes, and to provide setbacks that were appropriate for the area, and I was struck, when I visited the land, how flat and buildable it really was, and I don’t need the application with the lines drawn, showing where all the setbacks are to realize that there’s a lot of place on that lot to build a house in conformity with the zoning code, and even if it’s not exactly in conformity, it certainly would not go beyond the current Ordinance, as this application does. So, for that reason, I think that there are feasible alternatives, and I would agree that would include the removal of the existing camp, if in fact they wanted to trade off for such a large addition within the proper setbacks. I see that as being a feasible alternative because, to be perfectly frank with you, I see this as building a new house. You may say it’s connected to the existing 600 some odd square foot camp, but you’re building 3,000 some odd square feet on top of that. You’re building a new house. So you might as well start from scratch within the existing Code. I find that the relief is very substantial, both with respect to the setback and with respect to the expansion of an existing structure. Contrary to your applications, I think there will be substantial effects on the neighborhood from the lake, and the application is really self-created. The problem is self-created. With all due respect, I think a lot more effort could have been made to comply with the existing Ordinance and to come back with a compromise, if that was essential, that this Board and the Town could live with, and for that reason, I can’t be in favor of this. MR. STONE-I certainly concur with my fellow Board members. My comment, when I looked at the property, I usually put pencil notes on the Staff Notes, and I had, too much variance, move it back. I think you have here, I think as Bob said very clearly, you have a very buildable lot here. Quite often, more often than not, on lake properties whether they’re on Lake George or Glen Lake or on the Hudson River, there’s only a very small portion of the lot that is buildable. Here you have a lot, in a sense, that is totally buildable except for the man made constraints of setback, and certainly we can sit here and make concessions to that if the application is reasonable, and in my mind, and I gather from the rest of the Board, they’re not reasonable, and we don’t feel that we can grant this much relief for a project which is a very nice project, obviously as far as the applicant is concerned, but I think, in terms of the other things that we have to consider, particularly whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant, certainly there’s no way we can say the applicant can’t achieve a new house on this property, a house that would have a nice view of the water. I have a trouble, a little bit, with lake versus Bay. I don’t think there’s a real difference. If you’re on a lake, you’re on a lake. If you want to call it a Bay, that’s fine, but you’re still on an open space with no encumbrances, as far as your view is concerned. Therefore, I feel that I would have to vote no. Having said that, if we turn this down, Chris, they have to come back with a substantially different, or should we ask if they want to table it and come back with a modification? MR. ROUND-I think you have either alternative. MR. STONE-Either alternative. Okay. MR. RUCINSKI-If you don’t mind, we’ll table it, and come back. MR. STONE-Is the Board willing to do that, listen to another proposal. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) MR. MC NALLY-In my opinion, all right, to pass, if we table it, it will have to be substantially different. MR. STEC-I agree. That’s what I was going to say. MR. MC NALLY-So, don’t get my wrong. Whatever you’re going to do is going to have to, to get my vote, be different, a lot different. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, and I agree with Bob. I mean, I don’t want to be close minded. MR. MC NALLY-You can do what you please. The effect is the same. It’s just that whatever you come back with is going to have to be different. MR. STONE-I mean, we can table it for up to two months. You can come back with a modification, which in your mind, obviously, will be substantial. Then you’re faced with our judgment, whether we think it’s substantial or not, within a tabling, that’s easy to come back. Then we do exactly what we do here. If you allow us to reject it, which we obviously will, then you’d have to come back, we have to decide, beforehand, whether it’s substantial. You have to come before us to ask us if we can reconsider it. So it’s a double jeopardy, in a sense. MR. RUCINSKI-I understand. We’d just as soon you table it. MR. STONE-Okay. Having said that. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-1999 JOHN STAALESEN, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: This project is tabled for 62 days, until the first meeting in June, unless the applicant decides to come back sooner, in one of the May meetings. Duly adopted this 21 day of April, 1999, by the following vote: st MR. RUCINSKI-Do you want a submittal to you before the meeting? MR. ROUND-Yes, at a minimum. MR. STONE-So we want to talk June. MR. RUCINSKI-Why don’t we target it for June. MR. STONE-And you can always come back. AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNally, Mr. Lapham, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-1999 TYPE II HC-1A DARREN & NANCY MANZARI OWNER: JAMES T. CULLINAN QUAKER ROAD AND EVERTS AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 576 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BUILDING AND REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE. ALSO THE APPLICANT PROPOSES RELOCATION OF THE EXISTING CURB CUT AND REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. SUB. NO. 3-1999 AV 15- 1999 PZ 4-98 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 4/14/99 TAX MAP NO. 108-1-31, 21, 33.1, 34, 38, 27, 28 LOT SIZE: 1 ACRE SECTION: 179-28, 179-66 JON LAPPER & MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 20-1999, Darren & Nancy Manzari, Meeting Date: April 21, 1999 “Project Location: Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 576 sf addition to an existing building and is requesting setback relief and access separation relief. Relief Required: Applicant requests 21.2 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum setback requirement of the Travel Corridor Overlay zone, § 179-28. Also the applicant is requesting relief from the 150 foot minimum separation distance between access points as well as relief from the 40 foot maximum access drive width requirement. Criteria for considering an Area Variance 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the addition to create a customer service area for the public. Also the applicant would be permitted to relocate an existing access point and alleviate potential traffic hazards. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a relocation of the addition to a compliant location, i.e. the rear of the building, a downsized proposal geared toward minimum relief and internal reconfiguration of the building. Feasible alternatives relating to the access point may include, reconfiguration to a compliant location and no new construction. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 21.2 feet of relief from the 75 foot Travel Corridor Overlay zone setback requirement may be interpreted as moderate. XXXX relief from the 150 foot minimum separation distance requirement and XXXX relief from the 40 foot maximum width for access points may, cumulatively, be interpreted as moderate to substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood 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.): Petition for Zone Change P4-98 AV15-1999 res. 3/17/99 lot width relief approved SPR13-1999 res. 4/27/99 Auto Sales and Service pending Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Given the requested relief from the Travel Corridor Overlay zone may appear to be moderate to significant, the existing width of the County right-of-way for Quaker Road is extremely large in this area. This proposal would not likely have a significant affect on any enlargement of the road. The relocation and reconfiguration of the access points appears to be focused establishing a shared drive to facilitate access to each. SEQR Status: Type II” MR STONE-Do we have these numbers? You have them for the X’s that we have here, for relief? We don’t have the actual relief numbers in our Staff Notes. MR. ROUND-It was in a state of flux, the access point location, I think, when these notes were drafted. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Are you talking about on the? MR. STONE-I’m talking about “Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance”, Notes to File. MR. LAPPER-But you’re not talking about the Travel Corridor Overlay. You’re talking about the separation. MRS. LAPHAM-Distance, the 150 foot minimum. MR. LAPPER-No, because after talking to the County, they measure from the center of the opening to the center of the opening, so that we didn’t think that there was a violation, but Queensbury Planning Staff thought that there was. So the extent that they have put it on here we should ask for the relief if they believe that it’s required. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. STEVES-They were measuring from edge to edge, and we had measured from center to center. MR. STONE-Okay, because we’ll have to get to that, when we do, but right now we have Z’s and X’s in here. MR. LAPPER-We can scale that out as we go along, right now. MR. STONE-Okay. Just a quick question before I get to the applicant. Chris or Laura, would you tell me what “res.” means. I know I may sound stupid. What does “res.” mean? MR. ROUND-These are Craig’s notes. It’s resolution dated, probably. That’s what I would say. MR. STONE-Okay. Having said that. Go ahead. MR. LAPPER-Okay. For the record, my name is Jon Lapper. I’m here with Matt Steves, and Darren and Nancy Manzari who are under contract to purchase the lot and relocate their business are here tonight also to address any questions the Board may have. To start out with, the reason why Matt and I couldn’t figure out about the other variance is that, after meeting with Staff, we modified the plan to reduce the width of this curb cut to 40 feet, which means that we’re now 150 feet between curb cuts. MR. ROUND-We were anticipating that, and we didn’t receive that. MR. STEVES-So the edge to edge distance is now 151 feet. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) MR. ROUND-That relief is not required. MR. STONE-We don’t need the relief, and it’s only going to be one curb cut for both this business and the one to the east? MR. LAPPER-Yes, that’s correct. There always was one curb cut, but it was a wide curb cut, and it was in front of the business to the east. So when we first met with the Planning Staff to go over this, before we even designed the site, they suggested that we center it between the two, which made a lot of sense. It also made it more green in front of the other site, which was lacking in green. So we relocated it to center it, and then we subsequently dropped it to 40 feet, when that issue was raised. MR. STONE-Okay. So we’re only talking a variance for the relief from the Travel Corridor Overlay. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Do you agree with that, Chris? MR. ROUND-Right. MR. LAPPER-This is what it looks like, with the 40 feet, two outs and one in. Okay. Now that we’ve cleared that up, this variance is requested in conjunction with a project that is designed to significantly improve this lot, which, as it sits today, is 100% impermeable, the building and the pavement. The site has been designed to remove 30% of the pavement, so that we’ll comply with the green space requirement in the zone, and in addition, which doesn’t count for the 30%, to remove a substantial amount of pavement within the County right-of-way, and grass that area. So when you’re driving along the travel corridor, you’re going to see a substantial amount of green that has nothing even to do with our 30%, and we already have received the approval of Warren County for that. That’s a highway work permit, administerial, a curb cut relocation permit, and they’ve granted that. So they’re in favor of that. In addition, the signs are conforming. Everything is now conforming. MR. STONE-Jon, you have conforming signs? MR. LAPPER-Yes, sir. It’s true, and the reason for proposing to put the new addition in front, within the travel corridor is just because of the type of use that it’s going to have, as a customer service waiting area. You want that in front where people can see it. Could it physically be placed in the back of the building? Yes, but this building, if you drive by, the building is oriented toward the old dealership building, soon to be the new Hewitt’s Garden Center. So it faces to the west. What you look at from Quaker Road is a very unattractive, concrete block wall, and that’s what we’re proposing to soften up by adding a glass waiting area. In addition, in order to get the 30% green, and in order to make it look better from the road, Matt and Jim Miller designed what you see in front of you, to add this very nice landscaped area in front, that also helps to justify the fact that we’re asking for the relief. Beyond that, as Staff mentioned, we have 50 feet? MR. STEVES-From the property line, existing on the highway line, to the edge of the pavement on the (lost word) corridor is 53 feet. MR. LAPPER-So from the edge of pavement, and granted that can change, but it’s 53 feet to the property line, and then another 54 feet to the front of our building. Fifty-four feet happens to be the same distance that the dealership building, Hewitt’s Garden Center building is from the property line, which is pre-existing, and that’s substantially more, 19 feet, the building which is just to the east, it’s 19 feet from the, so it’s certainly in keeping with what’s in the corridor. As a practical matter, it doesn’t seem likely that the five lane Quaker Road would be widened to six or seven lanes, but if it were, two more lanes could be added and it would still be within the County right-of-way, which is the main justification for the Travel Corridor Overlay, and the other justification, the secondary justification, in terms of the green area, right now, the map shows that we have 23 foot drainage swale, which is green, and we’re going to be removing the pavement within the County right-of-way, and making that whole 50 foot area green, and then we’re removing pavement immediately behind that. MR. STEVES-The overall distance from the corner of our parking, which would be the northeasterly corner of the parking to the edge of the pavement on Quaker Road would be approximately 92 feet. MR. LAPPER-Which is going to be green, and that includes a substantial amount of shrubs and the landscaped island that will go between the two sites, with the exception of the area where the Planning Board asked us to connect the two parcels, which we have done, is all going to be planted with trees and shrubs, courtesy of Hewitt’s Garden Centers. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) MR. STEVES-The cross-hatched area on Sheet SP-1 demonstrates the area that is currently paved that will now be removed for green, with the exception of the proposed addition. MR. STONE-Where is this pole going that you’re going to re-locate? There’s an existing pole that it says you’re going to re-locate. MR. STEVES-The existing pole will just be moved out on that line, back to the west. MR. STONE-Back to the west. Okay. So you’ll have a longer overhang over the driveway. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. STONE-Any questions of the applicant? No questions? All right. Then having no questions from the Board, I will open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? Anybody in favor? Anybody opposed? Anybody opposed to this application? Opposed? Hearing none, I’ll ask, is there any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Lets start with Bob. MR. MC NALLY-From my perspective, the addition being put on the front of the building is going to have no impact on Quaker Road whatsoever, or the Travel Corridor Overlay, because of the width of Quaker Road. I don’t see a problem at all. MR. STONE-Dan? MR. STEC-Well, in my opinion, this is an example of an applicant that has done everything within their possibility to try to both compromise and improve the situation. I agree 100% with what Bob said. This is not an impact at all on the Quaker Road travel corridor, and it is an aesthetic improvement. I don’t think the relief is very significant, and again, this is a perfect example of what good planning and compromise and cooperation can do to make an existing business zone fly, again, and it’s a service to the community. It brings taxes into the Town. It’s a win/win situation for all involved. So I’m 100% behind this. It’s well organized, and my compliments to all involved. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I’m still bothered by intrusions into the Travel Corridor. It strikes me that every time we say, well, the roads are already wide, and it’s really not important to have a Travel Corridor there, we’re second guessing the people that were the authors of the Travel Corridor. Having said that, however, I will agree that it looks as though there’s going to be substantial improvement with this project, and given that the two adjacent buildings are already out at least as far, I think it’s a fair compromise to allow the addition in exchange for improvements that are being made. MR. STONE-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I think it’s a good project, and I think it’s an improvement from what is there now. When it was Queensbury Motors, it was a very attractive motor dealership, but times change, businesses change, and you’re adapting, I think it’s being adapted very well. I would vote for it. I’m happy with it. MR. STONE-Last month, when we gave approval to the subdivision, whatever it is we did, I certainly had no problem then, and having seen, now, exactly what the applicant proposes to do, as far as green space is concerned, and getting rid of a lot of the impermeable surface, I think it’s a great project. It’s certainly a corner that demands being as pretty as possible. It is a vital part of Queensbury, and I, too, like the rest of the Board, applaud the applicant for taking the time and the expenditure of funds to make this a very nice project. Having said that, I’ll call for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-1999 DARREN & NANCY MANZARI, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) Quaker Road, New York. The applicant proposes construction of a 576 square foot addition to an existing building and is requesting setback relief from the Travel Corridor Overlay requirements. Specifically, the applicant requests 21.2 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum setback requirement of the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, Section 179-28. The benefit to the applicant would be that they would be permitted to construct an addition for a customer service area to the public. The feasible alternatives would include relocation to the rear. However, given the existing layout of the property, the most feasible alternative is to have the customer service area in the front of the building, closest to the road. The relief is not substantial, in my opinion, relative to the Ordinance. While they’re requesting 21.2 feet of relief from the 75 foot Overlay requirement, in fact, because of the width of Quaker Road, there is actually more than 100 feet of green space between the edge of Quaker Road’s pavement and the portion of the new building being built. So effectively, the Town of Queensbury has its 75 foot Travel Corridor Overlay and then some. I see no effect on the neighborhood or community, except that by approving this property, there will be substantial improvements in both the aesthetics and the utility of the property. The difficulty is not self created, but is the result of the existing structures as they existed. For these reasons, I move the approval of the variance. Duly adopted this 21 day of April, 1999, by the following vote: st AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas MR. LAPPER-Thanks very much. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you, gentlemen. AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-1999 TYPE WR-1A HOWLAND CONSTRUCTION, INC. OWNER: STEVEN & CATHIE SCHONWETTER END OF HOLIDAY POINT, OFF OF SEELEY ROAD, OFF ROCKHURST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 572 SQ. FT. CARPORT AND A COVERED BOATHOUSE AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-1A ZONE AND RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SHORELINE AND WETLAND REGULATIONS. ALSO, RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE AND FOR RELIEF FROM THE FLOOR AREA RATIO. CROSS REF. SPR 16-99 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 4/14/99 TAX MAP NO. 16-1-24.1 LOT SIZE: 0.43 ACRES SECTION 179- 16, 179-70, 179-60 GEORGIA VAN GUILDER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 22-1999, Howland Construction, Inc., Meeting Date: April 21, 1999 “Project Location: End of Holiday Point Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 572 sf carport addition to an existing single family dwelling and reconfiguration of the existing dock along with the construction of an open boathouse/sundeck over the same. Relief Required: Applicant requests 47 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16 and simultaneous relief from the Shoreline and Wetlands Regulations, § 179-60. Specifically, 47 feet of relief from the 50 foot shoreline setback requirement for the carport and 19 feet of side setback relief from the 20 foot minimum for the sundeck. Further the applicant requests 30 feet of relief from provision governing the length of a dock shall extend no further off shore than 40 feet from the mean low water mark. Additionally, since both the existing structures, (house and dock), and the proposed additions do not meet the setback requirements, relief for expansion of non conforming structures is requested as per § 179-79. Also relief from the 22% floor area ratio requirement is requested. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct and utilize protective areas for both vehicles and boats. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited. Given that this property averages 75 feet in width, any development on this site would need some level of relief. Feasible alternatives relating to the dock reconfiguration may include a smaller proposal, flipping the sundeck to the north side of the dock and no construction. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The cumulative relief requesting 47 feet of relief from the 50 foot requirements, 19 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirements, an additional 30 feet above the 40 foot dock length requirement and floor area ratio relief may be interpreted as extremely substantial. 4. Effects on the 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) neighborhood or community: Moderate to substantial effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be partially attributed to the pre-existing nature of the lot and structures. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: Moderate to substantial impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Construction within 50 feet of the shore of Lake George may present a significant visual impact. This proposal calls for construction within 3 feet of the shore. While this property may be encumbered by its pre-existing nature, there appears to be feasible alternatives to the construction of this carport. This amount of Floor Area Ratio relief may be considered substantial and may have impacts in the form of additional requests for similar relief. The reconfiguration of the dock and the construction of the sundeck may be alternatively located on the north side of the dock in exchange for being in excess of 40 feet from the mean low water mark. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Okay. You are? MRS. VAN GUILDER-I’m Georgia VanGuilder. I’m representing Dean Howland, Jr., Howland Construction. He’s out of town tonight. MR. STONE-Okay. Anything more you want to tell us? MRS. VAN GUILDER-Just a bit. This actually is in three phases. One is the dock, one is the carport, and the third is the bumping out of the upstairs living spaces. So actually what we would like you to take into consideration is that this carport will only be, it will be three to four feet off of the water’s edge, and there is the concrete seawall that does the perimeter of the house. It’s an existing house that’s in dire need of updating. The owners, at this time, are part time residents. They would like to turn this into a full time residence and move to Lake George on a full time basis. Therefore, that’s the request for the extended living spaces in the upstairs. The carport we would like to have as, if you’ve been to the lot, there’s a lot of old black top down there. We need to have the black top altered and have the carport put into place, just for some protection. Also, for wind protection for full time residents for a main entrance. As you can see, the carport’s on the south side of the existing building to be, and we would like to have the entrance at that end, out of the wind, off of the lake. The change in the dock configuration is to bring it more into line with the property lines. If you’ve seen the dock, also, that’s in dire need of upgrading. It does not conform to State codes on Lake George. We would like to rebuild it, of course, and have it meeting all the Codes, have a dock crib put into place with a bridge dock going from one side to the other. What is there, it just needs to be replaced. The upstairs, the 10 foot extension from the house, if you’ve seen the house, it’s kind of a salt boxed shaped size, the house. There is, the first floor has the square footage on it. All we’re asking to do is extend the second floor out to meet the first floor living area, therefore extending it out the, it’s the additional square footage of the upstairs. It’s 10 foot out. So, any suggestions you could make, we would be open to listen to. MR. STONE-Is the Lake George Park Commission involved in the dock? MRS. VAN GUILDER-Yes, they are. MR. STONE-And they heard this project? MRS. VAN GUILDER-Yes, they have. MR. STONE-And what was their determination? MRS. VAN GUILDER-We're talking with Molly on it right now, and I've not heard back from her, but we are in contact with them. MR. STONE-Okay. Was there any mention of that concrete underneath the wood dock being removed or anything? MRS. VAN GUILDER-No, I can’t tell you one way or the other. MR. STONE-Because I noticed like an old, that had collapsed, a dock was built over it. MRS. VAN GUILDER-Yes. There’s something there, but what they’re looking to do is to revamp the whole crib dock, have the two walkways going on either side, and as I said, to straighten it out and bring it more into conformity with the property line. MR. STONE-All right. So you’re not asking for everything that’s in the Staff Notes, I gather? MRS. VAN GUILDER-Certainly. I’ll take everything if you approve everything. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) MR. STONE-No, no. MRS. VAN GUILDER-No, what we’re asking for, primarily, is at this point is the carport and the dock. The extension of the house, we know, is going to be contingent on the upgraded septic system, being that this is going to be a full time residence. The homeowners do want an upgraded septic system put in place, and that right now is being designed by Dennis Dickinsen. MR. STONE-And the edge of this carport is going to be three feet from the lake? MRS. VAN GUILDER-Yes, between three and four feet, yes, sir, and there are no plans at all in the future to enclose the sides of it whatsoever. It will be just a carport. As I said, the main entrance will be moved to beneath the carport, on the south side of the house, to get it out of the wind. MR. STONE-There’s no wall on the south side? Along the shore? It’s just a post standing there. MRS. VAN GUILDER-Right. That’s correct. It’s just a post. MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. VAN GUILDER-I think there is a copy of a picture in there. MR. STONE-I've got so many pictures. MRS. VAN GUILDER-Mine aren’t colored. I’m sorry. MR. STONE-Mine aren’t colored, either. MRS. VAN GUILDER-There is a copy, I think right beneath the SEQRA form, you’ll see the way the design should look. MR. STONE-And that post on the left side is three and a half feet from the lake? MRS. VAN GUILDER-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-I had a question about the Floor Area Ratio. MR. ROUND-I’ll respond to that. The application was originally received with that request for an expansion of Floor Area, and it was since modified, because we cannot request for Floor Area expansion because we do not have verification that the septic system is capable of handling the additional living space. So they are now investigating, they’re doing an engineering feasibility to see if their system is capable of handling the additional living space, or if they have to construct a new system to comply with the standard. MR. STONE-So, all we’re asked to grant a variance, yes or no, is on the carport and the dock? MR. ROUND-Correct. MRS. VAN GUILDER-Correct. MR. MC NALLY-The addition on the building itself is not being considered? MR. ROUND-Is not being entertained tonight. MRS. VAN GUILDER-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-And the dock, you are asking for 30 feet in addition to the allowable 40 feet of dock? Is that the way I’m understanding it? MR. STONE-That’s what I read. MRS. LAPHAM-Seven hundred feet of dock space. MR. STONE-Where is it going? That’s what I’m trying to figure out. MRS. VAN GUILDER-Okay. The total dock area is 700 square feet, plus or minus, and that’s with the crib and the bridge dock. The existing dock is 732. We wouldn’t be adding 700 more to the 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) existing dock. We would be taking and, if you look at the diagram, we would be altering the shape of it and rebuilding it. MR. STONE-Yes, but that’s 70 feet from the shore to the extreme eastern end of that dock, is that what you’re saying? MR. MC NALLY-Your application says you want 30 feet on top of an existing 40. MR. STONE-The dock is allowed to be 40 feet out from the shore. You want 70 feet out from the shore? MRS. VAN GUILDER-That’s not the way I’m seeing it, but. MR. STONE-Well, that’s what we’re asking. That’s what it seems to say. MR. ROUND-Yes, it’s in excess of 40 feet, I think the total length of that dock is 50 feet. MR. MC NALLY-Right. MR. STONE-You mean 50 feet as the crow flies here or something? So we’re talking from here to here is 50, you’re saying, suggesting? I don’t know if there’s a scale on here or not. Okay. So out to the extreme end of the far out “L”, or the far out pier is 70 feet from shore. MR. MC NALLY-If you actually scale it, that’s what it looks like from your map. STEVE SCHONWETTER MR. SCHONWETTER-My name is Steven Schonwetter, and Dean Howland is building this house for us. We're asking for it to be built in the same location that it is right now, just rebuilt and reshaped a little bit differently. MR. STONE-We're talking about the dock. It looks out to the end of the pier, furthest away from the shore, is about 65, as I look at this, because there’s a section here that says you’re going to remove. MRS. VAN GUILDER-Right. MR. STONE-But it’s 65 to that far easterly point. MRS. VAN GUILDER-Yes. MR. STONE-Which is 25 more than is allowed. MR. SCHONWETTER-Yes. We're asking that it be kept the same length that it is right now, but just reconstruct it in a better form. MR. STONE-I hear that. MR. MC NALLY-Do they need a variance for reconstructing, or repairing? MR. ROUND-We're considering it, it’s a new configuration, it’s a new dock, so that they’d have to comply with that. MR. SCHONWETTER-We could rebuild it the way that it is right now, but it wouldn’t be nearly as good and as well built as if we got permission to take it down and re-do it again, rather than just replacing the boards the way that they are right now, and I just wanted to make a couple of other comments, if I could. MR. STONE-Sure. MR. SCHONWETTER-The closeness of the carport to the lake right now, that’s where we park right now, the cars, that is already the cars that are there. We're just asking for us to be able to put a carport above that, and we would take out that black top there and put stone down, shaped stone. I forgot what they call it, braiding blocks or something, so that it would actually improve the area, and you can see right through that, so that it wouldn’t, you know, it’s not going to block anybody’s view or anything. It’ll just have some place we’re used to being able to park cars, under something for a full time house. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) MR. STONE-No, we hear that. Where you park cars is your business. Where you build is our business, is about what it boils down to. MR. SCHONWETTER-We thought it would be an improvement, and the other thing is, I was under the understanding that we were asking for, also, approval of our additional living space upstairs, contingent on approval of the septic requirements, okay, whatever they may be. If we’re asked to, you know, if we could get that contingent upon if we need additional septic, it obviously has to be approved, and if that could be, if we could get our approval from you, before we go out and spend $5,000 on the design work for the septic, in order to do that, and that’s what we were hoping to be able to do, rather than come back for that separately. MR. STONE-Well, we’ve been taking the tact, lately, that if it’s not a septic variance, then we’re not talking Town Board of Health. MR. ROUND-Right. If you’re able to construct a, generally, we’re looking for affirmation, and I apologize, because Craig Brown is the Staff person for the Zoning Board. I’m standing in for him tonight. He’s been in communication with Dean on several occasions, and I don’t have that record in front of me, but generally we need either verification that you have an existing system that’s compliant with the requirements, or if you’re going to construct a system, to present significant detail, or sufficient detail that says that you can construct a compliant system, but if that’s unknown, and it’s unresolved, I mean, it’s difficult to move forward, to give you a variance to construct something. Now, you’re placing a burden on the Town Board of Health to say, well, hey, the Zoning Board already heard this application. We're going to go ahead and we’re hesitant to provide any contingencies. If you could proceed forward with an engineering design, and you can construct a system, without any variances, that would be all well and fine, but I know this site, given its configuration, I think that’s going to be a difficult task to achieve. MR. MC NALLY-Is it on ledge or something? MR. ROUND-Well, I just, the lot configuration, if you look at the setbacks. I don’t think any system could be constructed within 100 feet of the, outside of the 100 foot separation distance. MR. STONE-I think, as Mr. Round says, we take it one step at a time, because if we do a contingency, then we’re asking somebody else to do something that we’re not sure, they don’t know where we’re coming from and we don’t know where they’re coming from. If we get to an approved system, then we can consider the expansion, because we certainly have the right to ask you to modify the construction of the house, or the square footage, and so on and so forth. The septic system is somebody else’s purview, and we’d like to have that settled before we take it under consideration. MR. MC NALLY-You’re actually raising the roof line? I see it going up to 24 feet above the salt box configuration? Well, not above the, the total height will be 24 feet, though? MRS. VAN GUILDER-It would be coming out even with the existing house, as it is now. We would just be moving out 10 feet, to the existing height that it is at this point, over that one area. MR. STONE-I guess in walking the property, that little bay window, whatever you want to call it, on the east elevation, that’s not very pronounced, is it? I mean, I didn’t really notice it, as I walked, or is that something, it can’t be new, because it would be in the water. That’s there now. It doesn’t look that way, of course, I wasn’t out in a boat. So I didn’t step back. I didn’t take that one more step. Are you going, again, I think we’re going to limit ourselves to the carport and the dock at the moment, but would you plan anything more to the north? I mean, is that part, I really couldn’t understand. MRS. VAN GUILDER-On the north side of the property, they have a neighbor that has a restriction in their deed, the view of the lake. There can’t be anything built in that area. MR. SCHONWETTER-There’s a line of site restriction over that in our deed, from Pete and Tina Collins. MR. ROUND-I think it’s depicted on the survey map, that vista. MR. SCHONWETTER-Yes, it is. MRS. VAN GUILDER-So this is actually the only location that we could feasibly put a carport. MR. STONE-I’m trying to think. Is this to the line here, you mean? Because north is. MR. ROUND-I don’t know if it’s on the one you have in front of you. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) MR. MC NALLY-It’s not on this one. MR. ROUND-It says deeded restriction line. So nothing can be constructed. MR. STONE-Okay, but this 315 square foot is new? MRS. VAN GUILDER-No, that’s existing deck. MR. STONE-That’s existing deck? MRS. VAN GUILDER-That’s existing deck. MR. STONE-Okay. Any questions? Lets confine ourselves to the carport, and the dock. Now, you’re saying the dock is still undecided by the Park Commission? MRS. VAN GUILDER-At this time, yes, to the best of my knowledge. MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. VAN GUILDER-We're still working with Molly on that. MR. STONE-Chris, the Park Commission. They take precedence on a dock, before we do? MR. ROUND-There’s overlapping jurisdiction. How’s that? Nobody takes precedence. We have our own regulatory framework, and they have their own regulatory framework. They’re very similar in nature. We do not dictate to the Park Commission and the Park Commission does not dictate what we do, but the applicant is restricted by both. MRS. VAN GUILDER-I understand that. MR. STONE-All right. MR. MC NALLY-Is Howland Construction the company that’s doing the other building at the other end of Holiday Point Road? MRS. VAN GUILDER-The one for Mahoney, the big one? Yes. We are. MR. STONE-The shed would go, if you put the carport in? MRS. VAN GUILDER-Yes, it will. MR. STONE-And I noticed, as I recall, didn’t the pavement go right to the property line? MRS. VAN GUILDER-The pavement’s going to be coming up, and we’re going to be putting down landscaping, and stoning, and also to handle the wastewater management off of the house, we would be taking and diverting the water into the shrubbery, rather than into the lake. MR. MC NALLY-Into the shrubbery? MRS. VAN GUILDER-Well, into the landscaping area around, the anticipated landscaping around the edge of the carport. MR. MC NALLY-So you just have ordinary downspouts and drains? MR. SCHONWETTER-Right now, yes. MR. MC NALLY-That’s what you’re planning, though? MRS. VAN GUILDER-Right. This is all what we’re going to do if granted for the carport. MR. MC NALLY-And in the Floor Area Ratio worksheet, I know you’re not looking for relief from it, but I understood it to say, basically, that that’s the square footage of your current residence, as it is now. MRS. VAN GUILDER-That’s correct. MR. MC NALLY-If you look at it as 1394 square feet, I think, on the first floor, then 944 is the existing, or is that the proposed? 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) MRS. VAN GUILDER-944 is what is called your footprint, that’s the first floor, 944, and then the upstairs is only a half, or three quarters of an upstairs, and they wanted to bump it out some more. MR. MC NALLY-This one, as far as your application, Floor Area worksheet. MR. STONE-It says 1345 second floor. MR. SCHONWETTER-That’s for the whole house. MR. STONE-I’m sorry, 944. MR. MC NALLY-Yes. I just want to get an idea what the square footage is. It says 1345 on the first floor. Is that right? MRS. VAN GUILDER-I can’t see where that would be correct. MR. SCHONWETTER-Thirteen hundred square feet is the whole living space. MRS. VAN GUILDER-This is the existing house. MR. MC NALLY-Then 944, then you’re proposing to add space up there, too. MR. STONE-There is space up there now. MRS. VAN GUILDER-We're proposing to add this amount right here to the second floor, just bump this out, because at this time, this is all that exists on the first floor, and this is what exists on the second floor. MR. MC NALLY-Okay, and what is the square footage on the second floor? Do you know? Is that the 944 or is the 944 (lost word)? MRS. VAN GUILDER-Dean’s got 1345 square feet. MR. MC NALLY-On the second floor. MRS. VAN GUILDER-Yes, but I’m just saying that this is probably, you know, the anticipated second floor. MR. STONE-Well, you’re saying the footprint is 1345, and that’s not going to change, but there’s going to be an addition, but that’s not the Floor Area Ratio, because you already have a second story, partially, and you’re going to add to it, correct? MRS. VAN GUILDER-We're just going to bump out the one room 10 feet. MR. STONE-But that’s going to exceed the 22%, when you do that, though, I guess. MRS. MOORE-I don’t have the numbers in front of me. It’s possible that it exceeds the 22%. I don’t know what numbers you’re looking at. MR. STONE-I’m not looking at the expansion number, because I don’t have an expansion number. Do we? MRS. MOORE-For the bump out, for the expansion of floor area? MR. STONE-Well, you’re going to add 274 square feet to the second story, and the carport. Okay. Well, lets talk about the carport. Any other questions about the carport and the dock? Okay. If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of this application, concerning the building of the carport, which would be three feet from the lake, therefore needing 47 feet of relief, and building a dock that would require, as I look at the scale, 25 feet of relief from the 40 foot length from the shore. Anybody in favor? Anybody opposed? Anybody opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DAUREEN CAIAZZO MS. CAIAZZO-I’m Daureen Caiazzo. We're neighbors of the Schonwetters. We're the Holiday Point group. Our concern, mostly, is the adverse effect that this might have on our beach property, our common beach property there at Holiday Point. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) MR. STONE-Where is the beach property? MS. CAIAZZO-Right there next to their house on the Point. MR. STONE-Around the corner to the west? MS. CAIAZZO-Yes, where that stone wall continues around, and where the large docks are. MRS. LAPHAM-The house up here, and then you have the little bump out with the wall, and that’s where it is, right? MS. CAIAZZO-Right, and then the docks that are out there. MR. STONE-And what is your concern, again? How are you? MS. CAIAZZO-The adverse effect that it would have on our beach property. MR. STONE-The carport and the dock? MS. CAIAZZO-And the dock, and the construction of it. MR. STONE-We're not talking about the house at the moment. MS. CAIAZZO-Right. Everything in that small area, and you’ve seen it. MR. STONE-Now, are you talking about the actual construction, or what results when it’s all over? MS. CAIAZZO-Both. MR. STONE-All right. You’re concerned about the active construction. Is that what you’re saying? MS. CAIAZZO-And crowding the lakeshore, too. MR. STONE-Okay. MARTHA SCHMULBACH MRS. SCHMULBACH-I’m Martha Schmulbach. I’m also a neighbor of the Schonwetters, and I have an interest in the lake front, and I would repeat what Daureen has said. I think it might have an adverse effect on our common ground there, which is about 125 feet of open space on the lake front, which is supposed to remain open and unobstructed at all times, and we’re concerned that this might encroach on that, either now or in the future. MR. STONE-I don’t want to push you to the wall, but how encroach? I mean, the carport, and the applicant says it's going to be open, it’s going to be away from the common ground, I gather, from what I understand. MRS. SCHMULBACH-Yes, well, that was one of our questions. We didn’t know where it was going to be from the, so we’re here because we didn’t know where it was going to be. MR. STONE-It’s going to be right next to the neighbor’s property to the south. MRS. VAN GUILDER-This is where the carport would be, on the south side. This is where the common area is over here, and this is where the restricting line is here, and that’s what it would be looking like when it’s completed. The only variance that we would be looking for would be to take the dock out at this end on this property line and to replace all of that. We’d be taking out old and just replacing this, but because this is nonconforming, the same amount of dock area (lost words), but this is where the carport would be. MR. STONE-They’re proposing a covered dock, well, an open with a roof. MRS. VAN GUILDER-It’s all going to be open, over here. Your common area is over here, and this would not be affected at all. This site right here is not going to be obstructed at all. There would be nothing going in here. MRS. SCHMULBACH-It’ll bump out toward the carport on the south side? MRS. VAN GUILDER-This way. We would not do anything with the common area at all. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) MRS. SCHMULBACH-Okay, or on the front? MRS. VAN GUILDER-Or on the front. MR. STONE-Does that help you? Do you feel better? MRS. SCHMULBACH-Yes. It answers the question a lot better than this announcement did. It just says they want to expand all over the place. MR. STONE-Well, they still may want to expand all over the place, but we’re not talking about that tonight. MRS. SCHMULBACH-Now that’s north. That would be out toward the lake. So you’re closing in your patio there. MR. STONE-Well, we’re not talking about that part. Right now, they’re talking to the southeast side of the house, and the dock that goes off from the southeast property line. That’s what they’re talking about. Do you feel more comfortable? MRS. SCHMULBACH-Yes. JOHN SCHMULBACH MR. SCHMULBACH-Let me add to that. My name is John Schmulbach. I’m Marty’s husband, and I've been boating on the lake for 50 years as a boater, and I've lived up here for 15 years. The fact is the house that I have was built originally by the builder’s father. The problem with his dock, if I were speaking for another member of our group, Collins, who has the house next door to theirs, if they have a carport on there, they’re going to, it appears that they would restrict the view from Collins’ property onto the lake. Now, I’d have to see more of a scaled drawing than what I've seen before, but that seems to be, if Collins were here, he would probably ask questions about the carport. MR. SCHONWETTER-Excuse me. I've talked to Pete Collins, and he doesn’t have a problem with our application. MR. STONE-Do we have a letter from him? MR. SCHONWETTER-No, but I could get it from him, in support. MR. STONE-Well, it’s always helpful. I always say people who are in favor of, we kind of like to hear it, because it makes it easier, it makes our job easier, but you’re pointing out to us, and I accept your concern, that there might be a visual impact from the property to the southeast, or however, to the south, and I hear that. MR. SCHMULBACH-We're primarily concerned about the beach area where the children play, so that that’s not in any way changed, because there are eight families that jointly own that property. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else opposed? JOHN SALVADOR, JR. MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I’m not necessarily opposed to this application. I just have a few questions for clarification. Isn’t this in a Critical Environmental Area? MR. STONE-All of waterfront zoning. MR. SALVADOR-It’s not noted on this. MR. STONE-It’s almost by definition, though, isn’t it, if it’s, that’s a good point. MR. SALVADOR-You have the Adirondack Park Agency listed here. What jurisdiction do they have? MR. STONE-Ask Staff, I do not know. It’s on the application. MRS. MOORE-It’s located within the Adirondack Park. MR. STONE-They have the review process, 30 days after we make a decision. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) MR. SALVADOR-Okay. That’s the reason? MR. ROUND-Yes, shoreline variances, they generally have comment. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. You mention here the shoreline. You said something about it having been mapped, it’s indicated on the map. MR. STONE-The material given us with the application. I don’t have a map, per se. We have a drawing to scale. MR. SALVADOR-And what is the definition of the shoreline on that scaled drawing? MR. STONE-Where the water meets the concrete. I don’t know about the mean low watermark, whatever that number is, 800 and however feet it is, but it’s where the water meets the concrete. MR. SALVADOR-Well, if you were to take the trouble to define the shoreline, the way it’s defined in the law, you might have to define how much of this 0.43 acres is, in fact, under water, and not usable. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. MR. STONE-Any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. To: Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, Bonnie Lapham, From: Linda McCollister “Bonnie, I would appreciate your giving this letter and photo to the Zoning Board of Appeals in advance of their meeting this evening. Thanks, Linda.”, and she has her Florida phone number here Linda B. McCollister, 103 Seeley Road, Cleverdale, NY, April 21, 1999, Town of Queensbury, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY Attention: Zoning Board of Appeals RE: Area Variance No. 22-1999 Schonwetter “I have been a year round resident of the Lake since 1968, living on the same property my grandfather purchased in 1910. Over the years I've seen many dramatic changes to the properties surrounding Warner Bay, some good – some not so good. I’m writing you to share some of my concerns and objections to the above variance request. I also want to share some historical background, as I know it, regarding this parcel of land. 1. I am opposed to the addition of a covered boat slip because it will further reduce our view of the bay and the Lake. Back in the late 1950’s, the original developer constructed a roof over the docks in this same location, so I remember how that structure seriously impeded our view. That roof structure was challenged by the neighbors and subsequently removed. In the late 60’s, the same owner expanded this particular property until there was sufficient land area to build a house – which has permanently blocked our view of the bay. The addition of a covered boat slip in the proposed location will result in yet another structure closing off the view (I have included photo copies of two recent photos of the area for your review). I think we’ve given up enough of our view and would like to avoid any further obstructions. I ask that you not allow this portion of the application. 2. Given the man made nature of this particular parcel and the current proximity of the house to the Lake, I think the Board should be extremely reluctant to approve any additional relief from the Town’s setback requirements. 3. It’s very difficult to believe the building area represents less than 1/10 of the land area or that the floor area ratio is 15%. Does the building really rest on .43 contiguous acres owned solely by the applicant? Can we be certain this calculation doesn’t include property owned jointly with the association? 4. I presume the additional living space will lead to an upgrade of the existing septic system? How is this accomplished on such a small parcel of land? I’m sure the Schonwetters will make some fine improvements to their home, but I’m also very concerned about granting more exemptions to the zoning ordinance in a case where an existing home already enjoys numerous exceptions. I believe these ordinances were enacted to protect our neighborhood and the Lake and I hope the Board will be very reluctant to grant yet another variance enabling more expansion on an undersized parcel. Unfortunately, a previous commitment does not allow me to attend your meeting in person. I would, however, appreciate a written response to my concerns. Sincerely, Linda Beals McCollister” MR. STONE-Anything else? MRS. LAPHAM-No, and the photos are here. MR. STONE-So the McCollisters are further south on the? MR. SCHONWETTER-I don’t know them MR. STONE-You don’t know them. Okay. It looks as if they’re south, on the east side of, further down Seeley Road, I guess. Anything else? 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. STONE-Any other comments? Any other members of the public want to comment, yes or no? Hearing none, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Does the Board have any further questions of the applicant? MR. SCHONWETTER-Excuse me. I’m sorry. I’d just also like to say that I bought the house from my father and mother, who bought the house in 1971 or ’72. So I've lived there since 1971 or ’72, myself, with my family. My parents could no longer afford to own two homes. They have a home in Florida and one in Lake George, and I bought it from them, to keep it in the family. Because my kids were brought up there since they were little kids, and I can’t afford to keep two homes, either. So we’re selling our house in Niskauna, and we’re making full time residence in Lake George. We hired Dean Howland, whose father built that house, who my parents bought from him, and he lived there himself, when they bought it in 1971 or ’72, and we hired Dean to do this for one reason, okay, and that’s because he builds houses on the lake, and he knows what your restrictions are, and he tries to keep in as much conformance as possible. He didn’t let us, I mean, we had these grandiose ideas. We wanted to build this and build that, and he said, forget it, forget it, forget it. Lets just try to give you just the bare minimum that you need, in additional living space to fit your bedroom furniture and to fit the other things that you have in your house, and that’s what we designed. As far as something for the cars, you know, we came up with a shelter for the cars. We also tried to make it as aesthetic as possible. Are we set and determined on the top part of the deck, the deck over the docks? We can give on that. I mean, that’s not critical for us. It’s not a living space for us, but some of the parts of what we are asking for is pretty important to us, and a shelter for the cars, so that we can get out of the car and go into the house, as we get older, because that’s our retirement home. That’s where we’re going to live. This is not a summer home for us. This is not a weekend place for us. This is where we’re going to live. So we need a place to put our car and go into the house under shelter. I know it’s not being considered now, but it will be at a later date, a little bit of additional living space. The house, right now, is completely antiquated. It cost me more to heat that house and keep it at 55 degrees year round than it cost me to heat my 2700 square foot ranch in Niskauna, that’s brick and cedar and stone. It really, really, really needs updating. It is a summer cottage right now. It’s in very bad shape. The windows are rotted. The home is rotted. The roof is in good shape, that was replaced last year, unfortunately, because now we really need to do something else with it if we’re going to live there, but we really felt like we were, and I hope I’m not taking too much of your time, but we really felt like we were asking for the bare minimum to live there full time, and we were buying that house no matter what anyway, because it has sentimental meaning in my family. So I would hope that you would consider our request and under those considerations. Thank you. MR. STONE-Let me just respond to Mr. Salvador’s comments, when we talk about from the water. I am aware of the 317.74 mean low watermark and all that stuff, but in this particular case, there is a physical seawall around the property, and we’re talking relief, if we grant it, from the outward edge of the seawall, which is directly above the water, and we won’t get into the numbers of whether the land should be under water or not. MR. SALVADOR-The Town Code defines the shoreline as 320.2 above mean levels. It’s got nothing to do with seawalls. MR. STONE-I understand that. I've got this piece of paper which was courtesy of you at one time. All right. Dan, lets start with you. MR. STEC-All right. First of all, I certainly appreciate the applicant’s concerns, and I understand where he’s trying to go, and he’s well intentioned. However, I’m not inclined, and it’s for several reasons. First of all, one of the things that we always consider when we start looking into these sorts of Waterfront Residential variances are neighbor concerns, and we’ve got numerous neighbors that are doubtful that this is going to improve on the aesthetics of their property and the lake. The second thing is, we’ve had a few other similar circumstances tonight, and I think that this is in the same vein that the relief that is sought, in my opinion, is excessive. I think that 30 feet of relief beyond the 40 foot limit on a dock is certainly excessive. I think that is probably something that, there’s room for compromise there, because as you said, your main concern is really the living space. So I think that there’s probably something that can be done to improve that situation, but I’m also very concerned about the carport being located within three feet of the shoreline, if you will. So I’m not inclined for those reasons, that the neighbors aren’t in favor. The relief sought, I think, is excessive, and I want to point out that its location on the lake is the worst case scenario. It’s not in a cove or it’s not on a straight stretch of shoreline. It is located on a point. It’s extremely visible, and, in my opinion, I just think it will have a negative impact on the aesthetics of the lake. So for those three reasons, I’m not inclined. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I have mixed feelings. I think my main concern with the carport is whether or not it will indeed have a visual impact for neighbors. I understand you can look through underneath it, but I wonder how much of a problem with the. MR. SCHONWETTER-Excuse me. We only have one neighbor on that side, Pete and Tina Collins. What if we made it conditional on their approval? MR. MC NULTY-Well, that’s one thing I was going to say. I would like to see something more from the neighbors on that part. As far as the rest of the carport, it’s going to be close to the shoreline, but it’s basically a post and the foundation for the post. There’s going to be a roof over it, but there’s pavement there now. So it’s not going to make a great deal of difference as far as I can see as far as with (lost word) rain water. If they leave it the way it is, there’s pavement there. I would like to see some effort to redesign the dock, to bring it closer into conformance. I do understand what the applicant is looking for, is basically replacing what is already existing, but it becomes a substantial variance to allow it with it being a new structure. So, I guess I would be in favor of seeing a revision coming back the way it’s proposed. At the moment, I guess I would have to vote against. MR. STONE-Okay. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I’m not totally sure because I really am in sympathy with you because the wind blows and so forth, but I do feel it is kind of an excessive encroachment on the shoreline, but the house is existing, and it was built as an existing encroachment on the shoreline. It’s very close. I just don’t know. I mean, I’m really torn with this one. Because he has no place to go with the house, and does need some relief, but on the other hand, we just get closer and closer. MR. STONE-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I was struck. I’ll bet you it’s the coldest place in the world in the winter time. The wind must whip through there like it’s going out of style. I don’t own a summer home, and I don’t own lakefront property, and if I did, and if it was a camp or an older home, the first thing I’d want to do is expand it and improve it, and sitting here, we get a lot of applications like that, but it’s hard to build a modern home on a tiny lot, where there was a tiny camp that was never really suited for year round occupancy. MR. SCHONWETTER-Well, we’re building it the same size. We're just actually improving the visual look of it. MR. MC NALLY-I understand, but in doing that, you’re doing more than that. What you’re doing is you’re asking to build a carport three foot from the shore. MRS. VAN GUILDER-If we shortened the carport? MR. MC NALLY-Well, let me explain. If I walked around the house, you’re three foot from the water in an awful lot of places. Because there’s basically a sidewalk between you and the house, and then there’s a drop off into the water, and you’re just expanding that now onto the other side of the house, on that southern side where the carport’s going to be three foot from the water. I’m not sure that that lot is suited for year round residential usage, to the extent you want to use it. It’s a tiny lot. The dock itself, I mean, our Ordinance is kind of clear. You’re allowed 40 feet, and you can play in 40 feet all you want, as far as a “Y” dock or an “L” dock or an “F” dock, whatever configuration you want. Thirty feet is going to interfere with the neighbor’s view, particularly if it’s covered, along Warner Bay, the west side of Warner Bay. I’m not in favor of this application as it sits here today. I’m sorry. MR. STONE-I basically concur with my fellow Board members. I certainly, for one, have been outspoken when it comes to encroachment upon the lake. I think 50 foot is a nice round number. It's a good number. I think it helps protect the lake, as well as anything can. I recognize your house is three feet from the lake. I would encourage you, rather than have us vote it down, to see if you might want to bring in a modified application, recognizing, one, as I hear it, that people are concerned that at least the corner of the carport is going to be another structure three feet from the lake, and the fact that the dock is going to be, as I measure it, 25 feet further off the shore than our current regulations allow. I would suggest, I mean, we can make a motion, and the sense of the Board right now is to deny this application. I can suggest to you that if you want we can table it. You can come back with a modified application. MR. SCHONWETTER-Can we do that at your next meeting in two weeks? 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) MR. STONE-We can’t do it next week. I don’t believe. Can we do it next week? MR. SCHONWETTER-Could you squeeze us in? MR. STONE-We can keep the public hearing open. We could re-open the public hearing and keep it open. MR. ROUND-Yes, keep the public hearing open and continue on. MR. MC NALLY-You don’t have to advertise it, though, for a new application? MR. STONE-It’s still seeking a variance. Well, they might be talking different numbers. MR. ROUND-That’s where it becomes a difficult issue. It depends on how big the application is changed. MR. STONE-Yes. I think we ought to table it. MR. SCHONWETTER-It would be less severe, obviously, than currently, or we wouldn’t come back with it. MR. MC NALLY-It’s just a question of what the legal requirements are, publishing. MR. STONE-Can Mark give us a legal opinion? Do we have to re-advertise if we change the, if they come in looking for less variance? MR. SCHACHNER-The issue is not whether it’s more or less. The issue is whether what they come in for is materially different than what they’ve applied for thus far, so that you consider it a new application. If it’s materially different enough for you to consider it a new application, then it has to be re-advertised, and if the change is so minor that you’re considering it a continuation of the same application, then you can keep the public hearing and simply continue along. MR. SCHONWETTER-It’ll be minor, but it’ll be different enough so that. MR. STONE-Well, except that the sense of the Board would be that, well, let me just ask the Board. I mean, do you think they could come in with a modification that would make you guys happy? MR. MC NULTY-I think what we’re saying is we’d need a fairly significant change. MR. STONE-Okay. So I guess then we should table it. MR. SCHONWETTER-Excuse me, but what about if we could come back at the next meeting for the rest of the home modification, for the? MR. STONE-Is the septic going to be decided by then? MR. SCHONWETTER-Sure. MR. MC NALLY-You’re saying you would come back with the application for the existing? MR. STONE-I would prefer not to. MR. ROUND-I don’t think that’s part of the application. It’s not currently part of the application. We would have to advertise. I don’t think it’s been advertised for a Floor Area Ratio. MR. SCHONWETTER-It’s in this, isn’t it, the additional floor space? MR. STONE-I don’t know what was in the advertisement. MR. SCHONWETTER-I think we have a copy of it here. MR. ROUND-Excuse me. It was advertised for a Floor Area Ratio requirement, but again, I think it’s the septic issue, whether they can provide a septic application that’s going to be compliant with the regulations. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-And when’s that going to happen? 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) MR. SCHONWETTER-It’s in the works right now. MR. MC NALLY-Would it be heard by your Department within the Town? MR. ROUND-Well, they have to present a design, so we can then verify that it’s compliant. MR. STONE-If it’s not compliant, then it has to go to the Board of Health, but if it is compliant, you guys give the okay. MR. ROUND-I’m under the impression that any application for a septic system is going to require a variance, because of the lot, if you look at the lot. MR. STONE-That’s your opinion that we will not touch that until the septic issue is decided. So, we have two alternatives I see. We can vote down your application, and then you’d have to come in with a significant different, or we can table it, but I’m getting the sense of the Board that if you come in with three feet difference, it’s not going to make much difference. Do you want us to table it, or do you want us to? MRS. VAN GUILDER-Could we table it until we speak with Dean? MR. SCHONWETTER-Yes, because Dean is the. MR. STONE-Well, we’ll table it for 62 days. Is that acceptable to the Board? Is it acceptable to Staff, Chris and Laura, is that all right? Can we table it? MR. ROUND-Yes, you can table it, but I think in all likelihood, they’re going to have to come back through the application process again anyway, because what I’m hearing from the Board is that a minor modification is not going to please the Board, and it’s going to be a significant modification. MR. STONE-Which means it has to be re-advertised. MR. ROUND-It would have to be re-advertised anyway. So you could table it. Just make sure that the applicant knows that this is not going to expedite the processing. MR. STONE-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-1999 HOWLAND CONSTRUCTION, INC., Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: For 62 days. The applicant is aware that a significant modification of this application must be made available to the Board for a positive determination, and that, in all likelihood, a new application will be necessary. Duly adopted this 21 day of April, 1999, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. McNally, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stec, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-99 KAREN SABO APPEAL FROM ZONING ADMIN. DECISION/WAREHOUSE THE APPLICANT’S APPEAL CONCERNS PROPERTY OWNED BY STEVE AND DONNA SUTTON. APPLICANT IS APPEALING ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S DETERMINATION REGARDING A PROPOSED WAREHOUSE. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1060 STATE ROUTE 9, EAST SIDE OF ROUTE 9 BETWEEN MONTRAY RD. TAX MAP NO. 68-1-15 ZONING: HC-1A JOHN CAFFRY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STONE-As we start this process this is different from what we normally do. This is an appeal by Karen Sabo of the decision made by the Zoning Administrator or the Community Planner Zoning Administrator, Mr. Round, that a proposed facility on the Sutton property is correct to be built in that area. Mark, would you state it better than I am, please. MR. SCHACHNER-I think the way I would phrase it is that the Zoning Administrator has made a determination that a warehouse is a permitted use on the property in question as an accessory use to an already existing principal use. Is that a fair statement Mr. Zoning Administrator? 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) MR. ROUND-Yes. MR. STONE-And we are here to decide whether or not the Zoning Administrator was correct in his determination. We have a Yea or Nay situation. We are not talking about the size of the building, we are not talking about the location of the building, we’re talking merely is the Zoning Administrator’s determination a correct one. Before we start again, I have to say on behalf of the appellate we were presented a, I guess I will call it a brief or at least something similar to the brief by her attorney Mr. Caffry. A document that none of us including our attorney has read, and therefore, it is very difficult for us to know whether or not the points that are made in here are germane and correct and all of that stuff. So, but nevertheless we will since you have been very patient to sit here we will allow the public to be heard. Having said that I would ask that when you to speak, that if someone has said what you are going to say I think all of us would like that you merely come up, state your name and say you agree or you disagree with the position taken by whoever made that particular thing. I think it will get you on the record, it’ll be in the file, we’ll have your name, we’ll have your address if you want, but we won’t be sitting here hearing the same thing over and over again. We recognize that you all have a very emotional reason for being here, we appreciate that, we will do our best to be as open as we can possibly be in this situation. Having said that why don’t we read, should we read the whole Mr. Caffry’s whole letter or should we? MR. ROUND-I don’t know if Mr. Caffry wants to read it into the record since it is a technical. MR. CAFFRY-I think when I speak I can summarize the main points without reading the whole thing. MR. STONE-Okay, why don’t read her application, just what Mrs. Sabo said, read her letter because I think that’s germane to this thing. MRS. LAPHAM-I have that, now what about this? MR. STONE-Do you want us to read your notes, Chris, or do you want to speak? MR. ROUND-What I did is I provided probably two paragraphs with the information and then I just, there is a listing of definitions that are don’t necessary to read into the record unless MR. STONE-So we’ll just read the first half of the first page MR. ROUND-It’s there for your reference and for discussion as necessary. MR. STONE-Okay, so read. MRS. LAPHAM-So it would be here for Chris, and then I can read Karen’s. MR. STONE-Read the application for appeal, read the letter from Mrs. Sabo. MRS. LAPHAM-The Community notes. MR. STONE-There are a couple of letters but we will get to those, we’ll read those in when we get done and then we’ll read the Zoning notes, Chris’ comments, and then we’ll start. MRS. LAPHAM-I think I have this in the right order. Applicant’s name, Karen Sabo, 12 Twicwood Lane, Queensbury, NY 12804. The applicant’s appeal concerns property owned Steve & Donna Sutton, Tax Map No. 68-1-15. HC-1A. Sections of the Zoning Ordinance for which you are seeking an interpretation. Describe specific request. I am seeking an interpretation of the term warehouse from the Town of Queensbury Code Book. I am appealing Mr. Round’s official determination that the Sutton’s proposed 7200 sq. ft. structure is not classified as a warehouse. Signature: Applicant Karen Sabo, 3/22/99. Re: Interpretation of warehouse and appeal of storage shed determination of proposed structure SP 5-99. Dear Zoning Board of Appeals: I am seeking an interpretation of the term warehouse. The Town of Queensbury Code Book definition is as follows: warehouse: a building used to temporarily store or hold products or articles for use in assembly or manufacturing as for future transmission of said products or articles to another location. To my understanding, this is a conditional statement in which the said products or articles have 3 conditions that they must satisfy in order to be (stored) housed in a building which must be determined to be a warehouse. These three conditions are as follows: 1. use in assembly, 2. use in manufacturing, 3. transmission to another location. As Mr. Sutton specified when he applied for site plan approved for construction of a warehouse, the proposed structure would be used for temporary storage of furniture received from North Carolina, to be delivered by his delivery trucks to his customers. This clearly satisfies condition #3, and therefore would classify this structure as a warehouse. Secondly, I would to like to appeal Mr. Round’s determination that this proposed structure is a “storage shed” and not a “warehouse”. The Town of Queensbury codebook definition of “storage shed” is the following: 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) “Storage Shed”.. An accessory building used to store materials, or small equipment, not including vehicles, which supports the principal use of the site.” To my understanding, there is absolutely no condition stated by this definition that the proposed structure conforms to in order to determine it a “storage shed”. There are 3 conditions it must satisfy: 1. store materials which supports the principal use of the site. 2. Store small equipment which supports the use of the site. 3. not store vehicles. As previously noted, Mr. Sutton proposes this structure to be used for temporary storage of furniture to be transported to his customers. Therefore, this usage does not satisfy either condition #1 or condition #2. As Mr. Sutton has told me personally and I believe also was stated on record at the Planning Board meeting on 3-16-99, the structure would be used to store his delivery vans. The definition for storage shed states clearly that it is not a building to store vehicles. In conclusion, I ask the Zoning Board of Appeals to carefully study this matter and determine their classification of this structure. Sincerely, Karen A. Sabo. Appeal of Zoning Administrator – C. Round, Appeal of Zoning Administrator’s Determination – April 19, 1999, Notes Prepared by C. Round, Zoning Administrator. The appeal contests that the proposed 6000 square foot structure is a warehouse and warehouses are not allowed in the HC-1A zone. No written determination was placed in the file. Our office generally inspects applications and utilizes a zoning verification form to record comments and issue zoning approval/processing instructions. It is my determination that construction of a storage building/warehouse is an allowed accessory use in the HC-1A zone. HC- 1A zone allows department stores and retail business (among other uses) and storage space or warehouse space is fundamental to the operation of a retail business. Therefore, it follows that a warehouse associated with the operation of a retail business (“the Sutton’s Furniture Store:”) is an allowed accessory use. I have prepared the following information for your use - §179-23D(1) indicates all use are subject to site plan review,” …except that allowed accessory uses shall not require site plan review…” §179-23D(2)(a) Customary accessory uses and accessory use structures incidental to a permitted use or an existing non-conforming residential use. Definitions from §179-7 ACCESSORY USE – A use customarily incidental and subordinate to the character of the permitted principal use or principal building, and located on the same lot and within the same zoning district with such permitted principal use or principal building. However, an “accessory use” is allowed in two or more contiguous zoning districts, provided that both the principal use or principal building and the accessory use is permitted in each of those zones. The term does not include housekeeping cottages. The term “accessory use” applies to a singular use on a property. [Amended 11-23-1992 by L.L. No. 11-1992] ACCESSORY USE STRUCTURE – Any building or structure affixed to land or a portion of a main structure, or any movable structure in excess of 100 square feet that is located within a required shoreline setback, and is incidental and subordinate to an associated with a permitted principal use. COMMERCIAL USE – Any use involving the sale or rental or distribution of goods, services or commodities, either retail or wholesale, or the provision of recreation facilities or activities for a fee. The term shall include but not be limited to the following: drive-in restaurant, fast food operation; filling station, public garage; restaurant; retail store; retail stand; and tavern. INDUSTRIAL USE – Any manufacturing, production or assembly of goods or materials, including any on-site waste disposal area directly associated with an industrial use. This term includes junkyards but does not include mineral extractions, private and commercial sand and gravel extractions, sawmills, chipping mills, pallet mills and similar wood using facilities. PRINCIPAL USE – The main or primary purpose for which land or a building is used or occupied or maintained. When more than one use is on a lot, the more or most intense use shall be considered the main or primary use. RETAIL BUSINESS – The offering, for a fee, of goods and merchandise to the general public and where the providing of services is clearly incidental to the sale of such goods or merchandise, excluding restaurants, motor vehicle sales and services, boat sales, recreational vehicle sales and services, mobile and modular home sales and services, farm and construction equipment sales and services and logging equipment sales and services [Amended 7-29-99 by L.L. No. 14.1991] WAREHOUSE – A building used to temporarily store or hold products or articles for use in assembly or manufacturing or for future transmission of said products or articles to another location. WHOLESALE BUSINESS – Establishments or places of business primarily engaged in selling merchandise to retailers, industries, commercial industries, commercial institutions or professional business users, or to other wholesalers, or acting as agents or brokers and buying merchandise for or selling merchandise to such individuals or companies. §197-12C Use Regulations (1) Permissible uses. A use shall be permitted in a given zoning district if it is listed in the schedules or regulations hereof as a permissible use for that district, provided that all other requirements of this chapter are met, including Articles VI and XIV. (2) Type I and Type II uses with site plan review. A use listed in the schedule of regulations hereof as a Type I or Type II use for a given zoning district shall be permitted in that district when approved in accordance with Article V hereof, provided that all other requirements of this chapter are met, including Articles VI and XIV. (3) Nonpermissible uses. Any use which is not a permissible use by right or by site plan review in a given zoning district or which is not an accessory use to such a permissible use or site plan use shall be a nonpermissible use and shall be deemed prohibited in that zoning district. (4) Accessory use or accessory structure. An accessory use or accessory structure shall be permitted if the use to which it is accessory is a lawful use pursuant to the terms of this chapter and for which a permit has been issued if required pursuant to the terms of Article XIV hereof, so long as said accessory use or structure does not result in or increase any violation of the provisions of Article IV and §179-67. An accessory structure shall not be used for commercial purposes by residents of residential structures, nor shall it include a sign 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) except as permitted by Chapter 140, Signs. See separate schedule. {Amended 5-24-91 by Ord. No. 61] (5) Principal buildings in residential zones, in areas zoned for single family. Warehouse is identified as an allowed site plan review use in the Light Industrial zone. It is my opinion this does not preclude or prohibit development of a warehouse as an accessory use structure within a commercial zone. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Notice of Appeal No. 1-99, Karen Sabo, Meeting Date: 4/21/99 “Description: The applicant is appealing the Zoning Administrator’s determination that the proposed facility, labeled “warehouse”, as shown on a site plan entitled: Layout and Utility Plan, Warehouse and Toy Cottage Addition, Suttons Market Place and Toy Cottage and dated 2/19/99 is an accessory structure incidental to a permitted use – Suttons Market. Information requested: Applicant is appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a clarification of the Zoning Administrator’s determination. Staff Comments: Enclosed is the March 25, 1999 note to file from the Zoning Administrator describing the determination. The proposed “warehouse” appears to be ancillary to the pre-existing permitted use on the property on which the proposed structure is located. A warehouse is not listed as a principal permitted use in the HC-1A zone. MR. STONE-I need to say something further for the record. I believe Mr. McNulty is a resident of Twicwood and wishes to recuse himself? MR. MC NULTY-Correct. MR. STONE-Therefore, there are four members of the Board tonight. Any decision that we make tonight has to be 4 0 either way as I understand it. Even 3 – 1 has to be 4. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. STONE-All four have to be either yea or nay. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct, because any decision by this Board in order to be a valid, binding and legal decision has to be made by a majority of the entire membership of the Board regardless of how many members are present and eligible to vote. MR. STONE-So there are four of us who will be hearing this appeal at this time. That doesn’t mean if we hold it over to another time that we would pick up, we have two other members, one of whom is sick tonight and the other I don’t know where he is. All right, having said that, anybody want to make any comments ahead of time. I wouldn’t suggest it. I’ll open the public hearing. Again I’ll remind you that obviously the first person who comes up here and if its Mr. Caffry is representing the named appellate we will ask him to come first. We then ask please go on the record however you feel but if somebody has said what you said merely acknowledge that so we can do this in a timely fashion. Mr. Caffry, do you wish to come forward? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. CAFFRY-For the record I am John Caffry, I am the attorney for the appellant Karen Sabo and Mrs. Sabo is sitting with me here at the table to the left. I also represent a number of other neighbors in the Twicwood neighborhood, many of them are adjoining or very near property owners to t he Sutton’s property. Mrs. Sabo did file the appeal appealing the staff’s determination, we calculate the size of this building as 7200 sq. ft. when you include the enclosed the loading dock. Could I ask does the Board have copies of the Site Plan that was in front of the Planning Board. MR. STONE-Yes, that is what you gave us tonight. MR. CAFFRY-And, if you look on that plan the lot is basically a pan handle lot, it looks like the state o Oklahoma, the proposed warehouse is in the upper right corner in the pan handle behind the so- called Toy Cottage parcel which is a separate lot also owned by Sutton’s. The homes you see up the hill from the proposed warehouse generally belong to people who are among my clients. What we really have here is a question of when is a warehouse not a warehouse. When this application went in front of the Planning Board it was presented by Sutton’s, it was presented by the Staff as a warehouse, and Mr. Paling and another member of the Planning Board raised the question isn’t it true a warehouse is not an allowed use in this zone. And that is, there is no doubt that warehouses are not an allowed principal use in this zone. The furniture store, a retail furniture store that exists there is an allowed use. So the question is is this somehow allowable as an accessory use. At some point the Staff, the Town Planning Staff, said it’s a storage shed, therefore, it’s an allowed accessory use. Fortunately, we have precedent for this question and if you’ll look at my letter and I can appreciate that the Board didn’t have time to read the whole letter I just wanted to get some of this stuff in for the record. I’m going to summarize the main points there and leave out a lot of the 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) legalese. If you look in the back there are minutes of the 1992 meeting of this Board, I believe the only member of the Board who was on the Board at that time is your Chairman, who is not here tonight. Everybody else is new since then. But at the time, and this is when Jim Martin was the Town Planner it was decided by Mr. Martin that a furniture storage building was not an allowed use in the HC-1A zone on the Sutton’s property. The Sutton’s had an existing garage building that is basically up the hill behind where the furniture store is now and they applied in 1992 to expand that existing garage building. They wanted to use it for furniture storage similar to what they are proposing to do now. And Mr. Martin determined at the time that that was not an allowed use in this zone. And rather than contest that determination Sutton’s came before this Board for a Use Variance to be allowed to build a furniture storage, to expand a pre-existing non-conforming furniture storage building. And they were granted that Use Variance, and there was a discussion at the time about how come we need this variance and Mr. Sutton said, according to those minutes, we thought there should have been something in there for accessory use but apparently there isn’t. And Mr. Turner, who was the Chairman of this Board at the time and is presently on the Town Board, said that his opinion was definitely left out for a good reason and that the appropriate method for addressing the question was the variance process. So we think this essentially constitutes a binding precedent that the Board has to follow in this instance. And if Mr. Sutton wants to build a furniture storage building and whether we call it a storage shed, whether we call it an accessory use, whether we call it a warehouse he needs to come back before this Board for a Use Variance. And at that time the variance was granted, but that may be different is applies again, but I think that is his proper route rather than this Board changing what happened in 1992. We believe that this building is clearly is a warehouse, the definition in your Code says a warehouse is something, among other things, used to store products for future transmission to another location and before the Planning Board and in discussions that Mr. Sutton had with some of my clients that’s exactly what he said was going to be done with this building. Furniture would be trucked in from the their suppliers, be stored there, and then be shipped to customers in various locations, it’s not apparently for furniture to go on the showroom floor. Among the customers that he mentioned to my clients and Mrs. Sabo will confirm this and she will also file a letter confirming this. He talked about how he’d gotten large orders from the Sagamore Hotel up in Bolton Landing and those are the kinds of orders among other things that they were storing intended to store in a building like this. But even if they were for individual customers and not for institutions such as the Sagamore still this is to store stuff for shipment and transmittal elsewhere that’s a warehouse. And I don’t think you can take something that is not an allowed use and all of the sudden turn it into an allowed use just be calling it an accessory. I think that is contrary to the intent of having a list of allowed uses and not allowed uses. We don’t think it’s a shed, the definition of a storage shed in your Ordinance says a storage shed is used for storage of materials and small equipment and not for vehicles. This is going to be used to store finished products, it’s not for materials, it’s not for lawnmowers and stuff like that and I hardly think that something that is 7200 sq. ft. is a shed. A shed, to me, is something maybe 10 x 20, maybe a little bigger for a business, but I don’t think 7200 sq. ft. is a shed. Also, again, I believe Mrs. Sabo mentioned this in her prior letter that Mr. Sutton said they’ll also store vehicles in there and a shed is not for storage of vehicles according to your definition. In addition, we don’t think it’s an accessory use according to the definition in your Ordinance, an accessory use must be customary based on the precedent of 1992. We think that it’s pretty clear that this in not customary. I drove around town today looking at furniture stores, none of them have a separate detached building of this nature for this purpose so I don’t think it’s customary in the Town to have this in connection with the furniture store. An accessory use as defined in your Ordinance also has to be incidental to the principal use. I don’t think that something that’s 7200 sq. ft. can be incidental. It’s certainly not a minor use, it’s a substantial building in its own right. The entire furniture store itself even is you throw in the greenhouse that is used for lawn furniture and such these days they are not growing much of anything in it. That’s about approximately 13000 sq. ft. and here you’ve got something that is more than half the size of the principal use, again, I think it’s hardly an accessory use. Just another relatively minor point on that, an accessory use is supposed to be on the same lot as the principal use. The warehouse building would be on the same lot as the furniture store but the driveway for the warehouse would be located on the Toy Cottage property which is a separate lot and therefore technically should not be built there because it wouldn’t be an accessory use because it’s not on the same lot and that driveway would be solely for access to this warehouse building. The last point I would to make under the definitions of your code is that what this appears to me to be this building and this process of shipping large quantities of furniture to places like the Sagamore is a wholesale business as defined by your Code. Retail businesses are allowed in the HC zone, there is a separate definition for wholesale businesses in the definition section of your code, that’s is defined as a business that sells things to commercial entities and business entities yet there is a separate definition for retail which is for sale to the general public. If they are doing this kind of mass shipment of things to the Sagamore that is a wholesale, not retail and clearly is not an accessory to the retail showroom that they are currently operating in their existing store. My clients can sympathize with Sutton’s need to run their business but we think this is the wrong building in the wrong place in the wrong zone and we would ask that the Board reverse Staff’s determination that this is allowed as an accessory use and make a determination that it is a warehouse and that a warehouse is not a permitted use and that if this structure is going to be built they have to come back and apply for a 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) use variance and I believe a number of my clients will want to address the Board, but I will be glad to answer any questions you may have. MR. STONE-And if the applicant were to apply for a use variance you would object to it on the basis of what? MR. CAFFRY-I would of course have to wait to see the application, but I think it would be difficult for them a lack of reasonable return from the entire parcel when they already have a successful business running there. But I think procedurally that is their option. Not to ask this Board to make what we think is an incorrect interpretation of the ordinance, but procedurally that is their option. I can’t say we would support such a variance application, but I think we have, this is a legal issue really here and we have to be concerned about the proper processes being followed. I’d be glad to answer any questions if the Board has any for me or else I could let Mrs. Sabo go ahead speak. MR. STONE-You made a good presentation. I thank you. Mrs. Sabo MRS. SABO-Thank you. I wrote a letter that I want to submit to the Board and for the record. And I just wanted to comment on a section of it, in my interpretation of the nature of the structure when a few neighbors and myself spoke with Mr. Sutton on March 14th to try to get a better understanding of what this structure was going to be like and what it was going to used for we asked why it would have to be so large and as Mr. Caffry said Mr. Sutton replied that he had been doing business like orders through like businesses like the Sagamore and when they would get such a large order up from North Carolina he doesn’t have a place to store such large orders all at once without getting damaged and stuff and that is why this building would be 32 feet high, it would like a stacking kind of thing where they would have forklifts that would come up and get the parcels so that would not get damaged and there also be the freight trucks coming up and everything else and what seriously concerns me to is 7 years ago when they applied for a use variance to put an addition on the other warehouse building this kind of use wasn’t foreseen and also in the plans if I’m correct as they stand there is, they have the ability to build onto this 7200 sq. ft. warehouse so I’m just concerned you know how big is it going to get? Is this going to just keep monstering out into, I mean I think it’s great that their business is doing wonderful, I mean that’s great but I, as Mr. Caffry said it’s the wrong type of building I believe and that is why they don’t allow warehouses in Highway Commercial, it borders right against the residential, there is a very sparse 50 feet buffer of woods, its highly visible from the whole entire neighborhood and it would take out the whole… MR. STONE-But you would agree that it does meet the setback requirements for the buffer zone, the 50’ buffer zone between Highway Commercial and Residential? MRS. SABO-As it stood it would meet those requirements, however, he would have to cut into the buffer in order to build it with the 50’ setback. so there would be more 100’ trees that would have to come down in order just to build it at the 50’ so he would be cutting into the 50’ buffer. MR. STONE-For construction purposes. MRS. SABO-Right. MR. STONE-Any questions? Mrs. Sabo? MRS. SABO-And also, I would like to comment, I was under the understanding that at the Planning Board on the 16th that it was deemed a storage shed at that point but still even if it’s a warehouse I don’t believe an accessory use is an appropriate for that kind of structure. MR. STONE-A point you made Mr. Caffry, access to this building will be on a separate lot? MR. CAFFRY-Yes, if you look at the site plan in front of you it shows that yes, so that, I don’t think that it is the core issue but I think it’s another reason why the staff decision based on this particular site plan is incorrect. Some of the issues apply across the Board no matter what kind of site plan they do come up with. MR. STONE-I hear you. Okay. I guess we’ll open the hearing to the public, public hearing and I’ll follow my normal procedure. Anybody willing to speak in favor of the Zoning Administrator’s decision? MRS. SABO-First I’m just going to submit my letter. MR. STONE-Submit, okay. Give it to Bonnie. MR. O’CONNOR-I don’t care if they keep continuing their application. 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) MR. STONE-Okay. All right. Since I believe Mr. O’Connor is representing Mr. Sutton I assume he is going to speak in favor, so let’s reverse it anybody speaking opposed to the Zoning Administrator’s decision who wants us not to affirm the Zoning Administrator’s decision. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DANA BRAY MR. BRAY-My name is Dana Bray and I live at 15 Twicwood Lane where we have lived for 25 years and I strongly oppose the administrator’s decision for the reasons that have been stated here today along with the fact that the aesthetic value of our neighborhood will be destroyed with the 32 foot high structure. Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you. I’ll try to recognize you as you get up so Mr. Rahill you’ll be next. EDWARD MARTIN MR. MARTIN-My name is Edward Martin and I live at 20 Twicwood Lane. I oppose this administrator’s decision. I live directly behind Sutton’s Marketplace, I get the full benefit of the sound of the tractor trailers when they load and unload. I get the smell from the diesel fuel because they don’t shut them down and these people are going to get all that later on. Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you. Mr. Rahill. BERNARD RAHILL MR. RAHILL-I realize to a certain degree that I am dealing with the sword of Damocles. My name is Bernard Rahill, but at the same time in view of the fact that I do respect the entrepreneurial talent of Mr. Sutton and his progress in our community I feel that our community values are more important than anything else and the common good of our community is more important than anything else. And I see on your paper here I have to ask you is your agenda considered a legal document? MR. STONE-No. MR. RAHILL-Well, you have written on the agenda that its on east Route 9 between Montray Road and that is not accurate, it is on Twicwood. I think MR. STONE-I would argue with that, Twicwood there are homes on Twicwood who have yards that come to the line so it’s on Route 9, now. MR. RAHILL-No, I am talking about the Twicwood side and I viewed it from the Twicwood side and I saw, I walk through that neighborhood every single month of the year and I can say without prevaricating that it is a residential neighborhood and so therefore it should be honored as such a residential zone. And I think they at the creation of a 32 ft. high building in a residential zone would necessitate the destruction of a multiple group of trees on that property would destroy the visibility of the neighborhood and would make the neighborhood very accessible from Route 9 to the Twicwood area and is destroying once again the common good of the community which is a residential zone. I think this is very important and in reality the building has as Chris Round knows is right beside a residential zone, the stakes are 50’ away from houses that are Twicwood residences. I saw the property looking at from Twicwood Road and I feel that it interferes with the residential neighborhood and I don’t think a considerable number of trees should be cut down to destroy the residential character of Twicwood. Thank you. MR. STONE-I appreciate your thoughts. CHRIS SABO MR. SABO-My name is Chris Sabo. I live on 12 Twicwood Lane. Karen is my wife. Needless to say I agree with her and think we should uphold this appeal. One of my biggest concerns is if we don’t uphold this appeal would we not set a precedent that these buildings will be allowable as accessory use on HC-1’s all up and down Route 9 and all HC-1’s in Queensbury. I think we should uphold this appeal and not allow this. MR. STONE-Thank you. MR. SABO-Okay, thanks. 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) MR. STONE-Anyone else speaking against? Please come up. If you want to go on the record I say again just come up and give us your name and you agree with the things you have heard so far, just so we have it on the record. ROGER LITTLER MR. LITTLER-My name is Roger Littler, I live on Maplewood Drive, 7 Maplewood Drive, just around the corner from these people who are speaking and I also agree that this should be upheld. MR. STONE-Thank you. Sir. MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Chairman, you may want to be careful when speakers indicate that something should be upheld or not, for example the last speaker, the record will reflect that the last speaker said that this should be upheld and somebody reading the record will believe that that speaker means the Zoning Administrator’s decision should be upheld. That may be what the speaker meant but that is not my impression but I’ll sitting here live and other people that will that may read this record will not have had the benefit of hearing the speaker speak. So you should be very careful if it is not clear when a speaker clearly indicates exactly what he or she means to clarify that. MR. STONE-Thank you very much. Did the person who was just up here who made that statement want to clarify it. In other words if you want to overrule the Zoning Administrator, that’s what I think you want us to do MR. LITTLER-Yes, you’re correct. I do wish you to overrule. MR. STONE-Thank you. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Point of order the Zoning Administrator didn’t even put the correct put the correct address on the agenda so therefore he is overruled already. MR. STONE-Okay. Go ahead Sir. IRWIN FUNK MR. FUNK-My name is Erwin Funk, I live on 17 Twicwood Lane, I’ve lived there for 26 years and I strongly oppose this warehouse and I would like to have this appeal upheld and I’d like to also. MR. STONE-Appeal upheld, is that okay Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes the previous speaker said that also. Upholding the appeal is reversing the Zoning Administrator. To me that’s clear, because the speaker said appeal upheld. The previous speaker said to have this upheld. I think that’s troublesome. MR. FUNK-Okay. So, it’s really quite clear that I oppose the warehouse, whatever the definition is. And I also want to speak about since I’ve lived there for 26 years I know which way the wind blows there too and its coming always from the direction of that warehouse toward our homes. And this warehouse I’m assuming is going to be filled with a lot of flammable materials and I’m a bit disturbed to hear tonight that vehicles will be parked in the same building. Vehicles can get all sparks and this building has no windows in it, it doesn’t have any fire protection system, not what I’ve seen on the plans. It’s got a 3/4 “ water line up to it and that’s not really going to be enough to control any sort of fire there and if you could get a fire hose up there how are you going to fight the fire with no windows in that building. I know if the winds blowing where all that is going to go its going to come right on our homes. It is not a safe situation and I just don’t think that this location has been well thought out even if it is approved it isn’t adequate the way it’s designed. MR. STONE-Location is not our in this particular case but we appreciate your thoughts. MR. FUNK-Thank you. VIRGINIA FUNK MRS. FUNK-I am Virginia Funk and I live at 17 Twicwood Lane and have lived there for a long time and I am opposed to it. I have a letter. MR. STONE-Opposed to what? MRS. FUNK-To the warehouse definition, to whatever we are opposing. And I do have a letter and this is a family that lives right across the street who will be directly behind where this goes and they are not here because they are out of town but they did write. 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) MR. STONE-Hand it in, we’ll read it later. Anyone else wish to speak to not upheld the Zoning Administrator’s decision? JOANNE BRAMLEY MRS. BRAMLEY-My name is Joanne Bramley. I live at 38 Twicwood Lane. I’m opposed to the warehouse. My specific concern is that the number of truck deliveries needed to efficiently utilize the space is going to far in excess of what the applicant has proposed and I think that is going to have a very negative effect on our neighborhood. Thank you. DENNIS BUHR MR. BUHR-My name is Dennis Buhr and I live at 13 Twicwood Lane and I would like to go on record as being opposed to the warehouse. MR. STONE-Thank you. JANET MARTIN MRS. MARTIN-My name is Janet Martin and I live a 20 Twicwood Lane and I am opposed to the warehouse definitely. JANET CORNELL MRS. CORNELL-My name is Jennifer Cornell and I live on 6 Cedarwood Drive in the Twicwood Development and I am opposed to the building of the warehouse because I feel that it will also affect my property value, that it will creep from there and it’ll affect the whole community. MR. STONE-Again, opposing the building of the warehouse is not really the decision we are talking about but what you’re saying is you don’t like the Zoning Administrator’s determination that this building is allowed. Is that correct? MRS. CORNELL-That’s correct. MR. STONE-That’s all, I just wanted to be sure. Okay, thank you. Terminology I know is difficult particularly when you are talking about a negative positive or a positive negative. Okay you’re next behind there, no you’re first I saw you first so now we’ll get her. DENISE BUHR MRS. BUHR-My name is Denise Buhr. I live on 13 Twicwood Lane and I oppose Chris Round ‘s decision that this is not a warehouse. JOYCE MASSIANO MRS. MASSIANO-I am Joyce Massiano, I live on 9 Greenwood Lane. I’ve lived there for 30 years. It’s been a very quiet pleasant neighborhood. I’m afraid that this is going to destroy it. I oppose the construction. MR. STONE-Oppose the decision? Anybody else want to speak. We’ve got another one coming. KAREN ENGLESON MS. ENGLESON-My name is Karen Engleson and live at 1 Greenwood Lane which is right behind Twicwood Lane. I’ve lived there for 32 years and watched Sutton’s expand and encroach upon our neighborhood and I want to be very vehement that I oppose the warehouse but I also don’t agree with your decision to grant the warehouse. MR. ROUND-It’s working now. MR. STONE-Chris is going right through the wall, too. LINDA MC NULTY MRS. MC NULTY-I’m Linda McNulty and my other half is up at the front there. We live at 14 Twicwood Lane, we also own 16 Twicwood Lane and this is going in right behind us if it’s approved. We are vehemently against it and against the Administrator stating that this is an accessory use rather than a warehouse. 48 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) MR. STONE-Thank you. Mark, you’ve been very helpful with this. Anybody else want to speak? We’ve got another one, good. MARGARET SHAW MRS. SHAW-I’m Margaret Shaw, and I live at 10 Greenwood Lane and I’ve lived there for 30 years and I’m opposed to it as well. BILL MAC GOWAN MR. MAC GOWAN-Bill MacGowan, 13 Greenwood Lane. I’m opposed to Chris Round’s decision, many homes in Queensbury are selling below assessed value now. This was certainly not do anything to help our values in Twicwood. Thank you. STEVEN MAGEE MR. MAGEE-My name is Steven Magee, I live at 11 Twicwood Lane and I too am opposed to the Zoning Administrator’s determination on the use variance and agree with anyone ahead of myself that said basically the same thing. MR. STONE-Thank you. EARL MILESON MR. MILESON-My name is Earl Mileson. I live at 10 Twicwood Lane I moved here about 10 years ago after having been in Atlanta for five years prior to being in Atlanta I lived at 42 Twicwood Lane. I came back on purpose. I love Twicwood but not what’s going on right now. Thank you. HERB RIEDEL MR. RIEDEL-My name is Herb Riedel. I live at 9 Maplewood and I agree with everything here, anything I would say would be redundant. MR. STONE-Thank you. PAT DANIELS MS. DANIELS-My name is Pat Daniels and I live at 7 Greenwood and I oppose this, Chris Round’s decision and I am opposed to the warehouse. MR. STONE-Thank you. Somebody is still up. BOB RUGGLES MR. RUGGLES-My name is Bob Ruggles and I live on Wincrest Drive. This particular construction doesn’t affect me directly but I think it would be an awful mistake if it were allowed to be built. I am definitely opposed, highly opposed to it. MR. STONE-Anyone else before I let Mr. Sutton and Mr. O’Connor speak? Okay, you’re on. MR. O’CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, members of the board I’m Michael O’ Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor and I’m here to speak on behalf on behalf of Steven Sutton and his wife who are applicants before the Planning Board for an expansion of their existing business which has brought about the request for the interpretation or appeal of Mrs. Sabo. There are many issues that have been raised here tonight. I think the Chairman has recognized and I would state for the record that they are site plan issues if they are issues at all. I think what you’re really being asked to determine tonight is what is the actual definition of the use that is proposed and is it a permitted use as an accessory use. I would not say it’s not permitted as a principal use but is it permitted as an accessory use on this particular site or property. The property is HC-1A Highway Commercial and the permitted uses in that zone are retail and I don’t think there is any question about that. The principal use of this site is retail. The building that is proposed is accessory, subordinate, is incidental to that retail use and I don’t think there is any question about that factually. Mr. Sutton is here and he can answer the questions of fact that you have as to what he proposes. I’ve heard one questions in particular that would this building be used for vehicle storage and it will not. It will not be used for vehicle storage. It will used to store goods that are sold on the premises. If there are extra copies of goods and there is not display room, they will be put in this building, for storage, for sale. In addition to that, the warehouse will be used from time to time to take in goods that have been ordered, special ordered and special ordered and regular order goods. I don’t know how you really 49 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) define that. The Sutton’s have a green couch and somebody comes in and wants the same couch but they want it in red and they want it delivered on such a such a date because they plan to have their family room remodeled on that particular date. All a part of that sale is the ordering of that piece of furniture, bringing it on site, uncrating it on site, inspecting it to see whether or not it needs any touch up or any repair or what state it is in before it is dropped off at the house and then it’s either put on the delivery truck and taken to the house immediately or if the agreed delivery date is in the future it is put in storage in this building and then it is delivered to that property at the time at the appropriate time. Sometimes people order a full room, a full house and do it in anticipation of additions or new construction and sometimes that is not immediate. A lot of people will order things. And part of the sale is the ability to have an agreeable delivery date, it’s incidental to the sale. There is no other site operated by Sutton’s. They don’t use this as a distribution center, they don’t bring goods in here and take them off to another store, another town to sell them from that other store. This building will be used solely for storage of goods sold through Sutton’s. I’ve heard question about something about sale to the Sagamore. In just speaking to Steve he has never sold anything to the Sagamore. I’m not sure how that got into the conversation but just for the record. On his sale he collects sales tax, he makes retail sales, he does not make wholesale sales. There was also an issue brought up as to that. If this building were attached to the main furniture display area I don’t think anybody would be here questioning whether it is proposed or permitted use. I think the only reason we’re here is because it is detached. But I don’t know anything in the ordinance that says you have to store your goods in the same building that you are selling them. It says you can have accessory buildings as along as they are on the same lot the principal use occurs and there is no question about this being on the same lot. The appeal has nothing I haven’t seen anything in the appeal about a driveway and so I don’t even know how we even got off into that discussion or somebody tried to get into that discussion. The appeal is simply as to this building. This building is for the retail operation of Suttons. If you take a look at your definitions, I don’t know how you get away from saying it’s clearly permitted. Accessory use structures incidental to the principal use. Accessory use structure, any building incidental and subordinate or associated with a principal use. Accessory use, use customarily incidental, subordinate to the character of the permitted principal use on the same lot within the same zoning district which such permitted principal use or principal building is located. We fall clearly within all four corners of those definitions. You’ve got to use as the Zoning Administrator has used common sense in looking at the interpretation. This is not a freestanding warehouse. The principal activity here is not the collection of goods for delivery to another site. The principal activity here is on site sales. And I don’t know how you get away from that. By custom, by need, you have to have a storage area. If you go down to Caldor’s, you go in the back end or what was Caldor’s, half of that building is storage. I don’t know of any retail business that doesn’t have some storage area. These items are large items and that is why this is a large storage area but it’s still incidental to the principal use on the premises. I think that if you look at that 1992 variance that was not a precedent as to a use variance that was an area variance. It was an area variance. That’s how I understand that was. There was no issue at that time, and I’m not even sure of the status or condition of the ordinance at that time, but if you look at the definitions under Highway Commercial you will see that accessory buildings incidental to the principal use are permitted. I really don’t understand how you get into deep serious intellectual question as to whether or not this is permitted or not permitted MR. STONE-Let me ask just one question Mr. O’Connor. I know its not germane to the issue that we have to decide but is this proposed building can it be accessed through the lot in which it sits. MR. O’CONNOR-Possibly, yes. MR. STONE-Possibly, yes. MR. O’CONNOR-Yes it could be and also we could do one deed and combine the two parcels. MR. STONE-I understand that. MR. O’CONNOR-If that’s a real issue. I don’t think that’s. MR. STONE-It was a question that was raised. MR. O’CONNOR-We can have parking lots and driveways on the Christmas shop parcel as a principal use. I don’t think there is any question there. If there is a question there we can address it but that’s not I don’t think that’s an issue. MR. STONE-It’s not enforced, I agree. MR. O’CONNOR-I don’t mean to curt tail you. MR. STONE-I agree, I just wanted to know if the question was raised , I’d like you to address it, that’s all. Any questions of these gentlemen. 50 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) MR. MC NALLY-I’d like to know you said that it was an area variance back in 1992. MR. O’CONNOR-I believe it was. MR. MC NALLY-If I look at this though, have you seen the minutes. MR. O’CONNOR-I have not, I’ve not seen that information. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s very simple, it say use variance right on it. MR. STONE-It does say use variance. MR. MC NALLY-It depends which way you’re coming from. MR. O’CONNOR-I cannot tell you what the status of the ordinance was at that time, apparently accessory uses were not permitted and the definition under accessory use here is dated 1992. MR. STONE-Review criteria under this thing. The first one is a reasonable return possible if the land is used as zoned and that is a use variance. MR. MC NALLY-I think the issue whether it could be partial storage. The other thing you said an accessory use is customarily incidental, that’s what the ordinance says. And before someone raised the issue that no where else in the Town is there a separate warehouse for a retail or highway commercial use, do you know if its customary anywhere else in the town? MR. O’CONNOR-I think right across the street, they have a separate building for storage. MR. MC NALLY-Is it separate or is it connected? That’s the old wooden warehouse. MR. O’CONNOR-Wood Carte type operation. MRS. LAPHAM-It’s connected. MR. O’CONNOR-I think in part though what you have is a pre-existing building here that because of the construction on the site doesn’t permit us to join it or build directly to attach it as an addition. It’s just not feasible, it would very hard to access it would be tough to use. I think the idea though is storage of goods for sale is incidental to retail use and is customary that you do it on site whether you do it in a freestanding detached building or do it as part of the back of the building. That would be my point. And that’s all we’re talking about, the use is what we’re talking about, or the use proposed for the building. Is it incidental to the principal use on the property. MR. MC NALLY-I think someone else raised why was Light Industrial separately set forth warehouse as a permitted use? There is a definition for warehouse as a permitted use. Doesn’t the fact that there are two separate terms accessory use and warehouse imply there is a difference between the two of them? That they wouldn’t be in the ordinance. MR. O’CONNOR-I think it depends upon the use of the structure. This is a storage building and I think best defined that it’s a storage building, it’s not a warehouse. You can have a free standing building of the same size and use it for warehouse purposes. Bill Threw on his property has constructed some warehouses that are used by Encore. Encore brings the paper over there stores it and then takes it and distributes it off site. That is a warehouse. There are warehouses over in the industrial park. But the principal use on Bill Threw’s property is not retail sales of the items that are stored there. The principal use of, even the warehouse for the soda if its still in operation over at the industrial park it’s not a retail sales operation. MR. STONE-It is interesting to note as Mr. McNally says in 179-26 Light Industrial zones –1A and 3A it specifically says that you can have, a Type II, 6, warehouse for enclosed storage goods and materials, distribution plants or wholesale business. Nothing under the HC-1 that is not included, it seemed it would be a simple thing to have done when this particular code was established. MR. O’CONNOR-But I think the point that Mr. Caffry made was the true point, when is a warehouse a warehouse is really the issue. Our point and our argument would be call this a warehouse, call it want you want, it is still a storage building incidental to retail sales and the retail sales take place on premises. I don’t think you can do retail sales in the industrial zone. MR. STONE-But it does say under the HC –1 accessory uses customary accessory uses and accessory use structures incidental to a permitted use. That what you’re arguing that that’s okay. 51 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) MR. O’CONNOR-Retail sales of furniture is not in that area. MR. STONE-Is says a permitted use, retail business is a permitted use. I assume you are arguing that and Mr. Round based his decision on the fact that this is a customary accessory use. You would argue MR. O’CONNOR-Storage of goods for sale on premises is a customary use. MR. STONE-Yet the term warehouse could have been used there and was not. MR. O’CONNOR-Again, I think you’ve got to look upon this as being whether you call it a warehouse or call it whatever a storage area for the retail sales. It’s in a detached building, if its attached… every retail place we have in town has some storage. If they put that in a separate building you’re going to call that a warehouse on site even if its only used for that particular building , that particular business. MR. MC NALLY-I struggling with you mentioned the sites. I don’t see a warehouse separate from a retail business as being very common in this town. K-Mart MR. O’CONNOR-We didn’t do any survey. MR. MC NALLY-Let me finish, all those businesses do store goods on premises within the same building. You are saying that another principal structure which is related to the business but is a separate warehouse would be permitted in this zone. That’s what you’re getting at. And it’s your position that it is customary, that this is what happens in the town. MR. O’CONNOR-If its customary storage, if its used for the customary use of the business, incidental to the principal use of the business, which is retail sales. MR. STONE-There is certainly space used for that purpose in a lot of buildings in that town as Mr. McNally , I mean K-Mart, Wal-Mart, Lowe’s all have that but they don’t have separate warehouses on their property or a separate building. TOM NACE MR. NACE-Lew, If I could just address back to your question of why isn’t that labeled in the commercial zone and it isn’t and yet in the industrial. If you look at your definition of warehouse, who ever wrote the definitions refers to manufacturing and distribution which ties into manufacturing with the industrial zone and probably that’s why listed in specifically, manufacturing MR. STONE-The applicant on his submission says proposed warehouse. It doesn’t say storage building, he said warehouse. MR. NACE-When I drafted the plan, when I put the label on the building it says warehouse, it doesn’t matter, it’s the use that its actually being put to whether the label MR. STONE-Obviously, it matters in this discussion and that why we have been sitting here for three hours. MR. O’CONNOR-But look at the definition of accessory use structure, it says any building whatever you called the building, it says any building or structure affixed to land or a portion of the main structure, it can either be attached or detached in excess of 100 sq. ft. and is incidental or subordinate to and associated with the principal use. I don’t think we could build this building and use it as a distribution center to other stores, but we can use it for the proposed use of being incidental to the retail sales that are on the site. MR. STONE-Dan do you have questions? Bonnie? MR. STEC-Does Town Counsel have any comment? MR. SCHACHNER-Do I have any comments? No. MR. STEC-I think the key word in the accessory use definition is customarily. I agree that storage is customary. I think the question is is the separate building customary. That’s and I’m not saying I have the answer, but I think the key word is customarily and that’s the question at hand is the separate building customary. Now the accessory use discussion goes on to say subordinate to the permitted principal building and that phrase principal building seems to imply that a separate building would be customarily incidental to that. That’s how I’m reading it, the question I have, I have a procedural question. The criteria for what we’re doing here are we looking at he nuts and bolts of 52 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) the law or are we supposed to like we do for the variances strike a balancing act between, I mean there is a lot of people here tonight, we gave them an opportunity to speak, how is that supposed to fit into our decision because I certainly appreciate there concern but MR. SCHACHNER-I can answer your procedural question Mr. Stec. The answer to your procedural question is that like similar to variance applications interpretation requests and appeals are subject to public hearing requirements anyone who wishes is afforded the opportunity to come speak. The purpose of the public hearing is to give people the opportunity to provide you with whatever they wish to provide you with that you can weigh in whatever manner you wish to make your determination as to whether the decision by the Zoning Administrator is correct or incorrect. Whether you interpret the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in question the same way the Zoning Administrator determined rather interpreted them or differently. But this in not governed, this type of proceeding is not governed by any of the regulatory criteria or statutory criteria that governs your variance determinations and you are not supposed to strike any kind of balance or weigh equities and thing like that. You are supposed to make an interpretation determination based on your interpretation of the allegedly ambiguous provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. MR. STEC-So unlike a variance request where we would be hearing public concern and balancing for lack of a better phrase the popularity of a proposal or of the case we’re hearing this is strictly what is the legal definition, what is the right answer, its not a balancing match between the good of the community, we’re looking at the nuts and bolts of what the words are. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s basically correct. The only thing I feel compelled to add to that is that when you view variance applications and rule on them you’re actually not supposed to be gauging popularity of the variance request. The purpose MR. STEC-The impact on the neighborhood. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s precisely correct and that is not one of the criteria for your determination MR. STEC-The impact on the neighborhood is not an impact for this hearing tonight. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s correct. Now that’s not to say that you should ignore the many points made by the public which do bear on the issue of whether or not this is a warehouse, or if its not a warehouse it should be allowed as a permitted accessory use in a HC zone. I think the public gave many, many comments on that issue. But you are correct in characterizing that as if you will a legal issue of interpretation as opposed to the balancing. MR. STEC-The smell, the noise that is all separate from the discussion tonight. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. STEC-The comments we’re supposed to be hearing are to whether or not it is a warehouse. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct, no. MR. STEC-Not how it smell, or how it sounds MR. SCHACHNER-Not whether or not it is a warehouse, actually everybody agrees it’s a warehouse I believe both the appellants if you will those who are appealing Mr. Round’s determination feel that it’s a warehouse, or their Counsel certainly articulated clearly that he feels it’s a warehouse so I don’t believe any of the people in the neighborhood disagreed and I believe that the underlying applicant for the site plan review has also indicated at least in part that they agree it could be agreed that it could be labeled as a warehouse. Their contention I believe they the underlying applicant is that whatever you label it as it’s a customarily incidental accessory use and therefore it can be allowed in the Highway Commercial zone and the neighbors if I can labels as such contention is that as a warehouse it is not a customarily incidental accessory use and therefore cannot be allowed. MR. STEC-I just wanted to make sure I understood the ground rule as far as what tools we were supposed to use for. MR. SCHACHNER-It was a good question. MR. O’CONNOR-Let me also call your attention to the definition that in addition to accessory use structure of accessory use, in the first sentence there, you seem to be having a question whether or not it can be an attached building. In there if you read it literally you’re saying a use customarily, incidental , subordinate to the character of the principal use or principal building and located on the same lot and within the same zoning district with such permitted use or principal building. It seems to be clearly talking about a separate building being permitted and still being a accessory use. 53 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) MR. STEC-That was my only question. I’m comfortable, I think I got all the facts. MR. STONE-Do you want to, we have letter to read in MR. O’CONNOR-I have one comment. MR. STONE-I’m sorry. MR. SUTTON-Steve Sutton. Sportline Honda right across the street right down the street has an accessory use building, very similar behind the Honda dealership there. You’ll see where they bring in the four wheelers, the snow mobile and all that. U-Rent All built an accessory use building behind their building, they rent equipment. They (lost words). I would just like to say, too, that when I did have the neighbors down you say things that get taken out of context. I wish I was selling to the Sagamore believe me, but the nature of our business and the design that we do, and the customers that we’re getting now are for bigger orders. So the nature of our business is to sell somebody, not just a sofa or recliner that’s on the floor, but also special order items that they may want to order from a catalogue or whatever, but it’s done in the furniture store. It’s part of that use. So as we bring things in, and as Mr. O’Connor said, rooms aren’t always ready. So, sofas take up a big space, and that’s basically our problem. Do we do a big job once in a while? Right now we’re doing five units for Cresthaven Motel, but it’s a retail sales. There’s sales tax collected. It’s not a wholesale, sale. There’s no discounts given, but we have five units that we have to store until their building is ready. So the storage is a major issue for us. There’s also seasonal products that go into this building. We handle telescope. Right now it’s all outside behind the furniture in the weather. So it’s a combination of people ordering product from us right there, product coming in and going to their homes, as well as seasonal products that we need to order in, in bulk, that we need a place to put and keep under cover. So that’s pretty much what the building is used for, just to clear up that issue. As far as labeling it a warehouse or not, the minutes of the Planning Board will show that the minute that it was brought up, I said, whoa, I went through this before, and we determined that it was an accessory use building, a storage building. It was my mistake. My memory must be not that good, but somehow I let Tom put warehouse on the application, and it never intended, because I had already been through this. Tim Brewer at the Planning Board, it’s in the minutes, he remembered going through this exact issue. So we cleared it up that night, and apparently the Zoning Administrator agrees with me, but anyway, I just wanted to clear up that there are other buildings in this Town that are used for accessory use. MR. STONE-Thank you. MR. SUTTON-Thank you. Mr. Caffry would like to rebut? MR. CAFFRY-Whenever Mr. O’Connor and his client are done, I would like a chance. MR. O’CONNOR-Do you have any questions of us? MR. SUTTON-I think there are other people here, too, that want to speak in favor. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. O’CONNOR-Do you have any questions of us? MR. STONE-One question of Mr. Sutton. The public would never go into this building? MR. SUTTON-No, sir. MR. STONE-Okay. I heard you talk about you have different material on hand or something. I just wanted to be sure that you didn’t indicate the public would go into this building. MR. SUTTON-They wouldn’t. If I wanted to do that, I might say that if it wasn’t a warehouse, I think it’s a permitted use, that if I was applying for a retail space there, I would be well within my space, and I wouldn’t be here right now. So there’s plenty of uses for that property. MR. O’CONNOR-The intention is solely storage, to support the retail sales. MR. SUTTON-And I just wanted to say one other thing about the driveway. We could bring it in from the top. We are actually taking the traffic out of the existing parking lot, tractor trailers now that have to wind through the parking lot to get up on top of the hill, that’s the easiest access, to keep the traffic totally out of the pedestrian traffic, when people are going in and out of the restaurant and around, but we have room at the top to bring it down through, but that’s going to be twice the intrusion on the neighbors. So, I think it works well to bring it in the other way. 54 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) MR. STEC-Why is that two separate lots? They were purchased as two separate lots? MR. SUTTON-Yes, we just bought that. It used to be The Christmas Shop. We’ve only had that a little bit over a year. It just made access a little bit easier from that point, than coming from the other lot, and there was talk at the closing whether we should make it one deed or two. MR. STONE-And that’s a simple procedure to do. MR. O’CONNOR-If we had to. I don’t think we have to, but if we had to, we could. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Chairman, before he leaves, I have a question. MR. STONE-You have a question? Sure. MR. SCHACHNER-It seems to me that both Counsel are citing a definition in the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, and they’re agreeing that the definition of accessory use includes the phrase “and located on the same lot”, in reference to the principle use and the accessory use, and I’m confused about something. I understand Mr. Caffry to be contending that the proposed warehouse and the furniture store are not entirely on the same lot, and I thought I first understood Mr. O’Connor to be contending that they are on the same lot, and now I’m hearing confusion about that issue, and that strikes me as a fairly simple factual issue, and maybe I’m the only one confused about this. MR. O’CONNOR-They are on the same lot. MR. STONE-Mr. O’Connor says they’re on the same lot. Mr. Caffry? MR. CAFFRY-Yes. All I said that wasn’t on the same lot was the driveway. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. STONE-That’s what I thought he said. That’s why I asked about the driveway, because it’s not on the same lot. MR. O’CONNOR-The structure at issue is on the same lot. MR. STONE-On the same lot with the principal buildings, the restaurant, all the other shops. MR. SUTTON-Right. MR. MC NALLY-Not directly on point, but it seems as if the neighbors are most concerned about the proximity to their homes. Did you ever consider putting this warehouse anywhere else on the property? MR. O’CONNOR-They’ve gone through a number of different locations. We also have lowered the warehouse. We have agreed to substantial plantings on the back side of the warehouse. We are talking about plantings even along the street. There’s been a number of things that have been done. This is a fully insulated building. The device that’s going to be inside is going to be electric. You’re talking about one truck a day, is what we take deliveries of, if we do that, and we’re going to take the traffic from up on top of the hill down into the lower part, and probably it would be further away from many of the people than closer. They're all site plan issues, but there’s been an extensive amount of planting trying to make this compatible. MR. SUTTON-I’d just like to say when we came back for the second Planning Board meeting, we weren’t able to talk about any give or take or anything, that’s because we’re here. Obviously, we came to negotiate and to try to make this project acceptable type of building that will look all right. We also brought survey maps that show that the elevation of this building is way below Twicwood Lane and these neighbors. So you don’t have that paper in front of you, but the issue to get back to is the use. MR. STONE-I understand, but there was a question raised, again, slightly off point, about cutting down trees in the buffer zone to build this. Is that going to be necessary? MR. SUTTON-As the plan stood, the first night, yes, it would be necessary to infringe probably about 15 feet into the buffer zone, and that’s why the re-plantings were required, or that’s why we put in 35 trees to re-plant where we were going to take out. We haven’t gone past that point. I 55 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) mean, obviously, you can’t build a building without infringing, you need a little room for equipment and. MR. STONE-Okay. It was a point that was raised. MR. O’CONNOR-Yes, we understand. The Planning Board discussions were tabled because there was an automatic stay, because the appeal was filed. So we never got to the substance of the application. MR. STONE-I understand. There were some other people that wanted to speak for the Zoning Administrator, on behalf of his decision? DAVID KENNY MR. KENNY-David Kenny, resident of the Town of Queensbury. I also own the Adirondack Factory Outlet Mall, and I guess this concerns me because I’m leasing space every day, and it’s one of my tenant’s major concerns is excess storage where they have storage, and roughly 25% of their space has got to be dedicated to storage. (Lost words). I hate to see these storage areas start to be called warehouses, and they’re not allowed. I don’t see, you know, furniture sales you need storage for. I mean, I've gone to Sears. I've gone to Penney’s, and ordered a couch, ordered a t.v. I don’t get it off the floor. They call me when it comes in, and it’s in their back storage area. They don’t put it out on the floor when it comes in. They don’t have room for it. We do it every day. It just so happens he needs, the type of business he’s in, it’s a larger storage area, but I’m telling you with retail on clothing and apparel, 25% of the space, I just got done leasing 8,000 square feet. The tenants are moving in now, and they need over 2,000 square feet of storage for apparel, because they’re getting shipments in. Now, somebody talked about, he’s got 13,000 square foot of retail, and 7,000 square foot of storage area, for furniture, I don’t know if that’s even enough, that’s 33%, for 20,000 square feet, you add them up together, you know, he’s using 35% for storage. I would think he’d need that and more. I don’t see an issue. The only issue is the second building, but there’s plenty of stores in Town. I mean, Adirondack, I built it big enough to have the storage inside, but if I didn’t, if I had more space, I might put up a space for the person to have storage next to the store, not in the store. I don’t see where that’s an issue. I don’t think it’s an issue in the Zoning Ordinance. The other issue, I guess, is if Mr. Sutton put a 500 square foot showroom in there, would that change the complex of the issue and say now it’s totally legal? He’s got a small showroom up there also. It’s retail. It’s allowed. I don’t think the neighbors would like it. They wouldn’t want the customers going up there, but it’s an allowed use. I mean, a lot worse things could happen with that property. I think what he’s doing with it might be the best thing for him. I mean, he’s allowed 80 something, according to the Code, the size building, and he’s allowed to have retail back there, and he’s allowed to have parking back there. He’s allowed all those uses. I don’t think anyone would like it, but what they don’t want is anything happening on that property, and I don’t think that’s right. They want to deny him right to use his land. A storage building, no customers back there, a truck going back there, seems to me it helps the situation. You don’t have to worry about, some day in the future, a major retail store being back there. I mean, it’s an allowed use. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. KENNY-I mean, my concern is when do you start taking rights away from the retailer, saying storage areas become warehouse areas. MR. STONE-That’s not the issue tonight. MR. KENNY-Well, it is an issue if you vote this way. If storage becomes warehouse, it becomes an issue to me MR. STONE-We're voting on what Mr. Round said, yes or no. That’s all we’re doing. It doesn’t establish precedent. It doesn’t do anything except say yes or no on his interpretation. It’s a very narrow issue, very, very narrow. MR. SCHACHNER-But I’d be careful. I don’t think you can fairly say it does not establish precedent, but other than that, I agree with what you said. MR. STONE-Well, I’m sorry. MR. KENNY-I guess my concern is, lets say Corning tells me, David, we need another 1,000 square foot, and I want to put a 1,000 square foot storage area, which I have the room to do, that becomes a warehouse and it’s not allowed because it’s not a principle building. I think that’s precedent setting. MR. STONE-Okay. I stand corrected. 56 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) MR. KENNY-They all need storage space, and at some point, I may have to put up a storage building for the right tenant. I mean, that could happen. Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you, sir. MR. MC NALLY-I think the point about, if he puts a 1,000 square foot showroom in that warehouse, does it make it a retail store that’s permitted? If I understand things right, there has to be one principal building per acre, and there can’t be more without a variance? Can he just shove a store in this building and be done with it? MR. ROUND-A Highway Commercial zone has a density restriction in it. It’s based on lot coverage and building density. I’m not sure if it’s one principal building. The definition reads, “Uses are encouraged to cluster. The overall density would be one principal building up to 12,000 square feet per gross floor area per one story, and up to 15,000 for multi stories per acre”. MR. MC NALLY-Per acre. MR. ROUND-But this zone also allows malls, and plaza development. MR. MC NALLY-But as things currently exist, is what I’m trying to get at. Can he just shove another retail store in there, given the number of businesses already on site? MR. ROUND-I don’t know. I don’t know what the lot area is and what the existing square footage is right now. MR. NACE-I think in the application you’ll find that there is additional density on the lot, still in reserve, okay, and the application as it stands, we’d fall well within the maximum density. DAVID MENTER MR. MENTER-David Menter. I have the Waikita Motel, and I would just like to say that I agree with Mr. Round’s interpretation. I think the whole warehouse issue, I guess “warehouse” issue, is one of use, and to me, the fact that it’s an accessory use to the operation on that site, versus an independent warehouse, an in and out type of warehouse on a separate site, is two completely different things. I think the intended use for this type of a site was for a storage facility, call it what you want, a warehouse. Your job is to determine what they mean, and to me, it’s not that tough. If it’s an accessory to the business going on on that site, then that would fall within it. If he was taking in kites and wholesaling kites, or something that is, you know, not even associated with what he’s doing, then clearly it is a warehouse in every form. To me, there’s a clear distinction there. The other thing that someone just mentioned to me, which made a lot of sense, in comparing and trying to get a characteristic type of storage in Town. You’re looking at Wal-Mart and Lowe’s. You’re talking about dropping $10 million on a piece of property, and putting up the perfect building. We're talking about an entrepreneur who’s growing a business. You can’t say, okay, what am I going to need 10 years down the road. Let’s do it now. You do it piece by piece. There’s a big difference there. So, you know, the characteristic comparisons that you’re making with those large buildings, developers, you know, is not really a comparison. You’re looking at an entrepreneur versus someone who’s got an instant perfect entity that encompasses all the things it needs to be right away, where you can’t afford to do that on a smaller scale. MR. MC NALLY-Would you argue that every retail business in the Town of Queensbury could build a separate warehouse, as long as it stored goods related to its primary usage? MR. MENTER-I don’t see anything that says you can’t. MR. MC NALLY-So you would agree that that would be possible? MR. MENTER-It’s not the question, but there’s nothing that says you can’t. I can’t build a storage building 104 feet outside my Motel to store bedding in? You know, I've got a good deal on it for use next year? MR. MC NALLY-But if you needed the space could you do that? MR. MENTER-Sure. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. MENTER-Sure. MR. STONE-Thank you. 57 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) GEORGE RYAN MR. RYAN-George Ryan, resident of Queensbury. Just sitting here listening to you guys, I have to agree with Chris Round, and you have to think of our forefathers, when they set this plan. They set the plan. They set the box there, and it’s an accessory, site plan review. I can remember when they put it in. I've been in front of this Town for years, and I know these laws, and definitive criteria. Now, as a Town, we, the people, and you, the people, should give Chris Round the power to make that decision when he says it. It shouldn’t be here. You’re slowing down Town process. We set the format. He’s fitting in the setbacks. He’s fitting in the criteria. The diesel fuel they talked about. He’s on Route 9. I mean, the truck traffic, they’re working on construction there. Big loaders going up and down the road, and all this, and where are we going? We have to look at this process that we have here. There’s something really wrong with it, and you’re here tonight to make the determination of what is to be in there, and it shouldn’t really be here. This man’s not coming for a variance to say, hey, my buildings, I want to cut the trees. I want to put this in. He fits into the guidelines, and we’re losing ourselves. That’s all I have to say. MR. STONE-Mr. Ryan, I appreciate what you’re saying, but we did not cause this tonight. We are sitting here as judges. MR. RYAN-Yes, I understand that, as a human dictionary. JIM MERRICK MR. MERRICK-My name is Jim Merrick. I own the carpet store across the street from Suttons. I support Mr. Round and Mr. Sutton thoroughly. MR. STONE-Thank you. DARREN MANZARI MR. MANZARI-My name is Darren Manzari. I’m a Queensbury resident, and also a Queensbury business owner. I support Mr. Round’s decision and Mr. Sutton wholeheartedly. Every business requires storage. My business requires storage, and I’m not even as much in retail sales as Mr. Sutton is, and if you come into my facility, we are completely, completely out of room. We have nowhere to put things that we have to store. I would love to build a separate building just to store some of our equipment, some of our transmission parts, anything for retail sales, because I’m so out of room. You look at other businesses in Town that do have other storage facilities, and even if you look at big businesses like Wal-Mart or something like that, drive through their lot. They’re filled with tractor trailers filled with storage. I mean, that is an eyesore, if anything, so a building, no matter how big it is, you’re not going to have enough storage. You’re always going to get to the point where you’re going to run out. So I could see his need for this. Also, like he was saying about ordering furniture, things like that. We’ve ordered, from Steve, I mean, three rooms worth of furniture, for a house that we’re closing on and re-doing, and I tell him, Steve, I need this on the second week in February. Where is he going to keep three full rooms of furniture, just for me, to be delivered on the second week of February? The only way he could do that is to order in advance, have it in the facility, and have it ready to deliver when I need it. So, I’m completely behind him, and I feel this should be allowed. There shouldn’t even be an issue. Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you. KELLY CARTE MR. CARTE-My name is Kelly Carte. My brothers and I own the Wood Carte Furniture Store across the street from Suttons. I want to speak in favor of Chris Round’s interpretation of it, and in favor of Mr. Sutton’s application. If anyone should be concerned about it, I should, and I’m certainly not. I am a little concerned with the fact that it ended up here at all. It seems rather straightforward, to me. We certainly have storage, warehouse space for the furniture that we sell. Ours happens to be attached to the same building that the retail showroom floor is, but that was our good fortune. If the circumstances had been different, and we were expanding, as we are now, we’re having an addition put on the building, for additional warehouse space, and it’s going to be attached, because we actually have the room to attach it there, and this is the most efficient way to use the warehouse space. It certainly, I don’t believe, would be Steve’s preference to have a separate building, because it makes it that much more difficult to move furniture back and forth, and you have the weather to contend with and everything else, but to say that a detached storage facility for his furniture is not an accepted use, when an attached storage facility is, is ridiculous. I mean, there’s no two ways about it. I've listened to the arguments as to the definition of warehouse, and I think what it comes down to is that we have popular usage of that term that means two different things, and the term that the Code is referring to is a wholesale type of business, or something where that 58 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) building is used for storage in and of itself, not as auxiliary to a retail store, and as Steve said, he probably put the wrong term on it, to make it as easy for himself as possible to go through this process, and should have called it a storage facility, but to say that there’s not precedence in Queensbury for this type of use, I sat there just briefly and thought, on the same road, on Route 9, just down from us, there is, as Steve said, Sportline Honda, or what used to be Sportline Honda had a warehouse facility, building for their motorcycles and watercraft, that was at least as large if not larger than the showroom space. Queensbury Tire has a building separate from their retail, so to speak, area for storage of the tires that they sell. Across the street from them, what is now the sewing machine sales place and used to be a fire place shop, or something like that, had an auxiliary building that is still there out behind it that they warehoused their products that they had for sale. U Rental down there, as Steve said, the same thing. I mean, this is just sitting here thinking about it. I’m sure that if we were to go down each street in Town that was Highway Commercial, you’d find many more of them that were in this same situation. It’s just common sense that says that this type of thing is necessary to an operation like ours. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. The hour is drawing late, but I know, John, you want to speak at the end, but I would like to, if you’re going to say the same thing, just give me your name. NANCY MANZARI MRS. MANZARI-My name is Nancy Manzari, and I’m agreeing also, because of the fact that, One, well, I have two reasons, but I agree with everything that was said previous, but also I am also a customer of Suttons, as my husband stated, happy or not, but I am, and you wait for the furniture longer than you should because of storage, and also I know for a fact that there isn’t, I know the concern to the neighborhood was that their trucks would be up and down, Steve’s storage trucks. Well, I know for a fact, I get a call in the morning when he’s going to deliver something, and they say, this is the route for the day. It’s one truck, and we also service their trucks, so I also know that they have only two vehicles, two delivery trucks, and that point needs to be, you know, they’re making it sound like it’s this “Wal-Mart”, but do we really want more Wal-Marts and have a ghost town? I mean, that’s a frightening thought. We don’t really want to throw small business out. Which if you make it so hard for someone to do business and grow, lets be honest, it’s easier to go where it’s not so hard. Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you. John, do you want to come back? MR. CAFFRY-I’ll try and be quick, but there are a number of points I’d like to try and re-but, from Mr. O’Connor’s presentation. First of all, we’d like to clarify this question about the sale of a commercial account. Mrs. Sabo spoke to Mrs. McNulty, and then Mr. Sutton clarified it. It was the Cresthaven Motel they were talking about, not the Sagamore, but what I would like to do is read to you from the Planning Board minutes, and Mr. Sutton’s own words, what he told the Planning Board he intends to do with his building. It says “Well, we were in here for site plan two years ago, Tom, for the addition of the furniture store in the back, and in realizing the way our business has grown, you have to understand the furniture business. It’s different than the gift business. If each one of you folks were building an addition on your house, and you were coming to us, we special order furniture for you. We don’t have it on premises to sell, but when it comes in, you might be doing three or four rooms of furniture.” I’ll skip some of this, but it says “We have to store it for you, and we have to store it without damaging it.” Skipping ahead, “We're doing bigger jobs all the time, and I've done a lot or research on this.” And it goes on, but basically what he told the Planning Board, at least, was that this was for special orders that come in, they might have been sold through the showroom, but they’re coming in. They’re being sold here, and then they’re going to be shipped out and delivered elsewhere. I think that meets the definition of warehouse under your own Ordinance, and if it meets that definition, you can’t hide it somewhere else by calling it an accessory use. What if next he decides he wants to manufacture furniture? Are you going to allow him to put in a furniture factory by him claiming it’s an accessory use? What if he decides he wants a sawmill to cut his own wood for the furniture? I’m not saying he intends to do that, but that’s the slippery slope you’re starting down if you allow something that’s clearly defined in your Ordinance. Warehouse is a defined term in your Ordinance, and it’s clearly defined, and this meets that definition. So once it’s a defined term elsewhere, then I think you have to adhere to that definition, and the fact that it’s not allowed in the Highway Commercial zone. It’s only allowed in the Light Industrial zone, as is quite clear, and I believe some of you gentlemen were discussing this earlier on, and if you go back to the 1992 minutes, again it was Mr. Turner’s opinion that this was done on purpose. It wasn’t a mistake in the drafting of the Ordinance. It was done on purpose this way, and it was quite clearly a Use Variance that they applied for, and it was to expand the building for storage of furniture, and it was felt, and Mr. Sutton didn’t contest it at the time, that that was not an allowed use. You can call it a warehouse. You can call it an accessory. They felt at the time it was not an allowed use in that zone in 1992, and in answer to Mr. O’Connor’s question, I checked the zoning. It hasn’t changed in any measureable or applicable way since 1992. You’re operating under the same rules that Mr. Turner and his Board operated under in 1992, and that Jim Martin, Mr. Round’s predecessor, made the initial determination at that time that furniture storage in a separate building was not allowed on the 59 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) Sutton’s property. Also, I’m glad Mr. Carte pointed out that their storage is in an attached building. It’s part of their principal structure. I don’t know when that was built. It might have pre-dated the zoning anyway, but there’s a definite difference here. When you have attached buildings, they’re somewhat compact instead of being scattered all over the site. So you do create additional impact on the neighbors by allowing separate buildings. It’s not just an arbitrary thing, is it attached, is it not attached. If it’s attached, and it’s an integral part of the building, then you’ve got less impact on neighboring properties, and in fact, on this site, if you look at the maps you have, there is room to put this building, attached to the existing furniture buildings, the furniture store, the greenhouse. It could be down there. You could attach it, basically behind the Toy Cottage. There’s room there. If Mr. Nace got imaginative, I bet he could fit it in. So, by saying that this warehouse is not allowed where it is, doesn’t mean that Mr. Sutton cannot have some furniture storage somewhere else on his property. So I don’t think the Board should be, I don’t think that’s the issue anyway, but I don’t think the Board should be mislead by the needs of his business, because I think there’s more room on his property where this thing can go. Also, Mr. Nace mentioned the definition of warehouse and how the other definitions relate to manufacturing. I think it’s a two-fold definition there. One is things related to manufacturing. The other is storage of goods, for instance, there’s been any number of site plans done for Mabee’s Van and Storage out on Big Boom Road. Those are Light Industrial. Those are obviously storage of goods. A different kind of storage of goods, obviously, but that’s a pure warehouse use not directly related to manufacturing. So I think that we do have here what can be defined and has to be defined as a warehouse under your Ordinance. On the question of other detached storage and other customary uses, it’s interesting that all these people could only come up with one or two, maybe three, in the whole Town. When you talk about what’s customary, and again, we don’t know how old those buildings are, when they were built, visa vies when the Ordinance was written the way it was written. They might be pre-existing. Some of them are probably relatively small, and may not fit the definition of warehouse because they aren’t used for shipment of goods. They’re for goods that are sold directly to the customer who comes in, the goods come out of storage, like the clothing Mr. Kenny was talking about. Those outlets aren’t shipping goods out. They’re going to storage goods somewhere on the premises. They’re going to put them on a rack. Somebody’s going to come in and walk out with them in a shopping bag. That kind of storage is different from what we’re talking about here, where you have a warehouse, and goods are shipped out from that warehouse, and for the most part never hit the showroom floor. Again, just to summarize, I think what you have is clearly defined in the Ordinance as a warehouse, and once you get to that point, you can’t just move it around in zones where it’s not allowed, by calling it an accessory, and you’ve got precedent from 1992 that I think the Board has to follow in this case, and at that time, Mr. Sutton didn’t contest it. He went and applied for his Use Variance, and he’s got that option here, and it would be up to you to decide whether or not he qualifies for that. Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you. Let me ask the Board. Do you feel you have enough information to make a decision? I mean, because I think the hour is late. I think people have been very patient with us, and we’ve been, I think, very patient with them, and if you guys feel that we’ll close the public hearing, and we’ll make our determination. Do you want more time? The problem is we get into rebuttal and then rebuttal of rebuttal, and we can go on forever. I’ll give you two minutes, Mr. O’Connor. MR. O’CONNOR-Just in response to Mr. Caffry’s point, is that if we attach this building to the existing building, it’s a permitted use. That’s the whole essence of the question, what we’re going to do within the building, not what you call the building, not the size of the building, not the location of the building. There’s no requirement in our existing Ordinance that says that your storage has to be attached. It’s our privilege, it’s our right to have storage, and simply because it’s detached doesn’t change that right or that privilege. This is a restrictive Ordinance, and if the restriction is not in there, then I think Mr. Round is correct in his interpretation. MR. STONE-Thank you. One minute. This is it. This is the last one. MR. RAHILL-For this, Bernard Rahill is going to stand. To compare a motorcycle retailer’s warehouse distant from a residential neighborhood to a warehouse 53 feet from a residential neighborhood is ludicrous. Is Queensbury a nice place to live, or a nice place to warehouse? MR. STONE-Okay. I’m going to close the public hearing. MR. STONE-Mark, I don’t think we need to read into the record the rest of these letters, do we? MR. SCHACHNER-You don’t need to read into the record any of those. MR. RAHILL-Does the Queensbury Board of Appeals have an interest in the integrity of a community of families, not bureaus, sofas, cars, carpets, mobile home furniture or motel furniture? That’s the philosophical question that you must answer tonight. 60 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) MR. STONE-Thank you. I will now close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-Far be it from me to stand in the way of capitalism. It’s funny. I look at this like I do that house on the Point. You buy a piece of property, and you want to build a house on it. You want to make it bigger, add to it, put a carport on it, and then a covered deck, and this thing and that thing, but it was never suited for it, necessarily, from the very beginning, and in some sense, this is a business context. You have a piece of property where a building is being planned, and the question comes up, what the heck is it? I start from the proposition that there would not be a definition of warehouse in our Ordinance unless the Town Board meant us to give it some meaning, and in doing that, I really appreciated a lot of the comments that the people here have made, because it sorted out in my own mind, I think, what I felt was a very confusing issue. A warehouse is not a principle use in an HC-1A zone. No question about it. There’s also no question this is not an ordinary storage shed. Mr. O’Connor’s point that it’s an accessory structure hinges, though, I think, on it being incidental to the business, and it also being commonly or habitually placed in an HC-1A zone. I know it’s permitted in a Light Industrial zone. The Ordinance says so, and the fact that it doesn’t say so in an HC-1A zone implies, to me, that it’s not permitted. Also, I, in my own experience, having lived here for many years, cannot say that a warehouse for the independent and separate storage for goods that are used in a retail establishment is commonly or habitually present in any businesses or many businesses in the Town of Queensbury. Our Zoning Ordinance regulates the number, the placement, the density of structures, and it does that by area requirements. It does that by definitions, and I think it does it by definition in this case. I think that if we were to say that any retail establishment can build a separate building structure that would be a warehouse to store its goods for retail sale, we would be establishing poor precedent. I don’t think that’s the intent of, and I don’t think it’s the meaning of the statute, the Ordinance, excuse me. The 1992 decision, for this very same applicant, said that the storage of furniture required a Use Variance, and the applicant applied for it. The applicant got it, and I think that carries some weight. I don’t know if it’s necessarily binding, but it’s certainly, in my mind, does imply that it’s not something that’s a given in an HC-1A zone. I think that several structures have an additional impact. I think that the definition of warehouse and accessory use structures were included in the Ordinance to avoid or lessen the impact on areas. I see incidental, minor, small structures as being accessory uses. I don’t see this as an accessory use. So, with all due respect to Chris, I can’t agree. I’m done. MR. STONE-Dan? MR. STEC-While I understand all the points that Bob makes, I guess the real issue for me is where is that threshold crossed? Where does it become incidental and subordinate? Where does it become custom or customarily? I do note that the 1992 does carry some weight, especially since it was for the same applicant in a similar situation. My understanding of the warehouse and Light Industrial and why the warehouse use is specifically listed in the Light Industrial, but not in the HC-1A, again, we’re talking semantics here. I would say that the warehouse, when you define something as a warehouse, the analogy was made, too, if you’re selling furniture at a retail store, and then you have a structure that you’re storing and dealing kites out of, then, all right, I understand that, that’s a warehouse, because it has nothing to do with the furniture sale. So, in that sense, I’m inclined to say that the warehouse in question, the structure in question, is less of a warehouse in the traditional sense, where you just store anything in it, but it is associated directly with the retail sale of furniture. It supports the sale of furniture on that site, and it’s on the same site. So, again, I said it earlier, and I raised the questions before, I certainly understand the concern for the people in Twicwood, and I share that. If I lived there I’m sure that I’d be sitting among them, but Counsel has directed us that the question here is what is allowed, or what is the interpretation of the law here? And I think that, again, it goes back to the word “customarily” and “incidental”. I do think it is subordinate, however, you’ve got the, you know, it is a large building. So where do you draw the line from incidental to subordinate, and is it customarily done? Several examples were brought up in the Town of accessory storage structures. So, again, for me, I think that the question before the Board is really, where do you cross the line into this accessory storage structure becoming customarily incidental to the business? And for me anyway, I can see where I would support Chris Round’s determination, but again, I understand that it’s, where does each individual Board member draw the line, and I think that’s where the question is. So I don’t think that this is not a good question to have been raised, because everyone’s line as to where this magic line is crossed is going to be different, but I agree with how Chris interpreted this, that I think that because it is a building that is supporting the retail on the same site for the same kind of stuff that’s stored in it, and for me, a compelling argument would be, if the building was connected to the retail thing, this would be a moot point altogether. I think that if the density that I understand in the Code, if they wanted to have customers come through this building and call it a retail location instead of a storage location, it would be a moot point as well. So, again, all this gray area, you get a lot of mud, but for me anyway, I’m inclined to agree with how Chris interpreted it. 61 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) MR. STONE-Before I ask Bonnie, point of clarification. We seem to be one, one at the moment, which means that we can’t be unanimous. Therefore, we can’t make a decision this evening Is that correct? MR. SCHACHNER-That is correct, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-We have to have four voting one way. I only asked for clarification. I have not decided what to do yet. MR. MC NALLY-As a practical matter, we know how two of us are going to vote, though. MR. STONE-That’s correct, but having said that, I will listen to Bonnie. MRS. LAPHAM-All right. Well, since I've been listening to everyone here tonight, when I first joined the Zoning Board, we were arguing the issue of the Mooring Post. Now, before all of you jump down my throat, I realize the Mooring Post dealt with a nonconforming use in a residential area. This is almost the same type of situation with warehouse type of structure. This one deals with a nonconforming use in a Highway Commercial area. So I think I would have to go with Bob and not uphold Chris’ decision because they both seem to me that they would need additional clarification in the form of possibly variances. MR. STONE-You would vote not to uphold. MRS. LAPHAM-Chris’ decision. MR. STONE-For whatever reasons you have. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. MR. STONE-I mean, what we do here, this is incidental. We don’t have to do it if we don’t want to. We choose, in our Zoning Board, to put our positions on the line, and I’m very happy that we do, but it’s difficult at times. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, and that is my position. MR. STONE-Well, I come out basically, if I look, the fact that there is a definition in our Code for a warehouse, very clearly a building used to temporarily store or hold products or articles for future transmission. I've left out a phrase because there’s an either or there, future transmission of said products or articles to another location. That seems to be the definition of a warehouse. The fact that the HC-1A does not use that word in any way says to me that a warehouse is not to be allowed in an HC-1A zone. It’s very clear. Warehouse is defined. Warehouse is not mentioned. End of report. Having said that, it appears to be three, one against Mr. Round, but we can still vote. Then what happens if we vote? We still have to do it again. MR. SCHACHNER-That is correct. MR. MC NALLY-One point John, I think, was making was maybe by our conversation we could change each others minds. MR. STONE-I understand what John is saying. MOTION THAT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DOES NOT UPHOLD THE DETERMINATION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR VISA VIE THE SUTTON BUILDING, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: Duly adopted this 21 day of April, 1999, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. McNally, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Stec ABSTAINED: Mr. McNulty ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas MR. STONE-Having said that, we have to put it back on the agenda for some other time. Having said that, the meeting is adjourned for the evening because of the lateness of the hour. 62 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/99) On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Vice Chairman 63