Loading...
2000-06-21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 21, 2000 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY NORMAN HIMES CHARLES ABBATE ALLAN BRYANT PAUL HAYES JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 48-2000 TYPE II RR-3A FRED & BARBARA CHAMPAGNE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 1 JUNIPER DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 112 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SCREEN PORCH AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF AND RELIEF FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. TAX MAP NO. 49-1-6, 7 LOT SIZE: 0.77 ACRES COMBINED SECTION 179-15, 179-79 STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 48-2000, Fred & Barbara Champagne, Meeting Date: June 21, 2000 “Project Location: 1 Juniper Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 112 sq. ft. screen porch addition and seeks setback relief. Relief Requested: Applicant requests 15 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum front setback requirement of the RR- 3A zone, §179-15. Also, since the existing structure does not meet the setback requirements, relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure is requested per §179-79. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Section 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired addition in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: 15 feet of relief from the 50 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal 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 location of the home on the property. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed reconstruction/addition will be no closer to the road than the current structure and the addition will be to the “rear” of the existing porch. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Before we start, Craig, I have a question. Since we are building this on the back, isn’t it only six feet of relief? MR. BROWN-The existing porch that you see there now, if I’m not mistaken, is going to be reconstructed. MR. STONE-Okay. The drawing didn’t indicate that. Okay. MR. BROWN-So the relief is to the. MR. STONE-It’s the whole thing. MR. BROWN-The whole thing, yes. MR. CHAMPAGNE-The screen porch existing now, we’re going to take down the screen porch. We’re going to leave the foundation as it exists. The foundation will remain. We will add on another eight feet plus sixteen feet long, in order to really double that existing slab that’s there now. So, you’re right in saying, you know, if you had that eight, then I’m only looking for about another seven feet, but in reality, even though I got a variance back when I did the screen porch, when you tear down to the foundation, you start over again, it’s my understanding, from the information I received, start off. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) MR. STONE-Well, that’s why I asked Craig. I’m going by the Staff notes. It had said an addition, and I was going on, and the way your drawing shows here, it just shows it attaching to the west side, but fine. So it doesn’t change what we’re probably going to do, but that’s okay. So you’re going to tear it down. You’re going to actually build a screen porch starting at 35 feet, and going to the west. MR. CHAMPAGNE-That’s correct. It will actually be a glass enclosed summer/fall/spring season room, is what it will be. We have a hot tub that will be located in there, and that’s our purpose. MR. STONE-And everybody realizes why it’s 50 feet, because it’s two front yards, that old Queensbury two front yard problem that we always have. MR. CHAMPAGNE-No, it’s a three front yard. It’s a three front yard. MR. STONE-Yes, I think you’re right. MR. CHAMPAGNE-Don’t think I’m right. I am right. MR. STONE-I’m thinking of your side on Bay. You don’t think of that as part of your lot, as you look at it. MR. CHAMPAGNE-Yes. I’ve got to be honest with you and say that when we bought that property, it was an 80 foot front on Sunnyside Road, and it was 100 feet deep on what is now Juniper Drive. There was a road there at the time, and of course I bought the property adjacent to me on Bay. So I’ve got about a 180 now of frontage, and I’ve got about 250 along Juniper Drive, but with three front yards, I’m still. MR. STONE-Any questions of the applicant? MR. HIMES-I just had one thing. During our discussion, Mr. Champagne, when I visited to look over the site, there’s an additional reason for wanting to enclose the warm water pool which is outside now, a therapeutic reason or some reason for that? MR. CHAMPAGNE-That’s correct. MR. HIMES-It doesn’t appear in here, but it came up in our conversation. MR. CHAMPAGNE-Well, I don’t come here pleading mercy, obviously, but there is a back problem with my wife, and the doctor has recommended that we do this, and she’s decided that, in the summertime it’s fine, but when January rolls around, she’d like to have it indoors. MR. HIMES-Thank you. MR. CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Let me open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor? Anybody wishing to speak opposed to this application? Opposed? Is there any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-I don’t find any correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Then I’ll close the public hearing. Are there any further questions of the applicant? MR. ABBATE-So the applicant has a whirlpool, right, Fred? MR. CHAMPAGNE-That’s right, a hot tub. MR. ABBATE-I wonder if it might be appropriate, at some time, if members of this Board try it out to see how effective? MR. CHAMPAGNE-You’re more than welcome. MR. STONE-Okay. Frivolity aside, Jim, where do you come down on this one? 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) MR. UNDERWOOD-I have no problem with it. I think it’s a minimal change, and the added area is not going to make that much difference. If it helps you guys out, that’s fine. MR. STONE-Okay. Norman? MR. HIMES-Yes, certainly I think that there’s no problem here. The setbacks from the nonconforming pre-existing building, and this is in the rear. You have to peer at it to see it when you drive by, and for therapeutic health problems, I think there’s no problem with the application.. MR. STONE-Allan? MR. BRYANT-I, too, have no problem with the application. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-It’s a straightforward application, and I really don’t see any problems with this, and I’m certainly in favor of approving it. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree. Thirty-five feet of setback is plenty in my mind. It’s really more a function of the zoning area that you’re in than anything else. So, it’s very minimal relief. I have no problem with it whatsoever. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I also have no problem with it. When you look at the net effect, it is a small addition, even though he’s going to tear down what’s there and build something twice as large. I think the net effect is just adding a small addition, that is kind of on the back side of the porch. So I’m not sure that anybody going by is even going to notice the difference. I’ve got no problem with it. MR. STONE-Well, I certainly agree with my fellow Board members. I wish they were all this simple. I mean, you’ve got a big lot, as you point out correctly, you’ve got three front yards, which really complicates. You’re the only neighbor that’s going to be bothered, or the other neighbor is the across the street, and that’s your daughter. So we haven’t heard from her. Obviously it’s a good project. So, having said that, I’d like a motion, please. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 48-2000 FRED & BARBARA CHAMPAGNE, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: 1 Juniper Drive. The applicant proposes construction of a 112 square foot screened porch addition and seeks setback relief. I would like to add one stipulation, that the proposed reconstruction/addition would be no closer to the road than the current structure, and the addition will be to the rear of the existing porch, to the west, and the relief required, I certainly feel that the applicant should have his 15 feet of relief that he requested from the 50 foot minimum front setback requirement of the RR-3A zone, Section 179-15. Also, since the existing structure does not meet the setback requirements, relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure is requested per Section 179-79. The benefit to the applicant, certainly they would be permitted to construct the desired addition and in the preferred location, and in addition to the other comments we heard this evening about the health and welfare benefits to both applicants. Feasible alternatives, the feasible alternatives appear to be limited. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? 15 feet of relief from the 50 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. Effects on the neighborhood or community, we’ve heard no adverse comments this evening. Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be attributed to the pre-existing location of the home on the property, and based on this, Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the application. Duly adopted this 21 day of June, 2000, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Himes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNally MR. STONE-There you go. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) MR. CHAMPAGNE-Thank you very much. MR. STONE-As I say, I wish they were all this easy. AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2000 TYPE II WR-1A CEA LEIGH BEEMAN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE SUNNYFIELDS LANE, CLEVERDALE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 28 FT. WIDE BY 32 FT. LONG “U” SHAPED, OPEN CRIB DOCK WITH SUNDECK AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF. CROSS REF. SP 39-2000 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/14/2000 TAX MAP NO. 12-3-27.4 LOT SIZE: 1.01 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-60 CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; LEIGH BEEMAN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 49-2000, Leigh Beeman, Meeting Date: June 21, 2000 “Project Location: Sunnyfields Lane, Cleverdale Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of 28 ft. by 32 ft. “U” shaped crib dock with sundeck. Relief Requested: Applicant requests 4.4 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum sideline setback requirement of the Shoreline and Wetlands 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 a recreation area in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a smaller dock / sundeck. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: 4.4 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal 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. A recent, 1999, subdivision created the current parcel configuration. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 60-1999 res. 7/21/99 lot width requirements Sub 14-1999 res. 7/27/99 2 lot subdivision SP 39-2000 pending dock / sundeck BP 2000-208 pending dock / sundeck Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. 4.4 feet of sideline relief should not create adverse impacts on the adjoining southerly parcel. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form June 14, 2000 Project Name: Beeman, Leigh Owner: Leigh Beeman ID Number: QBY-AV-49-2000 County Project #: Jun00-20 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to remove an existing stake dock and construct a 680 sq. ft. “U” shaped crib dock and a 468 sq. ft. sundeck. Covered docks in WR zones require site plan review. Site Location: Sunnyfields Lane, Cleverdale Tax Map No.: 16-1-35 Staff Notes: This project was also referred by the Town for County Planning Board review of a requested area variance for setback relief (Agenda item Jun00-20). The proposed boathouse includes a sundeck with access from both a stairway from the dock and a land bridge. Due to concerns about altering the shoreline with land bridges, Staff recommends discussion. Local actions to date (if any): a public hearing is set for June 2000 County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve with condition that the land bridge is removed from the plan.” And this is unsigned. MR. STONE-Go. MR. DYBAS-My name’s Curt Dybas, 19 Deer Run, Lake George, NY. I’m the agent for Leigh Beeman. Leigh Beeman is with me this evening. This is before you, it’s pretty clear how the application was read, and we got into this 20 foot side setback because the Ordinance says it’s either property line projected into the lake, 20 feet away, or a 90 degree projection from the shoreline into the lake, both of which have to be at this 20 foot setback. The shoreline line projected into the lake is 25.8 feet to the dock. As part of the application you’ll notice that I said with or without the variance, the distance to the neighbors dock remains the same. It’s where we’re in to the turning where we’re into the “clipping” in the application. So we’re before you asking for 4.4 feet of variance to meet the 90 degree projection setback rule. A couple of other things were raised with the land bridge, which was said about shoreline erosion, and it’s our feeling that, for those of you that have visited the site, we have, grade is approximately at the sundeck level of the proposed sundeck level, and we felt that we would eliminate a lot of shoreline disruption with the bridge, and that’s why that was part of the application. Are there any questions? MR. STONE-I have a question. Have you been before the Park Commission, the Lake George Park Commission? MR. DYBAS-Yes. MR. STONE-And they approved it? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) MRS. BEEMAN-Yes. MR. STONE-With the land bridge or without the land bridge? MR. DYBAS-I do believe they approved it as it was submitted, as you have the package before you. MR. STONE-Okay. Right now, you’ve got the single dock. There’s also a, looks like a deck. Is that part of this application, or when was that built? MR. DYBAS-The deck? MRS. BEEMAN-The deck itself was built a number of years ago but it was replaced this spring because it was rotten. MR. STONE-Okay. So it’s pre-existing, nonconforming, because it’s too close to the lake. MRS. BEEMAN-Right. It’s been there for a long time. MR. STONE-And that would stay? MRS. BEEMAN-Yes. MR. STONE-It wouldn’t be incorporated in this at all, it would just be separate where it’s located? MRS. BEEMAN-Right. MR. STONE-And you say it was just, can you give me an idea when it was built? MRS. BEEMAN-Ten or fifteen years ago, at least. MR. STONE-Prior to 1988. That’s all we need. Okay. MRS. BEEMAN-Yes. MR. STONE-Any questions of the applicant? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I just wonder, are you building it more for the deck or for a boat? MRS. BEEMAN-I have a wooden boat that needs to have protection from the sun and we haul it up there in the winter, to store it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Now did you guys build the one next door, too? MRS. BEEMAN-My father built that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I just wondered about what the effect of the ice was. That’s pretty exposed out there. MRS. BEEMAN-We’ve been fortunate most years. A couple of times we’ve had a little problem. It’s pretty solidly built. MR. STONE-Any other questions? MR. ABBATE-I’m not so sure my question is going to be appropriate. So help me out, would you please? The subdivision took place in 1999. Is that correct? And as a result of the subdivision, it’s part of the parcel configuration as a result of that subdivision? The end result was a partial configuration of your property? Is that correct, Craig? MR. BROWN-The lot that’s in front of you on this application was created last year in a subdivision, yes. MR. ABBATE-1999, okay. Did that present any particular problems, for this Board? MR. STONE-No, it did not. MR. ABBATE-It did not, okay. Thank you very much. MRS. BEEMAN-No. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) MR. BROWN-There was a variance granted by this Board. MR. STONE-Yes, we granted a variance, with no problem. MR. BROWN-For something less than minimum lot width. MR. ABBATE-Okay. So everything is fine. MR. STONE-Yes, we weren’t unhappy with the subdivision. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. MR. HAYES-There was two existing single family camps there. MR. STONE-Yes. It was just a matter of breaking them apart for sale purposes or at least for ownership purposes. Any other questions? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to this application? Opposed? Anything in the file? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-Yes. We do have a letter, addressed to Charles McNulty, Secretary, Zoning Board of Appeals, it’s from G. Thomas Moynihan, Jr., subject Leigh Beeman Area Variance 49-2000, “My wife and I received the public hearing notice with respect to Mrs. Beeman’s variance application. I am writing to indicate that we have no objection to the construction of the dock and sundeck and recommend approval of her application. Our neighbors on Heron Hollow who are listed below have also asked that I indicate to you that they have no objection to the variance application: Mr. & Mrs. Richard Dautner Mr. & Mrs. Lee Pike Mr. & Mrs. Roy Peters Mr. & Mrs. Frank England Very Truly Yours, G. Thomas Moynihan, Jr.” MR. STONE-And his property abuts the southern piece of property? MRS. BEEMAN-No, there’s one other piece of property in between. MR. STONE-There is. Okay. I know they’re close. I didn’t realize. Okay. Five hundred feet goes further, sometimes, than I think it does. Any other correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No others. MR. STONE-If not, then I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions of the applicant? MR. BRYANT-I have a question. Could you review the information that you have about the land bridge, that you read early on? MR. STONE-You mean the County thing? MR. BRYANT-The County thing. MR. STONE-That’s another question. That doesn’t indicate a no on their part. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. It’s just a County recommendation. MR. STONE-To themselves, and to us. MR. ABBATE-And that recommendation, make sure I interpret it correctly, is that that the land bridge be removed? Am I correct? MR. BROWN-They recommend approval without the land bridge. MR. STONE-In other words, that the dock just be built in to the shore itself. Because the land bridge, what, extends back 10 feet maybe, or something? I can’t tell, probably 12 feet, and that’s going to go up or down or both ways? 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) MR. DYBAS-It’s going to be level. It’s going to come off the grade, go out, up three steps to the sundeck, and then down to the dock. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-The County just says that they approve with the condition that the land bridge is removed from the plan. So that little, if you look at this sheet, it’s just taking that little bridge out. MR. BRYANT-Did they offer any reasoning for the removal? MR. MC NULTY-Yes, they did. Up in the Staff notes it says, “Due to concerns about crowding and altering the shoreline with land bridges, Staff recommends discussion.” MR. STONE-And they approved it, or you think they approved it, since it’s not signed. MR. MC NULTY-We’re assuming that it was approved. This was faxed on the 15. th MR. ABBATE-And we can interpret it as indicating that they feel that this land bridge may interfere with the shoreline? MR. MC NULTY-I think so. MR. DYBAS-Is it still appropriate to speak? MR. HAYES-If you’re answering a question, certainly. MR. STONE-Sure. Absolutely. MR. DYBAS-It is my understanding, going through the County, that they don’t like land bridges. It’s a policy. It’s not a law. They just don’t like land bridges. If you take that footprint of the land bridge, you’re going to have the same footprint with stairs and a six foot bridge from the shore to the dock anyway, and, visually, you’re not going to see it behind the sundeck and boathouse anyway. MR. STONE-And in answer to my question, you said that the Park Commission did approve this dock as presented, with the land bridge, and their particularly concerned about land bridges, too, particularly ones that are raised up and so on. Any other questions? Okay. Norman, why don’t you start? MR. HIMES-I think the application is reasonable, and I think I was looking at the right place. I went out there. I think the application’s reasonable, myself. When I look at that back yard, it’s a beautiful view of the lake (lost words). I think that the application is okay. MR. STONE-Okay. Allan? MR. BRYANT-I’m in favor of the application. I think it’ll be an improvement, and I don’t understand the discussion about the land bridge, but I’m I favor of the application. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-I don’t have any problems with the application at all, and I had question with the land bridge, but from what I’ve heard and what I’ve seen, I’m not so sure that’s really a problem. Quite frankly, I think the land bridge would be nice. I wish I could have one. So I have no problems with it. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree with my colleagues. I think it’s a reasonable proposal, and as far as the land bridge, which does seem to be the only thing in question here, if the Lake George Park Commission is satisfied with that, they’re kind of the experts on that. I would defer to their better judgement in this case. So I don’t have any problem with the application. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I can basically echo the comments that have already been given. I don’t have any problem with it. The proposed crib dock is going to stick out into the lake a little bit more than the existing dock, but there’s other similar structures nearby, and likewise, the land bridge makes all the sense in the world to me. I don’t think it’s going to be at all obtrusive, and it makes a lot more sense to walk straight out to the sundeck than it does to go down a set of stairs and back up. So I’ve got no problem with it. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-My only question, I don’t know, I kind of feel like the whole southern basin of the lake is going to end up looking like this. So I don’t think there’s much we can do at this point. I guess we can be thankful that the northern half of the lake doesn’t have all these structures built out into the water, but I would go along with it. MR. STONE-I certainly concur with my fellow Board members. The relief you’re seeking is only because, at a very small portion of the lot, it’s this way instead of this way. If it were this way, we wouldn’t even be here. It’s just the way taking the perpendicular, which was what we have to do, and it’ll cut off the end of the dock. Obviously that’s unreasonable. There’s no reason for it, particularly since the other dock is very far away from this particular dock and it’s on that side rather than on the northern side, where it might interfere with a totally different party, rather than the subdivided party. Certainly the benefit to the applicant is that you can put a dock in that, as you said, will be sturdy enough to both protect the boat in the summer and also to haul it up in the winter, and having said that, I will ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2000 LEIGH BEEMAN, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Sunnyfields Lane. The applicant proposes construction of a 28 foot by 32 foot U Shaped crib dock with sundeck, requesting 4.4 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side line setback requirement of the shoreline and wetlands regulations, 179-60. The benefit to the applicant by approving this is that the applicant will be permitted to construct a recreation area in the preferred location. Feasible alternatives, the alternatives could include a smaller dock or sundeck, but this is not something that has been considered. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? 4.4 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate. However, we see that several neighbors have indicated support for this project. Effects on the neighborhood and community, minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. I’ll, again, refer to the neighbors’ support for going ahead with the construction. Finally, minimal to moderate impact may be anticipated as a result of this action. 4.4 feet of side line relief should not create adverse impacts on the adjoining southerly parcel. Duly adopted this 21 day of June, 2000, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNally MR. STONE-There you go. MR. DYBAS-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 50-2000 TYPE II NC-1A CEA NORTH QUEENSBURY RESCUE SQUAD OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ROUTE 9L AT CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,120 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE EXISTING RESCUE SQUAD BUIDING AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF AND RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF. SPR 41-2000 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/14/2000 TAX MAP NO. 10-1-8.2 LOT SIZE: 0.29 ACRES SECTION 179-25, 179-79 STAFF INPUT Notes from Area Variance No. 50-2000, North Queensbury Rescue Squad, Meeting Date: June 21, 2000 “Project Location: Route 9L at Cleverdale Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,120 sq. ft. addition to the existing rescue squad building. Relief Required: Applicant requests 27.81 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum side setback requirement and 8.34 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum front setback requirement and an increase in the impermeable percentage of the site from 86.6% to 87%, when 70% is the maximum allowable per the NC-1A zone, § 179-25. Further, since the existing structure does not comply with the setback requirements, relief is requested for the expansion of a non-conforming structure, per § 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 enlarge the vehicle storage area. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include acquisition of additional land, a smaller addition and reconfiguration. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) cumulative requests for relief 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 relatively small size of the existing lot. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 134-1989 res. 11/15/89 side setback relief for addition Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The existing minimal permeable areas, which contain the septic area and well, are to be reduced by this project. Consideration may be given to converting the paved area behind the building to permeable area. Will allowing a 2 foot side line setback present difficulties in future development of the adjoining parcel? SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form June 14, 2000 Project Name: North Queensbury Rescue Squad Owner: North Queensbury Rescue Squad ID Number: QBY-AV-50-2000 County Project#: Jun00-29 Current Zoning: NC-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,120 sq. ft. addition to the existing rescue squad building and seeks setback relief and relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Site Location: Route 9L, Cleverdale Road Tax Map Number(s): 10-1- 8.1 Staff Notes: This project was also referred by the Town for County review of the site plan (Agenda item Jun00-30). The applicants argue that the proposed addition is necessary to house emergency squad ambulances which are considerably larger than those for which the building was designed (see attached letter from the North Queensbury Rescue Squad). Due to the rather severe setback deficiencies (see attached site development data sheet), Staff recommends discussion. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve” Signed Terri Ross, Warren County Planning Board. MR. STONE-Okay. You’re up. Identify yourselves. MRS. KRAFT-I’m Wendy Kraft, North Queensbury Rescue Squad. MR. KRAFT-Ray Kraft, North Queensbury Rescue. MR. STONE-Okay. Anything more you want to tell us about this? MRS. KRAFT-I think you pretty much said it all. MR. STONE-Well, you said it all and we just added to it. MRS. KRAFT-Our little community on that parcel is, if you’re all familiar with it, is firehouse and rescue squad. We do have a small lot, but luckily we have, the adjoining property has no problem with what we’re doing. Back when our little building was built, the ambulance of choice was a caddy, station wagon. Now the ambulance of choice fits, bumper to nose, within the bay, which does not allow us to remove the stretchers or work on the vehicle or clean the vehicle within the bay, which is why we have requested doing what we’re doing. As far as the non permeable, we did allow for a gutter system on the building which would go into a drywell. MR. STONE-Is that, that’s not in the plans as we see them. MRS. KRAFT-It’s on one of the drawings, yes. MR. STONE-Is it? Does anybody see it? MR. HAYES-We probably could certainly make it a condition. MR. STONE-Well, yes, if they’re willing to do it, absolutely. Speaking of the septic system, obviously the building is not used that often for gatherings. I mean, you have meetings, and it’s probably used more on election day than it is the rest of the year. MR. KRAFT-It’s not even used on election day anymore. MR. STONE-That’s right. It’s not used anymore. MRS. KRAFT-They use the firehouse. The toilet might be flushed twice a night during a meeting night, occasional use after a call, but other than that, there is no water use in the building. MR. STONE-Is it possible, you also don’t park that many cars there. MRS. KRAFT-No, it’s a very small spot. MR. STONE-I mean, is it possible, as a consideration, to maybe making it more permeable by taking up some of the asphalt, and I don’t even know where I would suggest that you do that, knowing that 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) you have to come in, but it’s just, obviously Staff is concerned by the fact that you’re up to 87%, which is considerably over the 70%. MR. KRAFT-Well, the structure’s going to go where blacktop is now anyway. There’s none of the structural deed where there’s permeable property to start with. MR. STONE-Well, what is making the slight increase? MRS. KRAFT-I don’t know. Everywhere the structure is going is already blacktopped. MR. BROWN-Yes. On the survey map that was submitted, there’s a small portion of the back of the addition that’s going to be in the green area, if you look at the survey map. MR. STONE-Is it? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay, but that’s basically why it’s such a small number. MR. BROWN-Yes. Do you have this map? MRS. KRAFT-Yes. MR. BROWN-Okay. The small triangular portion on the back of the addition, it’s outside the. MR. STONE-That little, I see what you’re talking about. MRS. KRAFT-There? MR. STONE-Yes, I was wondering why it was only that small. MR. BROWN-Yes, it’s a small portion. MRS. KRAFT-Again, I would have to say, if we run a gutter system on the entire building. MR. STONE-Which you don’t currently have. MRS. KRAFT-Which we don’t currently have, I would have to think that we’re not going to be increasing runoff on that lot. MR. STONE-Where does, the water runs onto your property, I gather, the property that you own across the abandon street. You haven’t objected to it. MRS. KRAFT-We have no objection. MR. STONE-And it’s wetland anyway, I’ll bet, pretty much. MR. KRAFT-Some of it is, yes. MR. STONE-Any comments of the Krafts? MR. BRYANT-I have a question. The gray building to the front of you that’s a postal building or something? MRS. KRAFT-It’s the old firehouse, and the Cleverdale Post Office is renting a small cubicle of it. MR. BRYANT-Okay, and that’s basically in that parking lot where you have your dumpster, that’s where the addition is going to go? MRS. KRAFT-Correct. MR. BRYANT-Okay. When you say the adjacent property owners, you’re talking about them, the firehouse people? MRS. KRAFT-The firehouse people. MR. STONE-You’re talking to the east, you’re talking the firehouse, yes, up the hill. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) MR. BRYANT-Yes, but apparently the gray building used to be the old firehouse. That’s the building directly across. Do you have any idea, from the property line, how far their building is? MRS. KRAFT-Quite a ways. MR. BRYANT-It’s quite a ways. MRS. KRAFT-Yes. I don’t know exactly. MR. STONE-Does Peter Fraser own just the parking lot? MRS. KRAFT-Pete Fraser owns the old firehouse building and the parking lot. MR. STONE-He owns, right. The way the line is on here, so he owns both all the way up to the phone building. Yes. MR. HIMES-I’d like to ask about the Queensbury Volunteer Fire Company property, the new place above you. Somewhere in the notes here it indicates that it’s a 27 acre lot. Does that go around behind you, so to speak, or to the south of you, that property also? MRS. KRAFT-The drop off to one side, and behind us is a rather steep pitched hill that goes up to the new firehouse, and behind the building, if that’s what you’re proposing, is where our generator is. MR. KRAFT-North Queensbury Fire is, there’s parking right here. MR. HIMES-Do they go right around you? MR. KRAFT-They hit two sides of the property. MR. STONE-They’re to the south. MRS. KRAFT-It drops off there. MR. HIMES-They own on this side where they are, and right under, and back here, too. Has there every been any thought to maybe acquiring some real estate from them to give you a little more room to maybe ease the problems you already have, as well as those that you’re here for tonight? MRS. KRAFT-If we were to put the proposed addition on the rear of the building, we would have to move our heating system, our plumbing system, a generator. Pretty much everything mechanical within our building is right there in the rear of the building. MR. HIMES-The rear being, what, the south or the side facing the new? MR. KRAFT-It would be. MR. STONE-To the south. MR. KRAFT-Northeast. MR. STONE-Your building, you want to build to the north. MR. KRAFT-Yes. MR. HIMES-But you wouldn’t be able to go to the south. To the east would cause the problems you refer to, if you went just to the south, to the other side of the building with the proposed construction, assuming you could acquire land. MRS. KRAFT-The drop off to the wetland? MR. HIMES-Is that wetlands back there? MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. ABBATE-It’s wetland. MR. HIMES-If that could be filled. Has that ever been explored, getting anymore? 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) MR. KRAFT-They won’t let anybody fill wetlands. MR. ABBATE-No, you can’t intrude on wetlands, can you? MR. STONE-No. The only thing that’s been discussed back there, somewhere in that area, is maybe a sewer treatment plant, if we ever sewer North Queensbury, which I wouldn’t hold my breath. MR. HIMES-It would add to the lot size, that’s all. Okay. Thank you. MRS. KRAFT-You’re welcome. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? MR. ABBATE-I just want to clear up one item if I may, please. You indicate in here that you’re willing to put in a gutter system, as a condition of this, and that the runoff would go into a septic system. Is that correct, did I hear that right? MR. KRAFT-It would go to a drywell, catch basin. MR. ABBATE-A drywell, I’m sorry. So you have no problems if that was made a condition of the approval? MRS. KRAFT-Absolutely not. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate it. MR. STONE-Okay. If there are no more questions, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody here wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor? Anybody wishing to speak opposed to this application? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-None. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any further questions on the part of the Board? MR. BRYANT-One more question, Mr. Chairman. Do you know if they have any intention to develop that gray building, the former firehouse, if it’s going to just stay a postal building or are they going to? MRS. KRAFT-I don’t really know what the plan is. Pete Fraser is also a member of our Rescue Squad and the Fire Company, and he is in full support of what we want to do, and there has been no mention of further development. MR. STONE-I was told at one time that there was an interest on the part of the owners to get some commercial tenants in there. It would be an allowed use, but even if they did, it wouldn’t impact upon the back of the lot where they are. Okay. Let’s talk about it. Allan, you raised the last question. You get the first comment. MR. BRYANT-Well, generally, I don’t have problems with these types of projects, but the two foot setback is a little extreme. You have two overhead doors now, one on this side and one on the other side. Is that correct? MR. KRAFT-Yes. MR. BRYANT-And that’s where you’re going to store your ambulances, in the new building, the addition? What are you going to do with the other areas? MR. KRAFT-Right now we’ve got a couple of items that are being stored up in the firehouse that will be brought back down. MRS. KRAFT-Our rescue boat and our six wheeler, that we use for mountain rescue are, at the courtesy of the Fire Company, being stored up there, and they would very much like to have their room back, which would fit in those small bays. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) MR. STONE-Yes. You have to keep in mind, at one time, just for history, they were kind of one organization. MRS. KRAFT-Yes. MR. STONE-And a number of years ago, basically I guess because of the Town Board and just contract and everything and whatever else, they separated into two. They cooperate, obviously, but they’re in two separate organizations. MRS. KRAFT-We work very well together. MR. BRYANT-Well, Mr. Chairman, generally, like I said, I’m for these types of projects. I’m really on the fence at this point. I’d like to hear what the other Board members have to say. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck Abbate? MR. ABBATE-The North Queensbury Rescue Squad, as well as all rescue squads throughout the United States, perform a very valuable service, as far as I’m concerned, and I think we have an obligation to support the operation, this kind of an operation, particularly when it might result in speedier service to the individual who may require this particular service. I guess we all have concerns about everything in life, but overall, I would have no problems with approving this. MR. STONE-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, I think there’s two conflicting ideas here have been expressed by my colleagues. One, obviously, it’s a great organization and it does do a lot of good things, and in my mind should be given the benefit of the doubt, along those lines, but two feet is only two feet. So that’s pretty tight. I guess for me it kind of rotates on the effects on the immediate neighbor, and I’m assuming that Mr. Fraser was notified of this. MRS. KRAFT-Yes, he was. MR. HAYES-And if he had a big problem with it he would have been here, and he certainly had the opportunity to be here. So I’m going to have to make the leap that he is okay with this and the impacts on his property, and considering that, I think that the test falls in favor of the applicant, in an overall sense. So I’m for the project. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, as has been mentioned, I’ve got some of the same concerns. Two feet from a lot line is a pretty small distance. I’m concerned about the permeability. The property is already in excess of what’s allowed. I’ll agree that fire companies and rescue squads certainly perform needed service, and when we can, we should give them the benefit of the doubt, but when I think about this, I think if this were a commercial applicant, I think I’d clearly say, no. They’re way over the permeability, and go within two feet of the lot line when the setback is supposed to be 30 feet, I would say no if it were a commercial facility, and I think I’m going to have to come down the same way, even though it’s a rescue squad. I’m going to be opposed. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I would be in favor of the application. I think, given the fact that we have to deal with the setback, and it’s unfortunate that most of these things outgrow their lots, but at the same time, I think the infiltration can be dealt with. I would recommend that they put it down in that southwest corner of the lot there adjacent to the wetland, because that’s probably (lost words) on the north side. Other than that, I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Okay. Norman? MR. HIMES-Thank you. I agree with everyone, I guess, that the rescue squads need all the help they can get. So do fire departments. On the other hand, I look at it, though it’s technically not a municipal entity, it’s nearly so. It would seem that those bodies should be observant of our codes and so forth perhaps more than anyone. My other concern is that, in the future, I mean, you’re pretty well cramped in and you’re facing some problems, which I sympathize with, that looking down the road 10 years and so on, with some growth that’s liable to be happening out on Bay Road and areas that you’re covering, you may need even more room, and I’m wondering where it’s all going to go. How are you going to expand? Maybe some of those things should be faced now. In other words, I don’t know whether you have a five or ten year long range plan in connection with your needs to serve the area that you cover. So I think that, for those reasons, that I would like to see some further exploration on your part of other alternatives, particularly acquiring some adjacent land 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) or relocation or facing some problems which I think are going to be in front of you before very long anyway, and reconsider that, but as it stands now, I would be opposed to the application as submitted. MR. STONE-Well, I, obviously listening to all my colleagues here, there are a number of concerns. However, I would look at the test that we have to perform as the benefit to the applicant, and I would extend the applicant to mean the community, because I certainly have, not a recusable interest in this thing, but I certainly have a parochial interest, that they are my Rescue Squad, if you speak. I know they perform good service. They are needed in the area. They have this particular piece of property. It is, as much as any property in Town, a unique piece of property. It ends on an unbuildable area behind it. It is already very impermeable, and I don’t think that this particular construction is really going to make any difference at all. In fact, putting the drywell in that you’re willing to put in, and the condition that we will put on this application, I think is certainly going to make it better, because we are going to collect the water from the building, and actually that means collecting an increased amount of water, because now we’re covering up part of the impermeable surface with an impermeable surface from which we are going to collect the water. Yes, there are some feasible alternatives. It could be made smaller. We could ask that property is acquired, but it’s a difficult acquisition. The property there is owned by people who are very much interested in the Rescue Squad, and there’s not going to be any, obviously, we didn’t hear any complaints, and I don’t think there are going to be any. On balance, and I think that’s the test that we have to go on, I think the benefit to the applicant, which, as I say, I include the community, the fact that the building isn’t used very much, in terms of the septic system. Yes, I’m concerned, and any time we grant two feet, or twenty-eight feet of relief, if you will, next to a piece of property, but it’s probably a piece of property that will never be built on, because of the new Post Office there, and their requirement for parking, and that’s all part of the contract, I believe, that was signed with the Postal Service. So, on balance, I see that this is a reasonable application, and I’m willing to approve it. Looking across the Board, I think we have at least four people on the Board who have said yes, so I would call for a motion to approve, and we’ll see what happens. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 50-2000 NORTH QUEENSBURY RESCUE SQUAD, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Route 9L at Cleverdale Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 1,120 square foot addition to the existing Rescue Squad building. Specifically, the applicant is requesting 27.81 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum side setback requirement, and 8.34 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum front setback requirement, and an increase in the impermeable percentage of the site from 86.6 percent to 87 percent, when 70% is the maximum allowable per NC-1A zone Section 179-25. Additionally, since the existing structure does not comply with the setback requirements, relief is requested for the expansion of a nonconforming structure per Section 179-79. The benefit to the applicant, the benefit would be that the applicant would be permitted to enlarge their vehicle storage area to house increased sized vehicles, and other equipment. Feasible alternatives, I believe the feasible alternatives are limited, based on the unique nature of this property, the configuration of the existing building. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I believe that the relief is substantial. A two foot setback is certainly substantial relief to accommodate that. Effects on the neighborhood or community, I believe that the effects will be minimal to moderate. This parcel and the surrounding parcels have historically been involved with emergency or fire services. So I don’t believe that it represents a change, in that sense. So, based on the benefit to the applicant and the community, in this particular case, I think the test falls in favor of the applicant. I’d like to make a contingency for approval of this variance, that the applicant gutter the building and provide for the infiltration of the gutter into a formally constructed drywell, to aid in the relief for permeability. Duly adopted this 21 day of June, 2000, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant ABSENT: Mr. McNally MR. STONE-So, four votes yes, three votes no, it’s approved. MRS. KRAFT-Thank you. USE VARIANCE NO. 51-2000 LI-1A RENALD J. DEVINE OWNER: RENALD J. DEVINE, CONTRACT VENDEE WITH GLENS FALLS NATIONAL BANK 49 BOULEVARD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ESTABLISH A RETAIL USE IN A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE ALLOWABLE LISTED USES. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) CROSS REF. 40-2000 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/14/2000 TAX MAP NO. 112-1- 3 LOT SIZE: 0.21 ACRES SECTION 179-26 DAN MANNIX, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RENALD DEVINE, PRESENT MR. HAYES-Mr. Chairman, I’d like to recuse myself. Mr. Devine is in the pool table business, and so am I. MR. STONE-Roy, do you want to? We’ll ask Mr. Urrico. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 51-2000, Renald J. Devine, Meeting Date: June 21, 2000 “Project Location: 49 Boulevard Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to establish a retail use in a Light Industrial zone. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the allowable listed uses of the Light Industrial zone, §179-26. Criteria for considering a Use Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Can the applicant realize a reasonable return, provided that lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence? The applicant has not submitted sufficient information to support this position. 2. Is the alleged hardship relating to the property in question unique, and does this hardship apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood? The hardship does not appear to be unique to this parcel, the previous use of the property was an allowable Light Industrial use; Construction Company. 3. Will the requested use variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the neighborhood? Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. 4. Is the alleged hardship self-created: The alleged hardship could be interpreted as self created. Apparently, the applicant has entered into a contract with a financial institution to purchase the property at a substantially reduced value, based on the knowledge that the property may have “limited feasible uses.” The hardship is to be deemed self created where the applicant enters a contract knowing the proposed use is prohibited. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 8-1991 res. 2/20/91 Electrical Contracting CDK Electric SP 18-1991 res. 4/16/91 Electrical Contracting CDK Electric SV 52-2000 pending setback relief. Staff comments: While the proposed re-use of the existing property might be a “workable” use, it does not appear that the applicant has fulfilled the requirements for a Use Variance. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted” MR. MC NULTY-Memorandum to Craig Brown from Marilyn Ryba, Senior Planner, regarding Use Variance No. 51-2000 “The applicant proposes to establish a retail use in a Light Industrial Zone and seeks relief from the allowable listed uses. This memo is written to outline the Town of Queensbury Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) and other background material for informational purposes. Neighborhood The LI-1A location noted here is in Neighborhood 10. The CLUP recommends an area to the west of the subject designation (including K-Mart) to allow a flexible industrial/commercial area for large uses so the need for zone changes would be minimized. An industrial/business park is suggested for the area north of Dix Ave. A mixed density commercial area between River St. and the Feeder Canal is suggested. Location The subject property is located on Boulevard in an LI-1A zone containing almost 73 acres. It is bordered by HI-3A (Heavy Industry) off of Route 254 (Quaker Rd.) to the west and south almost to the Hudson River. Lands directly to the north are zoned UR-10 (Urban Residential). UR-10 zones are designated with the purpose of allowing high density housing. The area between Boulevard and River St. contains an historic residential area, along with commercial uses, both of which are contradicted by the uses currently allowed in the light industrial zoning. Despite this recognition in the CLUP, no zoning change in the immediate vicinity of the subject property was recommended. Light Industrial and Commercial Zoning Comparisons Overall, there are 1,813 acres zoned LI in the Town. As a comparison, over 3,800 acres are zoned commercial (this figure does not include neighborhood commercial). Purpose of LI The purpose of LI zones is to allow expansion without competition from other use types. All uses in this zone require site plan review.” MR. STONE-The County? MR. MC NULTY-I have a list here that indicates County approval, but I don’t find any County forms. MR. STONE-Okay, but you said that summary says approved? MR. MC NULTY-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. STONE-UV 51-2000 indicates approved. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) MR. STONE-Okay. Gentlemen. MR. MANNIX-Hi. My name’s Dan Mannix. I’m an attorney with Muller & Muller, appearing on behalf of the applicant. Renny Devine is also present, Mrs. Devine and also we have Bob Sears on behalf of Prudential who would like to speak a few minutes about the hardship that’s included with the plan. The plan as I see it, I wasn’t present at the County meeting last week, but I understand it was approved. It is a Light Industrial area, but as Mr. McNulty pointed out, the other Light Industrial lots that surround it are quite a bit bigger, substantially bigger. If you visited the site that we’re proposing to change here, I think it lends itself to what Mr. Devine is looking to do, and I think it’ll become a substantial benefit to the site, bringing a successful business to it, cleaning up the property. He’s not altering the property, as it exists. He’s not going to be increasing any traffic flow by any substantial figures. I think if you see the area that it’s in, and the neighboring facilities homes and what not, I think he’s bringing a benefit to that area of the Boulevard. If you gentlemen have some questions about the Use Variance. MR. STONE-Well, as far as I’m concerned, if you just continue. I’d like to hear what Mr. Sears has to say, and I will say, I will put him on notice. I mean, we’ve heard Mr. Sears, on a number of occasions on Use Variances, I, personally, I think we’re stretching too far, in terms of our Use Variances, in terms of saying, because we can’t sell it, I know that’s what he’s going to say, therefore, we can’t make a financial return on it, but the Use Variance, as all of us know, is a very restrictive variance, and we haven’t, I’m getting a little, personally, tired of not seeing dollars and cents, because we are placed on such great restriction when it comes to a Use Variance. Every one of the conditions must be satisfied, particularly the financial. Having said that, Mr. Sears, would you want to disabuse me of that? MR. SEARS-Mr. Stone, one reason why you might see me quite a bit, instead of a number of other realtors, is because all I do is commercial real estate, and so that’s why I’m involved in these types of properties. MR. STONE-I’m not objecting. You know that. MR. SEARS-Well, I’m just saying that, but anyway, to get to this property, to give you a little background. Glens Falls National Bank asked me to represent their interest in trying to sell their property. We have an appraisal of the property that was done, and it was appraised for $110,000. It was done by a certified appraiser. So we listed it for $110,000. The property, as you can see, is cut up quite a bit. If you look at the square footage factors, most level spaces in that building only have 1,000 square feet or less in them. It’s a three tier building, and there’s levels, there’s sub-levels on those tiers. It was a very customized building built for an electrical contractor, and it’s a good use for maybe that type of business, but that electrical contractor didn’t stay in business. There might have been a number of reasons why. Maybe he overbuilt the building. That’s an assumption. It might not be true. I’ve marketed it for six months. It was marketed before I got it for quite a bit more, $149,000 I think it was, and it had been marketed, I think, for almost a year prior to me taking the listing on it. Now, part of the hardship is trying to find a user for the building. Basically I showed the building to about 20 different possible users. Most of these users were people who were ready to buy a building, and it ranged from plumbing and heating to a furniture restoration to a glass company, a woodworking company, a maintenance and detailing company, metal fabrication company, sporting goods store, which was not the right use, it was a retail, but, wholesale distribution company as well as a motor oil and paints company. (lost words) for a retail store, so I showed it to them, also a motor cab company. Every one of these people, most of them like the building, it’s in good shape. It wasn’t enough room for them. They didn’t have enough level space on any floor to accommodate their needs. I also contacted approximately 125 small businesses in the area, just cold calling, businesses that I thought might be appropriate for that building, i.e. electrical, plumbing, any number of other, painters. I couldn’t get anybody else to take a look. They drove by, some of them. Everyone of them said there wasn’t enough parking, or if I did elicit a response, they mostly said there wasn’t enough parking or there wasn’t, the building wasn’t level enough for them to put their business in. In other words, there wasn’t enough square footage on any given floor. So, it wasn’t for lack of trying to get a Light Industrial user into the building. The business that is looking at it now, part of their business is for the construction and assemblage of pool tables. Part of it is for refurbishing these pool tables. They’re not only doing retail out of there. There are doing the reconstruction as well as refurbishing and they’re constructing new pool tables in there. They assemble the parts. So there is some light, you could determine that there are some light industrial uses taking place in the zoning criteria. As far as the hardship goes for the value, is it self-created? Unfortunately, the building was built, was refurbished by a light industrial user who did it exactly for his own use, and unfortunately I’ve had a hard time trying to find someone who could fit into that building, as the result of his construction. If you look at the lot, just to get an idea of what I’m trying to explain, right back there is the site plan. The lot is 50 by 133 feet. If you look at the tax map, if you look at the lots through here, all these lots are bigger. They’re all zoned Light Industrial. Almost everybody who I’ve come in contact with, who want a light industrial property, needs at least one acre minimum, okay. These are all separate owners. I asked this person here if he would be 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) interested, this person here who owns this, if he’d be interested in buying this property. He’s not interested. Okay. Unfortunately, this is the smallest lot on the map. Now, what’s the recourse? Do we get a party in there who has some semblance of light industrial use? Okay, even though there is retail out front, he’s still refurbishing the pool tables and so on. Also, there’s minimal traffic as the result of his business. There are no 18 wheeler trucks coming in to that lot. Okay. There are going to be some vans. Unfortunately, most light industrial users, they deal with 18 wheelers a lot, or they deal with heavier vans. There’s not a whole lot of commercial traffic that’s going to be there at that location, as a result of this proposed use. We’re selling for under the asking price. It’s not like we’re asking to make a profit. The Bank certainly hasn’t made a profit on the property. They inherited the property back. MR. BRYANT-What percentage of the building is going to be used for assembly, and what percentage is going to be showroom? MR. MANNIX-I believe the showroom is about 800 feet, 800 square feet. The rest will be used for storage and assembly. MR. SEARS-The showroom, if you look at the picture, that’s the plan. MR. BRYANT-The lower level risers, for vehicles, you’re going to use that for assembly also? MR. DEVINE-Yes. I don’t know if any of you are familiar with where my business is now. We’re on Lawrence Street down by Poopies, and I have strictly on street parking. I have no off street parking whatsoever. Originally, when we bought that building back in 1992 or 1994 when I purchased the building, I thought it was huge, really, and it’s approximately, it’s roughly 30 by 30 upstairs, and it’s a cellar operation, where we physically have to carry every piece of slate down in the basement, every piece of frame down in the basement. So right now Red Star Express, on Dix Avenue, unloads all my pool tables for me, and then I physically go get them, one at a time, and we bring them down in the basement. I’m getting a little older, and we’ve come across this building here, and it’s just what my wife and I were looking for. The display area on the top level, where the rooms are finished, is just about the exact same size that we’ve got now, which is plenty for display, but the problem is we’ve got nowhere to put our tables together. I physically put my pool tables together in between the new tables during the holiday season, and it creates quite a mess in the store. I never anticipated to sell that many pool tables. I retired from one job, and just kind of did this as a hobby for a lot of years. It’s a very clean business. Maybe, I don’t know if any of your neighbors or friends have ever bought from us, but we’re a family owned business. So basically we outgrew Glens Falls, and this is a building that we would be able to afford without going into my retirement funds for my other job. So I kind of hope that everybody realizes what we’re trying to do. MR. STONE-Sir, describe to me how you would use the building. I hear it retail in the front, on Boulevard, 900 square feet. MR. DEVINE-Yes. MR. STONE-And you’re going to do the work downstairs? MR. DEVINE-That’s correct. MR. STONE-In the garage area? MR. DEVINE-That’s correct. Right now I have some pool tables in my garage at home. So out of a two car garage I’ve got like one, and in the winter time it’s always nice to have your garage back. This spot, for us, is just perfect, because we have a three garage bay underneath this particular building. Well, that is where all our tables can be kept. That is where we’ll be putting the tables together. Our retail spot up front, approximately 800 to 900, I don’t know, I haven’t really measured the rooms, our retail upstairs would stay the same. There’d be pool tables in each room for people to view, and then what they would do is pick the color of the felt, and then what we physically do is put them together downstairs. We re-felt the pool tables downstairs. We basically do a dry run before we bring them to your house. I have to fully assemble a pool table. We disassemble it. We make sure everything fits, we disassemble it and then we bring it to your house and we put it back together. MR. URRICO-How often do you get deliveries of pool tables, merchandise? MR. DEVINE-Well, it’s hard. UPS is probably our biggest supplier, because they bring our lamps and stuff that we sell with them, our pool sticks and that type of stuff. The actual tables themselves, about four times a year we’ll get a load, and basically we try not to buy between October and January because we’re too busy to unload them. So basically we buy most of them, I’m going to say between February and August, and those tractor trailers go to Red Star on Dix Avenue. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) MR. URRICO-And do you deliver the tables after their purchased or? MR. DEVINE-Yes, that’s what our business is, yes. MR. HIMES-Do you provide services, too, lease and so on and so forth? Like a lot of the small businesses, some have pool tables of various sizes. Would you like to do that kind of thing also? MR. DEVINE-Yes. That’s the same thing Jaime does. Yes. We service tavern accounts, and we’ll pull them out. MR. HIMES-You mean you might go in some place, put the felt on and all, and bring it back? MR. DEVINE-Yes, that’s correct. MR. HIMES-Yes. That’s it for now, thank you. MR. DEVINE-Sure. MR. BRYANT-I have a question for Craig. If the majority of the building, a lot of Light Industrial buildings have showrooms. If the majority of the building is used for assembly and they have a small showroom, how do they view that? MR. BROWN-I don’t think it’s percentage based on this percentage has to be light industrial manufacturing, versus this percentage has to be showroom. I think it’s, you know, each case on an individual basis. Is the majority of the use, without any percentage, is the majority of the use a conforming use, and are the other, I don’t want to call them uses because they’re not separate uses, but are the other functions of the business accessory to it? If you’re going to have a manufacturing, you may have a showroom, and they’re not, I don’t know if they always go hand in hand, but at the same time, I’m not sure this could be considered light manufacturing even. I think if you look up the definition of manufacturing, it’s the process where you take raw materials and you create something. MR. STONE-It also says assembly, though, Craig. MR. BROWN-Yes. I think if you put pieces together, I don’t know, I’d have a tough time calling that manufacturing. MR. BRYANT-But in the Code, light industrial includes assembly. MR. STONE-Assembly. MR. BRYANT-So that’s what they’re doing. MR. BROWN-So any light manufacturing or assembly that meets the requirements of this Chapter, right. If you look up the definition of light manufacturing, it says raw materials. So, I mean, you’re the Board of Appeals. You can interpret that any way you want to. I’m just letting you know where I’m coming from. MR. BRYANT-The question is, if they’re involved in assembly, and the majority of the space is used for that purpose, don’t they conform? MR. BROWN-Well, they’re here for a Use Variance tonight. MR. STONE-I want to just read Assembly Plant, “A facility where products or articles are assembled and said goods or services are consumed or used as another location”. Now, this could be an assembly plant, with a retail front. I’m looking on Page 17912.1. I mean, it says, a Type II is “Any light manufacturing, assembly or other industrial or research operation meeting the requirements of this Chapter”. Now the requirements of this Chapter call an assembly plant where they’re assembled. So, we might be able to extend that if we’re inclined. I mean, we have, we also have another consideration that we have to consider, and that’s the self-creation, which you’ve stated very clearly in your notes, maybe if the Bank were requesting the Use Variance, since they own the property, rather than the new owner who’s saying, I mean, to him it’s a self-created thing. I mean, I think Craig is probably right there, but we’ve got to address that issue. Let’s put it that way, and I’d certainly entertain comments. MR. SEARS-Can I just add a couple of things? On the contract it does say assembly. It does say to refurbish. It does say for storage use. It says that right on the contract, and my thoughts are, you’ve got almost 80% of that building dedicated for that use. So I went to Chris Round. I asked him, I said, Chris, I mean, I was totally surprised. I said, Chris, can’t we classify this as Light Industrial? Why should we have to go before the Zoning Board? Chris’ response was, well, I really can’t, I have 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) to be conservative in all my responses. I’m asking the Zoning Board to look at this as maybe not in a conservative way, but in a common sense approach to what we have here in front of us. We have a very light use for a very small property that basically conforms to Light Industrial ordinances. That’s all. MR. STONE-That’s one of the reasons that we hold these application hearings, is so that we get to ask a lot of common sense questions and you get to provide a lot of common sense answers. That’s exactly why we’re here, and I think I take pride in the fact that I think we do it well, and that’s why we’re asking these questions. MR. ABBATE-I agree with common sense questions, but sometimes common sense questions are not compatible with the law. You have not submitted sufficient information to support your position of financial hardship, and again, the Board is going to get tired of hearing me, we’re talking about a Use Variance, and our law requirements are that they must be used by the Zoning Board of Appeals, and you must find each of the above tests, which are one, two, three, satisfied. This application does not satisfy a Use Variance under the law, period. MR. SEARS-What can I do to help you with that? MR. STONE-I think one of the things, Mr. Sears, that, if nothing else, I would like a formal presentation of what you’re saying. I mean, I’d like to be able to study it, ahead of time, like we get to study the file, ahead of time, when we go to look, for one. I mean, I made the comment earlier that I agree with Mr. Abbate, in terms of a Use Variance, it says, and this is a direct quote from the law, “as demonstrated by competent financial evidence”. I’m not doubting what he’s saying. I know that, but I guess I kind of like to see it on a piece of paper, that you’ve marketed it to, you’ve tried this number of people. We just went through, last week, Mr. Lapper sitting over here knows that we ask them a great deal of questions on a site of a tower. We wanted proof that they in fact did it. Okay. Well, as I say, the only thing, I hate to have to pull teeth to get this information after the fact. MR. HIMES-I guess the, as I was looking at the application before the meeting, and Bob brought out some of my thinking. I’m curious, in terms of how many people run in and buy a pool table every day or every week, and that there has to be a lot of activity other than retail. So, my thinking now is, well, maybe we’re not looking for a Use Variance, you know. If it would qualify for, as the paragraph in the regulations states, manufacturing, or assembly, etc., etc., etc., if you looked at it in that light, which I am, there really isn’t a Use Variance needed. There is some retail, and if it can be, let’s say established or proven or whatever is necessary, that most of the activity, to some reasonable percentage of the time spent in the building, is devoted to other than retail sales. How many people do you have working for you, sir? MR. DEVINE-Right now there’s my son, myself, and my wife. MR. HIMES-And what percentage of your time, for the three of you, is spent in connection with retail sales? MR. DEVINE-Retail is actually, most people, when they purchase a pool table, we’re not, I don’t mean to knock department stores, so I won’t, but we’re not department store tables. We carry high end tables, Gandies. We re-do all the old Brunswick tables, so you’re asking, I mean, gosh, if I can, most people will call before they come and look at a table. So I’m going to say the amount of time I actually spend on the sales floor per day this time of the year is so minimal, in the winter time, during our season, I’m going to say probably an hour, maybe an hour and a half out of eight. The rest of it I kind of baby sit the phone and wait for calls to come in, and we’re also putting the tables together. MR. HIMES-Does that apply to your wife and your son? MR. DEVINE-My son is with me, yes. There’s only one of us in the store. MR. HIMES-So if there was only eight hours in the day to work, which is probably minimum in connection with self-employment, but let’s say that was the case, eight hours. Three of you, 24 hours, how many hours on the average, is devoted to retail activities, sum total? MR. DEVINE-That’s hard to answer. Peak season, I’m going to say probably two, two and a half hours a day at the most. MR. HIMES-All right. So, you’re speaking 80% of the time or better of the time is non retail. MR. DEVINE-That’s correct. MR. HIMES-I don’t know, it might take the record to prove this, but in that respect, then, in my opinion, there is no call for a Use Variance. Craig, would you comment on this? 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) MR. BROWN-I think we’re maybe losing a little focus here. I think what Mr. Devine wants to establish is a pool table store. It’s not a pool table manufacturing facility where he sells them when he’s done building them. He has a retail showroom, and correct me if I’m wrong, it’s a retail showroom where he displays them, and after you buy one he’ll put it together for you. I don’t want to oversimplify it, but I think that’s what he’s looking for. MR. STONE-I haven’t heard him say it quite that way. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. DEVINE-My business, we have to have models put together for you to come in and see. You would not buy a car if all the parts were laying out and the salesman said, yes, it looks really good. I mean, it’s a fact, or a boat or anything else, and my business is the same way. I can show you boxes of pool tables in my basement, and I can say, yes, they play really great, but until you can physically come in to my store and see four or five or six tables all lined up like little ducks, and you can take the balls and roll them on them and say, yes, these are really great tables. Now my next question to you is, do you want your table in a mahogany stain or do you want it in an oak stain? Do you want it in green felt or blue felt? And when you provide me with all those answers, then we go to work on it. Then we go downstairs and we start to assembly this table, and it’s assembled. MR. STONE-But you sell some of them off the floor, though? MR. DEVINE-Very few, because that makes double work for me. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-But the Chairman’s point is well made. In other words, basically, you’re not a manufacturing plant. What you’re doing is saying to the customer, here are the products that we can produce for you. Select for me what you’d like and we’ll do it for you? MR. DEVINE-Yes. MR. ABBATE-We’ll assembly one for you. MR. DEVINE-Yes, we have to, because they can’t, they’re too heavy. They’re 800 pounds. MR. STONE-There’s a difference in what I hear you saying and what Craig took away from your meetings together, I gather. MR. BROWN-Yes, we didn’t really have any meetings. We had a couple of phone conversations, but I think the applicant’s here tonight because he thinks he has a retail store. That’s why he has a Use Variance. MR. STONE-Well, that’s what we’re trying to establish. MR. DEVINE-I mean, I have to sell stuff or I won’t be in business. MR. ABBATE-Well, why not ask the applicant. Do you feel you have a retail store? Is this a retail store? MR. DEVINE-I sell things out of my store, that’s correct. MR. ABBATE-Yes, but is it a retail, is this a retail store in your opinion? MR. DEVINE-Yes, it will be a retail store. MR. ABBATE-Okay. That’s fine. Thank you. MICHAEL MULLER MR. MULLER-My name is Michael Muller, and I’ve worked with Mr. Devine and Mrs. Devine on the application, just trying to figure out what it is that we have, so that we could make a presentation here. I appreciate what Mr. Himes is trying to interpret, but I think our honest and direct approach to this thing needs to be that it is a retail use within that facility, and so if we squarely get on that issue, of course it needs a Use Variance, and then I’ll just go back to where Mr. Stone is and say that, look, if this Board is uncomfortable, this evening, as to the quality or the detailed aspects of what Mr. Sears wishes to present, I’m very, very comfortable. I’ve listened to Bob Sears about this. I’ve talked to Mr. Frank Lemery who’s at the Bank, and that issue about dollars and cents, if we table this 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) matter, we’ll come back and there’s not going to be any refuting. That is that there’s not going to be people coming in and saying these are preposterous numbers and all that. We can show you very real numbers, because a Light Industrial use cannot succeed within the existing building. We tried to fit it within certain parameters as to what sort of building is going to go in there, and all of a sudden you realize that when you have like sand and gravel storage and light manufacturing, things like that, warehousing, assembly, it doesn’t fit, and I think that Mr. Sears can come back and satisfy this Board with some dollars and cents, the real stuff that you’re looking for. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MULLER-I want to say one other thing that I guess we’re going to need to address if we’re permitted to table it, and that is the self-created aspect. I’m very, very comfortable in being able to present to this Board, through Mr. Devine’s application, that this is in no way self-created, that is that what is basically here is an old building. It’s about 100 years old, that was the trolley switching station, and in 1991, this Town, through a Planning Board, basically allowed it to be extended out so that it encompasses the entire piece of property. I mean, if you look at that map very closely, we’ve got a four foot setback on the east side. We have nothing in the front that’s really usable anymore, except for some limited parking, and the parking aspects is, again, if you think about this in terms of the self-created issue, if you’re going to put some light industrial, some manufacturing site in there, where are you going to park the cars for the people who come that are somehow going to make these little tiny widgets in that building? The site plan minutes that I took the opportunity to read at the Planning Office for the 1991 hearing, Mr. Harriman, who owned the building at that time, said that he had 15 employees on the road and four secretaries, plus Mr. Harriman. That’s 20 people in that building. They didn’t walk to that building. Okay. They just parked all over the place. So you can see that the constraints on this piece of property have a history to them, and certainly Mr. Devine is not busy creating them, you know, manufacturing this hardship. So I think, you know, I’m asking the Board to table it and we’ll come back with that type of proof that we hear that you want, and we’ll steer you right into, it’s a real retail use. Don’t get mixed up with, it’s manufacturing with a little bit of retail. MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, if they’re thinking about tabling, I’d like to state a couple of concerns I have so they can think about it. MR. STONE-Sure. MR. MC NULTY-One, addressing the reasonable return, obviously, the law says you’ve got to consider each and every allowable use within the Industrial zone and show that it’s not a reasonable return. I can probably agree that the hardship would be unique, given the size of the parcel that’s involved. However, the self-created thing, that I hang up on because here we have somebody that is proposing to purchase the property. He knows what he’s walking in to, and in my mind it’s totally self-created. Now if the Bank were a co-applicant, or the Bank were the applicant, that’s a different story. As Mr. Sears, indicated, the Bank kind of inherited this. So for them it strikes me that, no, it’s not self-created, but for somebody that is proposing to buy it, yes, it’s self-created because he can go buy another piece of property somewhere else. MR. MULLER-I think we can improve on that, sir. I think that we’ll bring a person from the Bank and they’ll tell you what mess was created to get here. MR. STONE-I think what you’re hearing, Mr. Muller, is a frustration that we recently got off the table, and Mr. Lapper sitting over here, smiling, knows where we’re coming from. MR. MULLER-I find Mr. Lapper to be very frustrating, too. MR. STONE-Well, what’s happening here is it shouldn’t be our job to sit here and pull teeth. I think somebody made a reference, maybe it was I, about pulling. This information should be forthcoming. You know what you have to answer, and I appreciate your candor, and I appreciate your willingness to do that, and before we do table it, and I appreciate the opportunity to do that, any other concerns that people have that they want him to address? MR. ABBATE-Yes. Sir, I would strongly recommend that you talk to Chris and you get a copy of the law dealing with Use Variances. It’s very specific. The Zoning Board of Appeals, in the State of New York, their hands are tied, by law, unless you meet certain requirements. There’s no discretionary decisions by this Board, quite frankly, but asking for a copy of the Use Variance requirements, it’s called Otto Rule. MR. STONE-Mr. Muller knows. MR. ABBATE-I know he knows, but I just want to make sure that, when you come next time, I’m going to have a lot of questions dealing with the Otto Rule. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) MR. MULLER-Mr. Abbate, I’m not going to have many answers for you, nor will the applicant. We’re going to rely, hook, line and sinker, on the realtor who is going to be able to show that cost analysis and that hardship aspect, and we’ll have real numbers. What we’ll do is we’ll just work on the history of the property, and we’ll bring the Bank. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and the second part of this my concern is I am not so sure that the party requesting this Use Variance is the appropriate party. I believe it should be the owner of the property that should come to this Board and request a Use Variance, not a proposed contractual purchase based on certain premises. MR. STONE-You have heard the sense of the Board. You have heard a number of people with obviously some different approaches, individual approaches, all of which, obviously, you’ve got to satisfy enough of us to get the. MR. MULLER-We need the candor, so that we just give you the application that you can deal on. I mean, if somebody else is harboring a great idea, don’t hold it back. MR. STONE-Yes. Does anybody else have any concerns they want addressed, that stand in the way of your consideration, not necessarily your approval, but your consideration of this application? MR. URRICO-I don’t know if it’s a concern, but I do have a question . You sell more than tables? You sell foosball tables and pool sticks? MR. DEVINE-That’s correct. MR. URRICO-Are you planning on expanding the type of equipment that you sell beyond pool tables? MR. DEVINE-No. We have all that right now in our store. It’s just that it’s all smooshed in. Yes, everything we’ve got, we’re going to continue to have. MR. MULLER-Poker tables, foosball tables, ping pong tables, air hockey tables. I saw chess sets in the store. Things that keep you away from the t.v. MR. STONE-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE NO. 51-2000 RENALD J. DEVINE, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: For 62 days, for the applicant to better prepare an application for Use Variance which talks to specifically for financial hardship and particularly self-created hardship and any other concerns that have been enumerated by Board members this evening. Duly adopted this 21 day of June, 2000, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-And at the same time, should we table the Sign Variance, Craig? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 52-2000 RENALD J. DEVINE, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Because of the lack of consideration of this particular application for the Use Variance, we will table this Sign Variance, again, for 62 days, in order that the Use application be heard and a decision made. Duly adopted this 21 day of June, 2000, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-Thank you, gentlemen. MR. MULLER-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-2000 TYPE II PROSPECT CHILD & FAMILY CENTER SFR-1A OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 133 AVIATION ROAD, MAIN CENTER (NORTH SIDE) APPLICANT PROPOSES A 2,740 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE MAIN CENTER OF PROSPECT SCHOOL AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE PERMEABILTY REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS THE OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. SPR 10-2000 TAX MAP NO. 82-2-6 LOT SIZE: 0.81 ACRES SECTION 179-20, 179-66 JON LAPPER & RICHARD JONES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 54-2000, Prospect Child & Family Center, Meeting Date: June 21, 2000 “Project Location: 133 Aviation Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,740 sq. ft. addition and additional parking spaces. Relief Required: Applicant requests 7014 sq. ft. of relief from the 28,967 sq. ft. maximum allowable impermeable area for this parcel per the SFR-1A zone, §179-20. Further, the applicant is requesting relief from the Off Street Parking and Loading requirements, §179-66. The applicant’s site plan depicts 29 parking spaces provided while 51 are required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to expand the existing school facility. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a second story addition and trade off of existing impermeable area for new building area. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: 7014 sq. ft. of relief from the 28,967 sq. ft. maximum may be interpreted as moderate (24%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: 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.): Associated properties on the South side of Aviation Road recently received an Area Variance and Site Plan approval for a related expansion project. Staff Comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The planned addition is proposed to occupy an area currently utilized for outdoor recreation. Also, creation of the proposed parking spaces may require the removal of vegetation from the site. Neighborhood concern has been noted with regards to the possible relocation of the activity areas closer to the residential properties. The applicant has proposed additional landscaping to aid in mitigating visual and audible impacts. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-We should read Marilyn’s here, too. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Memorandum, this time to Laura Moore, from Marilyn Ryba, Senior Planner, Prospect Child & Family Care, “Following are notes from my conversation with Dick Jones concerning parking numbers and the rationale used. The most recent site plan submitted, SP-2, for the development on the south side of Aviation Rd. contains 25 existing parking spaces on the west side of the development, and 38 new spaces for administration. The school is also on the south side of Aviation Rd., and the plan shows 102 existing spaces on the east side of the development. A total of 165 spaces are shown. A total of 165 spaces are required. This requirement was calculated by multiplying the 9 existing classrooms by 4 (the number of spaces per high school classroom as outlined in the zoning ordinance) for 36 spaces. The higher number was used since Prospect School is not an ordinary school, and they have a higher staff to student ratio (36 staff). There is 2,212 sq. ft. of office space, which was divided by 150 sq. ft. (zoning ordinance requirement for office parking) to derive 15 spaces. There is 10,535 sq. ft. of conference room and office space, also divided by 150 sq. ft. for a total of 70 parking spaces. Although the footprint is 8,100 sq. ft., and the proposal is for a two story building, the second floor does not go over the therapy pool area, accounting for the difference in sq. ft. South side 25 + 38 + 102 = 165 (existing and proposed) 36 + 15 + 70 = 121 (required) The north side of the building as per SP-1, site plan received 3/10/00, shows 22 existing spaces, and 7 new spaces for 29 spaces to be provided. Required spaces are calculated at 7 classrooms x 4 spaces for 28, plus 2,740 sq. ft. divided by 150 sq. ft. for 18 spaces. North side 22 + 7 = 29 (existing and proposed) 28 + 18 = 46 (required) There is a difference here of 17 spaces, which can be accommodated on the south side of the development. Total 121 (south side required) + 17 (north side needed) = 138 required total. Visitors The zoning ordinance does require in Ss 179-66 A(1) that there be sufficient space for probable vehicle demand. This is why additional parking is considered for visitors. Visitor parking for the south side was proposed at 5 spaces, and 21 spaces for the north side for a total of 26 spaces according to the SP-1 notes. Added to the required amount of 138 spaces, a total of 164 spaces results. There is a difference here of 1 space. Also, the 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) SP-1 site plan dated 1/20/00, revised 2/22/00, and received 3/10/00, shows 193 spaces total required for the entire campus. Mr. Jones is aware that he needs to revise the parking figures as shown on SP-1. 2/22/00 Planning Board Minutes The minutes indicated that there are just 2 new staff. Additional parking is being proposed to the higher staff to student ratio. Parents do come in for conferences, but not usually during evening hours. The Planning Board asked via resolution that there be a buffer and parking be reconfigured. 4/27/00 SP-2 Site Plan As per the plan, there are 50 employees for purposes of water and septic flows. Conclusions There is adequate parking with room for parents to park during the day for conferencing. The south side of the development can accommodate the variance request for parking on the north side of Aviation Rd.” MR. STONE-County? MR. LAPPER-There was no County. MR. STONE-No County? MR. MC NULTY-I didn’t see any. MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Lapper. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper. Next to me is Larry Gouge, the Executive Director of Prospect Center, and Richard Jones, the Project Architect. First of all, I have to apologize. We were here last month to talk about the facility on the south side, and even though you have all these consultants in front of you, it got by us that we needed a variance on the north side. It also got by the Planning Staff. So we got our variance for the south side. We submitted for site plan. We were heading to the Planning Board for site plan review, and Laura Moore did a count and realized that we also needed a variance on the north side for permeability, and so we resubmitted. MR. STONE-I thought you had talked about the fact that you’d be back for the north side? MR. LAPPER-No. We thought we were all set with variances, and it was an oversight, and for economy we should have dealt with it all at once, so you didn’t have to deal with us twice, but we apologize, and it was our fault, and here we are. I’d like to begin with just a statement, that schools, under New York law, are afforded a little bit of different treatment in general, because there’s a perception that there’s a public use, and for that reason, schools are a permitted use in the SFR zoning district in the Town. This was all on the record when we were here last time. What is unique in this zone is that it requires a 65% green space requirement, which makes a lot of sense for houses, for single family houses, but it’s really incredibly large for a school facility. That’s just a lot of green space, and certainly, for a kind of a school facility that handles handicapped kids, they just don’t have the same recreational needs that a regular public school would have. So it’s not like you need all these fields. So there’s not a practical need for the green space, and what we talked about last time, the real issue with green space is permeability, and as stated in our application, that’s being addressed with infiltration. In terms of what we’re asking for here, which is a relatively small expansion, but it is in reasonably close proximity to a neighbor to the north, right now that area has an outdoor play a area, and this building will really serve as somewhat of a buffer between the play area and the residence, and then beyond that, after one of the residents who lives sort of in the center of the northern boundary of this came in and talked to the Planning Staff, I think they might have spoken with Craig personally. We were contacted by Craig, and we proposed to include a hedge, an arborvitae cedar fence, hedge, as a buffer, which doesn’t exist now, to buffer that one neighbor. MR. STONE-Is this the Foster property we’re talking about? You’re talking up in the northwest corner? MR. LAPPER-No. It’s in the north center. MR. STONE-Northeast corner, okay. That’s not impacted by this whole thing. MR. LAPPER-Right, but we’re trying to make it better as well. At this point, I’d like to ask Larry to just state on the record why he has a need for this expansion, and then just ask Mr. Jones to go through the details with you. LARRY GOUGE MR. GOUGE-Hi. Thanks for the opportunity, again, to speak, and just real briefly, this expansion will allow us to accommodate the staff that are already in the building. We’re not really adding, we’re not adding any classrooms, and the usage would remain virtually the same, in terms of the number of children. The children do have physical and other types of disabilities, and there’s a significant need, 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) in terms of space, for equipment, for therapy and for other services that occur within, inside the building. MR. JONES-I’ll talk briefly about the plan. what you’re looking at here, this is Aviation Road to the bottom side, Mountain View Lane running diagonally across the side of the sheet. The existing main center building currently exists and it runs in the same configuration as the road intersection. The addition that we’re looking at is this little “L” shaped piece on the back side. The existing parking, this is the area for ingress onto the site. This is the only area for egress on the site. This is the existing parking configuration along the front side of the Aviation Road side of the building. We’re looking at adding a small expansion of the blacktopped area for approximately seven vehicles. There is a small storage shed currently sitting right about where my finger is. We’re proposing to move that back on the site to the edge of the paved area. When we add this, we’ll be cutting down an area of trees that exist right here. We’d be leaving as much of a buffer to the playground area as possible. The existing picnic shelter sits here to the east side of the property, and basically the Center itself is a single story, flat roofed building. It is not designed for a second floor, so we didn’t feel that it was feasible to attempt to change the structure and incorporate larger members and reconstruct an area to put a second floor on. We felt it was a better and a more reasonable solution to do a small “L” shaped addition. This is currently a portion of the playground. There’s some built in equipment that exists right here, right now. We’ll be moving that to the southeast, away from that, and basically the playground area that exists out here is remaining. We’re not changing that at all. The existing building, as I said, is a single story, flat roofed building. Currently all roof drainage goes into and is infiltrated into a series of drywells that exist around the building. The addition that we’re proposing would also utilize the same type of infiltration system. We’re looking at some drywells that would be added out here on the back side. We are not increasing the septic flow for this. We’re utilizing, as Larry said, existing toilets. Basically we’re adding enough space for two additional staff, no more than that. The existing parking area, has infiltration along the perimeters. The area that we’re adding here, we’re adding, again, stormwater infiltration, which will be a drywell system, and the drainage in this area would be directed to that. That pretty much addresses what we’re doing and how we’re infiltrating on site. MR. STONE-You said the building was designed and constructed for a one story building, and there is no way to even consider adding, since this is office space, I heard the Director say, the kids don’t have to go up there. MR. JONES-No. The existing building itself is designed for live and dead loads associated with roof construction. Dead load is approximately, probably, in the neighborhood of 15 to 20 pounds per square foot. Live load on the roof is snow load, which in that area is either 45 or 50 pounds. If we were to design it for a second floor load, we’d be looking at a live load of 100 pounds, which means that we’d have to do some substantial reinforcement of the structure and the foundation systems, because they’re basically designed to shallow foundations supporting a one story building. So it would entail some major changes to the existing structure. In addition to that, if we put a second story on there, we’re also talking about the addition of an elevator into that, for handicap access. Even though the students may not go there, the Staff still has to have handicap access to that space. MR. STONE-I appreciate your answer. That’s what we’re trying to get on the table. That’s all. MR. BRYANT-I have another question for Mr. Jones. When you say you’re going to move your storage shed back, there are actually trees surrounding that storage shed now, so it’s not going to be on the asphalt. MR. JONES-No, it currently is not on the asphalt. It’s right on the edge. We’re going to turn it. It sits maybe 45 degrees to Aviation Road. We’re going to rotate it so it’s basically parallel. The front of the building would be parallel. So we’re just sliding it back, rotating it and sliding it back. MR. BRYANT-So you’re going to have to cut down some of those trees. MR. JONES-Yes, we are. We’re going to take down an area of trees in there. MR. BRYANT-And this whole parking area is really new asphalt. Is that correct? MR. JONES-The seven spaces is new, yes. MR. BRYANT-Okay. Can’t you accommodate those vehicles on the south side? MR. JONES-We could if we asked for a larger variance on the other side. We already requested a variance. MR. ABBATE-As long as it’s not a Use Variance. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) MR. JONES-No. It wouldn’t be a Use Variance. MR. BRYANT-I think we established at last month’s meeting that you had extra parking spaces? MR. JONES-We have extra in that we have visitor’s parking, but we do not have more than what we feel are needed, and in discussions with Marilyn, I think we went through the rationale of how we determined the spaces for parking. As we had indicated, the parking requirements for this facility are not indicative of what’s indicated in the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance addresses either primary or secondary education. It does not indicate special education needs. The staff to student ratio, at this school, is much greater than four to one, which is a high school requirement. MR. BRYANT-That’s true, but we also established that not all your staff is present in the building at any given time. MR. GOUGE-One of the issues that we’re facing currently is, on the north side is where people come to drop off their children and pick them up, have evaluations and that sort of thing. A major portion is already set aside for visitors and handicap parking, and we’re limiting our staff parking to people who have either medical conditions or some type of very short stay at the building and they have to leave. Even with that, we see people with children trying to find a place on that side, and end up going across the street and taking children across the street, to get into the north side of the building. So by those few additional parking spaces, we could assure that the flow of people in and out of the building, for evaluations and other types of services, would be safe. We just, currently, it’s just not really a situation where visitors, mostly visitors, are sure that they’re going to be able to find a parking place. MR. LAPPER-I’d also like to address your point about moving them on the other side of the street. Larry’s saying that there’s a specialized need for them here because of the visitors and the limited spaces on the north side. So he wants these spaces for visitors, but even if we just step away from that specific use and we just talk about numbers of spaces, there’s certainly room on the south side to accommodate additional spaces. However, there are some very upset neighbors that live on the south side to the rear of this. We had two lengthy meetings at Prospect Center, over the course of this, really starting in February, I guess, with the neighbors, and we made a substantial redesign. If this were a commercial use buffering a residential use, the Town Code requires a 50 foot setback, and we’ve expanded to 107. So we are greatly beyond that, but nevertheless, even though the neighbors bought their homes after the Prospect Center was there, they’re very upset about this, and that’s something that we’ll deal with at the Planning Board. MR. BRYANT-I’m not suggesting that you not build your spaces on the north side, and you add spaces to the south side. I’m not suggesting that at all. What I’m saying is that you stay with what you already got approved on the south side, and not build these extra five spaces. MR. LAPPER-And the answer there is that Larry really feels that this is the minimum. We’re not trying to build extra spaces. I mean, most parking lots you don’t want to have, except at Christmas, you don’t want to have everything filled all the time. You want to have some excess, but what we’re talking about here is really every day utilizing all these spaces. So this is, there’s not an excess built in to this. He needs all these spaces, unfortunately. MR. STONE-What about the shed that seems to be in the location where this new building is going to be? It looks like a garage. It’s a separate shed. MR. GOUGE-That would go. MR. STONE-That would go. MR. LAPPER-Is that that the trailer? MR. STONE-No, it’s not the trailer. MR. GOUGE-No. There’s a wooden shed that we use to store equipment, simply because we don’t have enough space, and it’s really an inconvenience. So that would just, it’s lived its useful life, obviously, and we would get rid of it. MR. STONE-Good. That helps me. Any other questions of the applicant? MR. ABBATE-So you would consider a contingency removal of the shed, as part of any proposal? MR. GOUGE-Absolutely. MR. JONES-We need to remove it to build the addition. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) MR. ABBATE-Yes. Okay. So that’s not a problem with you? MR. JONES-No. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. STONE-As long as they don’t relocate it. MR. ABBATE-Right. Exactly. MR. STONE-Any other questions? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor? Anybody wishing to speak opposed to this application? Opposed? Please come up and state your name. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RICHARD ATKINSON MR. ATKINSON-Hi. My name is Richard Atkinson. I live at 6 Dorset Place. The back of my house adjoins the chain link fence which separates my yard from the playground behind the main center. MR. STONE-You’re in the Crownwood Park subdivision? MR. ATKINSON-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ATKINSON-First of all, I have a question, and I have seen, not this version of the plan, but an earlier version, and I was wondering if there are certain aspects that did not appear on the version of the map that I have seen, and I was wondering if they were taken into account in the calculation of the permeable area, specifically, the pavement in front of the picnic area, the paved paths, the sheds that sit on either side of the picnic area. MR. STONE-You raise the question, Mr. Atkinson. We’ll talk to that when we get back. MR. ATKINSON-Okay. We have concerns about this application, on the grounds that basically when we moved in, it was a very quiet area. Yes, obviously, the building was there, but there was some minor usage of the playground area, but very minor, and with all due respect to Mr. Lapper, while he wants to portray this as, well, you know, this is Prospect School and handicapped kids, from what we see through the fence, the major use of that playground is not handicapped kids. There is essentially, I don’t know if you want to call it a daycare or a nursery school, whatever, that is operating out of that building, and those are the kids that are using that playground, and to give the impression that this is handicapped kids, and, you know, it’s a moderately quiet usage is not accurate. We have quite a noise concern. For example, my next door neighbor, at this moment, is home two weeks, or out of work two weeks out of every month because he’s battling cancer. He’s in the hospital a week having chemotherapy. He’s home for a week. He can’t sleep in his home because of the noise from the playground. What is this doing, essentially, is it’s taking all of that playground area and it’s concentrating it right behind our homes. I mean, by putting that extension in the one area, you’re forcing that playground directly behind us, is what you’re really doing, and we also have, both my wife and I have aging parents, and her parents especially come to stay with us at various times, and, again, they’re used to napping during the day. There is no way that that can be done in our home, due to the noise from the playground, and, again, all you’re doing with this building is basically you’re pushing the whole thing right behind us, and it’s just, you know, over the years, this playground has gotten more and more and more use. What started out as just a few children has gotten to be more and more children for more and more hours, especially during the nicer area. MR. ABBATE-Let me stop you for a second, if I may. You used the word “daycare”. I don’t see anything in the application that indicates that this organization, the Prospect Child and Family Center, is engaged in a daycare center operation. I’d like that addressed by those folks later, if I may. MR. ATKINSON-Okay. Again, I don’t know what you call it now, but I can tell you that my own son was there. MR. ABBATE-Well, you indicated that the children are not handicapped. Did I hear you correctly? MR. ATKINSON-Yes, you did. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) MR. ABBATE-That are playing in that playground? MR. ATKINSON-Yes, you did. MR. ABBATE-They are not handicapped children? MR. ATKINSON-I mean, obviously, I’m not a doctor, but what I’m seeing from the playing going on there, no they’re not. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, it’ll be addressed. MR. ABBATE-Yes, that’s fine. No problem. MR. STONE-You’ve got questions and we’ll get answers for you. MR. ATKINSON-Okay. MR. STONE-The thing I also want to caution you is that, while we have been very lenient in these meetings in getting into site plan issues, this is kind of a site plan issue, and will be addressed certainly at the Planning Board, if we approve the increase in permeability, which is the only thing, plus the parking, the only thing that’s on our agenda. I mean, siting the school, siting the building, is not our concern at the moment, except its effect on taking away permeable area. That’s all we’re concerned about right now. Obviously, our notes our minutes are available to the Planning Board, and you certainly can go back to the Planning Board when they consider the site plan. MR. ATKINSON-I understand your point. I also know that, not this directly, but I’ve been involved in this kind of thing before, and what happens is you come to the Zoning Board, and they say, gee, that’s not us, that’s the Planning Board. You approve the variance, then we go to the Planning Board and they say, this is out of our hands. They’ve already got the variance from the Zoning Board, and all we can talk about is where we’re going to put the bushes. MR. STONE-Well, you’ll have a little more latitude at the Planning Board, I think, than that. MR. ATKINSON-Well, that’s essentially the response you get from them. Which is why, believe me, we plan on addressing the Planning Board as well, but that is why want to cover both bases. MR. STONE-I’m sure you do, and if necessary we, let me ask a question of Staff. Craig, are our minutes read, or just the motion? Do they see what we’ve talked about at the Planning Board? MR. BROWN-No. The minutes from the Zoning Board are not read at the Planning Board meetings. MR. STONE-They’re not read. I realize they’re not read. MR. BROWN-They’re obviously available for all the Planning Board members to review at their discretion, but, to my knowledge, they’re not part of any record for the site plans. MR. HAYES-This is an Area Variance, though. So we are allowed to consider the effects on the neighborhood, as part of the test. MR. BROWN-Absolutely. MR. STONE-Yes. Your comments are meaningful to us. No question about that, but as concerns the permeability. MR. ATKINSON-Well, as I say, my initial question was involving the permeability, which is, was that calculated with what they’re saying is the current and proposed? MR. STONE-And we’ll get that answered from Mr. Jones. MR. BRYANT-I have a question. You talk about the concentration of the playground area, and I think Mr. Jones indicated that it wasn’t going to effect, this addition does not effect the playground at all. How do you feel that it’s going to increase the concentration of the playground area? MR. ATKINSON-Well, obviously Mr. Jones and I have a difference of opinion on the subject, but it would seem to me that if you have a large open area behind a building, and now you’re going to cut off from use one large portion of that area, then the activities that go on in that portion that’s no longer available are going to have to move down to the area that is available, and that available area happens to be directly behind my house. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) MR. STONE-I understand, and I think he addressed that, to some extent, by the fact that there is some fixed equipment in that area right now, and that’ll be moved slightly to the east, southeast, but in that same area behind the building, but we’ll ask that of him when he comes back up. We hear your concerns. Anything else? MR. ATKINSON-Thank you. No, that’s it. MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody else wishing to speak opposed? Please come forward. ANN GOBBO MS. GOBBO-My name is Ann Gobbo. I live at 6 Dorset Place, and I only want to add a few things. It’s nice that they offer to put the bushes up, and I really appreciate it. It’s just that I’ve noticed something. I went back there, and I’ve been watching, and they have that big storage shed that’s over there in the corner, and I stood behind that, to see if that helped at all, even that big structure, to kind of block the noise. I didn’t think it would, though, because I’ve already walked down Dorset Place, and you can hear it, it’s amazing, almost as loud in my back yard, which is right there, down the street like four houses, and just to quote a couple of other neighbors, that I wish had shown up but haven’t, but maybe they’ll come to the Planning Board. One guy in Crownwood, I went around and asked a couple of people, how do you feel about it, and one man on Crownwood was like, that place is maxed out, and I feel like that’s a good way of putting it. In my opinion, it’s about the right size that it should be. I only wish that before they built up the playground area, they had to do something like this, but I guess they don’t, but when we moved in, real quiet, like nine, ten years ago, and then a small nursery school, which was no problem, and then got more like nursery school/daycare, whatever is going on, and it’s fine, but there’s a lot, like the kids playing basketball, and the kids all on the Little Tyke bikes and it’s getting really noisy, with a lot of fun going on, which wouldn’t really be bad if it was like an hour in the morning and an hour in the afternoon or something, but more and more it seems like longer and longer amount of time, although lately it hasn’t been that bad. I remember last summer neighbors saying, gosh, it seems like whether I go out at eight a.m., noon, or four p.m., they’re out there, to the point where people don’t feel like they can read and sleep, and the people next to me have a pool, and it’s getting noisy, and like I said, my main concern was kind of, if I go to show the house to sell it, will people turn away saying, this is nice, but it’s too noisy, and it’s nice they offer bushes, and I appreciate it, but it won’t change a thing. It’s amazing that even across the street from me on Dorset, it’s almost just as noisy, or down the street, or in my front yard and I have nothing against kids playing, believe me. It’s perfectly fine. It’s just, I’d like it to be an hour in the morning, an hour in the afternoon, something like that. It’s stretching out longer and longer, and maybe that’s more in the summer, but they play in the winter, too, you know, they go through with the snow blower and like I said, it’s just the last few years that they’ve black topped a lot of it and brought up a lot of equipment, and to me it’s maxed out just the way it is, and it’s already a concern of mine. MR. STONE-Help me, where, I should know, Dorset, that’s in the subdivision, that’s the parallel street to Aviation on? MS. GOBBO-It starts parallel to Aviation, the first three houses, and then it starts to curve. It’s a cul de sac. So eventually they end up. MR. STONE-How do you get into it? MS. GOBBO-You go to Crownwood, Aviation to Crownwood. MR. STONE-How do you get to Crownwood? MS. GOBBO-Off Aviation. MR. HAYES-It’s off Aviation. MR. BROWN-Would you be able to point out your property on the map? MR. ABBATE-Yes, maybe if she points it out on the map. MS. GOBBO-Yes. I’m right here, and there’s a fellow, at the last Zoning Board meeting, next to me, who was complaining about not being able to (lost words) his bedroom to the front of the house, and I’m having the same problem with people who come to my house. MR. STONE-Okay, but both your back yards directly butt up against their fence? 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) MS. GOBBO-Especially (lost words) chain link fence, and I’m looking right at it, which I don’t even mind. It’s a matter of time. It’s getting noisier and louder and longer. So I kind of hate to see it expand for fear it may start off as offices, but God forbid they want another classroom (lost words). I guess that’s all I can say. MR. ABBATE-I have a question, because I want to get this cleared up before this evening. You used the term “nursery school”. What do you mean by nursery school? MS. GOBBO-Well, my own son went there. I believe there’s a few children with hearing impairments and that kind of thing. My own son, the healthy one. I have one who has special needs, but I have one who is healthy and normal, and he went there. MR. ABBATE-Did you pay tuition for that? MS. GOBBO-Yes. MR. ABBATE-You did? MS. GOBBO-Yes, and then the second year I moved him to a different nursery school because the price went up quite a bit because what they said to us mothers, it was the end of May, and it was kind of like, gosh, you’re not going to be here next year, and they said, well, we’re still going to have a nursery school and a daycare for the staff kids and anybody else in Town who wants their kids to go here, but it costs more because they want them at least half a day, and it was kind of getting expensive. So I did move him to another one, but, you know, and when he went there it was kind of quiet and down at the one end where they’re going to build the extension, but it’s grown quite a bit and gotten quite noisier and a lot more kids, but, so I really, there were a few, I think, hearing impaired kids in his class, a lot of regular kids. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. MS. GOBBO-Yes. MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? LEVI BROWN MR. BROWN-My name is Levi Brown. I live on Willow Road, and as some of you may remember, I was here last month when we dealt with the Prospect School on the south side. I first would like to mention, I know that it came up about parking, and the needs of parking, and I just want to point out that, I didn’t bring it with me tonight, but I did distribute a parking survey that I personally did during two weeks in February, and it indicated that there were a minimum of 18 spaces available, up to as high as 35 spaces available at different times during the day. I, personally, would count them between 9:30 in the morning and 2:30 in the afternoon. So the point I want to leave you with is there seems to be adequate parking now, without any addition, additional spaces, and Prospect did indicate they might be adding two or three new staff people. So I just want to point that out. However, in general, I’d like to point out that I think the building project on both sides is too extensive for the lot sizes. As you know, the non permeable land now will be up to 42.5% on the north side, which is 21% higher than their required amount, and I think that’s a significant amount. I’m concerned about numbers changing and parking numbers and the percentage of permeable land. For example, I have noticed myself that it looks like there’s a lot of green there, but there are blacktop areas within the playground for kids and their three wheelers or whatever they call them and the basketball, and things like that, and I’m just wondering if the Zoning Board and/or the Planning Office has looked over the numbers to make sure that there has been no errors made, as far as determining the permeable, non permeable land, because it’s hard for anyone to make a judgement without all the facts in front of you, so that you can make the right decision. I’m concerned, there’s a small playground on the south side, as you know, but once in awhile, and it doesn’t bother me, of course, but once in awhile I can hear some of the kids on the north side playground, and I’m behind the south part of Prospect. So I’m just saying that it’s very noisy, I would believe, on the north side. I think that, I know arborvitaes are nice, and it does cut down on some sound and quite a bit of sight, but I think the buffer zone, I don’t know what it is, because I don’t have the formula here, but the current buffer zone between the neighbors in the Dorset Place Crownwood area and the playground, there’s not a lot of green trees and arborvitae in there currently. It’s a very small distance. So I would hope that this group could look at that very closely and try to solve that, because the noise is a problem. I think that if, for young children, for elderly, for people that work third shifts, those people many times sleep during the day, and the noise from the playground is very, very loud, and I would hope that you would take that into consideration. Again, I mentioned this last month, I’m sorry, but there are 70 single family residential houses that are within 500 feet of the property of Prospect School, and I think that those that are close, there’ll be a serious environmental impact if the site plans are approved in their present form. I hope that you would consider all 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) options and some of the suggestions that some of us have made, and I thank you for allowing me to address your Board once again. Any questions? MR. STONE-No, I guess not. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-I find no correspondence. MR. STONE-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Would you come back up. I’d appreciate it if you’d answer some of the concerns that you heard, and if you don’t satisfactorily, we’ll ask. MR. LAPPER-Very fair. I want to make just one general comment. I started off saying that there’s a, New York State has a standard that schools are considered to have a public purpose, and that that colors the zoning cases, that you give schools a little more leeway. I think that that would be especially true with a facility that deals with trying to remedy handicapped kid’s problems, and to the extent that these kids are in therapy of one sort or another during the day, and that they’re able to spend part of the day outside playing around in the back yard, that’s really positive for them, and to the extent that the neighbors who live immediately adjacent to the School feel that they’re impacted, there is noise of kids playing in a playground outside of any school, whether it’s a school for developmentally disadvantaged kids or not, and schools are permitted in residential neighborhoods, because you want to have a school in close proximity to where the kids are, and you don’t build schools near shopping malls or commercial areas, and that’s the case, traditionally, all over New York State, all over the Country. That’s just how it is, and people who live near schools will, during the day when the school’s operating, will hear kids playing in the playground, and there’s really nothing that we can do to change that, and certainly, the people that live on Willow Road, on the south of the School, the School was existing when they moved in. If they don’t like living there, they probably made a bad decision to move there. They are beautiful homes, and I’m sure that if they really don’t like it, they can move, and I wouldn’t say that in most context, except that it is so important that this facility survives and thrives, but I’ve had, personally, a number of friends who have kids there that have really been helped, and it’s just, it’s important to have this facility in our community, and I think that that public purpose outweighs the inconvenience of having some noise from playgrounds, and if that sounds like a harsh statement, I apologize, but I just think that this School is that important to the community. I’d like to ask Larry to deal with some noise issues, and then Dick Jones can talk about some of the mitigation. MR. STONE-Let me ask a question, first. It’ll lead to what you’re going to answer. What is the mission of the Prospect School, in your Charter, what is your mission? MR. GOUGE-We have a long, formal Mission Statement, but in short it’s to provide services to individuals with developmental disabilities, both children and adults. MR. STONE-Okay, and all your activities are directed that way? MR. GOUGE-Yes. If you’re addressing the issue that there’s some children, typical or non handicapped children within our program. MR. STONE-Yes. Well, that’s where we’re going, obviously. MR. GOUGE-Okay. Sure, I’ll be glad to address that. In the early to mid 90’s, we were mandated by the State Education Department, if we wanted to continue to provide services for children with disabilities, to develop a plan to provide those services, where children with disabilities would have the opportunity to interact with children who don’t have disabilities. So, as part of that plan we created both, at first it was a nursery, we did have a nursery school, which then did joint activities with children with disabilities, and subsequent to that we have I think three classrooms that have children with disabilities with children who do not have disabilities, to meet that mandate. MR. STONE-That’s a State mandate? MR. GOUGE-That’s a State mandate. Yes. MR. HAYES-And they still exist today? MR. GOUGE-Yes. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) MR. ABBATE-Sir, how many handicapped students do you have in your organization, that you service? MR. STONE-Let’s get the terms straight. I don’t want to, I know there are so many terms today, Chuck, and you’re using a term that I’m not sure that they would use. What term do you use for your students? MR. GOUGE-Developmentally disabled is fine. MR. ABBATE-Developmentally disabled. Okay. That’s fair enough. How many developmentally disabled children do you currently service? MR. GOUGE-We serve about 800 children in Warren/Washington and Northern Saratoga County, and some adults as well, in a lot of different formats. If you’re talking about the north side? MR. ABBATE-I’m talking about this immediate area, the 133 Aviation Road. MR. GOUGE-We have about 100 children. MR. ABBATE-A hundred children. Okay. How many children do you service that are not developmentally handicapped? MR. GOUGE-I think there’s about 15 in there, approximately. MR. ABBATE-So then based upon what you’re saying, there can be no more than 15 non developmentally handicapped children in that playground? Based upon what you’re saying. MR. GOUGE-Yes. I mean, I’m going to have to go back and check the exact numbers. MR. ABBATE-Well, plus or minus. I’m not going to hold you to the numbers, and one other thing, Counselor. That is a harsh statement that you made. Let’s not forget that property owners have rights as well. MR. LAPPER-And I don’t mean to be, for it to sound that way. It’s just that this School is a special, an important place in the community, and I just want to make that point. MR. ABBATE-No one’s arguing that point, but just to put aside that homeowners don’t like it, they can move, I think is inappropriate. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Okay. I apologize. MR. UNDERWOOD-I had a question on the number of staff members’ children that are accommodated at the School. How many does that entail of your 100 population? MR. GOUGE-I don’t really know that number. We’ve had for our nursery school program, I think right now it’s probably eight or nine, but I’m not sure. I’d have to go back and check those figures. I’d be glad to do that. MR. STONE-Are they developmentally handicapped or disabled? MR. GOUGE-We have some that happen to be developmentally disabled, but the majority of them are typical kids. MR. STONE-Okay, and how many children are on the playground at any one time, on average at max? MR. GOUGE-Twelve to fifteen is basically what I’ve seen. I mean, there could be some exceptions to that. I’ve been paying a little more attention since these meetings because, I mean, I go out there and, to be perfectly honest, I just don’t hear the noise level as being the significant issue, in terms of what I’ve experienced, and haven’t heard any complaints about it, or that sort of thing. I do think that there is some truth that since typical children have, are out there, it might make a little bit of a difference. We did, several years ago because of concerns for egress and also one of the things that we always hope to do is to have some walkways for children, so that in the winter time, obviously, if people had to exit on the playground side, in case of a fire, they would have blacktop. So we do have those sidewalks there, and that has increased the use some, in terms of the kids are able to use those, not only wheelchairs, but the majority of children on the north side are ambulatory and they’re able to ride their tricycles and that sort of thing. MR. STONE-Mr. Jones, do you want to address how the permeable area was determined? 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) MR. JONES-Yes. I’d like to talk a little bit, too, about the playground. I know there’s been some concerns about some of the noise that some of the neighbors feel is generated from that. Over the past week we’ve been on site doing monitoring of sound levels. Sound levels can be rather subjective. I think that most of you would be surprised to realize that the sound level in here is approximately 68 decibels, with the air conditioner running. The sound levels that we were looking at, on the play area, and basically the play times vary from roughly 10 in the morning until about 1 p.m. and the groups of kids that we looked at on site were anywhere from 11 to 15 kids, and they could have as many as seven to eight staff with them at the same time. The decibel ratings average ranged from anywhere from 57 decibels to a high end of 68. What we realized was that as traffic went by on Aviation Road, the decibel levels would spike to 70 or 74, and it would depend upon whether the cars had radios going, that type of thing. When the kids were out there, and some of the more normal or typical children were using some of the rolling toys, the decibel level, when they were on the black topped areas, was as high as 70, but again, it was the type of thing where it was varying up and down. MR. STONE-Measured where, by the way? MR. JONES-We measured them at the, what would be the northeast corner, the point where we’re talking about doing some of the arborvitae hedge. It would be the upper right hand corner. MR. STONE-Not the point, the upper, the upper, northeast corner. MR. JONES-Right. We were standing along the property line, and we were basically pointing the device either back across the playground or back toward the main center, depending upon where the kids were. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. JONES-In regard to the playground areas, as I had indicated before, the playground area that exists where the addition is going is going to be moved downward, southeast of where it is now. So in essence it’s going to be sheltered behind what we’re proposing for the new addition. As far as moving any of the playground activities further out onto the site, that is not true. The playground activities that are there are going to remain. Depending upon the age and the disability, the children play in various areas across the site. We did take pictures of the adjoining properties, which I’d be more than happy to show you. The area which would be to the upper left is basically just a wire fence. There are trees along that area, adjacent to the property. In fact, the picture we have shows the edge of the playground equipment. As you come further to the right, on the upper or the north property line, the first property that sits there has a six foot high stockade fence that runs approximately 100 to 120 feet along the back yard, and they basically have enclosed their back yard. The next property, again, is open, with the exception of the large pines and some of the other plantings that are there, and I have pictures of that area as well. You can see that residence at that area, and that’s one of the reasons that we are proposing the hedge. As you look at the area which is along the east property line behind the picnic shelter, it’s very densely wooded. You can’t even see the residences through there. So we feel we have adequate screening in those areas, with the exception of the one area where we’re looking to provide the hedge. In regard to the play times, basically, as I said, it runs roughly 10 in the morning to 1, and then they run in the afternoon from 3 to approximately 5:30 p.m., and again, it’s groups of kids, normally anywhere from 11 to 15 kids, and they could vary in degree of disability to normal children. MR. GOUGE-We do have two evening respite programs. One runs until eight o’clock on a Wednesday, and on Fridays to about 9:45 or so. The children are, sometimes, during the respite program, do go outside during those times. So probably the latest, I mean, obviously they’re not out there in the dark, but. MR. STONE-The school year is 12 months? MR. GOUGE-We have a 10 month program that runs similar to the schools and BOCES, and then we do have a six week summer program, as well. MR. UNDERWOOD-In view of the fact that your big wheel bicycles seem to be the large culprits, as far as the noise level, would you consider removing those tarred over areas, and bagging the bikes so the kids can ride them when they get back to their own homes? As a concern for the neighborhood, that seems to be the sticking point? MR. GOUGE-I would certainly consider that. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, I don’t see them at other schools, other than nursery schools. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) MR. STONE-Are you talking about hard wheel vehicles, Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, they’re plastic hollow wheels. MR. GOUGE-Maybe we could do something to accommodate it so they wouldn’t have the hard wheels or something that would make it, like rubber wheels or something of that nature. I would certainly be more than willing to look into that, and talk with our staff. I think it would be a little bit out of hand for me to just say, yes, we’ll do that, without at least getting some input. Some of those children who ride those are children with disabilities, and they may be receiving, try to encourage them to have certain type of movements and that type of thing. So I’d like to investigate that, but I would be more than willing to do anything we can to accommodate that, and I am certainly sensitive to the sound level, and I walk around our building. It’s an important thing to us, and to be perfectly frank with you, this is, of all the things that I thought might be an issue, that’s something that never even crossed my mind, because it just hasn’t been something that seemed that unusual to me, okay, and maybe it’s because I’m steeped in working with kids. So I’m certainly more than willing to address that and see if we can do something to make it more amenable to the neighbors. MR. ABBATE-Now the Prospect Child & Family Center, over the last year, what percentage has there been in increase of your services? Roughly, I’m not going to hold you to a degree. MR. GOUGE-Actually, in terms of the educational services that we provide, we have five classrooms in that building, and have had them since 1988, and it really hasn’t changed substantially, with the exception of a couple of years, some of those classrooms had fewer children in them. Most of the time they would have 12 children in them, and for the three integrated classrooms that we have, I think I have 15 children. MR. ABBATE-See, the reason I’m asking is that, based upon your own statistic that you gave me, 15% of your total business is dedicated to the day care center, with the youngsters who have no developmental handicap, and I’m just thinking, if Prospect Child & Family Center is growing continually, and I see no reason why they shouldn’t, then this proportionately, would mean that the services of the non folks in this category would increase, and then consequently the area in which these children play would increase, and consequently, the noise would increase. MR. GOUGE-Our growth has really been in other types of services. Okay, and the number of approximately 100 children is on both sides of the facility. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and one final comment, and then I’m through. You say the noise decibels in this room is 80 something? MR. JONES-No, 68. MR. ABBATE-Sixty-eight percent. MR. JONES-Yes. MR. ABBATE-And the noise decibels in the playground was how much? MR. JONES-They ranged from a low of 57 to a high of 68, and when the big wheels, the equipment were going. MR. ABBATE-So not much more noise than what’s in this room. MR. JONES-No. MR. ABBATE-So I find it difficult to think that adults, particularly adults that don’t feel very well, require medical attention, can’t sleep based upon the noise level in this room. I think there’s an inconsistency here, and I can’t get it straight in my mind. MR. JONES-Yes. That’s why I said noise is very subjective, and last night we were here for a Planning Board meeting, and I brought the sound meter and did levels when the air was on, and that type of thing. MR. STONE-I wondered how you knew so well. MR. JONES-Yes, well, we also were at another project where we were dealing with decibel ratings, and I think it’s hard for people to understand sound levels, and children’s voices tend to be more shrill and higher, and if they’re out there playing and shouting, then it is, you’re going to have peaks and you’re going to have spikes in the decibel rating. There’s no doubt about that, and I think that was borne out when, in fact, the gentleman from my office was on site, a car went by the site on 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) Aviation Road, on the opposite side of the building with the radio on, and it spiked out at 74 decibels. MR. ABBATE-Well, I’m convinced that you folks are sensitive to the needs of your neighbors. My concern is that there seems to be an inconsistency of what constitutes noise and what does not constitute noise. MR. BRYANT-I think when I look at your decimeter, when you’re in an enclosed area, you’ve got this type of sound level, it’s going to register at 78, but it requires a lot more activity in the outdoors to raise that level to 78. So it really depends on the situation, and that leads to my question relating to the proposed addition. Did you take into consideration what’s going to happen to the sound and the playground with that addition? Is it going to entrap the sound and intensify it for the neighbors behind, do you think? MR. JONES-I don’t think it’s going to be any worse than it is now, because part of the area that’s occupied by our proposed addition has the storage shed in it now. MR. BRYANT-Part of that area is open, also. MR. JONES-Part of that area is open, and there’s actually, the playground in that area goes within probably 10 feet of the property line, which is not going to occur with the building addition. It’s going to move to the south, away from the property line. MR. MC NULTY-But as you move that south, you’re moving it into the elbow of the building, which could act as a sound reflector. So there is a potential for it possibly becoming worse. I’d also like to comment, from my own experience, decibels don’t mean an awful lot if you’ve got a sound that is annoying, and I think that’s what these neighbors are saying is they’ve got a sound that is annoying, and once you identify it as being annoying, then if you can hear it, it drives you nuts, and it doesn’t matter how loud it is. It also bounces, sound is funny the way it bounces. So I think, you know, regardless of what you get on decibel meters, if the neighbors are saying that the sound is annoying, it’s annoying. Obviously, you can’t make it totally go away, but anything you can do, like looking at the Big Wheels or whatever else to minimize it or cut the time down certainly would be a help. As you indicate, you get used to it. I think there’s another factor. You can go home at night. Where, if you’re sitting in a home that you own, you can’t leave to get away from the sound. You’re stuck there and you’re at the mercy of whatever’s generating the sound, and it’s a psychological effect, but nevertheless, that adds to the fact that it drives you up the wall, and thinking of the neighbors, you need to consider that, do what you can to help them out. MR. LAPPER-Let me ask, I know that the hedge has an impact on sound. Is there something that we could do to make that a bigger hedge or a thicker hedge, that would act as more of a buffer? MR. BRYANT-Why not a sound barricade? Did you ever consider, you know, the barricades that they put on the highway? MR. ABBATE-Well, that’s an interesting point. MR. BRYANT-No, I mean, if this is a major concern with all the neighbors, and you have a renovation project on both sides of the street, can’t you contain the sound with some kind of barriers? We’re not talking about trees or hedges. MR. LAPPER-Well, trees and hedges do absorb sound. MR. BRYANT-Somewhat, but in the winter they don’t absorb anything. MR. JONES-Cedars do. MR. BRYANT-But the sound barriers that I’m talking about specifically, they make them out of wood and they’re barriers. They’re sound barriers, and they don’t hear the trucks, on the other side, the houses, they don’t hear the trucks. MR. LAPPER-Sometimes that’s true. What Dick just said is that they’re very tall. MR. ABBATE-You know what I’d like to see? And this may be inappropriate, and if it is, say so, and I’ll back off. I’d like to see you work in conjunction with the neighbors and come up with something that will satisfy everybody. MR. LAPPER-Well, I’d just like to point out that we met with the neighbors to the south, because there was a whole big group of people, and we made a lot of changes there, but on this site here, we already have the kids playing, this is obviously admittedly a small site, and I think that if we just get 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) back to the nature of this expansion, that putting this 2800 square foot addition isn’t going to change the nature of the use in the back yard. We can talk, tonight, and come up with the best mitigation that we can, in terms of noise, but building this addition really isn’t going to have an effect on the use of the back yard. I think that Chuck made a good point about, is it going to reflect the sound, and we have to think about that, but beyond that, the fact that the play equipment is going to be moved away from the property line that’s all the way to the west, and the building is going to be as a buffer in between the play equipment and the property line. I think that’s helpful there, and in terms of the rest of the back yard, it’s going to be exactly the same. MR. ABBATE-Yes, well, Chuck made another point, too, an excellent point, that when something bugs you, it bugs you, and you can go home at night. These folks can’t. MR. LAPPER-I know, but my point, which was perhaps ineloquent, was that schools are just going to have noise, and it’s just the nature. MR. ABBATE-I understand what you’re saying, Counselor. Nothing personal. MR. STONE-And actually, if that fixed play area with the material, the toys that are stuck in the ground, is going to be in that little “V” shape in there, and it’s going to be blocked, certainly at least from one property, to the northwest is going to be helped, not that that helps the people further over, but in one sense, you can argue that you are mitigating some of the noise by putting the building in, but I want to go back to the permeability, because that question was asked. MR. JONES-In regard to paved areas on the site, we had a survey done of the site in late January, early February. The one area that we had missed was the what’s called like a basketball court in front of the picnic area. The survey, we had them locate the picnic shelter, but with the snow on the ground, we did not realize that there was the paved area in front. All of our numbers are inclusive of all walks and that type of thing that are on site. We deducted some when we took the one building off, and we added it back on with the building addition. We also incorporated all of the new paved areas in, so that the numbers that we have indicated on the application are reflective of the non permeable and permeable areas as they exist on the site and as they are proposed on the site. MR. STONE-So you did get the basketball court in now? MR. JONES-Yes. We did, we added that back in. MR. STONE-So the 28,000, the 7,000 on top of the 28,967 is the correct total? MR. JONES-Yes. We had given Craig the revised totals. The non permeable area is actually 43.5, not 42.5 as we had indicated originally in the application. MR. STONE-Okay, but you’re assuring us that everything that’s impermeable is listed in the? MR. JONES-Yes. MR. STONE-You accept that, Craig? MR. BROWN-That’s correct, yes. The numbers in the notes reflect the additional, I think it was 800 square feet of basketball court. MR. JONES-Yes, the one area that we missed. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-Any other questions? Are you done with your response? MR. JONES-Unless you have more questions. MR. STONE-The public hearing is closed, but. JACEY WILLIAMS MR. WILLIAMS-My name is Jacey Williams, and, again, I am a self-appointed chairman of the Queensbury committee against noise pollution. Mr. Jones has not alluded to the Number One decibel producing agent in the neighborhood. Do you know what structure sits next to? MR. STONE-The firehouse. MR. WILLIAMS-Thank you. Did you take a decibel rating when the siren went off? 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) MR. JONES-No, we stopped. It would have gone right off the scale. MR. WILLIAMS-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-All right. That’s an interesting point. Okay. That would keep you awake. MR. STONE-Okay. Let’s discuss this. MR. BRYANT-Before you start, I have just one more question. Mr. Jones, can I ask you one question? MR. JONES-Sure. MR. BRYANT-The seven spaces that you’ve added in asphalt here, what does that amount to in square footage? I’m assuming it’s about 35 by 35. Is that correct? MR. JONES-Yes, probably. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So about 1200 square feet? MR. JONES-Yes. MR. STONE-It says five, actually, on the drawing. MR. JONES-Well, there’s five and two, I think, on the other side. I think there’s seven all together. Are there two on the other side? MR. BRYANT-There’s two over here, yes. MR. STONE-Where? MR. JONES-Yes. Five along what would be the line parallel to Aviation, and then just two tucked in the corner. MR. STONE-Yes. I see the two. You’re right. MR. BRYANT-So it’s about 1200 square feet, somewhere around there. MR. JONES-Yes. MR. BRYANT-Okay. That’s my question. MR. STONE-Okay. Jaime, what do you think? MR. HAYES-Well, certainly, to me this is a very tough one. I think there’s very good points on both sides of the issue on this one. As I look at the plan, and considering the fact that we just granted a variance across the street, I think it’s not hard to make an argument that this is fully built, or maybe even overbuilt. I’m very familiar with the site. Actually growing up, the bus used to drop me off right there. So I knew it when it was an old wood shack, really, or a big old school, and I’ve certainly seen that parcel developed on both sides of the road. So I think there’s a lot being asked here and a lot being done there, and the neighbors certainly have a concern. On the other side, I think Counselor’s argument that the permeability issue here, which is really what we’re considering, has to do with the fact that it’s a residentially zoned neighborhood and the requirements are very high because people just build houses and the rest of their lawns are mainly lawns, and that’s all permeable, but this is a school in a residentially zoned neighborhood. So, putting the relief aside, on the permeability, I don’t have necessarily a big problem with that. I think that the architect involved on both sides of the road has made a real attempt to infiltrate the runoff and use modern techniques to control it. We’re not being asked to, by a leap of faith here, I think the stormwater is being contained, very professionally, or as much as possible, and that’s a good thing, so, putting that aside. So, for me, as far as our test rotates on the effects on the neighborhood or community, and as I heard comments about the nursery school and stuff, that really concerned me, and it raised other people’s ears, for sure, and if there was an ongoing or an expanding nursery school format being conducted there, I would think that that, you know, it might just be over the top, as far as noise and children and that type of thing, but I think if there’s a New York State mandate to interact these children, which I think is a wonderful thing, personally, with handicapped children, I, personally, think that that issue of the nursery school puts it beyond our, you know, if the New York State legislature feels that that’s what we should do, I don’t think we’re in a place to undo that idea. So I’m kind of aside with that. My wife is a teacher in the Queensbury School District, and I know that the 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) level of educational mandates grows, and it’s been growing rapidly. I mean, that’s an understatement, and what’s being asked of these facilities to accomplish day in and day out, and I know that’s not a relief to the neighbors, but it’s a, what are we to do? I mean, we put that burden on the facilities, or the facilities’ staff, or do we try and accomplish what psychiatrists and legislators and everyone else has determined is the best thing for our children or our neighbors’ children or our community’s children. So there’s very little doubt in my mind that these facilities, while trying to pack a lot into a site, they’re trying to pack a lot because they’re being asked to pack a lot, and where do we put that burden, going forward. So, for me, it would boil down to that if this was a business developer or a commercial interest, one that had been put forward from somebody that was seeking a profit for themselves, I would say the tie would, and I think it is kind of a tie. A tie would go to enforcing the Code and making the developer get over the top, have the burden of the test be in their favor, but when it’s a public utility, or in particular, when it’s a school for handicapped children, I think the tie goes to the runner. I think you’ve got to go with the school, and I think that’s exactly what this is. I think this is as close a test as I’ve been associated with, as far as balancing the interests that are at play, and I think, in my mind a tie goes to the runner in this thing. So I barely and by the smallest of margins, I could be in favor of this application, with a contingency that no other additions or such would be requested in the future, and I know that’s a serious restriction, but I think that, at this point, that this would be as far as I could ever see going, or approving, so I would need that contingency to at least address the neighbors’ concerns as much as I could, and a second contingency would be that the screening in the back be more than substantial, not one row of trees. I mean, there would obviously have to be an attempt to layer, some type of layering of vegetation that would be above and beyond what I would consider a traditional screening hedge. MR. LAPPER-We have a proposal, if I can interrupt quickly, talking to Dick Jones. If you look from the corner of the new addition to the property line to the east, what we would now propose would be a wooden stockade fence along the property line, and then cedars the entire length of that fence, and I think that those two together would help, in terms of noise buffering, and they don’t have to be just one row, but in layers. MR. HAYES-As far as my own opinion, then, I think that two layers of screening, which that kind of does, I think, while not a perfect format for the people that live on Dorset Place, it does represent an effort in my mind, again, this is only my opinion, to mitigate what is a perfectly natural concern. So, with those two contingencies, I could be in favor of the application, cumulatively. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Like Jaime, I’m torn. I acknowledge that the School certainly does good things, and schools have a right to be in a residential area, according to the law, but I also consider the fact that they’re there, they’re kind of like a guest. They’re not a residential setup. They’re an intruder. They’re a guest, and as a guest, I think in general they should follow the rules of their hosts, in a sense. So, I won’t subscribe to the logic that says we’re a school. We’re special. We should be able to put down more pavement than somebody that owns a house. I think in general the same rules should apply to the School. I’m also very concerned about the cumulative impact on neighborhoods. What I’m hearing the neighbors say is the nuisance value of this facility over the years has grown, because the facility’s grown. You’re serving more kids. You’ve got more kids out more time, and it goes in little increments, and eventually when that happens, whether it’s a school or a commercial facility, you gradually end up destroying a neighborhood, or a bunch of neighborhoods around, as the noise impacts and whatever. So that’s a real concern for me. I believe that the Town should be doing a lot more than what it is to protect its neighborhoods. On the other hand, if I could vote no and make the School go away for the neighborhood, I’m not sure that they would have a better neighbor moving in, given the facilities that are there. There’s something to be said to have somebody there that will talk with you, that will work with you, and at least try to mitigate some of the problems that the neighbors see. I will agree with somebody that said earlier that this facility probably is maxed out. I can’t see approving anything else that comes along for expansion, but given the contingencies that Jaime mentioned, especially if you can do something with a fence and some cedars staggered along the rear side to hopefully contain some of the noise, then it strikes me that maybe this is a gain for the neighborhoods. So I think I could probably, again, like Jaime, squeaking by, go along with it, with the understanding that, if I’m still here, not next time. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would, the only thing I would add is I would like to see the elimination of those tarred pathways, and the use of those tricycles, because I do think that they are a significant factor in the neighborhood, and I don’t think that they’re a necessary component of anybody’s school day. Kids are able to ride bicycles at home in the evening. They don’t ride them at the public schools, and I don’t see any reason why they should be riding them there. MR. GOUGE-Are you saying that the blacktopped pathways should be eliminated? 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, I would say. MR. GOUGE-Well, they’re there. We have to have them there to take the children out, in case of egress. That’s an absolute. MR. UNDERWOOD-Not to get rid of those. I would say if you got rid of the tricycle aspect of it. Get rid of the Big Wheels. MR. GOUGE-Rubber wheels aren’t good enough? MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t think you’re going to find rubber wheels. They only make the plastic ones. I mean, it’s a grading thing, and I think if you went out there with a decibel meter, and, like you said, 70 decibels is like a chainsaw. You put 15 of them out there, you’ve got a lot of noise. MR. LAPPER-We’ll accept that. We understand where you’re coming from. MR. STONE-Okay. Norman? MR. HIMES-Thank you. I guess it’s all been said. I agree with what Jaime outlined, all the points that he covered are pertinent, and I have nothing further to add. I think that I’m in favor of the application, in spite of the fact that this seems to be something that’s about ready to burst at the seams, but what can we do, given the beneficial purposes that I think even most of the neighbors, at least at the last meeting, all gave some praise to the objectives of the School and what it’s done, and there are some headaches and some consequences. I guess that’s what everyone’s having to live with. I don’t live out there. On the other hand, I think I would have to vote for it. MR. STONE-Okay. Allan? MR. BRYANT-I’d really like to make three points. As far as the proposed additional building, I have no problem with, but I agree with Chuck and a few of the other Board members. I think you’re maxed out at this point. The second point. I’ve got to say, I’m a little bit disappointed in Mr. Jones. I really enjoy when Mr. Jones comes before the Board, because he shows us a lot of green, and here he’s going to cut a bunch of trees down, move a shed back to add parking spaces which one of your neighbors already proved in a survey that you don’t need. Okay. This aspect of the project would save 1200 square feet, which amounts, when we talk about it in percentages, you’re looking for a 24% relief, would change it to 20% relief. It’s still a moderate relief, but I think it’s more palatable, you know, in my view. I would like to see something done with that parking. The third item relates to the sound barriers, and I’m not a scientist, so when you say you’re going to put up a wooden fence and a couple of rows of trees, I don’t know what effect that’s going to have on the sound through tests, but I do know that there are products out there that are sound barriers that are used commercially, and in residential areas, to control this kind of sound, and it’s not only for highways. They use it for a lot of schools. So I think when you’re talking about renovation of this magnitude, you should start to consider that kind of response to your neighbors. So they don’t have to live with the noise. Now you can control it. So I would be for the project if you would get rid of the parking spaces, but with the parking spaces, I’ve got to tell you, I’m against the project. We’ve already been shown, by the survey, that you have plenty of parking spaces. MR. GOUGE-I still don’t understand how we have plenty of parking spaces. What survey? MR. BRYANT-Well, there was a survey by one of your neighbors. MR. GOUGE-Yes. We really never responded to that. I’m sorry, but the times when we have our biggest parking issues are from 8 to 9:30, and then again in the afternoon when staff come back from various sites or whatever, and that survey was taken at times when we’re not, we don’t tend to be maxed out. MR. BRYANT-Well, the survey was taken, if I recall, at different times of the day, and at any given time, you had 18 spots that were empty at any given time (lost words) and now you’re adding spots in the south, and now you want to add spots in the north. MR. JONES-They had indicated that 18 were empty, but 25 of the spaces on site are for visitors, which means that they are not going to be full all the time anyway. We’re going to have people coming and going to the site. So it would not be uncommon that seven of the visitors were occupied and 18 were not. MR. STONE-Well, let me ask a question of Staff. Craig, they’re asking for less parking places than would be required by a strict reading of the Ordinance? 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) MR. BROWN-For this parcel, yes. For the total property, I think that they have the required amount. MR. STONE-Yes, for the total parcel, but this parcel. MR. BROWN-But this parcel they’re requesting less than what’s required. MR. STONE-Less than what’s required. MR. BROWN-By the Town Ordinance. MR. BRYANT-Is that the same for the south side? MR. BROWN-The south side they have excess. MR. BRYANT-Yes. So I mean, when you look at the whole facility. MR. BROWN-They’re right on the money. MR. STONE-They’re right on the money when you look at the whole facility. MR. BRYANT-And does that include these additional spaces? MR. BROWN-Right. The spaces that they’re lacking on the north side are made up on the south side. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-I’m going to take a completely different approach. I don’t object to anything any of my fellow Board members have said, but I’m going to approach this from another angle. The Federal government mandates, the State mandates, the County mandates, the Town mandates, and everybody and his brother mandates, but who pays the bill? These folks who own the property. The taxpayers pay the bill, and I think what we’re doing, I don’t mean in this particular instance, but I think what this Country is coming to is that we are saying, to hell with the people who pay the taxes. We’ll do whatever we want, and I think it’s time we have to say, enough is enough, and let’s give more consideration to the people who pay the taxes, particularly when organizations are receiving Federal and State money, and I’m not for this project. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, first of all, I appreciate the adaptability of the applicant I think you have bent over backwards to listen to the statements made by the neighbors, and the statements made by the Board, and I think your willingness to consider, if we approve this thing, some form of noise abatement on the back side of the property, and possibly of some of the equipment that you have, the fact that you didn’t jump up and down when we said no further expansion of the facility, and I, too, agree that, for a school, you’ve got about as much on that lot as you should get, and that, well, the other thing is, the substantial screening is necessary. The thing that sways me to approve this thing is the fact that this is a school. It’s been a school for a long time. Schools teach children. Children make noise. It’s usually pleasant noises, but they make noise, and the School has been there, as I say, for a long time, and, I mean, I was there the other day at 10 o’clock in the morning, and there were kids on the playground, and they were making noise, and they were typical kids noises on a playground, annoying, could be, if I was of a mind to be annoyed, pleasant, if I wanted it to be pleasant. They’re noise. There’s no question about it, but it is a school, and I think, to me, that’s the bottom line. I was concerned, in listening to some of the explanations that were being made, that there was a day care or a nursery school there, because I always thought, and that’s why I asked about the mission. The mission is developmentally disabled children, and you answered that question to my satisfaction. You used the word “mandate”, which obviously got at least one of our members upset, but nevertheless, it is mandated, and I think it’s a commendable one, because we keep talking about mainstreaming kids as much as we can. We hate to think any kids are disabled in any way, shape or form, but the fact is that they are, and making, first of all, making “normal” people, because I don’t think any of us are totally normal, but making normal people aware of other people’s problems is a positive for them, and it’s certainly a positive for the kids. So you satisfied me there, and having said that all that, I am certainly willing to approve this application, with the caveats that have been suggested, and having said that, I’ll call for a motion, to approve, at least the vote that I got here. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-2000 PROSPECT CHILD & FAMILY CENTER, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) 133 Aviation Road. This is the Main Center on the North side. The applicant proposes construction of a 2,740 square foot addition and additional parking spaces. Specifically, the applicant requests 7,014 square feet of relief from the 28,967 square foot maximum allowable impermeable area for this parcel for SFR-1A zone Section 179-20. Further, the applicant is requesting relief from the off-street parking and loading requirements of Section 179-66. In this particular case, the applicant’s site plan depicts 29 parking spaces provided while 51 are required. It should be noted that a consideration toward that relief was Staff documentation provided that the overall campus for the School, which would be the north and the south side, have the required overall number of parking spaces. The benefit to the applicant, the benefit to the applicant would be they would be permitted to expand the existing School facility. Feasible alternatives, I believe feasible alternatives are limited, based on the fact that the original building is designed, currently, for single story construction, and the cost, based on other considerations for a second story addition, make that impractical. The other thing is based on the configuration of the lot and the relatively large number of, the relatively large building on the lot, I believe that there’s limited place where this addition could be placed. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? 7,014 square feet of relief from the 28,967 I believe is moderate, but I believe that is mitigated, in this particular circumstance, by the fact that the very calculation of the permeable square feet needed is based on a Single Family Residential zone which has higher requirements than would otherwise be indicated, and State law and our Code provide that schools can be in such neighborhoods. So they’re giving single family housing consideration toward a school, which, in my mind, does have more parking. It has parking lots. It has playgrounds. It has basketball courts. It has everything that this particular project has. Effects on the neighborhood or community, I believe that there is moderate effects on the neighborhood in this particular circumstance, not minimal, moderate, based on noise levels and a rather intense use of the property. Cumulatively, I believe the test falls in favor of the applicant, based on, largely, the benefit to the applicant and the lack of feasible alternatives. I believe that the mandates that have been put forward for this School are significant, in that controls the feasible alternatives or the way they can satisfy those. So I think, on balance, the test falls in favor of the applicant. I’d like to provide two important contingencies to approval. One is that no further construction, in the form of additions or other buildings, will be contemplated on the campus in the future, and that’s forever, unless additional properties are acquired, and that two separate layers of noise control are implemented by the School, one being a stockade or solid style fence with the second layer being some layer of significant vegetation, year round vegetation, some form of evergreen or whatever works best in that circumstances. So I would move for its approval with those two contingencies. That the School would continue its contact with the neighbors, at whatever works out, the kinds of things you’ve done with the south side neighbors, a meeting once in a while. Make sure the northern neighbors have a contact person, but some kind of ongoing communication. That we remove the plastic wheel, three wheel vehicles from the offerings there, based on the sound consideration. The buffer should be from the northeast corner of the proposed addition down to what would be the north corner of the picnic shelter, trees to be six feet high, cedar hedge approximately five feet on center, the first row against the fencing along the property line and five foot on center, and then stagger the next one at five foot on center, they’ll be five to six feet in height and 20 to 30 inch diameter. Duly adopted 21 day of June, 2000, by the following vote: st MR. BRYANT-Can we add, relating to the contingency on the sound barrier, that it be a scientifically approved? I mean, you know, the fact that you plant trees doesn’t mean anything. That you have a report that indicates that if you use this material in conjunction with this material, it’ll reduce the, you know what I mean? MR. ABBATE-Yes, good point. MR. STONE-Mr. Jones, are there standards that you can agree to? MR. JONES-I think my biggest concern in providing some type of a fence to contain the noise, normally those fences tend to be very tall, and I know currently the fences in that area are six feet tall. MR. STONE-Well, they can’t be any taller by Town Code. MR. JONES-So, I’m not sure, we can look into what is available. We can certainly do that. MR. HAYES-Well, I think Mr. Bryant’s asking for the maximum possible scientific control of that sound within the Town Code, which is six foot high fences, but maybe there’s a, you know, whatever fence could be employed the best, to capture that sound. MR. BRYANT-It could be the construction material. I mean, it could be some kind of material that will absorb sound. MR. JONES-Normally those fences are made out of wood, and they’re in a staggered pattern which allows the noise to go in and reverberate. One of the things that we’re looking at would be also 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) planting to soften the front of that on the Center side of that, and we’d be looking at layering that planting as well. MR. STONE-Right. MR. JONES-With the fence, we couldn’t exceed six feet in height. The planting could exceed six feet in height, and I think originally we were looking at a cedar hedge of approximately five feet in height to match the back side of the fence. We could certainly look at some type of evergreen vegetation that would be taller than the fence, and then buffer it to the fence. That I think we could certainly do. MR. STONE-Can you buy that? MR. BRYANT-Yes, I’ll buy that. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Can I suggest one other contingency, at the risk of putting a burden on, I’d like to see a contingency that says that the School would continue its contact with the neighbors, at whatever works out, the kinds of things that you’ve done with the south side neighbors, a meeting once in a while. Make sure that the northern neighbors have a phone number or a contact person, but some kind of ongoing communication. MR. HAYES-Yes. The fourth contingency would be the so called “Big Wheel” contingency. MR. STONE-I was going to say that. MR. HAYES-That we remove the plastic wheel, three wheel vehicles from the offerings there, based on the sound consideration. MR. BROWN-You may want to be specific on where and how big you want this buffer, I mean, from the entire length of the property, behind certain affected property owners? North side, south side? MR. STONE-Well, certainly the whole length of the north side. Is that what you’re talking? MR. LAPPER-Well, I was suggesting from the edge of the new building. MR. STONE-Okay. From the edge of the new building to the. MR. LAPPER-To the east. MR. STONE-To the east, but how about that diagonal there going back? To that, okay, yes, because that building is in there. MR. JONES-This isn’t utilized (lost words). MR. STONE-So we’re talking from the northwest corner of the, opposite the northwest corner of the new building around to the. MR. LAPPER-No, the northeast corner. MR. STONE-I’m sorry, northeast corner of the new building, right. MR. HAYES-The buffer should be from the northeast corner of the proposed addition down to what would be the north corner of the picnic shelter. MR. BROWN-Not to be too detail oriented here, but. MR. HAYES-You want height of trees? MR. BROWN-Height of trees, spacing. I know it’s probably something that can be worked out. Mr. Jones, I’m sure, has a good idea of that, but somebody’s conception of. MR. HAYES-I would want the trees to be six feet high as well. I would say the maximum plantings that would be ergonomically feasible or whatever. I don’t know how we can say how many on center, because they grow, and stuff like that. MR. MC NULTY-Some of that I think we’ve got to leave to the applicant on good faith, because you get them too close. 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) MR. JONES-We had planned on putting the cedar hedge approximately five feet on center, and we could do the first row against the fencing along the property line at five foot on center, and then stagger the next one at five foot on center. MR. STONE-And what caliper are you going to start with? MR. JONES-They’ll be five to six feet in height, and probably going to be I’m going to say 20, probably 30 inch diameter. MR. STONE-From the edge of the leaves, the foliage. MR. HAYES-If we set the height, it’s going to take care of that caliper because other wise. MR. BRYANT-How high would they grow? MR. JONES-As high as you want them to go. I mean. MR. STONE-Okay. Does everybody understand the motion? MR. BROWN-Yes, and I guess the third contingency that was in there, that they continue, it doesn’t’ have to be specific, but just so you know, it’s not really something that can be enforceable. I mean, we call them up. MR. STONE-Well, they agreed to it. MR. BROWN-Okay. As long as they agreed to it and you know that it’s difficult to enforce. MR. LAPPER-We agreed voluntarily. MR. BROWN-Okay. That’s good. MR. STONE-Okay. Having said that, I need a second. MR. MC NULTY-I’ll second. AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNally MR. LAPPER-Thanks very much. MR. STONE-You convinced us all. MR. LAPPER-It’ll be a better project. MR. STONE-Thank you for your adaptability. NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 5-2000 BARBARA & CARMEN PALLOZZI APPELLANT IS APPEALING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S DECISION TO ISSUE BUILDING PERMIT FILE NO. 2000-316, TINA BRIDGE, AND IS SEEKING A CLARIFICATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. CARMEN & BARBARA PALLOZZI, PRESENT MR. STONE-Read in Chris’ note. MR. MC NULTY-Letter of April 28. th MR. STONE-Right. MR. MC NULTY-This is a letter to Mrs. Barbara Pallozzi, from Chris Round, Director of Community Development, regarding April 21 meeting response, “This letter is in response to st several issues you identified during our April 21, 2000 meeting regarding activities related to tax parcel 109-3-22. I have reviewed correspondence from our office regarding the response to your compliant that the owner/resident of 342 Ridge Street has illegally constructed a second garage. I have also examined the assessor’s records regarding the property transactions that have increased the lot size of tax parcels 109-3-22 & 23. Our office has yet to receive a building permit for the interior 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) alterations at 342 Ridge Street identified as a result of the investigation to your March 27, 2000 complaint. I have instructed our Building and Codes office to act on this matter immediately. The construction activity is not a violation of the Town of Queensbury’s zoning ordinance. The two garages are both attached garages, having been constructed prior to the current code which prohibits garage areas in excess of 900 feet. Based on a review of the assessor’s record the property transactions effecting adjacent parcels 22 & 23, I find no evidence of a violation of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance of Subdivision Regulations. I am available to discuss this matter further if you have any questions.” MR. STONE-Okay. Mrs. Pallozzi. State your name for the record. MRS. PALLOZZI-Barbara Pallozzi, 340 Ridge Road. MR. STONE-Would you attempt to tell us exactly what you’re appealing? MRS. PALLOZZI-I am appealing the issuance of a building permit for the expansion of a second garage at 342 Ridge Road. The use that the property owner is putting it to results in trespassing upon my property and also a violation of a court order restricting his use of the property. That’s a given. MR. STONE-Okay, but that’s not. MR. HAYES-That’s a torte, actually. MR. STONE-That’s a torte. MRS. PALLOZZI-But when you issue a building permit, knowing that it’s going to result. MR. STONE-No, you’re appealing the issuance of a building permit. We just want to get, that’s on the table. MRS. PALLOZZI-Okay. Your Zoning Ordinance allows a singular use, one garage. That property already has two garages. The other garage was constructed without a building permit. Therefore, that garage is not legally existing. MR. STONE-You are appealing the Director of Community Development’s finding that they were both constructed legally under the current zoning, or the zoning that existed at the time. That’s what he said to you, right? That’s what he says in his letter of April 28. th MRS. PALLOZZI-I know what his letter says, but he also knows that the other garage was constructed without a building permit. Okay. Can I start with this? MR. STONE-Sure, go ahead. MRS. PALLOZZI-I met with Chris Round on April 21, 2000 concerning a garage expansion without a building permit at 342 Ridge Road. Subdivisions of tax map no. 109-3-21.12, road access to off road lots, and yard and setback requirements of uses and structures from a private road. Craig Brown called me later that day, made an appointment for the following Monday or Tuesday. He did not show up, nor did he call to cancel. A permit was issued on May 12, 2000 for the garage expansion. Mr. Round did not address the yard and setback questions. Mr. Round orally stated that the Queensbury’s Land Use Regulations do not regulate roads. In writing, Mr. Round stated that the subdivisions of 109-3-21.12 did not violate the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. Orally he stated there could be subdivision of that parcel, and this is what I’m asking you to make a determination on, because that parcel does not have road frontage. It never had road frontage. That’s why we’re here. Craig Brown called me after I filed this appeal. He thinks that he knows where we’re going. We don’t regulate roads. We only require 40 feet of road frontage. I acknowledged that there is a 16 foot right of way. I have to give 16 feet but not one inch more. It is our position that a right-of-way does not exempt property owners from land use regulation. The Queensbury Zoning Ordinance specifically states that its provision shall control over agreements between parties, see applicability to land use and/or development within the Town. Celeste is also part of this. Celeste is also, the Demmings could not be here tonight. Those are the parties who live to the north of Celeste, and they are at war. One of my reasons for requesting all of those building permits on Celeste is because, Number One, I knew he didn’t have them all, and I don’t really care about the things that don’t impact me. The things he has done that do impact me I very much care about, and I figured he would be here, so I was also going to use it as a credibility issue. The installation of a septic system without a permit, did impact on me because that’s where my water was. There are absolutely no documents available whatsoever to establish any kind of compliance with separation distances. The satellite dish doesn’t impact me. It’s way up above. If everyone else has to have it below the roof, then that’s where his should be, too, but the most compelling reason for requesting the permits is because of language that was added to your building permit applications after the Town amended its 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) subdivision regulations and zoning ordinance on October 1, 1988. Has there been any split of this property since October 1, 1988, yes or no? If yes, Planning Board review is necessary. Now the answer to that was he asked me to check no, and I also wanted to know what he was putting down for yards, because that’s been a problem, not only with us but with the other property owner. I will concede that the Town did not provide them to me, but I already had one of them. The application for the building permit, he has checked his side yards at 25 plus feet each, despite the fact that his side yards are pretty close to zero. As he only has 55 feet of road frontage, 50 plus feet of side yards, that’s going to make that a pretty narrow house. That wasn’t a problem either, just change the road frontage to 84 feet. So the point I’m trying to make, that any time there was ever any activity on these properties, that would have triggered a review and/or public hearing. The information has been falsified and no permits or approvals were obtained or applied for. If you want a copy of the permit and the documents, I’ll show them to you. MR. STONE-We’re still confused. I’ve had conversations with Mr. Round, in terms of exactly what it is you’re appealing. Let me finish stating what he believes the case to be. It’s his understanding that you allege three issues/violations. One, that an illegal subdivision has occurred. You’ve talked about that, I believe, construction has occurred without a building permit, and a second garage on tax parcel 109-3-22 is a violation of the Town Zoning Ordinance. MRS. PALLOZZI-Well, I just became aware of the second subdivision on 109-3-21.12. Okay. MR. STONE-You’re saying there’s a subdivision. The fact that, as I understand it, that someone buys property to attach to their property does not, by itself, create a subdivision. Until you establish a building lot on that thing, by a subdivision request, it’s just merely additional property. It’s taking a one acre lot and making it a 10 acre lot, or whatever. It’s not a subdivision. MRS. PALLOZZI-Except, well. MR. STONE-Has he built on it? MRS. PALLOZZI-Yes. There are structures on all three lots. MR. STONE-Were they there before he bought them? MR. PALLOZZI-No. MRS. PALLOZZI-It’s two Celeste properties, no. MR. STONE-Well, if that’s the case, you’re not appealing his decision. I mean, you’re asking that they be looked in to. I mean, we can’t sit here and say, I mean, I haven’t looked at the property from that standpoint because we were. MRS. PALLOZZI-I’m appealing the issuance of the building permit and I’m asking you to make a determination on whether or not there can be any more subdivisions of that lot, because he told me there could be, and I’m also, because I specifically asked him specific questions on yards, setbacks, etc., and he didn’t. MR. STONE-All right. The information was given to me that a subdivision involves creation of two or more lots, the creation of two or more lots, and establishes building rights for these lots. In this case, according to our Staff, no new lot was created, nor a new building right established. Do you have anything that refutes that? Because that’s his judgement. That’s what, you can appeal that judgement, but I need to, we need to know why. MRS. PALLOZZI-Well, that’s not exactly what he said to me. Well, if you look at your Zoning Ordinance, there’s a history here, and I would give you other, if you want, I will give you information on the first subdivision, and that will probably bring you to a greater understanding of the second subdivision. MR. STONE-What first subdivision? You mean the? MR. HAYES-The purported first subdivision. MR. STONE-Yes. MRS. PALLOZZI-Well, there’s two lots. That parcel is now in three sites, and a subdivision is defined as. MR. HAYES-No, he gave you the definition of a subdivision. It’s not necessarily three separate buildings. 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) MR. STONE-I can own three lots that are contiguous, and it’s not a subdivision until I ask to make it a subdivision. I’ve merely bought three tax parcels that are contiguous. MRS. PALLOZZI-Right. MR. STONE-They are not a subdivision, until you ask to make it a subdivision, with a formal request through the Planning Board. MRS. PALLOZZI-Your zoning ordinances define subdivision as the splitting of a lot parcel or site into one or more parcels or sites. MR. STONE-A splitting, but not a combination of putting three lots together. MRS. PALLOZZI-Who’s putting three lots together? MR. STONE-That’s what I understood, I thought you had said at some point he bought these three lots. MRS. PALLOZZI-No. This is one lot that’s now three lots. MR. STONE-Has anything been built on these things? MR. PALLOZZI-Yes. MRS. PALLOZZI-Yes. MR. STONE-Which one are we talking about? MR. BROWN-Do you guys have this map? MR. STONE-Yes, we do. MR. HAYES-Yes, we do, but it doesn’t say anything outside of that. MR. BROWN-Okay. I think what the contention is here, and please correct me if I’m wrong. There’s, Lot 22 is the lot in question, and your concern is that when they purchased additional property back here, that’s a subdivision? MR. STONE-Where’s 22? There it is. It’s one lot. MR. BROWN-Is that what your contention is? MR. BRYANT-Yes, the second drawing shows an addition that’s cut out of 21.12. MR. BROWN-There’s an additional property that’s been conveyed from this parcel 21.12 to parcel 22. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. STONE-Is that what you’re talking about? MR. BROWN-That doesn’t constitute a subdivision under the Town Zoning Ordinance. MR. HAYES-It’s a boundary line agreement. MR. BROWN-It’s a boundary line agreement. Right. It’s specific in the definition of subdivision. You’re right, subdivision is creating, splitting lots. MRS. PALLOZZI-I know what a boundary line agreement is. MR. BROWN-It says, however, this shall not apply to conveyances of small amounts of land to correct boundary of a lot, so long as such conveyance does not create additional lots, and I don’t think any additional lots were created. The sizes of the lots were changed, but no new lots were created. MRS. PALLOZZI-Well, that’s not true, and let me continue. 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. PALLOZZI-When I purchased my property in 1983, the property immediately to the north was owned by Richard and Gabriel Connors. The property contained structures and accessory structures which combined those two lots. Parcel One is tax map number 109-3-22, and Parcel Two, which contains a swimming pool, was tax map number 109-3-21.12. It was the fifth parcel of land subdivided within less than a one year period. Parcel Two at creation never met the area requirements of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. The Town of Queensbury has advised me there are no subdivision approvals or variance applications approvals/denials for this property. The deed was drafted by Connors’ attorney, who at that time also happened to be the Queensbury Town Attorney. Connors’ put up property on the market for sale in June of 1988. It was advertised as having a pool and a double lot. It was advertised for sale in this manner until the For Sale signs were removed in November of 1988. On November 29, 1988, a deed conveying title of Parcel Two was conveyed by Connors to one of our next door neighbors, Ralph J. Celeste. It is my position that the deed was back dated. The deed bore a date of September 9, 1988, despite the fact the Post Star advertisements clearly stated a double lot and a pool. Subsequently, Celeste conveyed the property back to Connors, and then Connors subdivided that parcel. Neither subdivided lot met the area requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. I’m just going to go on. There were red circles in the back in the County Tax Office for a long time with SFR-20 on them. The smaller portion of 109-3-21.12 remains with that number. Bridges’ parcel doesn’t have a number. Celeste has subsequently made another subdivision out of that property, made the 109-3-21.12 smaller and took another piece, which is separate, okay. That one does not have a tax map number either. The Town did look into this at the time, and I cannot believe the stuff that occurred. There was a letter from their lawyer to, that David Hatin was involved in, stating that Connors had good intentions, and she meant to do it before the Ordinance took effect on October 1, so therefore it should be considered under that st Ordinance, okay, and then Mr. Hatin sent me a letter saying, well, they didn’t really subdivide the lot. It’s just been, she has an easement for the pool, but as you can see by looking at the map, the property was subdivided. MR. STONE-Well, you’re using a term that is not, you can put a pool. MRS. PALLOZZI-You’re telling me that you can have an off road lot, and you can turn around and divvy it up without going before the Board? And if you’re going to tell me that, Warren County told me that that can’t be done, and Warren County has already told me that this has violated your Ordinance, and he gave me documents for other subdivisions on Ridge Road, and they said, we have to rely upon the Town to send it up. MR. STONE-Wait a minute, 21.12 was a landlocked parcel, originally? MRS. PALLOZZI-Yes, it came into existence that way, yes, and then a structure was built on it. MR. HAYES-What structure was built on it? MRS. PALLOZZI-A swimming pool. MR. HAYES-That’s it, just on that 1.93 acres, there’s a pool there? MR. STONE-It’s on the 1.93 or that little extension of 22? MRS. PALLOZZI-It’s on 21.12. MR. STONE-It was on 21.12. MR. PALLOZZI-Which was originally 2.06 acres. MRS. PALLOZZI-Right. MR. PALLOZZI-That back parcel. MR. STONE-And where was the pool? MRS. PALLOZZI-On 21.12. MR. HAYES-Yes, but where though? MRS. PALLOZZI-Well, it’s now in that little itsy bitsy thing. 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) MR. STONE-It’s in that little itsy bitsy thing. So the pool was there, and he sold it to the owner of the property next to you, and carved out a piece of that lot. That’s not a subdivision. MRS. PALLOZZI-No, no, no. That property was next to me. MR. STONE-It was next to you, I agree. MRS. PALLOZZI-And it’s been divvied up and sold to property to the north. MR. STONE-That little piece was sold to Celeste, or whoever owns that property now? MR. HAYES-Lot 22, right? MR. STONE-Lot 22. MR. HAYES-Who owns that property now, so we understand. MRS. PALLOZZI-Bridge. MR. STONE-Bridge, okay, but the Bridge property incorporates that little piece of 21.12, which had a pool on it. That’s all it had on it. MRS. PALLOZZI-Right. MR. STONE-So he bought that little piece of land, which is next to your property. MRS. PALLOZZI-No, no, no, no. He bought it as, Connors is the one who owned it and subdivided it. MR. HAYES-Connors owned 2112? MRS. PALLOZZI-Yes. MR. STONE-He owned 21.12, and Connors sold this little portion to Bridge? MRS. PALLOZZI-No, no. Connors owned 22 and 12. MR. STONE-Okay. So he took part of his own land and put it on to another piece of property, another tax parcel that he owned? MR. HAYES-He owns both of them then? I thought Bridge owned 22? MR. STONE-Well, now he does. MR. BROWN-Prior to Bridge owning it, Connor owned it, right? MRS. PALLOZZI-Right. MR. STONE-So Connor owned 22 and 21.12, and he said to himself, I’ve got a pool back on here, on my property. I’m going to attach it to the Ridge Road lot, 22? Is that what he did? MRS. PALLOZZI-Connors sold the whole lot. Then it came back. MR. STONE-What are you saying, sold what whole lot? MRS. PALLOZZI-Twelve. MR. STONE-He sold twelve. MRS. PALLOZZI-Right. MR. STONE-All right. Now who owns 12, when he sold it? MRS. PALLOZZI-Connors sold it to Celeste. Celeste sold it back to Connors. Connors split it, and sold it to Celeste. MR. HAYES-Okay. So Celeste now owns 21.12, at this time. MRS. PALLOZZI-And another portion of. 48 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) MR. STONE-Who owns 22 and that extension? MRS. PALLOZZI-Bridge. MR. HAYES-Now. MRS. PALLOZZI-Right. MR. HAYES-But that still doesn’t create an additional lot, though. MR. STONE-No. MR. HAYES-I guess that’s what where we’re stuck. We’re trying to understand where you’re coming from, but how does, where does the additional lot? It’s 22 and still 21.12. MR. STONE-Twelve is now smaller than it was before. MRS. PALLOZZI-Absolutely. MR. STONE-And 22 is larger. That’s not a subdivision. MR. HAYES-Because there’s still two lots, and there was two lots. MR. STONE-There was two lots. There’s still two lots. MR. PALLOZZI-It has no frontage on a State road. MR. STONE-We’re not even talking about 12. MR. HAYES-It’s still a nonconforming lot, a pre-existing, nonconforming lot. We have those here all the time. MR. STONE-Yes. The piece that he sold, that’s attached to 22 now is merely an extension of 22. MRS. PALLOZZI-I’d like to read two things, and then I’d like to table it. Okay? MR. STONE-Sure. MRS. PALLOZZI-General Exception to Minimum Lot Area Requirements, “Any nonconforming lot of record, as of the date of this Ordinance, which does not meet the minimum lot area in our minimum lot width requirements of this Ordinance for the zoning district in which such lot is situated shall be considered as complying with such minimum lot requirements, and no variance shall be required provided that, as of the date of this Ordinance, such a lot does not adjoin other lots in the same ownership, provided, however, that all such lots in the same ownership shall be treated together as one lot.” Unless, of course, you’re an approved subdivision, and since the garbage that went on, they said they meant to do it before October 1, “no lot or lots in single ownership shall st hereafter be reduced to create one or more nonconforming lots”. That’s the law that was in effect at the time, prior to October 1. st MR. PALLOZZI-We’re tabling this. MR. STONE-Do you want to table it? MR. BROWN-I think they can ask to do that. I think what you may want from them, and it’s up to you, but you may want copies of everything that they have, so that you can understand what they want. MR. STONE-Yes. We don’t have anything of this information. I would like everything that you’d like to give us, and then we’ll be willing to table the application, the appeal, and let us study it, because we need to, obviously, we need to study this thing. MR. HAYES-You may be right, but we’re not understanding what you’re contending. MRS. PALLOZZI-Well, my land has also been subdivided many times over. So the property directly across the street. MR. PALLOZZI-They’re only access is, we have the right of way, and that doesn’t meet minimum. 49 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) MRS. PALLOZZI-Right. MR. STONE-I know, but they haven’t gone across your lot. MR. HAYES-Right, which makes it a nonconforming lot. MR. PALLOZZI-They haven’t? Who hasn’t? MR. STONE-How can they get there, the driveway ends at their driveway and your driveway. MR. PALLOZZI-They’re driving back there. They’re parking cars back there. MRS. PALLOZZI-That was one of the things. MR. STONE-That’s an enforcement. That’s not. I will table the motion to give us time to study your submission so that we better understand and can ask more intelligent questions, because, obviously you’ve heard us here. We are confused in terms of exactly what it is you’re appealing, because Mr. Round thinks one appeal, and his, one thing, and you’re saying more things than that, and we need to see it. So, if you will give us that. MOTION TO TABLE NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 5-2000 BARBARA & CARMEN PALLOZZI, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: In order that the Board be given all of the material that has been referred to in this application hearing so that we can better understand what it is you are absolutely appealing. They have up to 62 days to come back on this appeal. Duly adopted this 21 day of June, 2000, by the following vote: st MR. HAYES-We have overturned the Zoning Administrator’s rulings before. It has happened. AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNally MR. BRYANT-I would suggest, Mrs. Pallozzi, because you mentioned a second garage, and there’s nothing in my documentation about a second garage, and I went to look at the property and saw one garage. I need to know what we’re looking at. MR. STONE-What I’d like you to do is, take you time, you don’t have to do it right now, make enough copies for all of us, everything that you want to submit. MR. BROWN-I think she said there may be some addendums. If you want to add more to it. MR. STONE-In other words, get it all in at the same time, so we have the whole thing, and try to lead us through it. MRS. PALLOZZI-So you want seven? MR. STONE-Yes, seven copies, plus one for Staff. Okay? MRS. PALLOZZI-And direct it to? MR. STONE-Bring it to Staff. He’ll get it to us. Get it to Craig. You can address it to me, but just bring it in to the office. It’s the easy way. MRS. PALLOZZI-Thank you. MR. STONE-We have a couple of sets of minutes now. CORRECTION OF MINUTES April 20, 2000: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF APRIL 20, 2000, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes: 50 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/21/00) Duly adopted this 21 day of June, 2000, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant ABSENT: Mr. McNally MR. STONE-We can’t do the 21, because we only had three that were here. May 17. stth MR. HAYES-We just got these, though. MR. STONE-Yes. We’ll have to study these. We’ll do it next week. Okay. I move we adjourn. MR. ABBATE-I’ll second the motion. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 51