Loading...
2006-01-18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 18, 2006 INDEX Use Variance No. 69-2005 Linda C. Casse, Sojurn Gift Shop 1. Tax Map No. 303.5-1-62 Area Variance No. 73-2005 Case Prime 6. Tax Map No. 290.10-1-5 Area Variance No. 1-2006 Gary & Linda Long 22. Tax Map No. 226.16-1-45, 226.16-1-28 Area Variance No. 2-2006 Schermerhorn Properties, Inc. 38. Tax Map No. 288.00-1-63 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 18, 2006 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHARLES ABBATE, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, SECRETARY JOYCE HUNT CHARLES MC NULTY LEWIS STONE LEO RIGBY, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT ALLAN BRYANT ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY OLD BUSINESS: USE VARIANCE NO. 69-2005 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED LINDA C. CASSE, SOJURN GIFT SHOP AGENT(S): HOWARD I. KRANTZ, ESQ. OWNER(S): LINDA C. CASSE ZONING SFR-20 LOCATION 318 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO USE EXISTING BUILDING FOR A RETAIL-GIFT BOUTIQUE AREA. RETAILUSES ARE NOT PERMITTED USES IN THE SFR ZONE. CROSS REF. BP 2005-151 PENDING, BP 2003-536 C/O, BP 2003-384 SIGN, BP 97-3156 FREEST. SIGN BP 95-1774 WALL SIGN, BP 93-038 C/O WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 14, 2005 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY N/A LOT SIZE 0.74 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.5-1-62 SECTION 179-4-020 HOWARD I. KRANTZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; LINDA CASSE, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-We previously heard this one and read all the information into the record. We did receive some additional information, but I think I’ll let Mr. Krantz relate that when he does. I will read in the Staff Notes for this evening. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 69-2005, Linda C. Casse, Sojurn Gift Shop, Meeting Date: January 18, 2006 “Project Location: 318 Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant seeks to establish a Retail Gift Boutique on the property. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the allowable uses of the Single Family Residential, SFR-20 zone, per §179-4-020. 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? 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) The applicant has provided a lengthy property appraisal which includes some detailed information as to some of the operating expenses and potential costs for conversion of the property to a conforming use, however, the following questions remain unanswered: What is the monthly / annual mortgage dollar amount versus the income figures offered? If no mortgage, is the $11,881 “net income” all to be considered income/return to Casse? Is the Maintenance / Repairs a value taken from recent work or an average of several years? There appear to be several utility meters on the building, however, the application indicates a $6000 amount for utilities. Are utility costs included with the rent or paid by individual tenants? What are the actual “dollars and cents” amounts for conversion to an allowable use for “…each and every permitted use under the zoning regulations…” for this particular district? There are speculative numbers offered as answers to this question however no actual figures. (i.e. contractor quotes, actual utility billings). The $336,000 figure is an estimate to perform interior alterations (remove a kitchen and some interior walls, add a bathroom and a stairway) for conversion to a single family dwelling. This estimate appears to be high. What would the appraisal of a completely renovated 3540 sf single family dwelling be? In addition to each and every permitted use in the SFR-20 district, the applicant needs to provide information to support the position that even the pre-existing, non-conforming uses do not offer a reasonable return for the property. The information provided appears to demonstrate that a reasonable return is possible, however, the applicant presents the argument that the return is not high enough. This standard is not “highest and best use.” The standard is “reasonable return.” It does not appear that the lack of return is substantial. 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 may be interpreted as unique, as the property in question appears to be the only property in the immediate area with a professional office, however, the existing residential use of the property, albeit multi-family, is not unique to the surrounding residential neighborhood. 3. Will the requested use variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the neighborhood? If granted, the subject property would be the only property in the immediate area with a professional office use along with a retail use. The adjoining, City of Glens Falls, zoning district is Single Family Residential, Medium Density. 4. Is the alleged hardship self-created: The alleged hardship can be interpreted as self created. The property transfer deed dated; November 2, 2004 occurred more than 2 ½ years after the most recent, April 2002 revisions to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. Further, the previous 1988 Zoning Ordinance identified this property to have the same SFR-20 zoning designation. This information was public record which was available to the previous owners as well as the current owners prior to their purchase. The property zoning designation has not changed since the purchase date. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) It appears as though the application offers a listing of previous tenants at the subject property; however, Town records only reflect two Certificates of Occupancy to have been issued to the property. Both appear to have been replacement uses consistent with previous occupancies. Staff comments: It appears as though the property can be utilized for an allowable use in the SFR-20 zoning district, specifically, a Single Family Dwelling. While there may have been, other, various non-conforming uses on the property, no retail use has been permitted on the property within the last 18 months. If there had been such a retail use, there may have been an opportunity to allow for a retail to retail replacement use. However, per §179-13-020, Discontinuance; “If a nonconforming use is discontinued for a period of 18 consecutive months, further use of the property shall conform to this chapter or be subject to review by the Zoning Board of Appeals.” A claim that, “…there used to be this type of use on the property…” is not applicable as there has not been any previous use variance granted and a such similar use, if any, has not been substantiated to have legally existed on the property within the last 18 months. The recent, December 15, 2005 submittal of additional information appears to be an unsigned copy of a construction estimate for an entire building renovation. Is such an extensive renovation necessary to convert the structure to a single family dwelling? It would appear as though a less intensive reconstruction would achieve a conversion to a single family dwelling. No other information has been submitted in response to the questions raised in previous staff notes. ( which are identical to these notes except for this paragraph) SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted” MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form September 14, 2005 Project Name: Sojurn Gift Shop Owner: Linda C. Casse ID Number: QBY-05-UV-69 County Project#: Sep05-33 Current Zoning: SFR-20 Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant is proposing to use existing building for a retail- gift boutique. Site Location: 318 Ridge Road Tax Map Number(s): 303.5-1-62 Staff Notes: Use Variance: The applicant proposes use existing building for a retail-gift boutique. The information submitted indicates the building is a mixed use building with existing office space and a salon space. The building is located in SFR 20 zone that does not permit retail uses. The existing building and uses are considered pre-existing. The applicant has indicated that only a portion of the building will be utilized for retail use. The information also included a detailed real estate consultation report providing the information needed to determine if the property could be used as zoned. The information in the reports indicate that the proposed use as low density would be compatible with the neighborhood. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 09/17/05. MR. ABBATE-Would the petitioner of Use Variance No. 69-2005 please approach the table, speak into the microphone, and for the record identify yourself and your place of residence. MR. KRANTZ-We would also ask that Tom Ramsey, the General Contractor, be allowed to sit up here, because you’ll have questions, maybe, for Tom, and Bob Cote, the appraiser. Good evening, Howard Krantz representing the applicant, Linda Casse. I’ll try and be crisp and organized, as requested. I’m sure you’re all familiar with this property. If you haven’t seen it since the application came in, you’ve probably driven by it 100, 200 times. I think it’s a very unique piece of property. It’s probably the most unique property and configuration in Queensbury, given its location. I’d like to go very briefly through the history of the property. The main building, that brick building that you see there, was built in the 1800’s, and it was fine in the 1800’s when you had horses and carriages going by, but that has been supplanted by cars and trucks and by the establishment of Meadowbrook Road, so that now this property is pinched on a point. If you’ve ever been there, as I did the first time I stood there to view the interior, the traffic on Meadowbrook is steady. The traffic on Ridge Road is just horrific, and that is what makes this property so unique. The general history of the main 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) floor, again you have a two story brick building. At present there are two apartments on the second floor, single tenants in each of those, no children. The downstairs had been vacant the entire year of 2005 notwithstanding, and had an ad, for the entire period of time in the Post Star, no takers. Just recently Linda did get a short-term rental of about four months, someone who just needed a space, and that is rented for a four month period. The first floor that you see there, that was never used residentially. That was built in the 70’s. That’s had various retail and commercial uses, which we’ll explain. The immediate space that adjoins the brick building is a hair salon, and the remaining space is where Linda would like to have her gift shop. I have for you a brief history of the use of the first floor of the brick building, and as well the space now where Linda would like to open up her gift shop. MR. ABBATE-Counselor, let me ask a question. Why wasn’t this introduction of late evidence submitted with the documentation before this evening? MR. KRANTZ-It took a long time to amass. MR. ABBATE-Well, how long do you think it’s going to take us to assimilate this information? Five minutes? MR. KRANTZ-I don’t know. MR. ABBATE-I hope you have no more introduction of late evidence this evening, after this. MR. KRANTZ-We have information. MR. ABBATE-I may very well have to ask you to withhold that. We’ll see what happens. MR. KRANTZ-This is various commercial retail uses in the one story building. It was only built for commercial use. Never had a residence in there. As far as the income figures touched upon, I have a detailed memorandum addressing every point raised by Staff. The property operates at a loss. Even if you back out some of the one time expenses to make necessary repairs to the property, it still operates at a loss, just less of a loss. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. KRANTZ-You’re welcome. Every question asked by Staff is answered in detail. As you know, in the SFR-20 zone, the only permitted uses are a church, a school, I think a produce stand, and a single family residential, and you can also have a home occupation in there with the single family residential. Even Staff would agree, as I’m sure you would, that the property cannot possibly be used as a school or a church. As a produce stand, I think that speaks for itself. The only possible use, and this is the one that Staff has pointed to and I agree with that, as far as the possible use, to get a reasonable return is a single family residential use. Mr. Ramsey has been a General Contractor for 35 years. Provided a detailed estimate to renovate the property for single family use, and if you were to ask, are the renovations too expensive, would it be cheaper to raze the building and build a new single family home, we’ve analyzed that as well. Even if you were to build a single family home, for a cheap (lost word) $100 a square foot, you still cannot achieve a reasonable return on that property, either upon sale or upon rental. From the math that I have presented, that’s in the package, you will get a return, a return, and that’s only allowing for landlord expenses of taxes, insurance, alone, not any other expenses. You had a return of 2.1%. The problem is nobody is going to want to live in a Single Family Residential property on that particular property, or it’s pinched to a point. It’s just not going to happen. The detailed income and expense figures are provided. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Counselor, I’m sure you would agree that each appellant should be able to enjoy the benefit of a deliberate and a thoughtful process on the part of all members of this Board, the Zoning Board of Appeals. However, in order to do this, this Board must be able to assimilate this late introduction of evidence this evening and then come to a fair and unbiased decision. You would agree with that, I would hope? MR. KRANTZ-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. So it’s essential that I call for a time to examine this late hour introduction of new evidence, and I have two options for you. One, request tabling of this appeal, so that this Board may assimilate this new information and your case will then be 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) placed on the agenda for the 15 of March, or, you may request we hear this case this date th with the proviso you will present no arguments in support of this new data, because we simply have not had time to assimilate this information, and not having time to assimilate information is not a deliberate and thoughtful process on the part of your client, nor does it contribute to a fair and unbiased hearing. It’s impossible. So I would strongly recommend that you ask this Board, you grant this Board a request to table your appeal until the 15 of th March. That will give each of these Board members an opportunity to assimilate, I think I counted close to 20 some pages of late introduction of evidence. MR. KRANTZ-We have more. MR. ABBATE-I’m not going to accept it. Simple as that. MR. KRANTZ-No, we are going to submit it. MR. ABBATE-Well, you can submit it this evening. MR. KRANTZ-We’re entitled to submit it. MR. ABBATE-Yes, you are, but we’re not going to hear it. MR. KRANTZ-Well, that’s up to you. MR. ABBATE-I’m going to table. You submit all the information you wish this evening, and when you are through submitting it, let me know and as Chairman I will tell Staff that we are tabling your request until the 15 of March. It’s not fair to this Board. It’s not fair to your th client. How can we guarantee your client a fair and unbiased hearing. MR. KRANTZ-Sir, I’m not arguing the point with you. It’s fine. I’m not arguing the point with you. MR. ABBATE-Pass out your information. MR. KRANTZ-This is the first chance we’ve had to appear before you. We also have information that my client was presented with, before she purchased the property, but we can, if you wish, if you have any general questions, we’d be glad to answer them this evening. MR. ABBATE-No, I’m not going to pursue that. We’re going to table and then continue, and when you’re finished passing out all your information, I’ll take the next step. MR. KRANTZ-The one benefit that the property does have is that it does have substantial parking at the north end. I’ve prepared a diagram, the parking which meets the Code, more than enough to meet the needs of the property. MR. STONE-Counselor, are you aware that a bus took a short cut through that driveway when I was there? MR. KRANTZ-The traffic does go through, back and forth between Meadowbrook and Ridge, and one of the things that. MR. STONE-It was a school bus. MR. KRANTZ-They have no right to do that. One of the things that the applicant is going to consider is blocking off the Meadowbrook side. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’m going to request that members of the Board not raise any further questions. MR. STONE-I just wanted to mention that. Sorry. MR. KRANTZ-Ms. Casse went to all the immediate neighbors. They’re all in favor. They’d like to see a little gift shop in the neighborhood. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) MR. KRANTZ-We would ask, Mr. Chairman, is it possible for this to be heard in February? MR. ABBATE-No, because I’m going to request that you submit this late introduction of evidence to Staff prior to the 15 of February, so that they also may assimilate that, unless th Staff objects, if I hear something different. MR. BROWN-January 17 was our submittal deadline for the month of February, which th was yesterday. This is an Old Business application. I’m comfortable taking it to look at it in February, if there’s a space on the agenda, if we’re not full already, and I don’t think we are. I think there’s plenty of room. MR. ABBATE-That’s reasonable. I have no problems with that. However, I would like the specific date so I can let the public know. MR. BROWN-Well, our two February meetings are the 15 and the 22. If there’s a thnd preference, it’s easier, we’ll start here. If there’s any conflicts, make sure we can attend. Do you have a preference? MR. KRANTZ-We’d appreciate that. MR. ABBATE-All right. Let me ask this Board here. Would the 22 allow this Board ample nd time to assimilate this information? MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, I won’t be here. It gives me all the time there is. MR. ABBATE-The rest of the Board, would that be okay, the 22? Then we will re- nd schedule, Mr. Secretary, make a note that we are going to re-schedule Use Variance No. 69- 2005. I believe Staff said it was the 22 of February 2006. So be it. Thank you very much. nd MR. KRANTZ-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 73-2005 SEQRA TYPE II CASE PRIME AGENT(S): CHAZEN COMPANIES OWNER(S): CASE PRIME ZONING SR-1A LOCATION ROCKWELL RD. & HILAND DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 4-LOT SUBDIVISION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR TWO OF THE LOTS. CROSS REF. SUBDIVISION NO. 16-2005 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY N/A LOT SIZE 16.43 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.10-1-5 SECTION 179-4-090 STUART MESINGER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; CASE PRIME, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-This application was previously heard last month. It was tabled for more information. I’m just going to read the Staff Notes from this evening. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 73-2005, Case Prime, Meeting Date: January 18, 2006 “Project Location: Rockwell Rd. & Hiland Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 16.4-acre parcel into four lots. The parcel is zoned SR-1A. The subdivision would result in lots sized; 5.4-acres (lot 1), 5.2-acres (lot 2), 2.7-acres (lot 3), and 2.5-acres (lot 4). Relief Required: Lots 2, 3 and 4 are proposed to share a common driveway. Lot 2 is developed, lots 3 and 4, require relief from the required 40-feet of road frontage upon a public street, per §179-4-090. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SB 16-2005: Sketch plan review, 8/16/05, for a 5-lot subdivision. Staff comments: 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) This proposal is for a 4-lot subdivision; one residence is currently on the project site, resulting in 3 new house sites. As proposed, lot 1 will have direct access off of Rockwell Drive, and lots 2, 3, and 4 will share one common driveway off of Hiland Drive. As you will recall, this project was reviewed by this Board on October 26, 2005 (see minutes). The application was tabled for additional information to be provided by the applicant; specifically, delineation of the wetlands, test pit and percolation test information, and review by the Fire Marshal regarding emergency vehicle accessibility. The applicant’s agent has supplied this information, including a letter from the Highway Department and the Bay Ridge Fire Co., both stating no objection to the proposed project.” MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I would like an administrative matter to take care of, and that’s in regards, it was brought to my attention by Staff, Use Variance No. 69-2005, this is more for the public, I’d like to do a motion to table 69-2005 until the 22 of February nd meeting, and also notify the public that the public hearing will remain open. MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE NO. 69-2005 LINDA C. CASSE, SOJOURN GIFT SHOP, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: 318 Ridge Road. Until the February 22, 2006 meeting. Duly adopted this 18 day of January 18, 2006, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Rigby, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. ABBATE-And the vote is seven in favor. So Use Variance No. 69-2005 will be re-heard on the 22 of February 2006, and again, the public hearing will remain open. Now, let’s go nd back to Area Variance No. 73-2005. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Would the petitioner of Area Variance No. 73-2005 please approach the table, speak into the microphone, and for the record identify yourself and your place of residence. MR. MESINGER-Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Board, my name is Stuart Mesinger. I’m a planner with the Chazen Companies. With me is the applicant, Case Prime, who lives on Hiland Drive. Would you like me to review our submission with you? MR. ABBATE-Yes, please do. MR. MESINGER-I have additional submissions. If you will recall, that our request is for a variance from the road frontage requirement for two lots on Mr. Prime’s property. He has 16 acres. It’s zoned one acre. He’d like to subdivide it so that he has three additional lots, and he’s been willing to covenant that there’d be no further subdivision. At our last meeting, you asked us to submit some additional information, and we’ve done that. Specifically you asked us to conduct a formal delineation of the wetlands, so that we would see where the boundaries lay, and whether the 100 foot buffer would interfere with the development of any of those lots, and as you see on the map that we have submitted to you, we’ve done that, and in fact all the lots can be developed without impinging on the wetlands or the buffer area. You asked us to do the test pits on the lots and perc tests to see if they all in fact had an area suitable for building. We did that. We had our engineer go out there and in fact they can all be developed with conventional septic systems and we’ve put that information on the plat. You asked that we submit an aerial photograph that would help you understand the configuration of the proposed project in relation to surrounding properties because of the community character question, and we’ve done that, and I think when you look at that map you’ll see it’s pretty plain that this is a very sparsely developed area, and these lots would be in keeping with the character of the surrounding area. You asked us to consult with the fire company, and we met with them and we showed them the plans and they indicated that they had no problem with this proposal, and we also had a meeting on the site with the Town Highway Department, and they made the same conclusion and we’ve submitted letters to you from both of those, and then finally you’d asked us to explore additional options and one of the things that Mr. Prime was willing to do is to build a cul de sac at the end of the existing 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) road that would be shared on the property of his neighbors. In other words, build a cul de sac and the neighbors would share in the expense of that, that would be a way of doing this, and so Mr. Prime wrote them a letter and invited them to a meeting to talk about that, and they declined to attend. So we feel like we’ve made an effort to reach out in a compromise solution that wasn’t acceptable, and we understand that. There’s no hard feelings about it, but we made the effort. Then the final point was that there was some discussion of self-created hardship, and so we went back and we researched the adoption of the Queensbury, the first Queensbury Zoning Ordinance was in 1969. Mr. Prime purchased the property in 1963, and built his house in 1964 and ’65. So that the relief that he is seeking, the rule from which he was seeking relief was adopted after he bought the property. So by definition it’s not self- created. The rule came afterwards, and that concludes my presentation. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Members of the Board, do you have any questions regarding, and, Mr. Prime, would you like to make a statement? Please do. MR. PRIME-Yes. Could I make a brief statement? MR. ABBATE-Please do. MR. PRIME-Thank you. I’m Case Prime. I’m the property owner and the applicant, and I live on Hiland Drive, one of these lots. We have several of our neighbors here tonight, and I’m sure that you’re going to hear from them, and they have taken the position that they are opposed to this application. They don’t want to have me develop the property at all, and I was surprised at that and wasn’t anticipating it, and I’m very sorry about it, because it has left a very unhappy time since we filed this first application, but nevertheless, it’s been my focus from the beginning that what I wanted to do here was to develop this property in a manner consistent with the entire neighborhood, not just my abutting neighbors, but all of the people in that neighborhood, and if I remember correctly, there was I think at least 15 notices sent out to property owners in that area that had an interest in this hearing, and so I am really looking beyond my immediate neighbors and trying to develop this property, and what we’ve done is to reduce the number of lots on Hiland to the two new lots. They have to have private road access. There’s no other way to get to them except by private road access. So that that is a critical issue here, and it’s what you people are going to take up in your deliberations. My point is that by developing these lots in the fashion that we’re proposing, I am perpetuating them, and with proper restrictions, the property will be developed in the manner consistent with the entire neighborhood, not just to leave it open as to what could happen to it in the future, and that really is my objective. I’m not leaving the neighbors out by any means. If we do prevail and we do go through the Planning Board and adopt these lots, that does not eliminate the possibility of neighbors then having an option to come in and deal, to talk about whether they want to buy any of that property or not. I’m not eliminating them at all. What I’m really trying to do is to establish a permanent subdivision that is going to be compatible with the entire neighborhood and that it will be permanent, and I think that we have given you the proper record here that you’ve asked for to make that determination. I think that we should be entitled to our private driveways, and I hope that that will prevail, and I would ask you to, based on the record tonight, to make that decision. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Prime. Do any members of the Board have any questions? Questions from members of the Board? MR. URRICO-Can you refresh my memory as to why it’s not 40 feet? MR. MESINGER-Sure. If Susan could maybe highlight the parcel again. The property has frontage in two places. It has frontage on Rockwell here, which is where this lot is, but it only has this narrow piece of frontage here on Hiland Drive. So we’d have to use this piece of land here to come into the piece of property, and the way the lot lines work, you can bring them, I mean, I suppose we could draw them in such a way that everybody had 10 feet, but it would seem a little silly. You’d then have to have cross easements and so on. So it just seems best to make a simple easement to come across the properties (lost words). MR. STONE-Mr. Prime owns that little neck that comes out to Hiland? MR. MESINGER-Right. Exactly. Again, as you can see on the big drawing, he owns the piece of property out to Hiland. So that would be the access to these, and we would have to make some kind of easement in front of the Planning Board for the people to get in and out. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) MR. ABBATE-You mentioned the Planning Board. I spent a considerable amount of time reviewing the notes of our last meeting. I think there are a total of something like 32 pages, and I noticed that one of the major concerns that the public had, those folks who are going to be immediately impacted, that they were concerned with the possible environmental impact on the stream and on the wetlands, and I believe somewhere along the line one of the folks, public indicated that they were concerned about the impact on wildlife, and I think they mentioned the Great Horned Owl and the Snowy Owl and something else like that. Have you come up with any kind of possible scenario concerning this? MR. MESINGER-With respect to the wetlands and the streams, that’s the purpose of the delineation of the buffer. So we’re well away from those resources, and we have, you know, we just have no impact on them. The Planning Board will probably look at impact on wildlife as part of its review. We don’t have any evidence that there’s a rare, threatened or endangered species out there, and honestly, if somebody has hard evidence that there are such species, and I don’t know if those species are or are not, quite frankly, then the Planning Board would look at that, but saying I’m worried about a wildlife species, I don’t think constitutes a concern in front of your Board for this variance. MR. ABBATE-How would you react if I suggested that perhaps what we should do, then, as this Board, is to submit this to the Planning Board first for a site plan review to determine any possible environmental impact on those areas that were discussed at our last meeting, and I just discussed a few moments ago. Would you have a problem with that? MR. MESINGER-Well, I think, quite frankly, you’re overreaching what your review ought to be here. We’re looking for a simple variance on a road frontage. You don’t have, that I’m aware of, any hard evidence at all that there’s such a concern, other than a neighbor who’s stated their opposition to the project, that they’re worried about it, and, frankly, it doesn’t fall in front of you. MR. ABBATE-Well, let me explain to you what our duties and obligations are. MR. MESINGER-I know what they are, sir. MR. ABBATE-They are the health, safety and welfare of the community, sir, and I take that quite seriously. MR. MESINGER-As do I. MR. ABBATE-And I really object to your comment earlier. We know what our duties are. MR. MESINGER-I take them very seriously, too, and I’m not trying to argue with you. My point is that you, as a Board, are faced with looking at the facts of the case, and I’m not aware of any facts of this case that relate to a rare, threatened, or endangered species on this property. None have been submitted to the Board. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 73-2005, and would those wishing to be heard please approach the table, speak into the microphone, and for the record identify yourself and place of residence. Yes, sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN FRED UNKAUF MR. UNKAUF-I’m Fred Unkauf and I live on 38 Hiland Drive, which is the piece just below and to the right, and I’d like to say that I’m opposed to the variance. Three houses sharing a common driveway will be out of character with the neighborhood. It will also significantly lower the property values of the abutters and create considerable traffic congestion on what’s now a very narrow private driveway. The thought that, or the argument that somehow this property has been grandfathered with respect to the zoning doesn’t seem valid. Mr. Prime last subdivided this property in 1982 when current zoning regulations were in effect, and that little piece coming down, that all the neighbors have referred to on that property, it seems that that was designed in a way to actually overcome the current zoning that we’re talking about right now, in other words to have an extension off of Rockwell that’s less than 1,000 feet long, so he didn’t have to put in a cul de sac. One can only conclude, back in 1982, there 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) were no plans to subdivide this property under the current zoning regulations. So, I would argue that in fact this hardship is then self-created. Mr. Prime and Chazen mentioned an alternative layout proposed by Mr. Prime to his neighbors. Indeed he did give us an alternative layout. MS. MC GRATH-If I may show you the map that was submitted to us. MR. UNKAUF-We’ll show you the map in just a moment, but let me just describe it in words. Basically, one can only describe this proposal as ludicrous. What it wound up doing was placing a cul de sac not on Mr. Prime’s property, but on the property of all three of us, and if you look at my property, where the lawn just goes right up into that corner, it would basically put the cul de sac on my front lawn. That would destroy my privacy and greatly reduce the value of my house, for which I was also asked to pay. So I don’t think any person in their right mind would consider that a viable proposal, and thus we chose not to meet with Mr. Prime on that subject. We shouldn’t obscure the issue, though. The fact of the matter is there’s plenty of room on this proposed subdivision to put in a proper cul de sac and an appropriate Town approved road. Given, another thought here, given the proximity of this subdivision to the wetlands, and if you’ve walked it, it’s very swampy. It’s swampy. This time of year. It’s swampy all year long. Doing test pit evaluations now does not seem appropriate. Town regulations call for them to be performed in the Spring when things are the wettest, and it seems that’s only a few months away. I don’t understand the desire on the part of Mr. Prime and Chazen to sort of push this issue through. There should be time to do this at the appropriate time, and the reason that I’m concerned is if that septic field fails, it’s going to pollute my property. I’ll be the immediate abutter, as well as the wetlands around us. Mr. Prime has just told us, again, that his intent was to preserve the character of the neighborhood. I don’t believe that this subdivision will do that. What it will do is lower the property value of all the abutters. Basically it’s going to take some lovely countryside and convert it to just more suburban sprawl, and we certainly have a lot of that. I bought my house here five years ago. If I knew Queensbury would be the way it is today, I would never have considered buying that house. The sprawl is everywhere, and I really would like to see this little piece of it preserved. We’ve offered to buy, we and other abutters, have offered to buy this land and to hold it in the current condition. It seems to me that that would be a better way to deal with the issue, and no variance, then, would be required. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. Madam, please. JOAN MC GRATH MS. MC GRATH-My name is Joan McGrath. I live at 38 Hiland Drive, and I wanted to show you the map that was sent to us in regards to the turnaround. MR. ABBATE-By all means, please do. MS. MC GRATH-So this is our property. This is the (lost words) and this is the turnaround. MRS. HUNT-This is your property? MS. MC GRATH-This is our property right here, and he wanted to create it right here. MR. STONE-I have a question for the applicant, eventually, on what we have presented to us. MR. ABBATE-Sure. We’ll wait until he comes back to the table, and you can raise your question. MR. STONE-Right. Okay. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. MS. MC GRATH-The Chazen Company has delineated and surveyed the wetlands on Prime property and other property from the flags I see. Mr. Mesinger has stated the flags, quote, are identical to the boundaries you see, unquote, on the map. They are, quote, stream corridor wetlands. I have flagged them in the field, unquote. When I drive along Rockwell and Hiland, I can see other wetlands that are not noted on the map, particularly on Vernava and Sotanski land, and our land. I believe the wetlands are more extensive than what appears on 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) the map. Wetlands, under 179-6-060, the purpose is to provide for the protection, preservation, proper maintenance and use of Township water courses and wetlands in order to minimize disturbance to them and to prevent damage from erosion, turbidity or siltation, a loss of wildlife and vegetation, and/or the destruction of the natural habitat thereof. I request that the Army Corps of Engineers makes the determination of wetlands, dry lands, vegetation on the land in question and the adjoining properties per owner’s request. The density calculation. This should be done as requested by Susan Barden, Land Use Planner, in a letter dated 8/16/05. With completion of this, the wetlands, dry lands, and streams can be properly documented and the buildable land mass will be delineated. There could even be wetlands surrounding Mr. Prime’s driveway. With respect to the turnaround, my husband and I felt that the map submitted to us and the Sotanski’s was not a viable option, as it took our land, decreased our property value, and it would be an expense to us. Mr. Prime stated in the Planning Board meeting August 16, 2005 and the ZBA meeting October 26, 2005, that he, quote, wants to preserve the character and the ambience, unquote, of the neighborhood. Mr. Underwood asked about feasible alternatives at the 10/26/05 ZBA meeting. One option he can look at is the offer of neighbors to buy the properties in question. I do not want to see the neighborhood change. I like the peacefulness, the wild animals, and the privacy. Soil testing. According to the maps provided by the Chazen Companies, soil testing was performed September 16, 2004, which was 16 months ago. According to Queensbury Chapter 136, Appendix F, high groundwater determination, B., any soil testing needs to be done according to Town requirements in March, April, May or June, within six weeks of the time that the frost leaves the ground. Soil percolation tests. A. All tests should be made within the area of the proposed sewage disposal system. This is a self-created problem because Mr. Prime has owned the property for over 40 years and has been selling plots of land during that time. He is a lawyer who should be aware of zoning changes. The fact that the Town of Queensbury did not have zoning laws 40 years ago should not affect the decisions being made today. Mr. Prime feels the lot sizes are in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. MR. ABBATE-I’m sorry, but your five minutes are up. I’m terribly sorry. If you have a written statement, we will be more than happy to accept that into the record. MS. MC GRATH-Okay. I will submit this. One last thing, I do have a petition signed by people against the variance that I would like to submit. MR. ABBATE-You certainly may. Present that to the Secretary, please. Thank you very much. MS. MC GRATH-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Do we have any other members of the public who wish to comment on Area Variance No. 73-2005? Please come to the table, speak into the microphone, identify yourself and your place of residence. TOM SOTANSKI MR. SOTANSKI-Tom Sotanski and Mary Jane Sotanski, 21 Hiland Drive. MARY JANE SOTANSKI MRS. SOTANSKI-Good evening. I hate to take up your time again. I do not know which part of no Case Prime and Chazen Company did not get at the last meeting here. We are here again to let you know that we are still opposed to this variance. Case Prime has been given notice that there are two parties who are very interested in purchasing his property in order to preserve the natural atmosphere and completely resolve any and all issues and concerns for the impact on this community. I’m very upset that the Chazen Company has trespassed on our property in order to provide you with the inaccurate information they presented before this Board. We have markers all over our property, on our side of our stream bed and into our wetlands. As you can see by these pictures, you will see all the markers, if you hold them up to the light you can see, and on the backside of them I have marked various areas where these markers are, and they are on our property. The aerial view map that you have before you is an inaccurate map, and I want to make sure that you understand that it’s an inaccurate map. When I spoke with the gentleman from the Army Corps of Engineers, he stated specifically that over time wetlands do change and move. I will provide you with, I’m going to provide you with a copy of our survey map. You will see that it’s dated December 1, 2004, and in fact the driveway that you see delineated on this survey map was there in July of 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) 2004. The map that you have, the aerial map that you have, this map is dated 12/13/2005. This is not a correct map. As a matter of fact, my mother’s car has been parked underneath the pines trees every since July of last year, and you can see my mother’s car in the driveway on the aerial map. MR. ABBATE-Do you wish to enter that into the record? MRS. SOTANSKI-Yes, I do. MR. ABBATE-Would you please present it to our Secretary. MR. STONE-Your property’s on the north side of Hiland? MRS. SOTANSKI-The lower end of where it says Hiland Drive and Rockwell Road, that’s our property, the south side. MR. STONE-The south side, but you’re north of Hiland? MRS. SOTANSKI-There’s us, okay. We’re the corner. MR. STONE-I’m just confirming. That’s what I thought you were. MRS. SOTANSKI-He was emphatically clear that the test pits had to be done between April and June. When Chazen Companies say they wanted to do this testing in November, they must know full well, well, they must be fully aware of the appropriate timeframe for this to occur. This leads me to believe that this Company, who has worked for the Town of Queensbury, is in a hurry to do something and will try to do anything to get away with it, and you have those pictures. As to the letter to Mr. Brown dated 12/14/05, point number four, and you have, I don’t know if you have a copy of Mr. Prime’s letter to us, but you do have a copy of the map showing where he wanted to take our property, and wanted us to pay for it. This proposal was ridiculous and it’s not worthy of any response from us. We were opposed to the variance before. We’re opposed to the variance now. We think it’s time for Case to stop working with Chazen and Company and start working with the Ballards and Joan and Fred Unkauf to resolve this problem responsibly and respectfully. As I said, he is an attorney. He knows the Zoning Ordinances. He’s been aware of this for a long time. I don’t see how this is, he can get away with saying that he’s not aware. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Your time is up. Do we have any other members of the public who wish to comment on Area Variance No. 73-2005? Would you please come to the table? Yes, ma’am, please. Come to the table, speak into the microphone, and identify yourself and place of residence, please. ROBIN VERNAVA MRS. VERNAVA-Hi. I live at 18 Hiland Drive, and I just briefly want to speak to the character of the neighborhood. It’s private and it’s a small community, and my concern, although I do not abut Mr. Prime’s property, the turnaround situation, when there’s more than two cars on that Hiland Drive, ends up on my driveway between Summit, you know, they have to back up either into Summit or my driveway, and I can imagine, with the increased traffic that’s going to be happening more, and also my concern is that if Mr. Prime wanted to keep the character of the neighborhood, which he’s claiming, then there are people willing to purchase the property so that it may stay as it is today, not developed in a rapid manner, which we seem to be moving toward. I’m also confused by the fire and the Town saying that their trucks can get through on Hiland when they can’t turn around anywhere and they’re backing up, again, into either my drive or Summit. So those are the concerns that I have, living at 18 Hiland Drive, and good luck. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. MR. RIGBY-Can I ask a question? There’s been several comments made about the possibility of the neighbor’s purchasing the property. Has there been an offer made to Mr. Prime? MRS. VERNAVA-Has there been an offer made by whom to whom? 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) MR. RIGBY-By the neighbors to Mr. Prime to purchase the property? MRS. VERNAVA-I would ask the people that made that to answer you. I haven’t offered to buy Mr. Prime’s property because I don’t abut his property. I’m the house, the first house in that development. MR. RIGBY-So not that you’re aware of. You’re not aware of any offer that’s been made? MRS. VERNAVA-I don’t like to answer before, they’re here. You can ask them. MR. ABBATE-Yes. I’ll respond to that. On Page 23, Leo, there is a statement by several individuals indicating I’m willing to buy the two parcels of land at market price, or whatever land is above my land, and the other abutters are willing to buy the other piece of land that abuts Rockwell. Now I can call those folks who made that statement, would those folks who made that statement please come to the table and again identify yourself, and I’d like you to confirm whether my wording was accurate or not. MR. UNKAUF-Fred Unkauf on 38 Hiland Drive, and, yes, your wording is correct. We talked directly to Mr. Prime about that. He showed no interest whatsoever in considering selling the land. His only intent was to develop it. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Do we have any other folks in the audience who would like to comment on Area Variance No. 73-2005? Please, sir, come up to the table, speak into the microphone and identify yourself and place of residence. SCOTT BALLARD MR. BALLARD-Scott Ballard at 20 Howe Drive. I’m also one of the neighbors, my wife and I, that have offered to purchase an undeveloped parcel from Mr. Prime, the one that is on Rockwell, I believe it would be Lot Number One, but no figures have been discussed. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Do we have any other folks in the audience who would like to comment on Area Variance No. 73-2005? Yes, sir, please. Identify yourself and your place of residence, please. JERRY BECKWITH MR. BECKWITH-My name’s Jerry Beckwith. I live at 1023 Ridge Road. My property’s on the back side. I would be on the east side of this proposed development, and these two houses, they’re two and a half acre lot sizes are, my back yard goes down a hill and this development is on a whole side hill, and I oppose it because it’s going to change the character of that whole area so much, because now myself and my two neighbors and we have all woods, deer and turkey and everything up there and two houses right in the middle of it all now. I’ve been there for 25 years, and that’s why I bought it because I knew there was a large piece of property up there that wouldn’t be developed. So I thought 25 years ago, and that’s really why I oppose it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much, sir. MRS. HUNT-Could you point out your property on this map. MR. BECKWITH-My property is this piece right here with the pie shape right there. MRS. HUNT-Okay. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Any other members of the public? Yes, ma’am, please. Speak into the microphone, identify yourself and your place of residence, please. PATRICIA WASHBURN MRS. WASHBURN-Good evening. My name is Patricia Washburn, and I live at 107 Cormus Road. I’m here as a citizen at large. I would just like to make a comment that I think the 40 feet of relief that Mr. Prime is asking for for each of the two houses that he wants to put on Hiland Drive is very excessive, way beyond what the norms are. We just experienced a situation on Cormus Road where a subdivision was finally denied, after going through the 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) process of a variance being granted by this Board, conditioned. We had to go through the Planning Board several times, but the Planning Board did listen to the neighbors. That subdivision was finally denied, and I think that it would be in the best interest of the neighborhood if this Board would deny this variance tonight and save the neighbors a lot of future meetings with the Planning Board. They are clearly opposed to it. It can be stopped. I don’t think they’re going to give up. So perhaps you could step up to the plate and deny this tonight. Thank you very much. MR. ABBATE-Thank you for your statement. Do we have any other members of the public who wish to comment on Area Variance No. 73-2005? I see no other hands moving, so I’m going to move on. MR. UNDERWOOD-I have a lot of correspondence, and the applicant would like to speak. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Let’s do one thing at a time. Would Mr. Case and his attorney please come to the table. The Secretary would like to read something, and be prepared to answer questions from members of the Board. MR. UNDERWOOD-I have numerous letters that were received by the Town. The first one was received most recently on January 18. This is to the Queensbury Planning Board, RE: th Area Variance No. 73-2005. It’s from Mary Jane Moeller at 13 Summit Lane in Queensbury. “I am against the variance for two reasons. Additional traffic and possible harm to incoming well water. Additional traffic. Although Summit Lane is a dead end, we encounter traffic daily that comes up, turns around and heads down the hill. Some drivers turn around in my driveway putting our two animals at risk, as they have always lived on this dead end and have no fear of cars. Allowing new homes on Hiland Drive would cause necessary traffic to increase on both affected roads. For example: In two homes, most likely there would be a minimum of two cars for the adults. If there are teen-agers, add another car or more, together with their friends. The Summit Lane/Hiland Drive complex cannot stand more traffic from additional construction. Not only from the standpoint of increased vehicles, but safety must be taken into consideration – the curve on Hiland Drive and the intersection at Hiland/Summit where visibility is hampered by growth in the corner lot. Water. When my husband and I moved here 33 years ago, we were told that the water in our house was about the best in the area. Over time, the taste has changed and incoming sediment has increased. A few years ago, we put in a water filter system that supposedly did not require filter replacement for at least a few months. Presently I purchase a very good filter and have to change it monthly. Allowing additional homes on Hiland Drive, my fear is that further well drilling would create more sediment in the water and, by drawing water to new homes, could possibly run my well dry. This must be taken into consideration not only for my home, but for those properties of my neighbors. Closing. After talking with two of my neighbors, Marcy Ballard and Joan McGrath, I understand that they and their husbands have expressed interest to Mr. Prime to buy the lands affected with this variance. He has turned down those offers. However, if Mr. Prime would agree to sell the parcels in question to these parties, then the neighboring lands would be kept untouched and maintain their present, beautiful, environmental condition, our roads would be free from additional traffic that would be a safety concern and there would be less burden on the neighborhood well systems. Thank you for your time and consideration to my remarks. Mary Jane Moeller” The next one was received on January 18 also from Marcy Ballard “I’m writing to voice my opposition to the th area variance requested by Mr. Prime. The Town should consider the quality of life to which Mr. Prime’s longstanding neighbors are accustomed. The use of a private drive accessing more than one home creates many problems with the Town’s rules and property owners regardless of any type of language put in any agreement. In reference to a letter Mr. Mesinger wrote to Mr. Brown, on the issue of the hardship not being self-created, I have to disagree. I believe that the Town passed these specific rules to protect our area from careless development. There should be no reason why any special consideration should be taken just because some one purchased property before rules were made. Mr. Prime has made statements that he is doing his neighbors a favor by creating large lots and not making 16 one-acre lots on his 16 acres. This is absurd, for anyone can see from the wetland delineation and the Town’s rules that it is impossible to get anywhere near that number of lots on his property. The planned development of this property is feasible while following the existing town ordinance and by not allowing this variance. If Mr. Prime is allowed to continue with his development project then Hiland Drive should be extended as a town road with a cul-de- sac. The property for, and cost of this road extension shall be the burden of the developer. Neither adjacent landowners nor the town should be these costs. It is unacceptable for Mr. Prime to ask his neighbors to give up some of their property for his own personal gain, 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) especially as past offers to purchase portions of his property have been declined. A correctly designed town road would: 1. Give the proposed lots the necessary 40’ of road frontage. 2. Eliminates future disputes between lot owners such as maintenance, snow removal, the use of off road vehicles, animal control 3. Allows plow trucks to plow more efficiently without the worry of getting stuck or turning around in the neighbor’s driveways. 4. Allows for proper ingress and egress for fire trucks, emergency vehicles, postal delivery and maybe future school buses. 5. Increase property values to where a private drive would decrease the value of the surrounding homes. Due to the topographic restraints of this site and the interest of neighbors to purchase the property. I hope the town considers all of the above and rejects this application for an area variance. Thank you for your time and consideration. Marcy Ballard” This one was received on January 17. “Since I am unable to attend the January th 18, 2006 Zoning Board meeting, I am asking that this letter be publicly read into the record. First let me say with all due respect to my neighbor and his intentions, I believe that relief of three houses sharing fifty feet of road frontage and what seems to be a possible waiver on the length of a dead end is too great. The neighbors would have to contend with double the amount of traffic and still not have a turnaround. The people on the private road would not be burdened with extra traffic. I would like to comment on the minutes of the August 16, 2005 Sketch Plan review with the Town Planning Board. The many terms used to mean one geographical feature on the map was confounding. We have a road, a drive, a driveway, a private road, private drive, dead end road. and references to turnarounds that are just ghosts and another that is not really there. On page one of the minutes, Section 183-23 is quoted, “Dead end streets shall not be longer than 1000 feet and shall be provided with a turnaround at the closed end”. At one time there was a turnaround where the new lots are proposed. The trace that is left is what is now referred to as the existing turnaround. Snowplows and other vehicles used that unpaved turnaround on Mr. Prime’s property. It seemed to work well for everyone. Years later, Mr. Prime blocked that turnaround and put up a private road sign at the end of his driveway. The private road/driveway is a confounding term because his mail is delivered to the area that actually would be a driveway if the trace of a turnaround and the private road/driveway were public, not where his driveway/private road meets Hiland Drive. In the definition of a private road, two or more houses exist on the road. Currently there is one house, so it is not a private road. Reading further in the minutes, the driveway is referred to as an existing road. Note pages 5 and 9. It is not a road but a driveway. Otherwise I might say that my driveway is a road and the Sotanski, the Vernava and Unkauf/McGrath driveways are roads too. I don’t mean to be silly, but each term has a different implication. The language is not precise. I am also concerned with precedent which would be hard to stop once the idea of a shared driveway became common. Also, older maps of the area do not show Hiland Drive: new ones show it with a turn around which leads people to believe that there is an existing road where there is a driveway. Again, on page one of the August 16 minutes, Mr. Mesinger speculates that the future private drive would not be a safety issue, “It’s a private drive. It’s not serving a great deal of density. So we wouldn’t see a great impact to the public safety there.” I think this statement is misleading, because there would be three houses served by a private road, which is almost the same number (four) of houses which are on the public road. Every one including the people on the private road have to endure the snowplow that needs to back out of the street or take 15 minutes to jockey the truck into a forward position. Why does this happen? There is no turnaround. The Highway Department might not have a problem with a private road because it does not concern them. You might think there is a turnaround, because it has been referred to, but that is the old trace. On page 5 of the minutes, Mr. Prime states that “and there’s a turnaround there that they have access to, and so that they, it’s the same as the other road, Summit Lane that goes up to the south. That’s dead ended too. So they take care of both of those roads with turnarounds at the end of the public road”. This is just not true, there is no turnaround for the plow or other large vehicles. As the plow backs down the road there is a length of road that is about 250 feet where in coming vehicles can not see the plow. There is a curve and a relatively high grade that lowers to another curve. The map does not indicate the grade and the curves do not seem to be precise. Public safety and potential litigation seems like a greater concern than maintaining an extra 1400 feet of road. Everyone will be using the public road, even the people who live on the private road. In reference to Mrs. Steffan’s remark on page 9, brings to mind another concern. That is the general welfare of the neighborhood and contingencies. If there is a variance granted for three houses to share fifty feet of road frontage and a private road is established, there would be no way for the rest of the neighbors to have relief from motorized vehicles or other such noise makers if the new owners decided to enjoy such privileges. Even with an agreement between the parties on the private road, there is no number of agreements between parties that are binding indefinitely and all such agreements an be challenged. Contingencies are challenged and lifted. The land changes hands and so do the minds. There are no guarantees that the future residents of the three homes will be compliant. Again, three 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) houses in a private enclave is one house short of the other four that are on the public road. Any future problems would be difficult to mediate. Lumped in with the welfare of the neighborhood is the issue of the test pits, which might be under the ruling of the planning board but the overlap is apparent to me. All the neighbors would agree that the future viability of our wells is of greatest concern. I would hope that the pits will be tested at the suggested time, as suggested on page 8 of the August 16 minutes and that the maps show the actual locations of the subsurface core samples, not a generalized locations. The issue of neighborhood welfare could continue but I think I have said enough. Commenting on the minutes of the October 26 Zoning meeting, Mr. Prime states that the signs were in place by the mailbox. As I noted earlier, the mail box is up by the house next to what would be the driveway from the private road. Posted signs should be placed where the public can see them. The public (neighbors) respects the private road/driveway and would not see the sign. While Mr. Bryant’s and Mr. McNulty’s conclusion about the size of the lots being in character with the neighborhood, I agree, they are. However when we consider that the size of the neighborhood density is being increased by 40%, I see no positive. Also, if that private road has three houses and the public road has four houses, I see a potential imbalance of character. It was stated that a public road as an alterative to the variance may be disruptive, at least it would resolve the safety issue of the entire street. The one alternative to keeping the whole area the way everyone has enjoyed it is to consider the purchase offers from good intentioned neighbors. The benefit to the applicant is very large and I do not believe that it is the Town’s responsibility to relieve anyone from the cost of doing business. The amount of relief is not 100% but closer to 150% and the impact is not a few houses but an increase in density of 40%. The fact that there was no zoning when Mr. Prime built his house should not e an issue. Rules change, that is a fact of life. It happens all the time. That logic if applied to all things legal would be lawlessness. The zoning rules are to benefit the community as a whole and that should be the concern of everyone. I think this is a large request, although I respect Mr. Prime’s concern to keep the area the same, I would think that the same rule of zoning would apply to anyone who might own the property in the future. I’m not sure that having an increase of 40% in new homes built on private roads keeps our neighborhood the same. In addition, I feel that this is a self-created problem because Mr. Prime is the original owner of the land that many of the houses were built on. The unusual piece of land that protrudes from his parcel that is the private road/driveway has legal constraints, but I am not sufficiently informed at this point to make a statement. In any case, this parcel was not drawn by any other party. The welfare of the neighborhood is potentially compromised with future contingencies that have no real guarantees of success unless all parties are of the same mind. And the safety of the neighborhood will be further eroded. For these reasons I am opposed to the variance. Thank you for your consideration and efforts. Respectfully, Annette Delahoyd” “To Whom It May Concern: The reasons for opposing this variance are as follows: 1) Increased traffic – although I am on a side street off Hiland Drive and on a dead end, we have enough traffic coming up and turning around either in my driveway or the turn-around. Two more houses would mean at least four more cars, in addition to cars going to and from each house. 2) Well sediment – Over the years, we have had increased sediment in our well. I oppose any further digging or interruption of the veins in this area. 3) Notification – I feel we in the neighborhood, were not given enough time to search out this variance. Regarding subdivision 16-2005 Prime Subdivision Mary Jane Moeller” This one was received on October 24, and I guess we may have already read that one. So we’re getting back into old history here. So, I’m not going to read the rest of them again. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I know that several members, Mr. Stone in particular, has a question, but I’d like to clear something up in my own mind. There has been mention about the turning radius, and I have here a letter from the Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Department dated December 13, 2005, and basically Mr. Mellon, Jr. states that he really doesn’t have any problems, he has no objections to this driveway, provided that it meets the turning radius for fire trucks. I find, and I just asked Staff, for the public’s knowledge, the reason I spoke to Staff is that I asked Staff, do we have documentation from the Fire Department that indicates that it in fact does meet the turning radius. The answer is no. MR. MESINGER-May I address that? MR. ABBATE-By all means, please. MR. MESINGER-And it does. We put a template on it and design it that way, and again, the design issue that the Planning Board would consider, and we would have no problem with you making a condition of that, that in fact when we talked about it, I said why don’t you 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) put that in your letter so the Zoning Board is aware that’s your concern, but in fact it is designed by an engineer to meet the turning radius in Town. MR. ABBATE-That’s fine. I don’t have any problems with that, but I’m going to ask Staff that I would like a letter from the Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Department to this Board indicating that, in fact, this driveway does meet turning radius for fire trucks, and I do that because of potential liability for the Town. Please. Mr. Stone, please. MR. STONE-Well, I would like to hear their comments, versus the public comments. They should respond to the public comments. MR. ABBATE-By all means, please do. MR. MESINGER-And can I just get a clarification on the last thing that you just asked for? So if a licensed professional engineer submits a set of plans and certifies that a turning radius has been met, you are looking for a letter from the Fire Company that does what exactly? MR. ABBATE-Okay. The Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Department, in Lake George, New York, sent a letter to this Board, December 13, 2005. What they basically stated was this, quote, I have reviewed the Sketch Plan Sheet S-1 prepared for the Case Prime subdivision, illustrating a private driveway serving two new lots off of Hiland Drive. I have no objection to this driveway, provided that it meets the turning radius for fire trucks, unquote. MR. MESINGER-And so our burden to you would be to have a licensed engineer certify to you that it meets that turning radius. MR. ABBATE-No. I would be satisfied with a letter from the Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Department who is primarily responsible for reacting to fires, sending us a letter, for the record, indicating that it does, in fact, meet the turning radius for fire trucks. MR. MESINGER-Okay. Just to clarify from Staff, when you folks normally look at a subdivision, and you’re concerned about fire radius and emergency truck radii, and an engineer submits a set of plans and certifies them, do the fire companies then review those and measure the turning radii and issue letters saying that they meet? It’s a very unusual request. That’s why I’m pushing it. MR. ABBATE-Well, I’m responding to the public concern, and the fact that a letter has, I didn’t initiate this. The door was opened when this letter was sent to us and there was concern from the public that there may not be appropriate turning radius, and I want a letter, I’m not going to say it again. MR. MESINGER-It’s a curious request. We’ll get the other letter. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. You can respond to any other questions, if you wish, from the public. MR. MESINGER-Sure, thank you. I tried to make good notes, and I’m not sure that I’ll get to everything. So if there’s something that I don’t get to, please ask. With respect to traffic, I think it’s a fairly common sense of observation that two houses, on a road that only has three other houses, is not a huge traffic burden, and the 40% number is if you had 1,000 houses, two more would be a very small number. If you only have a few houses, it’s a bigger number by percentage, but it’s a commonsense argument that it’s not a lot of additional cars, and again, the agency with the statutory authority for the maintenance and operation of that road has indicated that they don’t have any objection to it. With respect to the proposal that we made to the neighbors, to share in the construction of a cul de sac, at the last meeting, and I think we heard it in one of the letters that was just read, we heard neighbors say it’s not so much the subdivision of the property, not all of them said this. Some of them object to the subdivision of the property no matter what and I understand that, but some of the neighbors said, it’s not so much the subdivision of the property that we’re objecting to. It’s this turnaround problem that we have with the plows, and we’d really like to solve that. We’d like there to be a cul de sac so the plow doesn’t have to make the kind of turn that it has to make now, and one of the letter writers was right in that the Highway guys said to us, we used to come on Mr. Prime’s property, and follow that loop that we’re approximately following now, with this proposal, but they can’t go on private property, and so at some point they stopped doing that, because they realized that they’re not supposed to go on private 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) property, and so all we were trying to do is say, that’s fine. If that’s the solution here, and we’re only going to get two lots, let’s all join together and we’ll build a cul de sac and we’ll jointly share the cost, which is something like $51,000, and the neighbors laugh, and fair enough. That’s fine, but then that’s the only way we can solve that problem. If the cul de sac has to be extended, into Mr. Prime’s property to service other lots, he will have to make more lots, and we don’t need a variance to do that. We would need a waiver from the Planning Board, that’s true, but we don’t need a variance to do that. We could go into the Planning Board and say, we’d like to create, and we’ve done the math, we can create five more lots doing it that way, and somehow I don’t think that’s a preferable solution from the point of the neighbors who are telling us that they would really rather not have two lots. The alternative is we go, we build a cul de sac, we put it on Case’s property, and everybody has frontage, and I don’t need to see you folks again and I get five more lots there. I don’t think that’s in the best interest of the neighborhood. That’s my response to that. There were some comments about the delineation of the wetlands, and the property being swampy and so forth. The delineation that you have is a good one. It’s done by professional wetland scientists. I genuinely apologize to neighbors if we did go onto their property and hang flags. I obviously can’t tell from some pictures of woods with flags on it. It does happen from time to time because the property lines aren’t always perfectly delineated and so I apologize for hanging the pieces of plastic if we did that, but the lines that we showed are good lines, and the plan pretty clearly shows that you can develop this property without touching the wetlands, without touching the buffer area, and I think that concern really isn’t there. With respect to the test pits, there are two sets of test pits on that plan, if you look at them closely. There was a set of test pits conducted by Mr. Maine in 2004, and then there were test pits conducted by us, this year past in 2005, and again, they’re conducted by a licensed engineer. They’re good test pits. They’re good data. It was a very wet fall as you recall. The fact of the matter is that we placed this where the pits are located, and they’re not general locations. They’re shown exactly, are actually high and dry. They’re good places to put lots and good places to put septic systems because there are high and dry areas on that piece of property. MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I ask a question of Mr. Prime? Are you going to develop the lots yourself and build the houses? You’re just going to sell the lots off or? MR. PRIME-The intent was to just put them on the market. For the record, my intent was to establish them in perpetuity, and in order to determine a market value, I think they would have to be marketed, and that was my intent. MR. MESINGER-Thanks. That was going to be my last point, and that goes directly to the idea that there’s some kind of offer. There’s an intent that people would like to buy the property, and that’s respected, but that’s not the same as the offer on a table. In order to establish the value of this property, Mr. Prime would like to subdivide it, and that establishes the value and then if they would like to pay the market value, they’re free to do that, but I don’t think you folks are in a position, nor would it be fair to Mr. Prime, to force a sale because neighbors say, well, I’d like to buy it, so the variance isn’t any good. They’re free to buy it under the market conditions, and what he would like to do, obviously subdividing the property will increase the market value of the property, and that’ll be what it’s worth, and if they can negotiate a sale, that’s fine, but I think it’s sort of unfair for somebody who’s a neighbor saying, well I’d like to buy the property, and so therefore the variance can’t be. That opens a real can of worms that I think is problematic. MR. ABBATE-Yes, well, for the record, let me state that there has been no member of this Board who has attempted to force a forced sale, as you stated. MR. MESINGER-Absolutely. Yes, that’s absolutely true. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Prime, please. MR. PRIME-I’d like to make a comment on Annette Delahoyd’s statement that there’s no turnaround at the end of Hiland. There is a turnaround. It’s been there for a long, long time. It’s been filed. It’s part of the public record. The Queensbury Highway Department has that survey of that property in their files. It’s a triangular turnaround. It takes in property on my side of the road and it takes in property on Annette’s side of the road. I don’t understand why she isn’t aware of that, but that turnaround has been there for a long, long time, and the Highway Department uses it. So I just want to make that clear that what she said, I disagree with. There is a turnaround at the end of Hiland. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) MR. MESINGER-Just in conclusion, and you know if there’s other questions we’ll try and answer them. You have a set of facts, and the facts are you have a very large piece of property that’s proposed to be very minimally developed. A look at the aerial photograph, I think, shows that it’s in character with the neighborhood. It’s possible to develop it without adverse environmental impacts to wetlands, soils, groundwater resources. We’ve demonstrated that. We’ve gone to the agencies with the statutory authority to review the matter of the road, and both of those agencies have indicated that they don’t object to it. I think, and we’ve addressed the self-created hardship issue, which is exactly what I said it was at the outset, other people’s arguments notwithstanding. You do this for a living, and you know what the argument is. I think we’ve met our burden. I’m perfectly willing to live with a condition if you’d like that we’ll go and we’ll prove that that cul de sac meets the turning radius. That would be no problem, but I think we’ve met our burden. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Members? MR. STONE-Can you give me the history of this area of Queensbury? Because it seems to me that, well, not knowing the history, that leaving only 40 feet to get out to this private road, in light of what you’re trying to do now, was a mistake. MR. PRIME-It isn’t just 40 feet. It’s a 50 foot right of way, but in order to develop the lots, the Zoning Ordinance says you have to have 40 feet on a public road, and that’s the reason for the variance is to waive that, so that I can have a 50 foot right of way going to these private lots. It is 50 feet wide right now. It is a 50 foot right of way. So that is the reason, and it’s always been that way. The history of the property goes back to 1963, when Dick Roberts and I bought the property, and from part of a farm on Rockwell Road, Harry Evans farm. We divided the property. Dick Roberts developed his share of it, which is Summit Lane, and those are the two acre lots that run up through, on the hill. I kept the part north of that, and over the course of the years, well, actually, sold part of that right away to Marcy Howe Ballard’s father, Jerry Howe. So it goes back to 1963, ’64, when this property was purchased and when we began to develop it. I didn’t develop mine any further until at this point, I can see the handwriting on the wall that I can’t maintain that property and I want to see it perpetuated in a manner that is appropriate with the rest of the neighborhood, and that’s why I’m here, and I think that I’m not very popular with the neighbors. I guess I can tell that. There isn’t a single one of them that stood up and said they liked it, but nevertheless, I think that we have shown you that it is viable, and that we have met the burden of the Ordinance in terms of the variance, and I’d like to have you make that decision tonight. MR. STONE-One other question, on this aerial photograph. You identify red as your property line. What are the white lines? MR. MESINGER-The white lines are property lines. What happens, you see the dashed white line? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MESINGER-Is the setback line, and then these other lines. MR. STONE-Well, I see those. MR. MESINGER-And then these other white lines are property lines, and they don’t line up perfectly, Mr. Stone. If you look, you’ll see, and this is just a function of the accuracy of the aerial images that you get, is that everything doesn’t line up perfectly. MR. STONE-Okay. So the red and whites on the 50 foot section should be on top? MR. MESINGER-They should be, but they just. MR. STONE-Okay. I just wanted to be sure. MR. MESINGER-We do something called rubber sheeting to make them perfect if we wanted to, and we didn’t want to rubber sheet here because we wanted to try and present the information accurately as it came from the source material, that’s all. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) MR. ABBATE-Any other members of the Board have any questions for the appellant? Any comments? Okay. Well then I’ll move on to the next portion. I’m going to ask members to please offer their comments on Area Variance No. 73-2005, and may I start with Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-Well, I’m afraid I’m going to come down on the negative side of this. In my mind, the balancing test, you need to show that the benefit to the applicant outweighs the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. I haven’t seen that. In looking at the five criteria, I see that there are other feasible means, and the other feasible means is either not to build or to use that one driveway as it was intended. As far as an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or nearby properties, I also don’t see that as being a positive. I see the change in the neighborhood is certainly in question. I have not been convinced that it would not be detrimental. So therefore, that’s another criteria that I have to come down on that side of. The request is substantial. The Code specifically says 40 feet for one principal building. As far as physical or environmental effects, I still have some concerns about that. Physical or environmental effects could be the ambulance getting in, the turning radius. We haven’t seen proof that they have enough room there. The Code specifically asks that required frontage for one principal building shall be 40 feet, and such frontage shall provide actual physical access to and from the lots to be built upon for purposes of ingress and egress to the lot by emergency vehicles such as fire trucks and/or ambulances, and even in the letter you submitted, Mr. Abbate mentioned it, I was going to mention it as well. The turning radius was specifically mentioned, and that has not been addressed and not been answered, and then I also don’t buy your argument about the alleged difficulty not being self-created by you. Because the property was purchased prior to the Code being established doesn’t mean the Code doesn’t mean anything any longer. You had the option of making that subdivision when the Code was not in force, but now it is. So I would be against it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Urrico. May I please turn to Mr. McNulty. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Several thoughts bouncing around in my head, and I’ll try not to go on too long with it. I guess a general one kind of aimed at the neighbors, it sure would be nice if everything would always stay the way it has been, but in this case, what I’m basically hearing from the neighbors is they would like somebody else to keep a wild piece of land wild for their benefit, and it’s not a reasonable request. If there’s real justification why not to develop it, because you’ve got a real rare species on the property, that’s one thing, but just because the lot across the street’s always been woods, but it belongs to somebody else, doesn’t give the neighbors right to prevent development on it. I’ll agree with the applicant that saying I’d be interested in buying it doesn’t constitute an offer, and probably Mr. Prime has taken the logical approach that if he gets permission to subdivide this and he ends up with the lots, then that’s the time to talk price on whether the neighbors want to buy it or not. Another factor that weighs into my thinking here is that the neighbors have been saying that they would like Mr. Prime to sit down and talk with them about solving this problem. Well, it sounds like he made an offer and nobody showed up. Don’t wait for somebody to make the perfect offer you’re ready to accept. If you get a chance to talk to the guy that’s in charge, talk to him. That gives you a chance to do some negotiating. You don’t have to accept what he’s offering. Having said all of that, all of those factors really are Planning Board issues. They’re not this Board’s issues. The real question before us, in my mind, is should we or should we not grant 40 feet of relief for those two lots, for them not being on a Town road, if this subdivision is ever approved by the Planning Board. Our question is not whether or not the subdivision should be approved. That’s not our venue. So it’s just a question of, if those two lots, where they’re proposed, should they be approved to not have road frontage on a Town road. With that, I kind of followed the thinking I had in our previous meeting. I think as Mr. Prime has pointed out, he could certainly propose a subdivision that had a lot more lots on this property, and if he has to put in a road to specs for Town, so the Town will accept it as a Town road, then he’s going to have to divide it into a lot more lots, because providing a Town road spec road is far more expensive than providing a private driveway. So the tradeoff here, if he gets permission to subdivide at all, is, does he put in a lot of lots, so he can put in a Town road, or does he put in the three extra lots that he’s talking about, and to my way of thinking, the three lots is a lot better than a subdivision of one acre lots. Maybe he won’t get 16 in, but he might get 10. So I think, for the neighbors, you need to think about two things. Can you block the whole subdivision, but if it goes through, what can you do to make the least impact? Setting aside all that, should or shouldn’t we grant the 40 foot relief, I can’t see any reason not to grant it. I think it’s a reasonable layout. I think the concern 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) about the fire truck and emergency vehicle turnaround can be handled with a condition of approval on a subdivision, making it an acceptable radius turnaround, a condition of an approval for the relief for 40 feet on both lots. If that turnaround is not provided, then that negates the variance. So it leaves it up to the applicant to adhere to it. So, looking at the narrow question, should we or should we not approve the 40 foot relief in this particular situation, I think it’s to the benefit of the neighborhood to have fewer lots, and I would approve it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. McNulty. Mr. Stone, please. MR. STONE-I wish we didn’t have these, because it does set good people against good people, and it’s not fun. However, I think Mr. McNulty said it very well. This is, as I said back in October, this is a very narrow issue as far as this Board is concerned. In a perfect world, what I would like to see, and this is not forcing anybody to do anything, I would like to see this Board grant the variance. I would like to see the Planning Board say, okay, you can put three additional lots in there, establish a price, and then begin negotiations with Mr. Prime. As I said, this is a very narrow issue. The neighbors have made some very compelling points. There’s no question that it’s a very emotional issue. It makes one think, and I think I’m echoing what Mr. McNulty said, who I think put it very, very well. The very, very narrow issue that we have to concern is whether or not there can be access to three lots through a 40 foot right of way, 50 foot right of way. We have said that you can do this before. We have heard the same arguments that the deer love the place, and people say, well, gee, I’d love the deer to be there forever and ever. Well, then buy it. That’s the only way that you can guarantee it, if that’s what you really want. So, I’m reluctant, but I do think, as Mr. McNulty said that when you put it all together, our very narrow issue is whether or not to grant the variance for three lots, have access from a 40 or 50 foot strip of land onto a private road and I would be in favor of that. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Underwood, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would echo many of the same sentiments that have already been mentioned here this evening. I think that it’s a contentious issue with the neighbors being opposed to this project, but at the same time, I think that the balancing test falls on the fact that we look at who owns the property, and Mr. Prime has held this property for quite some time. I think that if you look at the aerial photograph that was provided to us, that we asked for, the houses as proposed aren’t out of character with the density of that neighborhood. It’s going to have a minimal changing effect on the neighborhood if those houses do, in fact, come to fruition. I would ask, if we approve this, because we have, you know, previously, even in recent months, granted similar variances for these rights of way that have shared driveways, and I don’t think that’s any big stretch of the imagination. I think it does, to a degree, preserve the neighborhood character and the countryside of Queensbury areas, but I would ask the following. I think that if Mr. Prime wants to maintain his, some semblance of congeniality with his neighbors, I would ask that these lots, if they’re approved by the Planning Board, that a certified appraiser would appraise the value of those lots, and that your neighbors would have the first right of refusal on whether they wanted to purchase those lots before you turn them over to a developer or somebody else. If they’re willing to pay the price, I think that that would be a reasonable, I don’t think that would be an unreasonable thing to ask for. That would satisfy your return on your property that you’ve held for these many years, and I think that it would also give the neighbors the chance to come up with the money if they indeed do intended to purchase those properties to keep houses from being built on them, and I think that’s reasonable. Otherwise I would be in favor of the proposal as you propose it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Underwood. Mrs. Hunt, please. MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I have to agree with a lot that’s been said on both sides, but I think, getting down to a narrow issue, it really is whether we want to grant two pieces of property a variance that will give them, so they do not need the 40 foot access to a public road, and I have to agree with Mr. Urrico, and I would not be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mrs. Hunt. Mr. Rigby, please. MR. RIGBY-I’d just like to commend Mr. Prime. He came back with everything that we asked for. We asked for wetlands to be delineated and test pits to be done, and an aerial photograph and a fire company, and also a recommendation from the Queensbury Highway 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) Department, all the things that we asked you to do, you did come back with. I also understand the neighbor’s concerns as well. My concern is that, you know, we’ve got, if you just take the three lots that we’re talking about, not the one on Rockwell Road, but the three lots, we’re talking about 10.51 acres, and, you know, 10.51 acres could support a development of far larger than the two homes that we’re talking about, with a cul de sac, and I think that would be a worse effect on the neighborhood than we’ve already got here in front of us. So I guess, not to repeat everything that everyone else has said, I think that I’m in favor of granting the variance as well. I’d also like to have a covenant in the issuance of the variance that says that there’ll be no further subdivision. I think you’ve already agreed to that. So I think that’s an important piece, and then possibly along with Mr. Underwood’s right of first refusal for the neighbors as well. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, Mr. Rigby. I share the feelings of everything that’s been said this evening, both from the neighbors as well as the individual property owners, but I’m not convinced that there will be no negative environmental impact. I’m not convinced that there will be no negative impact on wildlife, and I’m not quite convinced, until I see documentation from the Fire Department, that there is access, and I think this is important, particularly for potential liability to the Town. I agree with Mr. Urrico’s statements earlier, and I agree with Mrs. Hunt’s statement as well, and based upon what has been said this evening, I, personally, would not support the application. However, the vote appears to be four in favor, and three against. So I will, that is with conditions. So I will move and seek a motion and respectfully remind the members that we have the task of balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area, as well as the fact that State statutes spell out five statutory criteria that we really must carefully follow and consider in deciding whether to grant an Area Variance, and as part of this motion, I wish to advise the appellant that there will be conditions, and the conditions for approval will be stated in the motion to approve. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would ask Mr. Prime, would you be amenable to that first refusal for your neighbors to purchase the property upon your determining what it’s worth? MR. PRIME-The only objection to that, I’m not opposed to it. The only objection I have is that I don’t think that an appraiser, regardless of his criteria or credentials, can really set the market price, unless you have market, the forces of the market determine what the price is. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would assume that you have probably some figure in mind at the present time, then? MR. PRIME-No, I really do not, and that was the whole point of trying to delineate the lots, so that we would have a base to work from. Now, I’m not opposed to dealing with the neighbors, absolutely not, but another question that I would have, is, supposing we do negotiate for the lots, and we don’t agree, am I back before the Board? What happens then? It seems to me that to finalize it that it really should be put on the market and the forces of the market, market forces determine what the value of that property is, and if they want to buy it at that value, fine, and otherwise it will be marketed. As far as using an appraiser is concerned and committing to that, we might not even be able to agree on an appraiser. MR. STONE-Yes, but it seems that the request is reasonable. All he said was right of first refusal. However, one establishes the price. Obviously, whether it’s a real estate agent with expertise or it’s an appraiser, somebody’s going to have to come up with a number. Let’s say it’s a million dollars a lot, let’s just say, that’s a number. Now you can begin negotiations in good faith, and I think that’s all you’re saying, Jim, aren’t you? MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s all I’m saying. MR. STONE-He’s not saying you have to sell. MR. MC NULTY-I’m not sure, though, that that kind of condition is appropriate for this Board. I don’t think we can do that. MR. ABBATE-Yes. I would agree. We’re not in the real estate business, nor should we become involved in any type of financial negotiations. I think it’s inappropriate. MR. MC NULTY-And there is a way for the applicant to do that, if he wants to. He can get a real estate agent to do a market analysis for you. If you pick a real estate agent to list it for you, they can put in a first refusal condition on the listing for X number of days so that 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) everybody’s notified, and that’s the time to do that. Mr. Chairman, I’d like to volunteer to do a motion, if you’re ready for a motion. MR. ABBATE-Yes, please, Mr. McNulty. MRS. BARDEN-Mr. Chairman, close the public hearing, please. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much, Staff. The public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Staff. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 73-2005 CASE PRIME, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Rockwell Rd. & Hiland Drive. The applicant’s proposing to subdivide a 16.4 acre parcel into four lots. The parcel is zoned for SR-1A and the subdivision will result in lots sized 5.4 acres, 5.2 acres, 2.7, and 2.5. Specifically, for Lots Two, Three, and Four, they’re proposed to share a common driveway. Lot Two is developed. Lot’s Three and Four require relief from the required 40 foot road frontage upon a public street, per Section 179-4-90. In considering this motion, there’s five criteria that we have to address. The first is whether this will cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created. Certainly as the neighbors have pointed out, subdividing this property and granting this variance for the 40 foot frontage certainly will change the neighborhood some, but I think it probably will not create a drastically undesirable change in the neighborhood, and I think we have to do a balancing act even on this question of the proposal that’s been presented versus what could be presented, and when we do that, I think more desirable is a subdivision that creates just two lots that need 40 feet of relief for road frontage rather than a subdivision that would create a Town road and many more lots. So I think, in this case, Question Number One falls in favor of the applicant. Question Number Two, whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an Area Variance. I think we’ve basically covered this already. The way for the applicant to achieve this without getting a variance is to put in a Town grade road and subdivide the piece of property into more lots to justify the cost of the Town road. So there is a choice. I don’t think this is a good choice for the neighborhood. Question Three, whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. Certainly 40 feet of relief for a 40 foot requirement on two lots is substantial. No question about it. I think that’s about all we can say on that one. Question Number Four, whether the proposed Variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Again, the narrow question here is whether this granting of 40 foot relief from frontage on a Town road would have this effect and I believe it will not, and Five, whether the difficulty is self-created or not. Certainly the applicant has a choice of not doing anything or subdividing the property, but I think on this question, as the applicant has pointed out, this is not something that the applicant walked into knowing what was going to happen. If he had bought this piece of property two years ago, then very clearly it would be self-created. He would have known what the conditions were. He would have had control over whether or not he bought the property, and could have made a conscious decision on what he wanted to do, but in this case, the conditions were imposed after he bought the property and after he developed his own home. So, in that case, I think on getting to the meaning of this question, the answer is, no, it’s not self-created. Having gone through all those, I’m suggesting that if this property is subdivided, the overall benefit to the applicant, I think, outweighs detriment to the neighborhood for this particular proposal. I would move for its approval with two conditions. One is that when the private driveway or road is constructed into the property, that the applicant ensures that the turnaround radius at the end of that road meets the requirements of the Fire Department for emergency vehicle turnaround, and, should he fail to do that, I would point out that then the variance goes away. Second condition, that the applicant agrees that there will be no further subdivision of this property or the individual lots that are created as a result of it. Duly adopted this 18 day of January, 2006, by the following vote: th MR. ABBATE-For the record, does the appellant understand and accept these conditions? 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) MR. PRIME-Yes, I do. MR. ABBATE-And let the record show that the appellant has acknowledged the conditions as part of a motion to approve. AYES: Mr. Rigby, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. ABBATE-I have a slight dilemma here. The vote is four against and three for. It appears that the motion has been defeated. I will, again, ask for a role call to ensure that my hearing was accurate and the count is accurate. AYES: Mr. Rigby, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 73-2005 is hereby defeated. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-2006 SEQRA TYPE II GARY & LINDA LONG AGENT(S): JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ., STEFANIE BITTER, ESQ. AND MR. METIVIER- HUTHINS, P.E. OWNER(S): GARY & LINDA LONG ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 268 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING 2,694 SQ. FT. DWELLING AND A PORTION OF THE 616 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE, AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 4,245 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AND 451 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK, SHORELINE SETBACK AND FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. SP -05 WARREN CO. PLANNING JANUARY 11, 2006 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.46 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.16-1-45; 226.16-1-28 SECTION 179-4-030 JON LAPPER & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 1-2006, Gary & Linda Long, Meeting Date: January 18, 2006 “Project Location: 268 Cleverdale Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of the existing 2,694 sq. ft. single-family residence and 616 sq. ft. detached garage. And rebuild a 4,145 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with attached garage and 451 sq. ft. detached storage building. Relief Required: 10-feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum shoreline setback. 7-feet of relief from the 15-foot minimum side setback (N. side). 1% of FAR relief from the 22% maximum. All relief per §179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 71-2005: Site plan review pending (1/24/06 PB mtg.), for a portion of the proposed dwelling and 330 sq. ft. of patio area within 50-feet of the shoreline. Staff comments: The applicants have purchased a vacant .23-acre parcel across Cleverdale Road, which they are seeking to consolidate with the lakefront parcel at the same size, resulting in a total .46- acre. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) The proposal is to concentrate all the development on the lakeside and the leachfield for the septic system across the road. In the submitted application the answer given to the question, Are there feasible alternatives to this variance? “Due to the narrow shape of the lot, and the goal of maintaining the large existing tree in the center of the lake lot, these variances are the only solution.” This explains the side setback relief requested, but does not address feasible alternatives to the shoreline setback relief and FAR relief sought. It appears that the shoreline setback minimum of 50-feet can be realized by moving the house back 10-feet. It also seems that the maximum FAR of 22% can be met by removing 248.92 sq. ft. of building area. In §179-14-080, “The Board shall grant the minimum variance that it shall deem necessary and adequate to address the unnecessary hardship proven by the applicant…” MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form January 11, 2006 Project Name: Long, Gary & Linda Owner(s): Gary & Linda Long ID Number: QBY-06-AV-1 County Project#: Jan06-20 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes demolition of an existing 2,694 sq. ft. dwelling and a portion of the 616 sq. ft. detached garage and construction of a 4,245 sq. ft. single-family dwelling and 451 sq. ft. detached garage. Relief requested from side setback, shoreline setback and floor area ratio requirements. Site Location: 268 Cleverdale Road Tax Map Number(s): 226.16-1-28 226.16-1-45 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes the demolition of an existing 2,694 sq. ft. dwelling and a portion of the 616 sq. ft. detached garage, and construction of a 4,245 sq. ft. single-family dwelling and 451 sq. ft. detached garage (this includes two floors of living space for the existing and proposed). Relief requested from side setback, shoreline setback and floor area ratio requirements. The north side setback is to be 8 ft. where 15 ft. is required and the existing was at 7.53 ft. setback. The shoreline setback is to be 40 ft. where 50 ft. is required and the existing is 34.98 ft. setback. The Floor Area Ration is to be 23% where the maximum allowed is 22% floor area ratio. The information submitted also includes information that a new septic system will be installed on a cross street adjoining lot, storm water and erosion control measures, and building elevations. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 1/17/06. MR. ABBATE-I see that the petitioner and his counsel are at the table. Would you be kind enough to speak into the microphone, and for the record identify yourself and place of residence, please. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper, the project attorney. To my right is Gary Long, the applicant. On my left, Tom Hutchins, the project engineer, and the architect is with us also, Bob Flansburg, if there are any questions for him. MR. ABBATE-Before we start, Counselor, we do have an understanding, there will be no late introduction of evidence? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. MR. LAPPER-Is this evidence? MR. ABBATE-Well, that’s perfectly okay. I’ll accept that. MR. LAPPER-It’s just a model. You’ve got the whole story. I’ll just briefly summarize, and then I’ll ask Gary to tell you, in terms of the benefit to the applicant, why he wants to do this project this way. As the application stated, long before we came and submitted, we negotiated and closed on the purchase of a lot across the street which is about a quarter acre lot. Right now there is a seepage pit. It is more than 100 feet from the lake, fortunately, but it’s certainly a noncompliant design. It was grandfathered. It was proper at the time that it was constructed, but it’s not what you want to have for a sanitary system. So the main thing, in terms of the environmental impact on the neighborhood, is to have purchased a lot 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) across the street and to use that lot for the septic system and an area for replacement field, which can’t be argued with, but that’s certainly a positive result. In terms of the constraints of the lot itself, the tree, which I’m sure you’ve all been there, and it’s a lovely tree, much nicer than the dead twig that we have on the model, if the house were centered on the lot, which it can be, and then the setback relief wouldn’t be necessary, the tree would be lost, and the neighbor who was most opposed to the project is the neighbor on the south side, which is the neighbor that is benefiting most from the variance, because the large area of lawn is left on the south side buffering that neighbor’s property. The neighbor which is supportive of the variance is the neighbor on the north side, and that’s because the house on the north side is also close the property line. So nothing is lost by the fact that both of these, or at least in their opinion and in our opinion, nothing is lost by the fact that both of these houses are in closer proximity to the property line on the north side. The Chairman looks confused. I want to make sure we’re clear. MR. ABBATE-No, I’m just checking your statistics. Go ahead, Counselor. I’ll let you know if I’m confused. MR. LAPPER-Okay. You’ve got it. So in terms of the side setback, the issue is keeping the tree and not centering the house on the lot, and since the property owner who is most affected on the north side thinks it’s a good compromise, we think that we’ve covered that issue. In terms of the floor area ratio relief, what we’re talking about here is about 248 square feet which is relatively minor compared to other variances that the Board has granted, but in order to get to that number, I think the application, the way it was read, it sounds like the storage building is going to be a new construction, but it’s actually a renovation by lopping off a part of it that brings the Floor Area relief down, by reducing it in size to what’s here now. I’ll let Gary tell you about why that’s so important to him, to retain that on this site rather than to put it across the road. What the model shows is that there’s 13 feet in between the two buildings. So the reason that we’ve asked for the 10 feet of relief, and the 10 feet of relief is actually to the overhang on the deck, it’s really, it would only be seven feet of relief, I’m sorry, if you didn’t count that, it would be seven feet of relief that we’re asking for to the building itself. If the building were going to be pushed back, it would just get very close the out building, and in terms of whether or not that building should stay, the neighbor to the south has a garage that buts up right against it . So the only thing you’d be doing by removing that building would be to have the better view of the neighbor’s virtually identically located building. The reason that we’re asking for the variance from the lake is because of the location of the two houses that are there now, so that this house isn’t located farther back from those houses, which would just impact the view from this house and as we’ve proposed it now, it’s a relocation. So we are moving it back and making it less nonconforming, but that really explains why, just because of the location of the houses next door, to not be in a tunnel behind those houses, to disturb the view from this house, and it also is in keeping with those houses, in terms of the character of the neighborhood. So we view this as a rather modest request because the Floor Area Ratio is only one percent, and the house is back as far as the other houses next door, and keeping that tree is really an important goal. Let me turn it over to Gary. MR. STONE-Counselor, can you turn that, since you brought it, I’d like to see what’s on the north side. I can come up. Let me just come up and look. Okay. The drawing has an area sticking further north. Is that there? Okay. GARY LONG MR. LONG-Yes, the garage is two feet further to the north than the main house. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-The setback’s taken off the closest place, as it should be. MR. ABBATE-All right. Continue, Counselor, please. MR. LAPPER-I’m going to ask the applicant to just explain to you why the benefit to the applicant is important to him. MR. LONG-As Mr. Lapper indicated, the reason I’m requesting the north side setback is to save this tree that is illustrated in the model here. In the first photograph that I handed you, you can clearly see that tree, and you can also see additional trees, let me give you the 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) orientation. This view is from my deck on my dock looking west at the house. So my house is the center house there. The house to the north of me is on the right hand side of that photograph, and the garage that was talked about by Mr. Lapper and the adjoining neighbor’s garages on the south, are also shown in that photograph on the left hand side, towards the road, away from the house in the photograph. So I wish to save that tree, and that’s the reason for my north side setback. This building here, which, the trees that you see between the two houses are a buffer zone between our houses, and we’ve pruned them a lot, and my neighbors to the north asked me, would you be able to save those trees, and I fully intend to do so if I possibly can, because we both like them and they provide a little privacy between our adjoining houses. The house in the photograph is actually closer to the north property line than what I’m proposing, slightly closer. It’s about seven and a half feet to the line, measured to my chimney, and the new house, the main part of the structure will be 10 feet from the property line. The part that’s eight feet from the property line requiring the variance is a two foot, is the length of the garage which is two feet wider than the remainder of the house. The reason for the floor area ratio variance is, if you take a look at the photograph of the garage, you can see the lower portion of the building is an addition that is 12 by 13. I propose to demolish that in order for the remaining portion of the garage to be 451 square feet, and so I’m not building a new 451 square foot building. I want to preserve that portion of the building, which happens to be 451 square feet, and, frankly, that’s the reason for the Floor Area Ratio variance. This has garage doors on it. We don’t use it as a garage. You couldn’t even get into one of the stalls of the garage. There’s a work bench there. I intend to use this strictly as a storage building, and also I want to put some utilities in there that will serve the new house. I’ve run into some very difficult problems in my existing house over the years with soot blowing everywhere in the house from a forced hot air fuel oil heating system, and I absolutely want to avoid that kind of a problem in the future. I wish to use fuel oil, because I think it’s economical, but I want to put any fuel oil burning boiler in this garage and have, return hot and cold water lines for radiant heating in the new house. I don’t want to have fuel oil in the new house at all. MR. STONE-Mr. Long, may I point out that you keep calling that a garage, which means you’re talking two garages on the property. I’m cautioning you, we may have to talk about that eventually. MR. LONG-Yes. Let me replace that word “garage” with “storage building”. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. That clarifies it. MR. LONG-I’ll remove the garage doors from that building. It is not used as a garage. I assure you. Too narrow. So the Floor Area Ratio variance request, because of the 248 square feet, is simply because of the design of this building. It’s impractical to remove an additional 248 square feet from this building and preserve the remainder of the building. It’s either this portion or nothing, is what it boils down to. One of the reasons for my lakeshore setback request is to maintain, I’ll show it sideways, is to provide 13 feet of separation between these two structures, really so that my builder can get a Bobcat through there to backfill around my foundation and do the landscaping that’s necessary. It’s as simple as that. I think it’s an aesthetically correct separation between the two buildings that won’t offer any construction problems in regards to building a new foundation, if we maintain the appropriate separation between these two buildings. That’s one reason. The other reason is the proximity that I’m proposing of my house relative to the lakefront is behind the line drawn between the two adjacent houses on either side of me. One house is 40 feet from the lake, 40.5 feet roughly. The house on the other side is 51 feet from the lake. Because of the shoreline variation, if you do a straight line between the closest points of approximation of my neighboring houses, this house is behind that line, I mean west of that line, further away from the lake from that line by a few feet, with the proposed setback. If I were to have 50 foot setback, I’d be moved 10 feet further back, this would significantly narrow the angle of a view that we have from the lake, and we believe that, one of the reasons I have lakefront property is the view of the lake, and I’m not interested in reducing that view any more than necessary. This house as proposed is eight feet further from the lake than my current house. If you take a look at either drawings or on this model, this little patio in the front of the house is where the front of my current house is located. This wall in front of the house is the exact location of the wall you can see in the drawing, or in the picture that I gave you. It’ll look about that. The new wall will be about nine inches higher, but this lower wall is exactly located where that stone wall is. I believe that adds to the appearance of the property and provides sort of a border, and, in this case, in the design of this new property with Mr. Hutchins involvement, the stormwater containment is below this terrace area. So all runoff water from the roof will be 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) captured and contained in stormwater containment that’s located in this area. There’s no stormwater containment at all right now. All the runoff from the driveway, which will be sloped towards Cleverdale Road west, my runoff presently is towards the lake. The runoff in this design will be towards Cleverdale Road and then transfer further south, in front of the existing garage, then it will run east next to my existing garage and into a shallow containment area located here. So virtually all stormwater on the property will be contained. MR. LAPPER-I think that does it for our principal case. We’ll answer any questions and then respond to the public comments. MR. ABBATE-Gentlemen, ladies, do any members of the Board have any questions concerning Area Variance No. 1-2006? MR. UNDERWOOD-Is there a full cellar under this, too? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-I have a question for Staff. As I looked at the drawing, and I look at the model, that lip, if you will, on the lakeside is construction, and should be involved with the setback request, I believe. You’ve drawn the 40 feet from the back, but that patio, which is two or three feet high, is, in fact, construction, and it’s part of. MR. LAPPER-The Zoning Administrator has had a half dozen meetings and gone through all that, that doesn’t count for the building setback. MR. STONE-I disagree. MRS. BARDEN-They do have to go to the Planning Board, however, for that patio, because it’s within 50 feet of the shoreline. MR. STONE-Yes, I mean, we had an applicant on the lake that we forced to take off land, part of a patio, because it was about that high, and it was closer to the lake than the variance we granted. So I’m concerned. That’s all I’ll say. I don’t mind if, in fact, it’s just a matter of amount of relief we’re talking about. It’s what we’re really arguing. I’m not saying I don’t like it. MR. LAPPER-I guess we were told by the Zoning Administrator that it doesn’t count for building setback and that’s why we didn’t ask for the relief. It’s not part of the building. MR. STONE-I disagree. MR. LAPPER-I think in Queensbury, if it’s a deck, if it’s above ground, if it’s a deck, it is counted as a structure. MR. STONE-It is a deck. MR. LAPPER-No, it’s a patio, stone. MR. STONE-But it’s up. MR. LAPPER-That’s a retaining wall. MR. STONE-Okay, that may be. MR. LAPPER-It’s on soil, and if it’s above the soil, it’s determined to be a deck. MR. STONE-It may very well be. Okay. As I say, it’s only the number we’re talking about. I’m not concerned by. MR. LAPPER-We spent a lot of time trying to minimize the variances, and dealing with Mr. Brown. MR. STONE-Okay. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) MR. LONG-And it’s location is, as I mentioned before, the east portion of that patio is exactly where the wall of my house is now. MR. STONE-Well, I appreciate that. The only concern I would have is that when we do make a motion, and we grant relief, we have to grant the relief that we believe is necessary, and if the Zoning Administrator did not have a problem and says it is not constructed, then we’re probably all right. MR. ABBATE-Any other members of the Board have any questions for the appellant? MR. URRICO-These lots have not been consolidated yet? MR. LONG-The application was submitted, I believe, in May. I guess I don’t receive anything that says they’re consolidated. If you want to ask the question is my recent tax bill two lots? MR. STONE-That’s what I was going to say. What does your recent tax bill say? MR. LONG-Two lots. MR. LAPPER-The answer is it was after tax status date of March 1. So the form was st submitted to the County, but it won’t show up until this March. MR. URRICO-Don’t you think that consolidating the parcels is sort of a backdoor way of trying to get approval of something? I mean, the intention of the Floor Area Ratio is so that a house does not overwhelm a lot, and even though technically you may have the space, it’s still overwhelming the lot, to a certain degree. MR. LAPPER-Well, let me answer it this way. These were all originally subdivided at 60 foot wide small lots, and in order to acquire the rights to build a bigger house, you have to purchase real estate, which is a tricky and expensive thing to do on the lake these days. So the fact that Mr. Long was able to negotiate with his neighbor and to purchase the lot was no small feat, and it took a while to accomplish that and we got it closed. So he purchased the lot, and in terms of the impact of the project, if you will, the fact that that lot is away from the lake and can be utilized for a leach field is a very good use of that lot because the farther from the lake the better it is, the less chance that the septic is going to leach into the lake. The Floor Area Ratio also applies to the lot in the back. So if he were, instead, to build, you know, to keep them separate and to build one house on the front house and one house on the back lot, it would still be the same Floor Area Ratio. He could just split it and have two structures, you know, two living structures rather than one. So there’s nothing sneaky about it. It was done at great expense. MR. URRICO-I didn’t say it was sneaky. I said backdoor. MR. LAPPER-Well, okay, but it’s perfectly legal and perfectly legitimate and he was very fortunate to be able to acquire the adjacent parcel. MR. UNDERWOOD-Did you own the parcel when they built the big house to the other side of you there, too, or was that? MR. LONG-No, I bought the lot, the new parcel. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean the lake? MR. LONG-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Were you affected by that house being so much larger than probably what was pre-existing there? MR. LONG-Yes, but maybe not in the way that you would think. I was affected by the construction during the summer, all summer. MR. UNDERWOOD-We hear that a lot. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) MR. LONG-I intend to start this construction in September. The house ended up being a little larger than I had envisioned. I actually never saw plans or anything. We were very good friends with our neighbors and we agreed to the variance request. They wanted to build very close to the property line. The people that built that house are not the present owners. MR. ABBATE-Now, I have a question for Counsel. This is a question, it certainly doesn’t determine whether or not it’s going to be approved. Did I hear you correctly when you stated that the lots have not yet been consolidated? MR. LAPPER-No. They have been consolidated, it’s just that they haven’t issued one tax map number yet until March 1. st MR. ABBATE-So that’s a done deal? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-It’s already been done. MR. ABBATE-All right. Fine. Thank you very much. MR. STONE-You graphically described stormwater management on the lake property. The other one is going to keep its stormwater on the property, it’s not going to get onto Cleverdale Road? MR. LAPPER-You mean the lot in the back, the septic? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. LONG-Yes. We’re proposing very little changes, particularly to the front portion of the lot. It’s almost entirely green. There’s a couple of little concrete slabs. MR. STONE-Yes, it looks like the entrance to a cemetery. It’s kind of an interesting lot. Stormwater has not been a problem? MR. LONG-No. MR. ABBATE-Any other questions from members of the Board? If not, then I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 1-2006, and would those wishing to be heard please approach the table, speak into the microphone, and for the record identify yourself and place of residence. Raise your hands so I may recognize you, if we have anyone. Yes, ma’am, you were first, in the back of the room. Please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED KATHY BOZONY MS. BOZONY-Hi. I’m Kathy Bozony from the Lake George Association, and I did submit a comment letter that I would like read into the record. I can read it if you’d like, or there are several issues that I’d like to discuss in this letter. MR. ABBATE-Well, you certainly may. We’re certainly going to introduce it into the record, but if you wish to do it, please be our guest. MS. BOZONY-Well, I can just share some of the main points. When I reviewed the file, there were no ground elevations in the file, nor any north elevations, and I looked at, I tried to imagine what that ground elevation should be. I was told that they would get it in-house. I have not seen it. You may have it in front of you. I looked at the drawing, and it looks to me like there is a full ground level. I don’t know. MR. UNDERWOOD-There is. MS. BOZONY-Which, if that’s the case, I added the additional square footage, and I don’t have my notes in front of me, but it’s another, I don’t know, 2,000 square feet to the full 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) compliment in order to add that into the Floor Area Ratio. So I’m coming up with a total square footage of this proposed building, or a Floor Area Ratio of 6200 square feet, not 42, 45, and I also look at this lake entrance here, you walk into that door, per the drawings that I reviewed, you go down five feet, I believe, or up five feet, either way, and you walk into living space. It looks like in that vestibule there are no doors that go either up or down. So therefore I look at that as not going into a dark, dingy cellar. I’m looking at that as going into some sort of building space with 12 windows in that area. So the fact that that entire floor was eliminated from the calculation of this Floor Area Ratio, I find, is, you know, that needs to be addressed. Likewise, I looked at, there were no north elevations, and my only thought, and I did write this, is that the roof line looks very large. Whether that means there’s living space or attic space, it looks to me like it’s seven feet tall. Again, I’m just guesstimating from the drawings and my notation here was maybe there would be dormers or skylights in that attic area that would also determine that that potentially needs to be added to the Floor Area Ratio. Sure enough, there are skylights. I don’t know what they really mean. I don’t have any drawings of that area. So I calculate the Floor Area Ratio, instead of asking for a one percent variance, utilizing both lots, they’re non contiguous. So I agree with you when you state that, should you really be utilizing that in order to do impervious surfaces or Floor Area Ratio calculations, should you be adding the two lots together, but I come up with, instead of one percent, I’m coming up with a 34%, and 34%, taking the 6200 feet, yes, I’m coming up with 34%. MR. ABBATE-Well, 33.58. MS. BOZONY-33.58. Exactly, I’m sorry, and then if you equate that to the real numbers of what the variance actually means, it’s a 66% increase over the allowable FAR. Now, if you look at only the one lot instead of both lots, which is really the more appropriate way to do it, and we can ask for, you know, the ruling on the Ordinance and see what the Code actually says, you’re coming up with a 200% increase in allowable FAR. The next thing that I looked at was the fact that the 28 foot height variance, it looks like it’s over 28 feet, even on the drawings that you have. I didn’t want to guess what it would be, but it looks to me like it’s about six feet over that. I’m also looking at the non-permeable surfaces. It’s reported that it is going from 38% currently to 27%. Obviously they’re using the two non-contiguous lots to calculate that, which, in this case it doesn’t make any sense at all. In reality, instead of decreasing to 27% from 38%, it appears that you’re actually increasing it to 54% of non- permeable surfaces. Although you’re moving the building back five feet from what it currently is, you are disturbing a lot of the land for this terracing and the 600 square foot blue stone patio that’s going in. So you’re actually, all your earthwork and your grading is really a lot of disruption. My letter is almost the same, but I’m just saying the tree, I think, should remain. I think the house should be moved back. I think it should be made smaller to conform. MR. ABBATE-And we are going to read this into the record, and I would request that you stay here, in case we have questions for you. Now, in order to be fair, Counsel, have you received a copy of this? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-You have? Okay. That’s fine. Thank you so very much. Do we have anyone else in the audience who would like to address Area Variance No. 1-2006? MAGGIE STEWART MS. STEWART-Maggie Stewart, Assembly Point. JOAN ROBERTSON MS. ROBERTSON-I’m Joan Robertson. I live at 286 Cleverdale Road. MR. ABBATE-Proceed. MS. STEWART-I have a letter, too, that I’d like to read, and then give to the Secretary. “A serious effort is needed to curb over-building on the waterfront, whether it is Lake George, Glen Lake, the Hudson River or any other body of water. We seem to be obsessed with the words “more” and “bigger” when it comes to building a single family house on a small piece of property. Zoning laws are made (in part) to protect the environment, and the neighbors – 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) values that are basic to all of us. I urge this Board to stick with the Floor Area Ratio and to deny this project as proposed, because it’s too big for the lot. Thank you.” MR. ABBATE-Yes, ma’am. MS. ROBERTSON-I have a letter to read, but I also have some rebuttals. Can I do them both? MR. ABBATE-You certainly may. MS. ROBERTSON-This is regarding requests for variances by Gary and Linda Long. I wish to register my strong opposition to the granting of the variances that is the side setback, shoreline setback and floor area ratio. The argument that they are increasing the front setback from the lake is so minimal as to as to be of little significance, particularly with the blue stone patio. This parcel is similar in size to most of the Cleverdale lots, which is 60 +/- front footage and 200 foot depth, although this depth measurement in other parcels varies as the lake winds and turns. It is noted that the size is .46 acres. 60 feet by 200 feet is more nearly just over ¼ of an acre. Having read the materials in the application, the proposal seems to indicate that the newly purchased property across the road would be used to achieve this figure of .46 acres. There is no way that using this small non-contiguous lot across the street can mitigate the aggregate over development of the lakeside lot. Besides which, I’ve lived there 50 years. You can’t build on a 50 foot lot. It’s against the law, because I had three 50 foot lots, and I could not use them. So the fact that they would put a building over there, you can’t do it. The visual impact of a structure 28 feet wide and 78 feet long, connecting to a blacktop driveway area of considerable size across the entire roadside perimeter, plus an additional garage is grossly inappropriate. From my examination of the drawings, this structure will be 28 feet high and perhaps more, depending on where it is measured. This does not suggest a single family home. The plans show a type of entry at the lakeside door that denotes a raised ranch type of building. Where you walk, the entry way is exactly at ground level. You walk in. You go down and you go up. This is what the drawings indicate, which would mean they would have more living space. Will there be finished rooms in the lowest level as could be indicated by the presence of windows? With respect to the greatly increased footprint, what thought has been given to stormwater runoff, and I do notice that he did some, but with so little impermeable surface, where’s the water going to go? Right now it’s flooded, and its effect on neighboring properties as well as the protection of Lake George? Another grave concern is the proposed location of a large septic system across Cleverdale Road on the recently purchased 50 foot lot. This land quite often has standing water, as do may of the interior lots. It does right now. There’s a pond in the middle and it was filled in. All of the water is pushed toward the center of the Point, and it’s wet. You walk in the winter and you get wet feet, or, well, excuse me, well, excuse me, in the spring you get wet feet. As I say, this land often has standing water. Have percolation tests been done to show the level of the water table on this property? I have lived in Cleverdale for nearly 50 years and am quite familiar with the spring flooding. I sincerely hope that the Board of Zoning Appeals will recognize that this proposal could result in a drastic change in the appearance of this small Hamlet, since certainly other equally large proposals will follow rapidly. I respectfully request that the Board will require significant downsizing before approving the construction. I don’t want them not to live there, but not this. Now, about the tree, when the excavation for the building is done, you have to go down, they have a full, you know, have to have a lot of foundation, probably down six or eight, ten feet. They’re going to cut the roots of the tree. It’s very unlikely that this tree will survive. It’s a mature tree. It’s got broken branches and stuff. I doubt that this tree will survive with the damage that it will get. That’s just a suggestion. Now, the stormwater from the back lot, it doesn’t, the flow, a lot of it just sits there, and gathers mosquitoes, but if it does flow, it flows into the road and then down, but it does go across the road and into the lake. Now you could see that today because it was really, really bad. The water flows east into the lake. Now the house, well, I told you (lost words) you can’t put a house on the back lot with 50 feet. Now with two lots consolidated, this doesn’t seem quite fair, because you’re going to have the empty lot there in the middle, but this is going to obstruct the view of the lake for a lot of people. It’s just too big. It doesn’t fit in with the size of the property. Now the one next door that is eight feet from the lot, I remember when that was done, and I was quite ill at the time. I could not come down, but just because one mistake was made doesn’t mean we have to make another one. I think that the setbacks should be maintained. There’s no reason why they can’t do that. I guess that’s it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much, ladies. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) MS. ROBERTSON-I also have another letter that I would like to give to you from a neighbor. MR. ABBATE-Give it to our Secretary, and he will read it into the record, please, and in the meantime, do we have any other folks in the public who would like to address Area Variance No. 1-2006? Yes, sir, in the back of the room, please. CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. My name is Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. I do have a letter I’d like to read in. I also have copies, if people would like. My first two points, I agree with the point that Mr. Stone had brought up, concerns about the Codes of Queensbury as opposed to the APA regs. The second two points are regarding the wastewater system. One, the project proposes the construction of a patio within 50 foot setback to Lake George. Section 575.4.b of the APA rules and regulations states “Porches, decks and other structures attached to single family dwellings or to other structures subject to building setback restrictions shall be considered part of the structure for applying the setback restrictions”. Since the patio is not flush with existing grade and is a total of 316 square feet, it appears that the shoreline setback dimension should be applied to the patio since it is attached to the principle structure. It should be determined if a variance is required from the APA for the patio. 2. The project proposes the replacement of an existing retaining wall and construction of an additional retaining wall for the patio. Again, Section 575.4.f of the APA Rules and Regulations states “A retaining wall which is constructed of dry laid stone or untreated natural logs, and is smaller than 200 square feet in size, and does not exceed two feet in height above mean high water mark, shall not be subject to the applicable shoreline requirements and variance…”. The proposed retaining wall for the planter is 3.75 feet high and is a total of approximately 280 square feet within the 50-foot shoreline setback. In addition, the retaining wall for the patio is approximately 96 square feet within the shoreline setback. It should be determined if a variance is required from the APA for these structures. Again, I believe that this construction is not pushing everything away from the lake, but it’s staying the same and actually disturbing closer to the lake. 3. It appears the proposed on- site wastewater treatment system will require a variance for setbacks to property lines. According to New York State Department of Health 75-A Regulations, Table 2, a 10-foot setback is required for absorption fields from property lines and states “For fill systems involving the placement of fill material, separation distances are measured from the toe of slope of the fill.” In this project, the system proposes to fill up to the property lines. 4. The project proposes an on site wastewater treatment system designed to treat wastewater from a total of five bedrooms. The proposed residence will also include a study with a sofa bed and full bathroom as well as an additional craft room on the second floor. The on site wastewater treatment system should be sized for the potential of the conversion of these rooms to bedrooms. 5. Based on the size of the proposed size of the proposed project and numerous site constraints, perhaps the Zoning Board of Appeals should refer the application to the Planning Board and the APA for a recommendation about the proposed project prior to rendering a decision. Another couple of points. I do agree with Ms. Bozony. I was confused also about the Floor Area Ratio and whether the basement was included. Another concern is that I notice on the plans there is a water supply line to be installed across the road and also an electric supply line to be installed across the road to the lot across the street. Again, I’m not sure what that is for. So, thank you very much for your time. MR. ABBATE-Before you go, two things. Isn’t that APA 575f you refer to, isn’t that covered in that area? Did you say 5f? MR. NAVITSKY-I have 4f. I have a copy of it attached here. MR. ABBATE-No, that’s okay, but anyway, my real question to you is this. You indicated that you thought there were water lines going under? MR. NAVITSKY-On the site plan I saw in the file. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s on there. MR. ABBATE-It is on there? MR. STONE-Right here, it’s on here. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) MR. ABBATE-Okay. I missed it. Thank you so very much. MR. NAVITSKY-And I will leave you this. MR. ABBATE-Would you, please. Okay. Thank you very much. We will put that into the record. Now, yes, sir, in the back of the room, please. GEORGE LANGFORD MR. LANGFORD-George Langford, Assembly Point. As I’ve mentioned to this Board in the past, we’re fortunate, in Queensbury, that we have zoning restrictions that provide setback and area requirements to help protect the lake. These lots that were sized for small camps are now being used to build these huge houses, and that’s inappropriate, and I hope that the Board will take that into consideration in this case. Now this business of using a lot across the road to increase the size is very disturbing to me. In fact, at a building site very close to where I live, they have done this exact same thing, and when you look at the size of the building on that lot, it’s really appalling. So I am opposed to allowing this type of building so close to the lake. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much, sir. Do we have any other folks in the audience who would like to address Area Variance No. 1-2006? Yes, sir. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. I’d just like to second the motion of everything I’ve heard tonight from this side of the microphone. It certainly is a novel approach, using this lot across the road for purposes of calculating the Floor Area Ratio. It’s been referred to as a consolidation by the attorney representing the client, and in fact it is not a consolidation. Consolidation involves the elimination of lot lines, and the lot lines have not been eliminated in this case. They’ve used the privilege of a land hook for purposes of taxing, and I believe in this regard we should call timeout and we should ask the Zoning Administrator for an interpretation as to whether or not a non-contiguous lot can be used for purposes of calculating the Floor Area Ratio. I think that’s a necessity. I don’t think that’s been addressed, and if the applicant can’t ask the question, someone else can. This attic has got to be living space. Why would you put skylights in an attic that would normally be unheated. It just doesn’t make any sense. This appears to be a slab on grade construction. I doubt that they, and probably the purpose of that is that there’s a very shallow overburden. Now they’re going to run water lines, sewer and water lines across the road. Can they get the sufficient depth for frost protection? I don’t know if that lot across the road is usable for what they want to do. I believe the building code of the State of New York requires that a dwelling have a heating system. I just don’t know that you can meet the Code by locating the heating system in a separate building. I don’t know about that. That should be checked. The calculation for the living space is just too much difference between what the applicant is claiming and what people who are knowledgeable in this area have come up with, and that’s, maybe that’s the subject of another interpretation from the Zoning Administrator, but I believe in a project like this, particularly with this feature of the non- contiguous lot being used for purposes of calculating Floor Area Ratio is something that’s got to be looked at and studied, because this is going to set one hell of a precedent. The patio, again, is another issue that should be addressed, particularly when Mr. Stone says in other cases you have addressed it and you have made people relocate their patio. So that’s another issue that should be addressed. These issues are going to come up again and again. You’re seeing that, and it’s time to call time out and get the basis established, even if it involves changes to the Zoning Ordinance. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Do we have any other members of the public who wish to comment on Area Variance No. 1-2006? MS. BOZONY-Kathy Bozony, Lake George Association. I just heard in the comments initially when this was being presented tonight that they have, they were having a problem because they wanted their house set where it was because of their neighbors, and then in the next breath one neighbor is 50 feet back and the other neighbor is 40.5 was stated. I know that this particular house, the existing house has two very large boathouses right in front that block the view, which, that’s probably why you’re looking to have a side view, because you don’t have a forward view, and the other thing is, on fuel oil, and forced air, I have fuel oil as 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) a heating system, and I don’t have soot in my house. It doesn’t really necessarily happen. It depends on how your system is working. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, ma’am. Do we have any other comments from the public on Area Variance No. 1-2006? I see no other hands raised. So I’ll move on. MR. UNDERWOOD-There were a lot of letters. MR. ABBATE-Yes. I’ll ask the Counsel and his client to come to the table while the Secretary reads into the record numerous letters. MR. UNDERWOOD-We have that letter from the LGA, but I’m not going to read that since she pretty much covered that. MR. ABBATE-I think she pretty much covered that, yes. That’s a matter of public record. MR. UNDERWOOD-This one was just handed in this evening, “To the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Queensbury: RE: Gary and Linda Long’s application for variances to build a new house on Cleverdale Road One of the biggest problems with lake pollution is runoff. We are concerned with the questionable permeability of this property, if such a large house is allowed to be built. The other concern is whether it is legal to have 2 separate parcels put together, in order to apply for these variances. The lot across Cleverdale Road was just bought from Jon Hart this past year. Is it necessary to build such a mammoth residence in such a critical area? Will the septic system “perc” out on the lot across the road? The septic lot backs up to our property on Mason Road. Around the edge of our property, it is wet, at times. Would the build-up of that lot, to put a septic system in, affect the water run-off that is already in existence in the area? I hope the Board will put some serious thought into not granting these variances. Thank you. Priscilla and David Sanderspree” The next one is, “In regards to the application for a variance on the property of Gary and Linda Long, I do have a concern regarding the size of the house. Although the application states that the amount of relief requested is not substantial, the calculations do not support this statement. (See the letter from Kathy Bozony, Land Use, Management – Lake George Association.) The house on the adjacent lot (Chanese) is approximately 2300 square feet. The house that the Longs are planning is actually 6,787. How can this tiny lot possibly support such a large home. The home itself is spectacular and we certainly don’t want to cause the Longs a problem. However, we do hope that they would consider reducing the size to conform to the lot. Sincerely, Diane N. Cowan” “I am opposed to the house that will be built by the Long family at Cleverdale, New York. The house is much too large for the lot and the Zoning Committee should realize it, and spend no time discussing this matter. According to the LGA, the frontage that was mentioned in the letter we received is greatly different than the frontage mentioned in the notice. Sincerely, Jean Meyer” The next one says, “I support the proposed construction of a new dwelling for Gary and Linda Long. All residents of the Cleverdale community should praise families who are willing to improve their aging homes with new efficient building materials and septic systems. These changes can only lead to less pollution of the lake and soil and enhance fire prevention and energy conservation. Change can be an asset to this community when it improves the neighborhood and its health. Sincerely, Dr. Agnes J. Vincze-Rosen 262 Cleverdale Rd.” “My wife and I own the adjoining property to the south of the Long’s. I received the letter informing me of the Public Hearing on Friday, January 13, 2006, when I came home from work. The notice of the hearing is inadequate in that we were only given two business days to make an attempt to review these plans. I would strongly request that this hearing be delayed so that I may review these plans in a timely manner. I would think that the Long’s would be agreeable in that the same courtesy was given him when we constructed our home and the Township did not give them adequate notice. In lieu of any delay, I would have to strongly object to the proposed construction and requested variances. The application states that the owners are to demolish an existing 2,694 square foot house and improve the site with a 4,245 square foot single family home. According to the Township’s tax records, the existing house is only 2,087 square feet. I have found that the tax records have been very accurate in the past and I am surprised that they would be off by so much. The proposed construction is over twice the existing structure. I am also very surprised that the Long’s would propose such a large structure in that they were very critical of the large size of the new home constructed to the north of them, a 3,130 square foot home, and were so concerned of the size and height of our home, a 2,286 square foot home. I have also received a copy of the letter sent to Mr. Abbate from the Lake George Association. After reading this letter, my concerns have increased tenfold. It appears that the actual square footage will be 6,200 square feet, 3 times the existing size. At 4,245 this 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) would be the largest home in the area. At 6,200 square feet, 7 bedroom and who knows how many baths, this would be a small mansion that would effect all the homes in the area on a lot with 60 feet of frontage. As a reference, the largest new homes we were able to find in the area are include 19 Mason Road, a 3,962 square foot home of a lot with 150 feet of frontage and 47 Mason Road, a 3,821 square foot home with 120 feet of frontage. According to the letter from the Lake George Association, the land area and FAR are being calculated based on the combination of two lots, not just the existing lot, and the impervious coverage of the existing lot will be increased dramatically. The second lot is across the street and not lake front. If you are familiar with the area, you must know that the water run off runs from the street to the lake, not from the street into this second lot. The runoff would now be forced to the adjoining lots. I would assume that if the Board approves this application based on this FAR calculation, property owners would be able to purchase lots down the street and increase the size of their dwellings. I am also concerned about any grade changes to the site which would direct water to the adjoining properties. The proposed height of the building from grade is also of serious concern to us. In closing, I hope the Board takes very seriously the concerns raised by the Lake George Association as well as ours. At best, it appears that the application is incomplete and does not address the full extent of the proposed development. Once again, I strongly suggest that this application be denied until these concerns are addressed and the adjoining property owners have adequate time to review the site plans and blue prints. Sincerely, Albert and Martha Chanese 266 Cleverdale Road” “We are writing you in support of Gary & Linda Long’s proposed site development on Cleverdale Road. We are the closest neighbor to the north of the Long property. After having carefully reviewed the site plan, wastewater plan, stormwater control plan, floor plans and building elevations for their proposed new home we would strongly recommend granting approval of the requested variances. The requested area variances are not substantial and the proposed structure will in fact be located further from our property than the existing structure. We hope that expeditious approval for the building of the home is given. Yours truly, Neil and June Haverly” That’s it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I see that Counsel is back with his client. MR. LAPPER-I guess I’d like to start by getting back to our requests. There are always a lot of opponents to anything that gets done, changed, in Assembly Point or Cleverdale. So that’s not a surprise. In terms of this project, again, we’re moving the septic away from the lake, which is a good thing. We’re doing stormwater infiltration, which doesn’t exist now, which is a good thing. The north setback, I think everyone can acknowledge that it’s important to keep that tree there. If the tree were cut down and the house were centered, it would be more of an impact on the neighbor who obviously is opposed to this. That could be done, but we think this is a better plan, and the LGA representative, when she, I think she heard half of what Mr. Long said, but not the other half, in terms of drawing the line between the two houses. The reason why they’re at 50 feet and 40 feet is because the shoreline goes out. So we’re talking about where they are in proximity to this house. So what he says is true. In terms of some of the comments, they seem kind of conspiratorial, like the applicant is trying to hide something, and I just want to dispel that. The issue with the attic, one of the commentators said, there are skylights, obviously something is going to be used there. Those skylights go to the second story. So obviously they’re not for the roof, and the architect is here. What he explained to me earlier tonight is that the roof trusses have cross pieces that would be at chest height. So this is not a very steep pitch. So the roof trusses are right there. You couldn’t even walk in the attic because you would be walking up to these cross members for the trusses. So there’s no possibility that that could be floor area, could be building area, living space. The same is true for the basement, and we went through this with Craig Brown. A couple of the people who commented said, you know, go back to the Zoning Administrator. You need to have him determine if this is okay, and we certainly went through the whole issue about combining the lots, buying the lot, combining the lot. Floor Area Ratio talks about how much building you’re allowed to have in comparison to how much land you have. So if the house is on this lot, and the other lot doesn’t have any construction on it, then that house is forever encumbered. You can’t, that lot, you can’t put a house on that lot. So in terms of Queensbury, the Floor Area Ratio doesn’t talk about where on the lot you’re building. It talks about how much land do you own, how much are you allowed to build. The whole difference, the 248 square feet that we’re talking about for the difference is basically half the size of the storage shed. So under any circumstances Gary could build this house. In terms of the basement space, we, of course, also discussed that with Craig Brown. It doesn’t meet Code for building space. It doesn’t have egress. It doesn’t have sufficient windows. So that’s storage space, and there’s nothing shocking. People are allowed to build basements in their houses. Chris Navitsky, who I deal with all the time and have a lot of respect for, he 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) just hasn’t been around long enough. In terms of the Queensbury Ordinance, and what I mentioned before about how Craig interprets it, what he quoted from the APA was porches and decks, and porches and decks are structures that are built above the ground, and the interpretation in Queensbury always has been that if it’s built on the ground, if it’s masonry, if it’s built on dirt, it’s not considered part of the structure, but what he quoted, porches and decks certainly are considered part of the structure. So if you built a deck, then it would count as lake setback, but if it’s something that’s built into the ground, it’s not, and that should be no surprise to the Board because that’s come up many times in the past. Seven bedroom allegation that this is a, it’s a five bedroom house. There’s certainly room to have sized the septic system for seven bedrooms, if you wanted to build seven bedrooms. It’s not seven bedrooms. It’s not a motel. Someone said it’s supposed to be a commercial building. There’s a sewing room and a home office. I guess that covers it for me. Do you want to add anything at this point, Gary? MR. LONG-I’d like, if I could, these comments on this gigantic house, I’d like to try to put it in perspective, if, by showing you this model and describing my existing house. The existing house that I have, which I have indicated before starts here, is exactly the size of this portion of the house. I’m adding a garage and putting rooms above the garage. That’s what’s larger about it compared to the existing house. My existing house is as big as this portion of the house that you can see here up to where this garage begins, but it’s eight feet closer to the lake than we’re proposing here. All the discussion about construction, etc., for the patio, this patio is located where my existing house currently is, and we’re going to demolish that. This is, this becomes the ground, as Jon indicated before. This is dirt and concrete and stone. It is the new ground level in the front of the house. It’s not a deck and it’s not a porch or patio I guess was the word. It’s not, we haven’t got to the point in the structural details yet with Bob Flansburg to determine whether this actually is adjoined to the foundation or not. I don’t know that detail yet. It’s on the ground. It’s part of the ground. I just wanted to reinforce one comment. I don’t know who gets to decide, but I thought I did. This is a five bedroom house. That’s all we intend to build. It has three bathrooms. Someone said it’s not known. You could look at the floor plans to determine that. There are three bedrooms in the house, two upstairs in the second floor. One on the first floor, and there are five bedrooms, and that’s all there will be. The basement is not part of the Floor Area Ratio. We are trying to build this. I have expert help from Mr. Flansburg as an architect and Mr. Hutchins as an engineer with regard to the structural issues and Jon Lapper with regard to the legal issues. I’m trying to do this within the constraints of the Ordinance, as best we can. This house, as Jon mentioned a minute ago, could be built with no variances, if I were to tear down this garage, and willing to cut down this tree. It can be located, the Floor Area Ratio is under 22% for the new structure. There’s room on the property to locate it 15 feet from the north boundary and 50 feet from the lake, but I believe that alternative is not as good as my proposal, but my proposal requires these three variances. That’s what it boils down to. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other comments, gentlemen? All right, I’m going to move on and ask the Board members. MR. URRICO-Could I ask a question? MR. ABBATE-Yes, by all means, please. MR. URRICO-What’s the intention of the storage building? What do you intend to do with the storage building? MR. LONG-Like I mentioned before, I want to locate a boiler in that building, with supply and return insulated lines underground to the house. I want that boiler to be a dual fuel burning boiler, a high efficiency wood burning boiler and fuel oil burning boiler, and to optimize the efficiency of that type of system, you also need a heat sink tank, which is about an 800 gallon water tank that will be located in that building. My fuel oil tank will be located in that building. So they won’t be an eyesore and they won’t be potential problems in the new building. That will take up a big chunk of this building, and the remainder is going to be for equipment, tools and equipment that I have. It’s not a garage. I’ve actually owned this property for 16 years and we’ve never used that building as a garage. I do often work out there with the doors open, and I love it, when it’s hot. MR. STONE-I think one of the reasons for some of these questions is that we don’t have elevations. We have nothing except the ground floor. We were not given, I don’t believe we were given elevations. That’s where the question of 28 feet came. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) MR. LONG-Yes, sir, you were given elevations. MR. STONE-Not in our packet. MRS. BARDEN-You should have elevation drawings. MR. LAPPER-They were definitely submitted. MR. ABBATE-Lew, I think we do have it. MRS. BARDEN-I think it was stated that the north elevation specifically wasn’t included. MR. LAPPER-Leo has it. We didn’t submit the north elevation because you can’t see it from anywhere, but then Susan subsequently asked us, and we just got it in to them. MR. STONE-You’re right, I did have a picture, not the inside, though. MRS. BARDEN-Yes, floor plans. MR. STONE-I got one floor plan, I thought. MR. ABBATE-There should be two there, Lew. MR. STONE-I don’t see the second one. Is there? If there is, I apologize. I see a basement. MR. LONG-There’s a stormwater plan, and a site plan, and a wastewater plan and there’s two floor plans, and there’s an east, a west and a south elevation. MR. STONE-If I do have it, I apologize, but I don’t think I do. I had that, but there’s no numbers on it. MR. LONG-Also I would add that the second floor plan clearly shows that these three skylights are leading into two bathrooms and a bedroom. Very clearly shows it. MR. STONE-Okay. I’m sorry. I apologize. MR. LONG-We were trying to be as thorough as possible. MR. STONE-No, I apologize. I did have that thing, and I didn’t, somehow I got off it. MR. LONG-I’d like to add to one of my answers as to what this building is, and this relates to the attic subject. This building has a legitimate attic that I use, it’s packed full of stuff, and would continue to be. The attic in this building is not even going to be accessible. Normal construction, and modern construction, and I’ll just show, cite as an example a house I own in Chicago that I’m going to sell to move here and build this. Above the top floor of the house the insulation is normally quite a bit higher than the joists are in the ceiling above the house, and you literally can’t walk up there, and I fully expect that to be this way. The collar ties that will tie together as trusses, the structure for the roof, the rafters and the collar ties will be at about chest level. This attic is something that I hope I never have to go into. It is not living space at all. These dormers, for what it’s worth, they are not intended to add living space. They’re solely cosmetic and they’re intended to add to the appearance of the house which otherwise would look like a great big box. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from Board members? MRS. HUNT-I have a question. What are you going to do with the basement area? MR. LONG-The basement under the garage, I would have for utilities for the house, other than the boiler, and would have for workshop. I happen to own a significant number of hobby type power tools, and that’s where they’re going to go. The rest of the basement, early on, is what normally basements are in a house. First I have my, even though we’re going to do the best we can, I hope I don’t put much of anything in there until I’m sure it’s dry. Like on a day like today I hope it’s dry, but I have to consolidate the furnishings of three houses, 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) and a lot of the spare material is going to be stored there until we sort out what’s going to go on, and then after that probably toys for grandchildren would be located in the basement. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other questions from members of the Board? All right. I’m going to now ask Board members to offer their comments. I would like to respectfully remind them that any position that we take must be based on the regulatory review criteria of our laws, and not simply on subjective preferences or perhaps not liking a particular project. So, may I start with Mr. Rigby, please. MR. RIGBY-Well, my initial reaction from the public comment tonight and from just looking at everything, it looks like a lot of house. It really does. It’s a large building. There’s a lot of feedback coming from the neighbors and LGA and the Water Keeper saying that it’s just a lot of house, that’s my initial feeling. My initial reaction. A couple of things that I don’t have is I don’t have a north elevation so I don’t really know what the north elevation is. I know we talked about it a little bit, but the other thing I think about a little bit is the basement. I don’t really know, I think we’re saying that the basement can’t possibly be living space, and I think that’s what the Zoning Administrator has said. Is that true, Susan? MRS. BARDEN-We got this basement plan today, and the Zoning Administrator did look at it and thinks that it shouldn’t be included in the Floor Area Ratio, and the relief sought stands. However, we won’t really be able to tell until a building permit has been applied for, to see what’s actually going on there. MR. RIGBY-So I guess I’d like to see a basement plan, too. MR. LONG-Sir, we were requested that only a couple of days ago, and we did submit a north elevation and a basement plan, but very recently, and I suspect copies did not get distributed to you folks. MR. RIGBY-No, we didn’t get that. MRS. BARDEN-Today we got them. MR. RIGBY-The other thing, the other comment, I’m just thinking out loud, the other comment you had made was that the house would be in full compliance if the tree were taken down and if it were in the center of the lot and if the storage building were removed. MR. LONG-Yes. MR. RIGBY-And you wouldn’t even be here for a variance. MR. LONG-That’s correct. MR. RIGBY-So that’s the other side of the thing I’m struggling with in my mind. I mean, you could always say, I’m going to take down the storage building. I’m going to remove the tree. I’m going to build the house. I mean, so I’m looking at that side of it, too. MR. LONG-Sir, but that, to me, is a worse solution than what I’m proposing. Otherwise, I assure you I wouldn’t be here. MR. RIGBY-Yes, right. So I guess I haven’t formulated an opinion yet, but those are the things I’m thinking about, and I’m going to listen to the rest of the Board. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. We’ll get back to you. Mr. Underwood, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it’s important when we get these cases before us, especially on these smaller lots up on the lake, that we really think about what the implications are, and I think that, you know, as you suggested when you walked in and handed us these pictures, a picture is worth a 1,000 words, and just to sum it up, if you look at the house next door, the large one that was built, that was built and it came in at 3,130 square feet, and what you’re proposing here is almost 1,000 square feet more because you’re building that big garage in the back. I think, you know, you are going to have a full cellar under there. It would be just beyond belief that you weren’t going to use it if you were going to include all those pretty windows that you’re going to have along the base there, and whether you call it living space or not is immaterial. It will be used as living space, I’m sure, I mean, that’s just human 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) nature. You wouldn’t not use your cellar if it was adequate. I think it’s important for us, and the key issue here tonight before us is that, you know, where you’re proposing to build the house, the setbacks from the lake, I don’t really have a problem with that, because I think that’s about what you have with your neighbors that built the bigger house to the other side of you there, and I think it would be crazy for us to set you back further so you wouldn’t have a view, and as mentioned, you do have the boathouses in front that block your view, so you do need a side view if you want to see the lake at all, but I do have serious questions about the combining of the two lots, one on one side of the road, one on the other side of the road. I think that’s a dangerous place to go to at this point in time. I think that would open up a big can of worms all over the lake, and, you know, it’s not realistic to me to consider the building that’s going to be built on this lot, in whatever form it finally takes shape. It should be built based upon what the lake front property is. It has nothing to do with what’s on the back lot there. I think it’s a plus for you that you can put your septic system back there. That is a bonus, and then as far as keeping the building in the back for your furnace room and things like that, I mean, I think that’s a reasonable request, as you suggested what your reasons were for that, but I still think that the house is way over sized for the lot. Again, if you compare it to the big one that was built to the other side of you, it’s well over 1,000 square feet larger than that. Including some cellar space as usable space, as a workshop down there, I mean, that suggests to me that you’re utilizing that space, and you can argue the point in court over whether it’s living space. That’s fine, but it is coming in as a very large house on a very small lot, and I think, as it’s proposed, it’s much, too much, and I don’t think that we would be correct in approving it as suggested to us here this evening. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Underwood. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Well, this is one of these that’s difficult to sort everything out on. My initial reaction was like that of many other public commenter’s, wow, it’s way too much house for that lot, but I think we have to rely on the facts and the Zoning Administrator apparently has determined that combining with the other lot across the road is a proper procedure. On the one hand, it’s putting a lot of house on a lakeside lot. On the other hand, it’s precluding development on the other lot. So there is some tradeoff. I don’t think it’s an even tradeoff, but there is some benefit that it does eliminate a building on the other lot. I, too, am concerned about the basement, whether it’s the applicant’s intention or whether it’s the person that buys the place from them somewhere down the line, I think there’s a real potential for that, at least the lakeside portion of that basement, to be developed into living space, whether it’s a kid’s playroom or whatever. It may not meet the definition the way it’s planned now, but I think there’s a potential. So that concerns me. I’m not sure what we do about it, other than rely on, again, the Zoning Administrator’s determination, but, saying all that, I guess that I can understand the proposal for keeping part of the small old garage, and I don’t want to get into architectural plans or building plans. That’s not our job. It strikes me as reasonable, but whatever you want to do with that. I think the idea of trying to save that older tree, if you can do it, and take heed of what the public comment was about cutting the roots and that can be a real dangerous thing with trying to save an old tree if you let somebody go around and either pile dirt around it or cut dirt away from it, you’re going to kill the tree. So that’s going to be a real job to protect that tree, but I’m in favor of that. So I guess where I come down is I would be willing to grant the side setback. I can see the justification for it. The neighbor next door doesn’t have a problem. It’s kind of a compromise. You both put your house close to that lot line and keep green space on the other side, but given that it is a lot of house for that lakefront lot, I think everything else should comply. So I would be against granting the variance for the Floor Area Ratio, and I would be against granting the variance for the shoreline setback. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. McNulty. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-As it’s been stated, this is a difficult one to get your hands around, but if you look at the size of the house, in comparison to the space that it’s going to be sitting on, I’m saying space, not lot, then it’s apparent to me that it doesn’t belong there. When I look at the criteria, I see a benefit that can be achieved by the applicant through another feasible means, probably a smaller house. As far as an undesirable change in the neighborhood, I guess that’s a matter of opinion whether that will be an undesirable change, but I think a big house on what normally would be smaller lots, or are smaller lots, certainly would not necessarily be in character with the neighborhood. It’s at least 1,000 square feet bigger than the house next door to it, and that’s certainly pretty big itself. The third one is whether the request is substantial, and it’s not substantial if you look at it on paper, but if you look at it in reality, I think that it leads me to the adverse environmental effects. We hear a lot of 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) people talk about open space, something that’s a concern within this Town. I hear it from people when I’m not sitting on this Board, and I’ve heard it in meetings, public focus groups as well, and I think open space, to me, when you sit this house on the lakeside property, will overwhelm that property, and I think defeats the intention of what the Floor Area Ratio is there for, which is to mitigate the size of the house versus the size of the property, and, yes, you technically can hook the property in there, but it’s still going to overwhelm that space, and I think this is self-created. So I would be against this. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Urrico. Mrs. Hunt, please. MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I have to agree with Mr. Urrico. It’s too much house for the space, and I have concerns about the basement being used as living space, and the comment that it could be built without a variance if you removed that storage building means that you’re considering the two lots as one, and I can’t get past that. It’s just too much house for that lot, and I don’t think your model helped you at all, because it just hits you there’s very little space left after the house is put there. I think it would change the character of the neighborhood. The house next door is excessively large for the property, and yours is going to be 1,000 feet more, or more than 1,000 feet more. I think you could achieve this by a smaller structure, and I do think an undesirable change in the neighborhood would occur. It’s a substantial request. I would be against it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Stone, please. MR. STONE-Well, a couple of comments. One, and I do apologize for going off about the thing. I did have them. They were over here, but it does raise a question that I didn’t ask. I would ask about the elevation. You say it’s 28 feet from that extended patio, but not the ground level immediately adjacent to the building, and that’s how we measure height. If you look at the Code, it’s a sliding, it’s got to be 28 feet everywhere along the ground, and I think it’s a little more at the front end, but, having said that, you’re correct that you could build without a variance, but you’re asking for something. Therefore, it’s up to us to make the decision. I mean, we could say, you could say, I’m going to build it and we would say, fine, be our guest, but I’m concerned with the lake setback. I’m concerned with the back lot used as a calculating tool. I do applaud the idea of putting in a new septic system. I mean, that’s always good, and that’s one of the good things about building new houses on both Assembly Point and Cleverdale because we do get compliant septic systems out of it, and I think that’s good, but as Mr. McNulty said, he has no problem with the north side setback, and I don’t, either, but the other two things, the lake setback, the massiveness of the house, this is a small lot. There is no way to get around that. It’s a big house, and therefore the way the application is right now, I would have to vote no overall but I certainly could go along with the side setback. MR. ABBATE-I’d like to get back to Mr. Rigby, if I may, please. MR. RIGBY-Well, it doesn’t matter what I think anymore, but I’d have to go along with the rest of the Board as well. MR. ABBATE-All right. That’s fair enough. MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, at this point I’d like to ask to table. We will take all the comments into consideration and decide what to do. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I generally agree with what the other Board members have to say. However, this is what I’m going to offer you. It appear, and it’s obvious that, at the present time, you’re not going to have any support for your appeal, and I’m going to provide you certainly with every opportunity for a fair and impartial hearing. That’s how we operate. So I’m going to offer you three options. The first option I’m going to offer you is that you table your appeal for the next available date. The second option would be your decision to withdraw your appeal, and the third option would be that we continue to hear your appeal and we go to a vote. Now, Counselor, you know the choice is yours and only yours to decide. You have a right to reject any of the suggestions that I’ve just made without prejudice. So I would ask you for a decision. MR. LAPPER-Door Number One, please. MR. STONE-That’s what he said before you started, Chuck. 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) MR. ABBATE-I’m a stickler for procedure. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-2006 GARY & LINDA LONG, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 268 Cleverdale Road, for a hearing on the 15 of March, and also Counsel should provide, no th later than the 15 of February, the appropriate modification documentations to Staff. th Duly adopted this 18 day of January, 2006, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. ABBATE-The vote to table Area Variance No. 1-2006 is seven in favor, zero against. The motion is carried. Area Variance No. 1-2006 is tabled for the 15 of March 2006 hearing, th and the public hearing will remain open. AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-2006 SEQRA TYPE II SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES, INC. AGENT(S): J. LAPPER, ESQ. AND TOM NACE OWNER(S): SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES, INC. ZONING PO LOCATION GURNEY LANE & WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT 92 TOWNHOUSE APARTMENTS WITH ASSOCIATED UTILITIES, ROADS, PARKING, AND SITE WORK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. SPR PZ 6-2003 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 11, 2006 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY N/A LOT SIZE 0.90 ACES, 16.12 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.00-1-63 SECTION 179-4-040 JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 2-2006, Schermerhorn Properties, Inc., Meeting Date: January 18, 2006 “Project Location: Gurney Lane & West Mountain Road Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes a 92-unit multi-family housing project, specifically, 6 apartment buildings with 8-units apiece and 11 townhouse buildings with 4-units apiece. Associated parking is proposed at 197 spaces total. Relief Required: Relief is requested for additional parking spaces in excess of the required 138 spaces for the 92-units (1.5 spaces per dwelling unit in the PO zone). The request is for 197 spaces total, this is 43% over the required 138. “No use may provide parking in excess of 20% over the amount specified in this section.” 20% of 138 is 27 spaces, totaling 165 spaces. Therefore, the relief is for 32 additional spaces beyond the 20% overage of 165, for a total of the 197 requested. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 72-2005: Site plan review for the project is pending (1/24/06 PB mtg.). Staff comments: The applicant stresses the point in the application that two parking spaces per dwelling unit is a necessity. Two spaces per dwelling unit is 184 spaces, 13 spaces less than requested. The required interior parking lot landscaping is not shown. Trees must be provided at a minimum average density of one shade tree for each 15 parking spaces, per §179-8-040. An alternative to the proposed layout would be to locate the parking areas toward the rear of the site with the buildings facing or concentrated closer to West Mountain Road. This layout, 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) combined with a substantial vegetative buffer in the rear, may lessen noise and light pollution from the Northway.” MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form January 11, 2006 Project Name: Schermerhorn Properties, Inc. Owner(s): Schermerhorn Properties, Inc. ID Number: QBY-06-AV-2 County Project#: Jan06-24 Current Zoning: PO Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to construct 92 Townhouse apartments with associated utilities, roads, parking, and site work. Relief requested from maximum parking requirements. Site Location: Gurney Lane & West Mountain Road Tax Map Number(s): 288.00-1-63 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to construct 92 Townhouse/apartments with associated utilities, roads, parking, and site work. Relief requested from maximum parking requirements. The applicant is proposing 197 parking spaces where the code allows 138 parking spaces. The information submitted indicates the applicants experience with this type of project shows two parking spaces for each unit is necessary. The plans show 6 buildings with 8 apartment units each, and 11 buildings with 4 Townhouses each. The project site is 16.54 acres. Staff recommends discussion with the site plan. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve Warren County Planning Board recommends Approval based on the information provided by the applicant’s representative and file information.” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 1/17/06. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I see that Counsel and his client are at the table. Would you be kind enough to speak into the microphone and for the record identify yourself, your place of residence and what relationship you have with this appeal, Counselor. MR. LAPPER-Jon Lapper and Rich Schermerhorn. RICH SCHERMERHORN MR. SCHERMERHORN-Hi. Rich Schermerhorn. MRS. HUNT-Excuse me. I’m acquainted with Mr. Schermerhorn. I have no problem reaching a decision. If you have a problem, I will recuse myself. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Of course not. MR. ABBATE-For the record, you have no problem? MR. SCHERMERHORN-No problem. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, very much. Mr. Schermerhorn, your address, please. MR. SCHERMERHORN-79 Masters Common North, Queensbury. MR. ABBATE-All right. Mr. Schermerhorn, proceed. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I guess I just want to start by saying that I’ve been in front of this Board before a couple of times for past projects for parking. I certainly have knowledge and experience of what works best. It definitely is as preferred method if I can get the additional parking that’s requested. Number Two, as far as Staff comments go, the interior parking lot landscaping, I certainly will comply with that under site plan review. I apologize for that not being on there, and as far as Number Three, I take a great deal of time before I come in front of any Board for any application and before I even go to contract on a lot of purchases that I make. I did sit down with Planning Staff and specifically went over this application, not only as far as the zoning goes, the requirements, character of neighborhood, bike path, commercial corridors, traffic, everything. I spend a lot of time before I even get to application point. So I just want to state that on Number Three, this Staff comment is just a little bit a surprise to me. I’m not saying that I can’t accommodate in some way, but Number Three is not one that I was prepared for. MR. ABBATE-For the record, Mr. Schermerhorn, what is Number Three? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Number Three just says an alternate to the proposed layout would be to locate the parking areas towards the rear of the site. 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. SCHERMERHORN-That’s all, but that’s all for now. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Do any of the Board members have any questions for Mr. Schermerhorn? If so, would you please raise those questions. MR. UNDERWOOD-In looking at the plans, I would have to agree with you. Putting the parking behind doesn’t make sense, because then you’ve got to drive past where everybody lives every time go in and out, and, you know, that doesn’t really sway with me, either. I would think that you would want to keep the housing as far away from West Mountain Road as you would want. My other concern would be, you know, in reviewing the plan, it seems awful dense as far as the total number of units on the lot, and, I mean, that’s a Planning Board issue. It’s not really our purview, but, you know, in looking at it, I was looking at the amount of blacktopping that would be necessary to accommodate all that parking, and I’m just wondering, I mean, I’m sure that the break even point for you, as far as the number of housing units that you need to do on the project, but I’m just wondering if it could be shrunk down somewhat, if that would lower you down a little bit. MR. SCHERMERHORN-That’s certainly always an option on any application. Just based on the calculations and the way the zoning is now, it does allow me almost 126 units. So, if you look at the plan, there was very little wetlands, but if we take the square footage, divide it by the 5,000 square foot per dwelling unit, I think it was roughly 126, actually, it was 138 units. I was being conservative. So I’ve been in front of these Boards for the last 17 years, and I know that if, regardless of what zoning calls for, I’ve learned not to maximize the site. So I did back it to 92 units. MR. UNDERWOOD-The other thing was there was a letter included in the file that was requesting that there wasn’t going to be any kind of a playground if kids were living there, I think. Is there going to be any kind of contingency for open space there? Because I just wondered about that. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. My past experience with these projects are liability becomes a big issue with children on swing sets and slides and all those things, and I just simply made a proposal to the Queensbury Rec Department, Steve Lovering, and approximate playground set is roughly $10,000 per complex. So what I did is I offered $10,000 in lieu of buying the equipment that you could put into the Rec Fund for the Gurney Lane facility, possibly, which is right down the road. Also, under the multi-family zoning, it’s $500 per dwelling unit. So I’ll also be paying $500 times 92 units. So $46,000. So, it’s a substantial amount. Mr. Lovering, there’s the letter, you probably saw it. He’s in favor of it, if that’s the course that the Planning Board’s in favor of it. I also did, I am trying to help, I guess accomplish a mission that Mr. Strough, Mr. Boor, and some of the other Board members have set out to continue the bike path from the Rush Pond corridor. I have showed that on the plan. It doesn’t mean that that couldn’t be changed around a little bit, but that is on there, and that’s some of the recreation that I’m offering, but certainly if they said they didn’t want my money and they wanted the $10,000, that is, I could put the swing set back in. MR. UNDERWOOD-The only other thing I would ask is, you know, it’s not our purview, but I mean, it’s just something to throw out there, but every unit is on a separate septic, and I’m wondering, has that worked? I mean, is that what you usually do with your big apartments? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Actually, some of the larger apartment complexes I have that are on septic systems, we actually have where sometimes there’d be two and three units on one septic tank. I made it, asked my engineer if he could make it where every unit has their own septic tank. Usually what fails, it’s not the leach fields, the septic tanks get plugged up because people put things in there that they shouldn’t be putting in. So now, by doing a single tank, which costs me as a developer more money, but now we have pulled that lid off. We know that it went to Mr. so and so or Mrs. so and so. So we can at least say, look, this was your tank. This was what caused the problem, but the system’s very adequate. As a matter of fact, I know it’s not this Board’s review, but the soil tests that we did on this, the percolation is very good, which actually it’s too good that we actually have to slow the soils down, if you can believe it, to slow the percolation rate down. So, my experience with the septics, we’ve had no problem. Again, it’s just maintenance. 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) MR. STONE-So you have a management plan for pumping? I mean, is that part of what you offer? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. All management, for all my apartment houses are, you know, managed out of my office, which of course I’m in charge of with other people that work with me. We typically pump them every two years. Now, I guess they recommend every year, but some people go five years. MR. STONE-You can do get any number you want. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. We basically pump them every two years, and we send out fliers to people and we have, at pre-lease signings, we just ask them to please be respectful of the system, and we basically tell them we know, if your system backs up, we tell them we’re going to know because we can uncover your tank. MR. MC NULTY-I’d like to get back, really, to what we’re supposed to be dealing with tonight, which is parking spaces, and I guess two questions, one of which I think I know the answer to, but am I correct if I say that what you’re saying is there’s going to be at least 184 cars parked on that property, and the only real question is do they get parked on the grass or do they get parked on pavement? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, again, from my experience, you have 92 units. Technically, every homeowner, unless you’re a single person, which I do get a lot of single people. They’re going to have one car, but typically most people today have two cars, and then of course if you have visitors, and it’s not so much I guess, you know, if it’s holiday times, you do get people that will park on the grass. So, I mean, I’m not in favor of, I mean, it costs money to add more parking spaces and larger parking lots, but I’m also realistic. I know what works at this point, and I just feel it’s. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. So you’re saying basically on average it’s two vehicles per unit? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. MR. MC NULTY-And they’re going to get parked somewhere. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Then leading from that, a question that Staff had in here. You’re requesting a total of 197 spaces, but you’ve got 92 units, and two times 92 comes out 184. Why the difference? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, just because we threw some in there for guest parking. I mean, I certainly can back it off if you’d like, that’s not a problem, but it’s just a number that, you know, after we did the layout of each particular four unit townhouse and then did the garden style rotating parking lot on the other area, it’s just some extra parking that I thought would be valuable. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. MR. LAPPER-I also want to point out that the permeable area, when you look at the whole thing in terms of how it impacts the site, the permeable area is 73.7%, when 30 is required. So in terms of green space, it’s so far above what is required, it’s not that the parking has an impact. It just gets back to Queensbury wants to be careful not to have parking that’s not needed, and Rich feels it’s needed. MR. STONE-Are you going to do a lot of leveling on this property? There’s a big gully in the middle, isn’t there? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, and actually if you look at the plan, what we tried to do is, there’s going to be some grading, but where the garden style apartments are, there’s four of them that are clustered in a row. That’s going to kind of fit into the old sand and gravel pit that used to be there years ago. The other part of the site is fairly level. The only grading really will be to cut down, cut the road in, but no, to answer your question, there’s not a significant amount of earthwork. 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) MR. URRICO-You said you’ve had experience with this four. Can you give us an example of homes, apartments that you’ve built that maybe have not had enough? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, actually for a couple of applications, the recent one, which North Brook, on Meadowbrook, the newer development, that was 128 units, that’s one that the Board, a couple of years ago, I think I came in and I got the variance for, and the Hiland Springs apartment complex, the one on Meadowbrook, that’s 120, and that’s one where I requested the variance and it’s worked very well. I mean, there are times you drive by and you do see a lot of empty spots as well, but there’s other times that they’re being used. MR. URRICO-Do you know what the average is? I mean, is there a prescribed number of spaces that you look toward? I mean, there must be studies done as to how many spaces you need per townhouse as opposed to apartment. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, generally a rule of thumb, minimum, two, because like I said, everyone seems to have two cars, but if you take one single individual, that has one car, but if they have one guest over, boyfriend, girlfriend, son, daughter, they need an additional parking spot for their guest. So, I mean, two is the absolute minimum, I would think, for anybody. I don’t care if it’s me or anybody, but the numbers I’ve chosen seem to work well. MR. URRICO-I would think one and a half is sort of an average, that counts for those that have one car and those that have two. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s a PO, though. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. MR. URRICO-I have a question of Chuck. Are we putting the cart before the horse? If this goes to the Planning Board, and the number of units changes, would that not affect the number of spaces we’re going to be asking for? MR. ABBATE-Possibly. MR. LAPPER-Well, let me answer that. We can’t go to the Planning Board and ask for the site plan as it is without having the variance, because it would not be compliant with zoning. Your resolution could say that if fewer units were approved, then the parking space would be proportionally reduced, but this was granted for the last two that Rich did, and they’ve been successful. MR. ABBATE-Now, Counselor, hang on, Counselor, we could refer this to the Planning Board for a site plan review, and request it to be sent back to us. We can do that. MR. LAPPER-Right. We would ask that you not. MR. ABBATE-Of course you’re asking that we do not, but just to make you aware of the fact that we could. MR. MC NULTY-The other thing we could do, if we were inclined to approve, would be to approve on the basis of two parking spaces per unit. MR. STONE-Sure. MR. MC NULTY-Which then would automatically adjust depending upon what the Planning Board. MR. ABBATE-Yes, it makes sense to me. MR. STONE-Are these two bedroom units? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, and I can, going back to the parking, you did, on the last application, on North Brook, I believe you did condition it per the Planning Board approval and the application. MR. ABBATE-Yes, we did, you’re absolutely correct. 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) MR. SCHERMERHORN-Which I understand. MR. STONE-Sure. MR. ABBATE-And I have a little note to that effect as well. MR. URRICO-The apartment units are also two bedroom? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, two bedrooms. MR. URRICO-Thank you. MR. STONE-And these are all rentals? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, they are, and, again, I guess it’s not what the Board discussed, but the elevations, if you’re wondering, it’s going to be the buildings that I did over at Hiland Park on the golf course. MR. ABBATE-Any other questions or comments? I just have a comment, and this is certainly no indication of how I feel about the application, but I must tell you, Mr. Schermerhorn, that I am impressed with your willingness to not only work with the Town, but your willingness to expend up to $56,000 in the best interests of the community. Now, for what it’s worth, it’s on the record, and I said that, but that’s no indication of how I will vote. All right, now, let me move on and open up the public hearing, if I may, and would those wishing to be heard, please approach the table, speak into the microphone, and for the record identify yourself and place of residence for Area Variance No. 2-2006. Yes, sir, you’re the first one. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BOB FALLMANN MR. FALLMANN-My name is Bob Fallmann. I live on Gurney Lane, 346 Gurney Lane, and I have with me tonight a petition from all the people in, not all the people, but from 45 of the people in that area against this variance and against the project as a whole. If I might, may I read it? MR. ABBATE-You certainly may. Before you start, when you’re finished reading it, would you be kind enough to give it to the Secretary so that we may enter it into the record, please? MR. FALLMANN-Sure will. “We, the residents of Gurney Lane, West Mountain Road, Old West Mountain Road, Bell Mountain Road, Buckbee Road and Lewis Road strongly and respectfully encourage the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to deny the variance request, Area Variance No. 2-2006, presently under consideration for that section of West Mountain Road where it meets Gurney Lane. We are seriously concerned that the construction of a townhouse complex situated in such close proximity to the Gurney Lane, West Mountain Road, Old West Mountain Road, Rte. 149, I-87 Exit 20 and Route 9 interchange will only serve to exacerbate the growing problem of traffic congestion. This congestion has resulted in recent years from the increasing and unrelenting amount of traffic generated by inter-state travel, the Route 9 factor outlet stores, and the continued expansion and on-going construction of The Great Escape & Splashwater Kingdom. We are also concerned that a variance which will allow for multi-family residential units in this area of Queensbury will violate the intended short term use of this property, property originally designated single family residential. The construction of an apartment complex certainly does not support the purpose this property was intended to serve when it was re-zoned Professional Office Space as recently as 2002. Furthermore, we are gravely concerned that the construction and existence of 92 townhouse apartments at the intersection of Gurney Lane West Mountain Road will alter for all time the distinctly scenic and rural character of this section of Queensbury. There are few sections remaining in the Town of Queensbury which have retained this character and Exit 20 of the Adirondack Northway is the only one of three exits within the Town of Queensbury which has not been developed. We feel that it is not only in our best interests, but in the interest of all Queensbury residents to protect and preserve this section of Queensbury from the unchecked construction of apartment complexes which is spreading inexorably across the Town’s landscape.” And if I may add a few personal opinions, this project is right at the entrance to our neighborhood. It’s a neighborhood that is one acre 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) zoning, always has been one acre zoning, and in 2002 they kind of slid this zoning by us to make it Professional Office building. The area, it’s one parcel of property, one land, one owner, and the area around that is all one acre residential and five acre residential. This is a green area of the Town, the only one that really hasn’t been disturbed by commercial building, and when you go across that Northway, I think it should retain that same character. I don’t want to go across that Northway and see a Wal-Mart parking lot there full of cars. I don’t think that’s appropriate for the area, and I hope you’ll see it our way, too. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. Would you give that to our Secretary, please. Do we have anyone else in the audience who’d like to address Area Variance No. 2-2006? May I see a hand, please. Yes, ma’am, please. Speak into the microphone and identify yourself and your address, please. LENORE GUAY MRS. GUAY-Hi. My name is Lenore Guay, and I live at 1226 West Mountain Road. I know what’s before the Board is the parking spots, not necessarily the whole project in general. My concern with so many spots is the additional traffic that would occur on West Mountain Road. My understanding is that the driveway will be out on West Mountain Road. Currently that, like the gentleman before me stated that this is a scenic area. When we have the Americade in Town, we have all the motorcyclists that take Route 9. They get off the highway because it’s too dangerous, along with the old, antique cars that also come through that area. It is an extremely high traffic area. I’ve been there since 1994, and continue to watch it increase yearly. I have two young children. I am concerned about their safety. That’s 50 miles an hour on that road, and that’s awful fast for that amount of traffic. So my concern is the safety issue, not just for drivers, but pedestrians, bicyclists. It’s a very, very high bicycle route. So it’s a danger. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Do we have any other public comments on Area Variance No. 2-2006? Yes, sir, please. DAVID BRUNO MR. BRUNO-David Bruno, 119 Gurney Lane. Number One, the undesirable change in the neighborhood. I think that the impact of 92 townhouses, 184 parking spaces, and increased traffic is certainly negative impact, the seeing as the Zoning Board has previously seen fit to zone this area one acre, five acre, and in specific behind that LC-42. Obviously we have some sensitive areas there, and I think that’s an undesirable change to allow this. Benefit achieved, I think there are plenty of other areas in this Town that are being developed faster than the Texas grass fire, that this is not one area that needs to fall under that process. I think the intent of the zoning originally in that area was to keep it rural. The corridor has been designated a scenic roadway, Gurney Lane and West Mountain Road, and I think the intent of that was wonderful, and we need to preserve that in the Town of Queensbury going forward. Number Three, I think 25% increase in the parking is a substantial variance. PO is 1.5. He wants to go to two. That’s easy math I think, 25% is a significant change in the, a substantial variance. Adverse effect, impact on the surrounding area, I live right across the street from the Gurney Lane park. I applaud his offer of money to the park. I wish I had the money to throw at it also. Unfortunately, I don’t have that wherewithal, but that being said, the increased traffic, if you live across there, I’ve had more than one instance where cars have coming out, egress from the park have swerved onto my lawn to avoid on-coming traffic. You increase that traffic by 197 potential cars, I think we have a significant potential for more accidents than that are occurring there presently, and finally, I don’t, obviously this is zoned PO, and the purpose that the developer is looking for is definitely a self-created difficulty because he’s looking to get something developed that it was not intentionally zoned for, although it can be used under the site plan review. So I think on all five points it’s a negative effect on the area. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Do we have any other members of the public who wish to address Area Variance No. 2-2006? Yes, ma’am, please. KATHY FRANKLIN MRS. FRANKLIN-Thank you. I’m Kathy Franklin. I live at 1232 West Mountain Road. I’m an adjoining landowner. I was not served any kind of notice about this meeting. I don’t 48 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) know why that was. I didn’t notice any notices on the property, and then someone pointed out an eight and a half by eleven sheet of red paper, 40 feet up the bank through the snow, which also I guess was notice of this particular meeting and this change. There’s no site plan on that. We’ve sat here for three hours and we’ve seen pretty close details of the house on Lake George, but I have yet to see a plan of these 92 units. I think that’s kind of ridiculous. Mr. Schermerhorn’s idea of putting two parking spaces for every car makes perfectly, absolute sense. I have absolutely no quarrel with the small part of this thing. In fact, I think it shows that he has a certain amount of real experience with the problems or the needs of people living, but when this was re-zoned Professional Office, it was re-zoned at a meeting that was called to review a 14 building plan, 14 residences, which was tabled by the Planning Board, not by the applicant. It wasn’t tabled. It was, how did they put it, the Town became the applicant, and asked for a re-zoning, based on the fact that we have way too much residential building going on in this area, and we need more commercial, potential commercial space to bring in revenues for the Town. This is what the argument was. I think it was a bad argument, to a large degree, and I came, as an adjoining neighbor, to back up Mr. Meath’s proposal to put 14 houses there. Fourteen houses is in keeping with our neighborhood, which is a neighborhood of single family homes with a certain amount of space between them. If somebody proposed a rental building of 25 units, I probably wouldn’t be feeling the way I feel right now, but we’ve gone from one building per acre to 92 units on a corner that is incredibly busy, and it’s nice to send the kids up to Gurney Lane, but how are they going to get there, and in how many pieces are they going to be when they arrive up at the recreation area? Are you going to put in sidewalks? We don’t have sidewalks here. I’m very upset, and I’m more upset about the way this whole thing got slid around. At the last meeting where it turned into Professional Office building, which apparently includes everything from fruit stands, cemeteries, to nursery schools, and now 92 and potentially I think he said he could have put in 138 unit apartment buildings. What kind of zoning is that? What does zoning mean? Doesn’t zoning mean we have a use? Because we think that this part of an area has a character or has a historical use or has a better use for the whole community? Isn’t that what zoning is? So I don’t understand the whole Professional Office building thing to begin with, but, you know, I have absolutely no idea why, as an adjoining land owner, I was not served with a notice of this meeting. MR. ABBATE-I will assure you I intend to address that issue tomorrow morning at eight a.m. You have my word. MRS. FRANKLIN-That sounds good. Thank you, and again, I haven’t even seen a copy of the plan. I haven’t any idea what he’s really proposing. It’s nice to hear that he doesn’t want to cut down the bank and he wants to nestle the four townhouses in the barrel of the old quarry. That’s encouraging to me, especially because since there is a difference in the zoning between residential and Professional Office building, you’re not allowed to take down any topographical barriers, but the whole way this whole thing has come about is extremely disturbing, because I always felt like this was a fairly small community that had a fair amount of fair play, and I don’t feel that way anymore. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Yes, sir, please. Identify yourself and your place of residence, please, sir. RICHARD LINKE, JR. MR. LINKE-My name is Richard Linke and I live at 214 Gurney Lane, and I’m sick about the whole thing. I think the re-zoning up here is horribly sketchy, distrustful, and I’m really angry. I’ve been before Boards like this since the early 60’s. Repeatedly, over and over and over again, it was determined that the zoning should be, you know, residential, and that it should be open green space, that this is the gateway to, you know, the first thing that a lot of people see when they come to Queensbury, and I would like to speak about just the visual aspects for a moment. I’m a Professor of Art down at Skidmore College and about 25 years ago I moved up to Queensbury to build a beautiful house in a beautiful location that had visual appeal, and everyone talks about wetlands, and I see lawyers talking and money talking, and I just think, what about the visual resource that we have in Queensbury, and all of the lip service that we hear about it, and yet somehow, through what appears, you know, unless somebody would like to explain how it really happened, very sketchy maneuvering to get this thing going in a density that none of the Town Planners in the past ever expressed, in fact, voted against, and all of a sudden, here we are looking at this massive amount of density, and I agree the joke about Gurney Lane recreation area, you can’t put a sidewalk up there. There’s no way that children could get from that corner across the fifty mile an hour highway 49 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) up to the Gurney Lane pool, and I really, the more I heard people talk and the defense and explanation about the parking spaces, you know, well, are we going to let them park on the lawn, and I think one of the members here said, well, it’s either going to be parking on the lawn, or it’s going to be blacktop, and getting back to the visual appeal, in fact, I avoid this intersection of Queensbury now because of these rows and rows and rows of apartments over here, and just ugly rows, and then all of the parking, it looks like, and all of these multi- colored cars, it looks like a used parking lot, and I’m just dead set against, and I think that if there’s a problem and if the law has gone through and somehow has allowed this thing to happen, and they’re talking about parking spaces, well, reduce the number of units and reduce it way, way, way back. All it is in wanting more units is more greed and what’s happening is the visual, well, look at Route 9. Look at what has already happened to Queensbury and we’re going to have more? Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Yes, sir, please. WILSON MATHIAS MR. MATHIAS-My name is Wilson Mathias. I reside at 14 Lewis Road, which is north of the project. I’m opposed to it strenuously. I think this Board is in a very difficult position. If I were an advocate for the applicant, I’d say, gee, the neighbors have some concerns that are obvious. It’s an emotional issue for them, but, folks, you’re acting in a quasi-judicial function. You’re a Board and you need to act like judges and you have to look at the legal issues here, and the legal issue is whether or not my client is entitled to an Area Variance, which we know isn’t impossible to get. I, as a lawyer, know that it’s not impossible to get, and I know that you grant them, but I’d ask that you, as part of your determinations, judicially, take into consideration the arguments that have been made that don’t deal specifically with the variance issue. One, obviously, aesthetics, and Professor Linke has pointed that out, and I’d point out to you that his mom owned the house across the road from him, in the 60’s, and that’s why he’s been going to meetings of the Town Board to say, don’t zone this anything but residential. I mean, traditionally, just for a moment, that’s what this property has been zoned since the 1960’s, until 2002, and what was put out to the residents, or the area residents, was that, oh, this is going to be Professional Offices, and isn’t that better than having gas stations or strip malls or something else, and choosing between two evils you’d say, yes, that’s okay, but this isn’t a Professional Office building that’s used Monday through Friday nine through five. We’re talking about people living there, and a lot of people living there. Before the 2002 zoning, 17 units, 92 are going to go in there, and Mr. Schermerhorn tells us that actually he could have put in 138 if he wanted to push the envelope. I mean, I think that that’s an incredible increase in density and an incredible change in the character of the neighborhood, whether or not the Town Board zoned it that way or not, and that, I believe, is a factor that you must take into consideration that impact, and I think you can deny this variance, say no. That’s really what we’re asking to do, and I think there’s basis for that. It’s not just the aesthetics. Obviously, it’s in proximity to a Critical Environmental Area. I’m sort of surprised. I know that one of the ladies didn’t receive notice, and I think that’s a defect. Whether she chooses to press that, I don’t know, but I’m surprised that nothing was read into the record with respect to Warren County Planning Board’s review of this project. My understanding was that the County had some concerns about that, specifically traffic. Now maybe I’m wrong, and maybe they didn’t provide that to you and maybe they gave that to the Planning Board instead, but I think that’s a big issue. I think you need a traffic study here, because you’ve got 184 cars coming and most of them are going to be heading north on West Mountain Road and then east on 149 and then onto the Northway exit, and I can tell you anecdotally, because I drive down that road every day, that there is, in the morning, there is a back up on Exit 20, people traveling on the Northway, traveling south. They get off the exit at 20. They come to the stop sign and they have to take a left, and they can’t do it because a lot of cars are going, you know, funneling by them, and then the cars go the other way, of course, the people from Vermont who want to get on the Northway. It’s really going to create, I think, a real bottleneck and a real concern that should be addressed by a traffic engineer, and I think that it just seems, from a logical standpoint, you’re talking about people who are driving 50 miles an hour on West Mountain Road. That’s what the allowed speed limit is right now. I don’t know how anybody’s going to get out of the apartment complex, at least safely, and I think that that’s a very big concern, and I think that your answer to that can be, hey, you don’t get a variance, and I appreciate your concern. 50 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Yes, ma’am, please. Staff, before the young lady comes to the table, it indicates here that it did get to the Warren County Planning January 11, 2006. Do we have the results of that? MRS. BARDEN-You don’t have that? I know it was No County Impact. MR. ABBATE-I don’t have anything, folks. MR. MC NULTY-I haven’t seen anything. MR. UNDERWOOD-There’s nothing in the file. MR. MC NULTY-A lot of times they don’t get it back to us until the very last minute. MR. ABBATE-Yes, that could very well be. It’s certainly not a reflection on you. I’m just curious whether you received anything. MRS. BARDEN-No, I know that it went, and I think that we received something. I know that it was No County Impact. MR. ABBATE-Could you have it for me tomorrow morning, when I come down? MRS. BARDEN-Sure. Most of it was, I think, focused on the site plan application. They were both forwarded to Warren County Planning Board. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Great. I’m sorry, ma’am, please. TANYA BRUNO MRS. BRUNO-That’s okay. My name is Tanya Bruno. I live at 119 Gurney Lane. There are so many things that I could comment on right now, but many of my neighbors have been succinct in what they have been wanting to say, specifically visual impact. Let me back up a little bit. A few years ago, I went to the Open Space Planning Committee Charette that was over at the Adirondack Community College, and I just want to review some of the things that many of the people in Queensbury had mentioned at that time, and that was, again, as Mr. Linke said, Queensbury is considered the foothills, the gateway to the Adirondacks. I’m not from this area. I’m from an area that is extremely populated. I moved into the area during college, chose to live here because of its beauty, because I wanted to raise my children here, and I have seen significant changes. Many of the things that the people spoke about at the Open Space Plan, one of the most significant was seeing that green as they came up the highway. One of my children commented, and I’m perhaps going out a little ways on a tangent here, but one of my children commented, when they started at The Great Escape Hotel, was that it looked like a bomb hit, and he was nine at the time. They are making, both of my children are making that comment about being concerned about our green space down at the bottom of the street. I am in the building industry. I do not have a problem with designing, building, expanding, if it is done properly, and we are seeing many areas getting into that huge urban sprawl. Queensbury is going away. What people are coming here to vacation for, to move out of the city for, that’s what it’s becoming, and people will then be moving further north, leaving us with the asphalt, and I’m just asking that the concentration that Schermerhorn is looking for, of apartment buildings, not be allowed. However we may do this, if we go specifically with what he’s looking at for the variance, in terms of the parking, no, I’m sorry, we can do that X number of parking spaces. I think it is quite ludicrous to suggest helping the community out by giving recreation equipment or whether it be something on another site, because that’s just not how the neighborhood is. Like I said, I have two children. They do not go anywhere near the road. My dogs are overweight because I do not put them outside because of that road. We have been fighting with, not fighting, we have been asking the police and the sheriff to look into the speeding that happens on that road as it is, and our road is 30 miles an hour. West Mountain is 50 miles an hour. It’s a fire access road from the west Queensbury Fire Department. You see the fire trucks going straight up there to get onto the highway should there be an accident. Again, the traffic situation. It’s horrendous. I, too, avoid going down to that area. People coming out of the Factory Outlets, it’s just horrendous, and it’s definitely not that scenic area, that one nice, I mean, the small area that’s left in Queensbury, and I ask that you look at that Open Space Plan again, see what people besides us as neighbors have said about that area. It’s true, people jog. They bike ride, carefully, I might add, but because of how beautiful it is up there, 51 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) and if that’s gone, there aren’t many areas, there really aren’t any left in Queensbury, and if we can keep it contained to certain areas that we had put forth in proposals for space planning in the Town, that would be best. Otherwise, it’s the legacy that we’re leaving, or not leaving. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Do we have any other comments from the public on Area Variance No. 2-2006? Yes, sir, please. BILL POGONOWSKI MR. POGONOWSKI-My name’s Bill Pogonowski. I live on 88 Old West Mountain Road. I just came here to listen tonight, but in listening, decided I’d come up. A couple of things to Bob, there, the first one said Wal-Mart parking lot. I like that. In the bottom of your letterhead here it says, “Home of Natural Beauty….” I don’t think that 96 apartment complexes are natural beauty. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Yes, sir. PETER BROTHERS MR. BROTHERS-Good evening. Peter Brothers, Assembly Point. I want to be very tactful in how I say what I’m going to say with regard to this proposal. I have no ill will by any means in either case. I actually do know Mr. Lapper representing people that I cross paths with, and have high regard for. So I’m not meaning to be criticism, but one thing that I think we need to look at is with regard to the 92 units. We, in Queensbury, I know, have had issues with apartments when they are built and the question begs how many extra kids are going to be placed, in that case in the Queensbury School system, and in this case it’ll be the Lake George School system, and this is the way the State law is set up where the kids that are in one area where the assessment value might be low, but then if the kids are in the same community, and you happen to live in an area with higher assessed valuation, then you are the one who unfortunately has to shoulder the burden, and in this case the 92 apartments and 92 kids, I think their tuition now in Lake George is $14,000 a year, so just over a million dollars in extra school tax liability that I’m afraid would be shifted to people with residences with higher assessed valuations, and that’s the main concern here. Now at the same time that I say that, I’m hoping that maybe with regard to, you know, what the person is wanting to do, maybe offer a different proposal. I don’t even know if this lot would be conducive to it, say, you know, commercial development such as Microsoft opening a sales office, maybe Intel is going to open a manufacturing facility or professional offices, doctors, lawyers, what have you, and that’s all I have to say. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Yes, sir, please. Would you identify yourself and your place of residence, please. DENNIS FRANKLIN MR. FRANKLIN-Dennis Franklin, I’m an adjoining landowner. I’m very upset with the way this whole thing came down, when the first proposal was for 15 townhouses and Dan Stec rammed it through everyone saying that the Town needed more tax revenue, not more houses, and they wanted to re-zone this for Professional Offices because it was near the County center, and we needed the tax revenue for the school. We reminded him that this is Lake George School, and he said, specifically, Lake George had requested Queensbury provide more commercial income for the schools. Now how we got from that to this is absolutely beyond me, and it’s not going to end here, because I just can’t believe that a government works this way, and you’ve got a fight on your hands. Am I against the apartments? I absolutely not. Am I against the parking? I think it’s appropriate. None of that is, not having a playground in an apartment? I’ve built thousands of apartments, for very many owners, but I’ve never seen one without playground areas. You’ve got a stream. You’ve got a natural area. You’ve got Rush Pond. What do you think the kids are going to do, hike up the highway to go up to Gurney Lane, or are they going to start spreading out through the neighborhood? I don’t know how this whole thing happened. This is so ill-conceived for the area. I bought that property, it was one acre zoning. I didn’t buy it to live next to 93 other people. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Do we have any other comments regarding Area Variance No. 2-2006? Yes, ma’am, please. Were you up here before? 52 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) MRS. GUAY-I was. Is that okay? MR. ABBATE-It’s certainly okay, but, guess what, you’re going to be limited to three minutes. MRS. GUAY-Okay. That’s fine. That’s okay. I’ve got just a quickie. Lenore Guay, 1226 West Mountain Road. As I’m listening to the folks and hearing kind of where they work, I work down in Albany for the State Department, and many of my co-workers are professionals, and they do come up to this area. Most of them, as I listen to them, take, they go over Corinth Mountain and they proceed down West Mountain Road, through Gurney Lane, and kind of hit the village, and then they’ll come down 9, pick back up West Mountain Road, go back over Corinth. So, of course, once again, we’re talking about keeping Queensbury green and keeping that overall appearance. So when we, and I know we’re talking parking spaces, but when we start talking parking spaces, it’s not just the parking spaces. It’s the buildings that’s going to support those parking spaces. So, once again, we’re worried about what’s going to happen with Queensbury in the future, if we start building up, especially that road, which is a known route for people that just want to cruise. It is severely going to affect Queensbury, and like one of my neighbors had said, they are going to start going farther north, which means they’re going to stay right on the Northway. They’re not going to get off at any of the exits at Queensbury, and they’ll continue north. So, that’s all I need. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. You will be limited to three minutes as well. I’ll do it in less. These are tough when you’re last. It’s much better to go first, on either side. The one thing that I want to point out is that this is a unique area. Now everybody says that. I know you hear it all the time, but it is, if you think about it. Think about the area on the four corners, theoretically, of the other two Northway exits. Look at 18, what’s there. I mean, it’s all built up. There’s a cemetery. I guess you call that green space, but it’s nothing but commercial there, and obviously 19 is unbelievable, in terms of what’s there, and this, at Exit 20, yes on the east side and on Route 9, there’s a lot of stuff going, and, boy, Mr. Lapper’s got a client that’s doing a really big project down there with the Splashwater thing, but it’s limited to that side of the Northway. If you look on the other side of the Northway, yes, there’s County office buildings, but you can’t take that into consideration. The County can do anything, but on the south side, on both the east and west side of West Mountain Road, there’s nothing. It’s unique, and I would submit that before we start monkeying with that unique area, or allowing any kind of change, we do some very considerable planning about it. I think that’s an opportunity for you to say, you know, this is a unique spot, and maybe the benefit to Mr. Schermerhorn is not, doesn’t outweigh the impact to this unique area, and that would be a basis for your denial. Thank you very much. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Yes, ma’am, please. ANNIE BANG MS. BANG-My name is Annie Bang and a I live at 1218 West Mountain Road, and parking spaces are fine. Some of the apartments, I mean, you’ve built stuff all over by Bay Road and by Hiland. The problem is, if I wanted to live like that, I’d live in Saratoga. I don’t. I moved up here, you know, when I walk down Route 9 now, the Great Escape is fine. They’ll put plantings up and all the rest, but take a look at the rest of Route 9. When you go to Martha’s and you have an ice cream on a summer day, with great old pine trees and blue sky, it’s gorgeous, but you walk up Route 9, and those green pine trees are going. It’s going to look like Wolfe Road in Albany. If that’s what we decide, if that’s how we want to live, maybe you do, but I don’t, and the reason why I bought my property, and just bought an extra piece of property, is because I want to live in an area that is green and quiet and doesn’t always resound from the GD cash register with the dollar. I go home to my house, it’s a garden, it’s nice. People are nice. Traffic’s a nightmare. I don’t want to live in Albany. I don’t want to live over by Hiland with all those houses. That’s Long Island. That’s New Jersey. I moved up to Queensbury, and picked the land I picked, because I liked it, and I have to admit, I expect you guys to protect it, and it may not be popular, but that’s how I feel. Thanks. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Do we have any other comments? All right. Counselor, would you be kind enough to come back to the table with your client, and would 53 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) you like to address the issues that were raised? Now, let me say this to everyone concerned. If we approach twelve o’clock, as Chairman, I have the authority, I’m going to adjourn this without further public notice to another time, because beyond twelve o’clock is ridiculous. MR. LAPPER-We will be brief. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-There was one letter in the file. MR. ABBATE-Would you read it, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-It was from the Department of Environmental Conservation, and it was included and sent to us, a copy of it. It says, “Dear Mr. Schermerhorn: This letter will confirm our conversations regarding a parcel of land on West Mountain Road and Gurney Lane in the Town of Queensbury. A look at the air photo for the property showed a large open area on the southeast corner you characterized as an old sand pit. There are also openings in the trees north of the sandpit near West Mountain Road and in a few other places within the forested area. These areas and the old sand pit look like places that could support lupine. Since there is known lupine not far from this site, I would generally recommend that such areas be checked for lupine, and if found, then checked for the presence of the state threatened frosted elfin butterfly and the endangered Karner blue butterfly. Because of the distance from other known Karner blue butterfly sites, the likelihood of there being enough lupine present to support this species and for them to actually have colonized this site is low. However, we have found that frosted elfin can be found in relatively small lupine patches, and we have found them in sites we did not know existed in recent years. At this time of year it is not possible to effectively survey for lupine and the plants will not be visible again until next May. You asked me what would happen to a project if lupine and frosted elfin are found on the site. I told you I cannot give concrete answers on speculation. However, speaking in general terms, I would expect that the likelihood of there being a large population of frosted elfin on the site is very low. If there is a small population of frosted elfin there, we would recommend avoiding damage to the habitat or mitigating for it. Because the site is beyond the area where we are focusing most of our efforts for recovery for frosted elfin, it is more likely we would entertain a proposal for mitigation within that focus area rather than on the West Mountain Road site. You and I have discussed what kind of mitigation would be appropriate for this situation and I suggested that mitigation in the Sherman Avenue area would be most beneficial to the butterflies. In 2004, you deeded two parcels of land associated with your Sherman Pines subdivision of the Centerbar property off of Sherman Avenue to the Town of Queensbury to be managed for Karner blue and frosted elfin. DEC, with the assistance of the Town, has cleared and planted the first parcel on the north side of the Niagara Mohawk (Nimo) power line at the end of Westberry Lane (called the Avoidance Area on the site plans). The lupine and nectar flowers we planted in this parcel are coming up well. We have seen both frosted elfin and Karner blue in or adjacent tote habitat during the spring and summer anticipate they will colonize the new habitat. DEC has marked trees for a clearing project on the second parcel on the south side of the power line but it has yet to be cleared. This parcel, called the Mitigation Area on the site plans, is a little more than two acres in size. You indicated that, as mitigation, you would be willing to clear this parcel in order to prepare it for us to plant butterfly habitat vegetation. Below I have summarized the tasks as I see them that would be necessary to complete the mitigation. 1) You will use your own site preparation people or you will contract a responsible contractor to complete the work and will pay the contractor directly. 2) Site preparation will include: Cutting and removing all unmarked trees within the parcel down to 1 inch diameter Pulling all cut stumps Rootraking or grubbing the site and regarding to an even surface to allow planting Removing all stumps, logs, chips, slash, and other wood debris from the site 3) Only one entrance no more than 15 feet wide will be cut into the parcel to complete the work so as to allow for a gate to be installed to protect the site after planting. You would not be responsible for the gate unless you would like to provide a suitable gate. Location of the entrance site will be approved by me before work begins. 4) The marked trees showing the perimeter of the cutting area will not be cut or damaged, and no gaps will be made in the perimeter by machinery or vehicles apart from the approved entrance location. IF the clearing crew creates a gap you will be responsible for closing the gap with a post and rail wooden fence, similar to the one used on the perimeter of the northern parcel, o sufficient length to close the gap against ATV and dirt bike riders. 4) Legal access to the parcel is only possible via Nimo power lines or via a private landowner with access to Luzerne Road. you will be responsible for obtaining the appropriate permission to access these lands. You will 54 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) also obtain permission from the Town to work on the Town property. 5) Your work crew leader or contractor will coordinate all work with me and will comply with any other conditions to protect existing Karner blue/frosted elfin sites within the Nimo power line if that route is used to access the parcel. You have stated to me that you are willing to do this mitigation whether or not lupine and frosted elfin are found on the West Mountain Road property in order to move your project along for review by the Town. We agreed that this mitigation could be included by the Town as a condition of your site plan approval. You also agreed that another condition would be that you will not be issued a building permit for the project until the site mitigation has been completed. I would add that the Town should not accept any subdivision road on the project until the mitigation has been completed. I am confident that the mitigation described above would have a net benefit to the frosted elfin and would further our efforts toward recovery for the species whether or not there is habitat present on o8ur project site. This increase in habitat within the focus area for Karner blue will also benefit this species. I emphasized that the location of this project site so far from the area we are focusing in for recovery weighs very heavily in determining that the benefit would be greater to mitigate off the project site. Situations like this need to be evaluated on a case by case basis. I appreciate your continued cooperation in protection of the Karner blue and frosted elfin and your willingness to conduct beneficial habitat work whether or not they are present on your property. It would be my recommendation to the Town that the benefit of this mitigation and the low likelihood that there is important habitat on the project site would outweigh any potential benefit to holding the project up to wait for a lupine survey in May 2006. if you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to working with you again. Sincerely, Kathy O’Brien Biologist I, Wildlife Endangered Species Unit” MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. Counselor, please. MR. LAPPER-I’ll be brief, and then Rich has a few comments. The debate that you heard tonight was primarily focused on the issue of zoning, rather than the variance that was before you, and, in terms of zoning, what this zoned for is the PO zone. Rich could build an office complex or an apartment complex on this site under the present zoning, with site plan approval. He could obviously build an apartment complex without this variance, but he thinks that it’s better to ask for this than to spend the money and to build more parking, since there’s plenty of green space available, and I think it’s significant that he could have 138 units on this site without needing a variance, and that he’s asking for 92. There’s a need for apartments in Town. These are high end expensive apartments that he builds, but it’s a heck of a lot cheaper than somebody buying a single family home in Queensbury which is getting very expensive. All of a his apartments in Queensbury are 100% rented. So there’s obviously a need for it. We have documentation in the file from the Lake George School District that they are happy to welcome the students that would be generated by these apartments. In terms of traffic, if Rich were to build the site with an office complex instead, that would be a higher traffic generator than the 92 units, and in terms of some of the comments about single family, because you’re at the intersection where you have the County facilities. You have the Northway, the entrance ramp, it’s not deemed a place where people would usually find desirable for single family right there because single family involves a lot more outdoor activities than an apartment complex which is more indoor activities. So, we think this is a modest proposal, in terms of the 92 units. We think that, I’m not going to argue whether it’s pristine. It’s very pretty on that side of Town and it’s very pretty looking at the mountains, but you’re right near the Northway. You’re right near the commercial area, and there is a need for apartments. It’s a question of should this be apartments or office, and the proposal is for apartments with one office building at the corner to block the Gurney Lane, if you will. MR. SCHERMERHORN-And if I may just add, one of the considerations of this property is, I do both in the area. I do office buildings, as you can tell by Bay Road. I own and manage those as well. I just want to give a situation. The Glens Falls Rehabilitation building that’s on Bay Road, the real large one right up in the front. That building, for example, is 36,000 square feet, and I have 175 parking spots for that building, and anyone that travels Bay Road can see that that parking lot at times is pretty full and there’s a lot of traffic in and out of there. Now, I just want to give you an idea of how large of an impact it could be under the office scenario. That building sits on 2.25 acres, that building on Bay Road that has 175 car parking. Now, if you assume that most of my, well, I don’t assume. Actually all of my 18 acres is usable land on that West Mountain piece. So just think of the impact if I was to, or let’s just not say me. Let’s say that it wasn’t me. It was somebody else that came in here to do this. The impact of office buildings with associated parking could be absolutely 55 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) tremendous. I’m talking about 175 spots on a two and a quarter acre piece of land, and I’m asking for 197 total. Now granted we’ve got the one commercial lot, which is 1.28, and with associated parking there could certainly be another 40 or 50 parking spots. So I know traffic’s been a big concern, but if you look at it from the situation that I just did, this is a very, this is very low compared to what it certainly could be. I also do want to state, and it’s not appropriate at this time, but at the site plan review, I always come very prepared. One of the reasons my applications in past years have been successful is I’ve followed what the zoning is, what the rule and regulations are. I will show up at the meeting with traffic consultants from Creighton Manning. I actually hired the one that were hired by Queensbury that did the study for the last two years on all of the Route 9 corridor. I’m not going to pretend there’s not a lot of traffic in that area, especially in the summertime, but under the circumstances with the apartments, you know, I certainly will do my best efforts to bring the professionals and let them speak on my behalf and I think everyone else’s behalf. So I just wanted to at least sum that up with the parking. If people can just understand that if a couple of those big buildings that I do on Bay Road went in, we could have five times the amount of parking and still be within the required rules, regulations of the zoning. So, I just, as far as that. Now, one thing about Planning Board. When it comes down to, they always require I bring my elevations. Aesthetics are always very important. I will do a nice job with the elevations. I’ll also, they always request extra landscaping. As a matter of fact, I bring the plans in. I even show additional landscaping, above and beyond what’s required because I know they’re going to ask for it, or the general public is. I never can please everyone 100% of the time, but we are talking about a piece. Yes it’s green right now and I’m going to try and keep it as green as I can, but it is in a proximity that is over by the Northway. I know the market very well, whether it’s office or whether it’s a multi-family. I hope to do both, you know, eventually with an office on the corner as well, but the apartments, as far as the aesthetes, and I think I heard one person, I don’t want to speculate, but I thought maybe someone said that it devalues property in some way. I don’t believe it to be true, and I’ll do my best efforts and I’ll work with Planning Board however we’ve got to make this work, and I came in here with honesty. I certainly could have gotten the project approved just according to the way the parking requirements are in we’ll call it the rule book, but I didn’t. I came forward and of course, you know, here we are, and I would just ask that, we could certainly do it like we did the past two, just condition it, and these people will all have the opportunity to come to the Planning Board under site plan review and voice their concerns, and we certainly can, you know, tune things up or do things different, but I think it’s an opportunity for us all to think, if it’s not me at this time, if I walk away from the property, it’s under contract, what’s to prevent another developer from coming in and doing, you know, five, thirty thousand square foot buildings with one hundred and fifty car parking per building, and that is a reality. That is what it’s zoned for, unless all of a sudden they cut the zoning way back on office requirements. So I feel that, as far as traffic impact, this will be the minimal impact that will be impacting, and I’m not saying there’s not going to be impact, but it’s going to be minimal compared to what office build out could be. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’m going to ask members to please offer their comments and for public’s benefit, we basically must base our decision on regulatory review criteria of our laws, and we don’t base decisions simply on subjective preferences of liking or not liking a project. So, having said that, I’m going to ask if there are any comments from members of the Board, please. MR. URRICO-I do have one question. MR. ABBATE-Yes, please, Roy. MR. URRICO-What is the size of the parking spaces? MR. SCHERMERHORN-The size of the parking space? They’re typically 10 by 20. A little shorter than that, but we’ll call it 10 by 20. MR. URRICO-Because the Town Code calls for 162 square feet. MRS. BARDEN-I think it’s nine by eighteen. MR. LAPPER-Nine by eighteen, yes. MR. URRICO-And is that what you were planning? 56 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, they’re designed to Code. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Now, if I may continue. I’m going to ask members to offer their comments, and I’m going to start with Mr. Stone, please. MR. STONE-I have to be very careful with my words here, because as the Chairman said, we are charged with certain ground rules, and I hear the public, and I know what we’re being asked to do. We only have one way to express our opinion on this Board. We have a very limited request before us, limited in the sense that we don’t get into the whole scope of the project. We’re not limited as far as the public is concerned and the number of cars. They would like to see none, but, the way the project is planned at the moment, the applicant can have 92 and 46, 148, is that, I guess, the right number, but we have heard a great deal about the quality of life, the character of the community, the health and welfare of the people, and the only way that I can get into that discussion, or into any decision on this thing, is to use this as the basis for my denial of this particular application. I recognize that the applicant can build a lot more parking spaces, a lot more things, but I would like to think that in my small way, by being concerned about the character of the neighborhood, the health, safety and welfare of the community, that at least someone will hear what I have to say. I certainly am aware of concern on the current zoning, both by the neighbors and by other people involved in the Town of Queensbury. I would like to think that maybe that if we deny this, and I only have one vote, but that if we deny this, then maybe that’ll give impetus to make some other changes to benefit the health, character, safety and welfare of the community. So, Mr. Chairman, I would vote no. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, Mr. Stone. Mrs. Hunt, please. MRS. HUNT-Well, I have to agree with Mr. Stone. I was certainly moved by all of the testimony of the people. I do realize that we have a very narrow field. All we are really addressing is the number of parking spaces. The whole project goes to the Planning Board. So that even if we deny the variance, it could still be built with the one and a half units, and I would have to say I would be against the variance at this point. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mrs. Hunt. Mr. Underwood, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that when we discussed this I asked a few questions, and your answers were pretty succinct. I think that it’s obvious that you need adequate parking if you’re going to have an apartment complex, but at the same time, I think we have to balance that with that with the, you know, what we have on site here, and I think it would be premature at this time for us to make a decision on this. I think that we could ask for some Planning Board review as to what would be appropriate for the number of units, and even though, as you said, you could have 138 units there, I think at the same time I think that we would have a real estimate as to what’s reasonable. I know that, you know, in other areas of Town, as you discuss, people may not be happy if they end up with Professional Office over there. It may, indeed, not be the direction that they want to go, but at the same time I think it’s important for us to peruse this a little further and then make a decision. So I don’t feel that I want to vote on it at this time. I think that if you do come back with townhouse units, I would be more than happy to give you two parking places per unit, if that’s indeed what you end up with. MRS. HUNT-Mr. Chairman, I would agree. I would like to wait with my vote, too. MR. ABBATE-Yes. All right. Thank you very much. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-Well, Jim sort of stole my thunder, but my feeling is we cannot look at this right now because we’re basically looking at a project that’s not complete, or not going to be what we’re actually going to be offering approval on. It’s going to change, but if I had to vote tonight, I would vote no, and I would vote no because the idea of 184 cars spilling out onto West Mountain Road and Gurney Lane scares the heck out of me. That’s a very dangerous area as it is, and there have been traffic studies done for Aviation Road, Route 9, but I don’t know of any that have been done for this area up there, which sort of gets back to the Planning Board, and I think site plan review is appropriate here and should be considered first before we look at any variances at this point. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Urrico. Mr. McNulty, please. 57 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Two or three quick comments, and I’ll try to make them real quick because it’s getting real late. One more for the Chairman, but the questions come up on a couple of these applications, the lack of adequate notice to people who live near these sites. If you remember at our joint meeting a couple of weeks ago, it was mentioned that these notices go to the tax billing address, and I think this is something to bring up with Staff that’s a problem, and they aim it to arrive five days before the meeting. The problem comes when the owner of the property lives in Chicago, or, when somebody has a mortgage on their property and the mortgage company is escrowing their tax. Then that notice to the mortgage company, not to the homeowner, and so we either need a longer lead time or some other way of identifying addresses. MR. ABBATE-I will address that issue tomorrow at 10 o’clock at our debriefing. Staff, would you put that also on the agenda? Thank you very much. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Now, to move on, as everybody knows already, just about all the issues that were discussed tonight are Planning Board issues. They really aren’t something that we’re supposed to consider. However, there is a Planning Ordinance Review Committee, acting now. We’re going to be revising zoning. We haven’t had very many people show up at the meetings. Third Thursday every month, like tomorrow night. Public comment, it’s usually here, right here, seven o’clock. Now usually their procedure is they go through all their other stuff and the public comment period is towards the end, so you might have to do kind of the same thing, except we usually wind up around nine or nine thirty, instead of midnight, but all the comments that you made are very good ones. They need to be repeated multiple times to this Committee, to the Town Board, because the Town Board’s who actually makes the zoning laws, but this stuff has got to be repeated and repeated. That means you’ve got to be persistent and come out several times to meetings, but do it, and I’ll agree with everything that you brought up. I don’t know, back, three, four years ago now, when we had one big public meeting about Great Escape, I made the statement that ticked off a lot of people, but I said that the Town could be accused of false advertising when they say Queensbury’s a nice place to live. If they kept going the direction they’re going, it’s not correct. So I’ll agree with you all on that. However, addressing the issue tonight, the question really is, do we allow extra parking spaces or not. Denying extra parking spaces is going to do nothing to stop this project. I’ll go back to what I asked the applicant in the very beginning. I think this applicant, if nothing else, is knowledgeable about what people need in the way of parking at apartment complexes. He’s certainly one of the preeminent apartment complex developers in Town, and if he says he needs two parking spaces per unit, then I think there’s a pretty good chance that that’s what he needs, and if this thing should be built, and he doesn’t get his two per unit, then he’s going to have half those people parking on the lawn, which is going to be worse than parking in a space. So, if it were to be voted on tonight, I would vote in favor. MR. ABBATE-Thank You, Mr. McNulty. Mr. Rigby, please. MR. RIGBY-I really don’t have anything new to add, other than what everybody else has said. This property is going to have traffic problems, no matter what the case, whether it’s Professional Office or whether it’s apartment. It’s still going to have parking issues and traffic issues. Mr. Schermerhorn knows his business. He knows that two parking spots are needed for each apartment. I think we have to give him the benefit of the doubt on that, but I do think that this should probably go to Planning Board first, have Planning Board look at it, let us, tell us what this property is actually going to be, and then we make our decisions. So that’s my view. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, Mr. Rigby. I essentially agree. I think that we should probably have a site plan review first, before we make any kind of decision. However, I could suggest to Counsel, he knows what the options are by now, that there’s not going to be any support, if we had to vote this evening, for your appeal, and so I would suggest that you request either a tabling, and you know the other two. So I’d listen to what you have to say. MR. LAPPER-I’m confused. Are you asking the Planning Board for a recommendation on how many spaces there should be? MR. ABBATE-No, no. I would ask the Planning Board for a site plan review. In other words, I would like to see what the potential impact would be. This would include not only the environmental impact, but traffic study as well. There was a tremendous amount of concern with traffic congestion, undesirable change, increased density in traffic, etc., etc., and 58 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) we simply don’t have that expert, at least I don’t have that expertise to make a decision based upon that. MR. LAPPER-We are planning on addressing that, of course, with the traffic consultants, Rich said next week at the Planning Board. The question is, does that impact your decision in terms of whether or not there should be two spaces or one and a half spaces per unit? MR. ABBATE-Your point is well made, Counselor. MR. LAPPER-I guess I’m just not clear on what you want the Planning Board to do, in terms of the variance, in terms of their ability to vote on the variance. MR. URRICO-I’d like to see what I’m voting on, basically. I don’t know. MR. ABBATE-Well, specifically, help me out, Roy, specifically what are you looking for? MR. URRICO-My standpoint, I don’t want to just say yes to something when I don’t know what I’m saying yes to, to blanket two spaces, without knowing how many units they’re going to be at the end. I don’t know. It doesn’t make sense to me, to me. I don’t know how everybody else feels. MR. ABBATE-Well, let’s talk about reality here. If we were to vote on your appeal this evening, Mr. Schermerhorn, certainly you’re not going to have the support. So then what would be the next step? MR. LAPPER-We would have to do 138 spaces, instead. MR. ABBATE-Well, I can’t tell you what to do, but I would suggest that you request a tabling and review what you have been proposing and see if you can come up with something that would accommodate not only your requirements but perhaps the sensitivity of some of the issues that were raised this evening as well. MR. LAPPER-I guess I’m confused only because the discussion was about what the property should be zoned for and if it’s going to be offices or if it’s going to be apartments, which is really a policy decision, a Town Board zoning legislative decision, rather than a Zoning Board issue. I understand you’ve got a room full of unhappy neighbors and you’re being sensitive to that. Of course that makes sense, but in terms of the question that we’ve asked you, it’s, the units are, the apartments are a permitted use right now. We’ve proposed to do 92, even though more could be permitted on the site, and the question before you, in terms of the Area Variance test, is, should we build those 92 units with 138 park spaces, or the number that we’ve requested tonight, and if you’re saying you don’t want to entertain the variance, the answer is then we build it with 138 units, and that, you know, doesn’t affect the issues that we have to deal with at the Planning Board, but in terms of the parking, it’s a question of how many spaces should be on the proposal. MR. ABBATE-Staff comments, let me bring this out, also stated, an alternative to the proposed layout would be to locate the parking areas towards the rear of the site with the buildings facing or concentrated closer to West Mountain Road. This layout combined with a substantial vegetative buffer in the rear may lessen noise and light pollution from the Northway. This is something you should also consider. MR. LAPPER-And Rich addressed that. The issue is people that rent apartments and townhouses want to be able to bring t heir groceries in. They want to have a parking field in the back behind the units, just for convenience, and what Rich also said is that during the planning process he would certainly agree to buffer this. At Hiland Springs, right over here on Meadowbrook, he did substantial buffering in the front, in terms of additional trees, because that’s what the Planning Board wanted, and there’s room for that here as well. So as a condition, we’d certainly agree to additional plantings along West Mountain Road to make it even visually more attractive than what’s proposed, but none of that really gets to the issue of how many spaces there should be. MR. STONE-Well, let me ask a question of you gentlemen. I mean, I said no for philosophical reasons, although I tried to count you in quality of life. We had a discussion a couple of weeks ago, we had a joint meeting with the Planning Board and the Zoning Board, and we got into a semantic discussion of what should they see first, or should we see 59 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) everything first, if there’s a variance involved. The point is, we don’t want their recommendation. What we really want, because they have the power to say, we’re only going to give you site plan approval for 20 units. Am I correct? MR. LAPPER-Well, if we said two per unit, it wouldn’t matter. MR. STONE-No, but they could do that. I think that’s what we’d like to know, what are they going to say in terms of number of units that they would allow. MR. LAPPER-I think you buy our argument that we need two spaces per unit. MR. STONE-I think it’s a reasonable argument. MR. LAPPER-Couldn’t you just craft a motion that says however many units we get, it’s two per unit, and if it’s 20, versus 92. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Again, if I may just back up, I’m just following the rules and the regulations the way they’re spelled out, and I’m just following procedure by being here first. I mean, I don’t see a problem with anything that anybody, because I can get to the Planning Board, the members of the audience could show up, and the Planning Board may have a total entire different view than you people may have, and I may have to compromise, which I generally do, or I simply say, gee, it’s as stated and follow the rules and regulations as they’re stated, but I’ve never had to be that way, but I’m just confused. I mean, I’m just following the procedure coming here first. So I guess I don’t know if it helps or hurts us either way. At least if you gave some sort of a, can you give a recommendation to the Planning Board? See, I think we’re supposed to come here first, aren’t we? MR. ABBATE-Not necessarily. Actually the proposal, the new proposal is basically this. If there was no site plan review, then there would be no reason for any variance to go to the Planning Board, because we’d make that decision. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. ABBATE-But if there was a site plan review, we would like their input. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Because they have, certainly, expertise that we don’t have. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I mean, I see what you’re saying, it makes sense. MR. LAPPER-The Zoning Administrator sent us here because that’s where we’re supposed to go based upon the rules now. MR. STONE-No, that’s correct. MR. ABBATE-Yes, I understand. Listen, you folks have followed procedure. There’s no question about it, and the reality of it is basically this. If we were to vote for this, on your appeal this evening, it doesn’t look as if you’re going to have support. So the most logical thing, in my opinion, would be to say, okay, request a tabling, and I’m going to be meeting tomorrow with the Zoning Administrator and Staff at 10 o’clock anyway and we are going to be discussing this among other things as well. I would suggest it might be in the best interest of all concerned, that you suggest possibly a tabling. MR. SCHERMERHORN-So we’d go to the Planning Board Tuesday, and ask them for a conditional, depending on where we go, but a conditional approval, if I need the additional parking at that time, come back. MR. ABBATE-Yes, exactly. I have their agenda here, and you’re scheduled, you’re absolutely right. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Can the Planning Board do that? MRS. BARDEN-Sure. 60 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) MR. LAPPER-What I would ask is this. Procedurally, the way it is now, they’re not supposed to hear us until after we get the variance. So I guess what I would ask is that you would, since you want to get their input first, is that you would, in this case, ask them to review the site plan first and condition it on the variance, so that at least procedurally we’d be able to get to the Planning Board next week, ask them to review the site plan, and then it’ll come back to the Zoning Board afterwards. MR. ABBATE-State that one more time. MR. LAPPER-Procedurally, we’re supposed to come here first, and if we don’t get a decision, it’s like a Catch-22. If we don’t get a decision on the variance, we can’t go for site plan review. In this case, you’d like to know what they do on the site plan before you address the variance. So what I’d ask is that you pass a resolution that says that in this case you’d like us to go to site plan review first and have them condition that site plan review on the variance. MR. STONE-I think you could say that, and even I who didn’t even modify my thing, I think, and a lot of people in the audience understand the two versus one and a half. They don’t want any, but that’s a different story, but they understand the two, and I think a lot of the Board does, but we’d like to know the number, rather than the estimate. MR. LAPPER-So you’d like the site plan approved before we come back to see you? That’s fine with Rich. We’d like that to be a resolution that just tells the Planning Board what you’re thinking, that you’d like the site plan to be reviewed before the variance in this case. MR. ABBATE-I don’t have a problem with that. I’ll move a motion, and if the Board doesn’t agree with me, so be it, but I can move a motion basically that will state that it is the opinion of this Board, the Zoning Board of Appeals, that we would like a site plan review from the Planning Board, prior to this Board making a final decision. MR. LAPPER-And could we put it on for the first meeting next month? MR. ABBATE-Well, we can, that’s an administrative matter. Let’s take one step at a time. Let me move a motion, then. I move that Area Variance No. 2-2006 be moved to the Planning Board for a site plan review, and with that I request that the Planning Board provide us with additional information, prior to this Board making a final decision, and I would then request that, when’s a good time? When can we have these folks back? We have either the 15 or we have the 22. We can fit them in, in one of those. You’re going back to thnd the Planning Board tomorrow anyway. MR. LAPPER-Next week. MR. ABBATE-Well, next week. Excuse me, Tuesday. MR. SCHERMERHORN-You’re talking February, right? MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I’m going on vacation the 22. So does the 15 work, February ndth 15? th MR. ABBATE-For us, I don’t have a problem with it. I just want to make sure it works for the Planning Board. MR. LAPPER-We’ll be with them next week. MR. ABBATE-You’ll be with them next week. So why don’t I do this, then. Why don’t I modify that just a bit and make the motion. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-2006 SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES, INC., Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Gurney Lane & West Mountain Road. Be forwarded to the Planning Board for site plan review, and back to this Board for a hearing on the 15 of February. th 61 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/06) Duly adopted this 18 day of January, 2006, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. ABBATE-The vote to table Area Variance No. 2-2006 to move to the Planning Board for site plan review is approved seven to zero. The motion is carried. Area Variance No. 2- 2006 is moved to the Planning Board for site plan review to be heard by this Board on the 15 of February 2006. th MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Before we go, gentlemen, we have some administrative matters. CORRECTION OF MINUTES November 16, 2005: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 16, 2005 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 18 day of January, 2006, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Stone, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. ABBATE-The Zoning Board of Appeals minutes for November 16, 2005 are approved. November 23, 2005: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 23, 2005 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 18 day of January, 2006, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. ABBATE-Okay. The Zoning Board of Appeals minutes for November 23, 2005 are approved, and this meeting is adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Charles Abbate, Chairman 62