Loading...
2006-11-22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) QUEENSBURY ZONIING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 22, 2006 INDEX Area Variance No. 73-2005 Case Prime 1. Tax Map No. 290.10-1-5 Sign Variance No. 67-2006 Ramada Inn 9. Tax Map No. 302.9-1-29 Area Variance No. 68-2006 Rochelle K. Adams 18. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-5 Sign Variance No. 69-2006 Brooks Brothers Factory Store 21. Tax Map No. 288.12-1-17 Area Variance No. 70-2006 Steven and Lisa Jackoski 29. Tax Map No. 239.8-1-53 Area Variance No. 71-2006 Lucile Lucas 31. Tax Map No. 239.8-1-51 Area Variance No. 72-2006 Robert and Anne Mason 32. Tax Map No.239.8-1-52 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 11/22/06) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 22, 2006 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT VOLLARO, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY THOMAS SEGULJIC DONALD SIPP THOMAS FORD MEMBERS ABSENT CHRIS HUNSINGER TANYA BRUNO LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. ABBATE- Good evening, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals hearing dated November 22, 2006. Prior to setting this hearing in motion, I would like to acquaint you with information that will familiarize you with the responsibilities of this Board, the mandated legal requirements we are guided by, and the procedures for a hearing before this Board. The function of the Zoning Board of Appeals is to listen to and consider all evidence that appears on the record, and may bear upon the issue we are deciding. The Zoning Board of Appeals can grant (or deny) two types of relief; interpretive and variance. In either case, this Board will affirm, reverse or modify the enforcement officer’s decision. In doing so, this Board will either permit or deny the requested relief. If the appeal is for an interpretation, this Board’s decision will be based on the Town of Queensbury zoning regulations. If the appeal is for a variance, this Board’s decision will be based on the standards of proof contained in NYS Town Law 267-b. Additionally, the Zoning Board of Appeals may only authorize the minimum variance necessary to relieve the applicant. We will invite public comments on each appeal, however, in the interest of time please be crisp, organized and limit your comments to only the facts and information given this evening. On opening the public hearing the public will be allowed a maximum of 5 minutes to comment on a specific appeal. The purpose of this time limitation is to provide each member of the public an opportunity to be heard, and also to limit the length of the hearing to a reasonable time frame. Ms. Hemingway, I’m going to request that you monitor the time. Mr. Secretary, do we have any correspondence, if so, would you please read it into the record. MR. UNDERWOOD-None. MR. ABBATE-None. Okay. AREA VARIANCE NO. 73-2005 SEQRA TYPE: II CASE PRIME AGENT(S): CHAZEN COMPANIES OWNER(S): CASE PRIME ZONING: SR-1A LOCATION: ROCKWELL ROAD & HILAND DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 4-LOT SUBDIVISION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR TWO OF THE LOTS. CROSS REF. SUDIVISION NO. 16-2005 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 16.43 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.10-1-5 SECTION: 179-4-090 ILONA COYLE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT th MR. UNDERWOOD-There were public hearing’s previously held on October 18 and nd November 22 of this year. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 73-2005, Case Prime, Meeting Date: November 22, 2006 “Project Location: Rockwell Road & Hiland Drive Description of Proposed Project: 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) MR. ABBATE-Gentlemen, ladies, would you please identify yourselves and your relationship with the appeal. MS. COYLE-Hello. My name is Ilona Coyle and I’m with Caffry and Flower. I’m here representing Case Prime in this matter. CASE PRIME MR. PRIME-And I’m Case Prime, the applicant. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I have a couple of things I wish to say before we begin, Counselor, and Mr. Prime. Consistent with the court’s remand order, this Board re-addressed Area th Variance No. 17-2005 on the 18 of October 2006 and determined additional review was necessary in order to reach a fair and unbiased decision. I have determined that the public hearing is still open and will offer any member of the public an opportunity to comment. Additionally, I will also encourage discussion from members of the Board. For the record, the Zoning Board of Appeals was created to interpret, to perfect and to ensure the validity of zoning. Further, it was expected to do this, deciding the hard cases, by articulating the law. Counsel, do you wish to be heard before we start? MS. COYLE-Certainly. MR. ABBATE-Proceed. MS. COYLE-I would simply like to remind the ZBA of the decision of Judge Krogmann. Judge Krogmann, in August of this year, has ruled on this particular Area Variance and remanded it for the limited purpose of determining whether or not the turning radius of the turnaround meets the turning radius for a Queensbury fire truck. We subsequently introduced evidence, demonstrating that the turning radius was, in fact, adequate for a Town of Queensbury fire truck, and a letter from Mike Palmer stating the same. So far as we are concerned, the turning radius of the fire truck is the only issue which is appropriate for this ZBA to address at this time, and any other issues would be more properly dealt with upon appeal. We thank the ZBA for its consideration and we look forward to hearing your decision. MR. ABBATE-Well, thank you, Counselor. Judge Krogmann has his position, and I have mine as well. I am opening the public hearing, in accordance with New York State Town Law, but thank you for your position anyway. Board members, are there any uncertainties or subjects that perhaps you wish to discuss at this time? I’d be willing to hear. MR. BRYANT-I have a question, Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. BRYANT-I know that the Fire Marshal presented documentation relative to the turnaround, but was there any consideration about inclement weather? Because that’s not a Town road, and you’re responsible for clearing that pathway. Any consideration, when the road narrows as a result of excessive snow or anything like that? That’s a question for. MR. ABBATE-For Counsel. Counsel, would you like to address that? MS. COYLE-We provided the documentation to Mr. Palmer with a schematic of the turnaround and an engineered analysis of the turnaround as navigated by a Town of Queensbury fire truck. We presume that Mr. Palmer applied the same standards which he applies to all of the Area Variance applications which come to him, which are numerous, and if that involves inclement weather, then that would be probably the same standard that he applies to all of the others, and if he does not apply inclement weather standards to the other applications which he reviews, then I do not see why this application should be any different. MR. BRYANT-Well, the only reason I ask this question is because I don’t see any mention in the calculations relative to the turnaround. If, for example, the private road is narrowed as a result of snow, I mean, there were, for example, a number of the neighbors said that plows have got to back up and so forth and so on when the roads 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) start to fill with snow. So I’m just wondering if there’s any documentation that I’m missing. MS. COYLE-As is stated in the cover letter by Chazen Companies for the simulation, the simulation does address the turnaround for a larger fire truck than the Town of Queensbury fire trucks. The Town of Queensbury fire trucks are actually significantly smaller than the fire truck used in the simulation. Therefore, it can be presumed that any narrowing due to inclement weather would be dealt with with that margin of error, which is significant. MR. BRYANT-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MRS. HUNT-I have a question. MR. ABBATE-Yes, ma’am. MRS. HUNT-These determinations were made by plans, looking at plans. I mean, what has been done to make sure that the plans reflect what’s actually there, the actual conditions that exist now? MS. COYLE-As with other variance applications, the applicant will have a duty to make whatever the present conditions are comply with the plans, and he will, of course, do so. Also, the decision, Judge Krogmann’s decision in August specifically states that the sketch plan must meet the turning radius for the fire truck. Therefore, the requirement is not that the as built driveway must meet it. It means that the sketch plan must meet it, and furthermore, as I said, every time that an applicant presents you with plans, it is presumed that when they build their actual driveway or home or porch or whatever they’re asking for the variance for, that they’ll build it to the specifications in the plans that they give to you, and if they do not, then you send the Code Enforcement Officer to enforce against them because they have not complied with what was contemplated when they applied for their variance, and we, as the applicants in this situation, will build the turnaround as is shown in the sketch plan. MR. ABBATE-Well, let me just clear one thing up, Counselor. We have no authority to send out the Code Compliance Officer under any circumstances. Once we make our decision here, that’s it, and once we make our decision, we have no other jurisdiction over it. Do you have another question you’d like to ask? MRS. HUNT-No. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Chairman, I just have one question for Counsel. Somewhere in here I read that Lot Two is going to be responsible for the plowing. Is there anybody who is taking responsibility? MR. PRIME-I see what you mean. Lot Two would be my home, I guess? MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR. PRIME-And that would be the lead on the, yes, I would be responsible. I would develop a restrictive covenant for the deeds of the other lots that would require them to contribute to the maintenance and plowing of the private road, but I would be responsible to get that underway and be responsible for its being complied with. Yes, I think you’re right. MR. GARRAND-Okay. I read that in here. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Any other members of the Board have anything they wish to raise? If not, then I’m going to, as I said earlier, I determined that the public hearing is still open. I did not close it, and at this point I’m going to ask if there are any members of the public who may wish to be heard on Area Variance No. 73-2005. If you wish to be heard, if you’d be kind enough to raise your hand, I’ll recognize you. Are there any members of the public who wish to comment on Area Variance No. 73-2005? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) MARY JANE SOTANSKI MRS. SOTANKSI-My name is Mary Jane Sotanski. I live at 21 Hiland Drive, which is the property adjacent to the property in question. My concern is the ingress and egress when the road narrows, and the safety issue for the pedestrian and other people that travel this area. As it is now, the last time one of the Town trucks came through to pick up the leaves, they came in and they had to back in to our driveway in order to exit this area, and I want to know, because the road narrows so significantly, at the end, where his private drive sign is, Case’s private drive sign is, what is the ingress and egress going to be for this property for vehicles like a snow plow, emergency vehicles, Town trucks coming in and out to take care of leaves, the occasional, I’d say three or four per day, dead enders that think that Hiland Drive is Haviland Road. I am extremely concerned about a safety issue. I’m extremely concerned that Case has already said to this Board that his intention is to sell his property, his home. So instead of having six cars, maybe we’ll have with teenagers, 12 cars, ingressing and egressing from this property, which is a significant amount of traffic in this area, and if teenagers have friends over, that increases significantly more, and I really feel that it’s a safety, health and environmental issue that needs to be addressed and considered by this Board. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is this e-mail sent in, is this your e-mail? MRS. SOTANSKI-That’s my e-mail. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I just wondered that, yes. MRS. SOTANSKI-Yes, that’s my e-mail. MR. ABBATE-We will be reading that into the record. MRS. SOTANSKI-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome. MR. ABBATE-Do we have any other members of the public who wish to be heard on Area Variance No. 73-2005. If so, would you be kind enough to raise your hand so I may recognize you, please. I see no other hands raised. Seeing no other hands raised, indicating that members of the public have no other issues at this particular time, the public hearing is now closed? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want me to read this? MR. ABBATE-Mr. Secretary, would you be kind enough to read that e-mail into the record, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-This was an e-mail received on, I guess it would be 11/17, actually th the date on it is November 7, and it must have been cc’d or sent to the Town, and again, this is from, I think, Mrs. Sotanski who just spoke. It was sent to Joan McGrath, and I don’t know what her relationship to the case is, if you’re here this evening, either. “Things to ponder: Is Case planning on maintaining this as a “private road?” If this is so, we have still been left with the road maintenance problem that Chase gave us with his botched “reserved” unusable land that was supposed to be the original turnaround for the snow plow, trucks, odd traffic, etc. If he is planning to have this become a part of the existing road of Hiland Drive then he will have to widen the road at the mouth (entrance) into his existing property and the proposed turn-around to accommodate 2-way traffic as it ingresses and egresses this property. He will need to show us an acceptable plan for the flow of traffic so that we will feel safe enough to continue with our normal patterns of living. (Environmental and Safety impact). If he is able to do this then, at that point, what happens to our deeded “right of ways?” He will need to pay us off to have these right of ways deleted from our surveys. Real life scenario: Case builds his two more houses and two younger families (lets say – with adolescent children) move in. Now we have 4 more cars, with Case and Peggy’s cars that makes 6 cars along with the dead enders (2- 3 per day) going in and out of this “Private (one lane) driveway. Two years later, these families start to purchase cars for their now older teenagers. Now we could have, not just the 6 normal car traffic and the dead enders, we can have up to 4+ cars, depending on the number of teenage drivers and their friends, (for the sake of argument a total of 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) 10+ cars) coming in and out of this “private drive”. At this point there will be more cars coming in and out of that “private drive” drive than the real and present traffic flow that is currently on this street (2 cars + dead enders, trash collection, mail delivery, etc.) We are no longer safe, as in our existing condition and how it impacts us in our present community. We will no longer be able to feel safe when we walk to our neighbors homes, as is our current position. On top of this: We still have the issue of the Trash Collection trucks, Snow Plowing, Mail Delivery, Ambulance and Fire Trucks being stopped at the end of the road and the beginning of Case’s “Private Drive”. And Case’s original proposal for the “T-Turn around” is still unusable to the Town for the development needed to resolve our safety issues with the current flow of traffic and the problem with the snow plow and mail delivery (especially in the winter time). Let me know what you think and please pass this e-mail on to Annette (I can’t find her e-mail address). I will put a copy of this in her mail box tomorrow. Good to know that you will be there. MJ” That’s it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Secretary. MS. COYLE-Thank you. I just wanted to make sure that we could address these issues that have been raised and I was under the impression, I wasn’t exactly clear on whether or not you had closed the public hearing. MR. ABBATE-Back up a second. I’m not sure I quite understand what you said. MS. COYLE-I apologize if I’ve been unclear. I just wanted to address what Mrs. Sotanski has raised, and specifically rebut it. MR. ABBATE-So you’re asking permission to do that. MS. COYLE-Exactly. MR. ABBATE-Please proceed. MS. COYLE-Thank you very much. Mrs. Sotanski has raised a lot of issues which were raised before. The issues of traffic, the issues of how many people may or may not move in. These issues were discussed when the ZBA made its original determination. The Court and Judge Krogmann reviewed these issues. Judge Krogmann reviewed the issue of traffic. Traffic was discussed a lot in the record, and Judge Krogmann found that there was only one issue remaining for you to consider. That one issue is whether or not the turnaround, not the whole street, but the turnaround meets the turning radius for a fire truck. Anything else is outside your jurisdiction, and I respectfully hope that you will remain within the jurisdiction which the court has left you in the August meeting. Thank you very much. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. MR. PRIME-Mr. Chairman, just one thing. The turnaround at the end of Hiland has not been developed but it is available to the Town to develop, and I would encourage the Town to do that. It would widen that end of Hiland on both sides of the road. I have no objection to that. In fact, I’ve spoken to the Town about it and they just, it’s not something high on their agenda, but there’s no reason why that could not be opened and maintained by the Town because they have a right of way there, and if my neighbors are concerned about that, then I think that we should get together and talk to the Town and say okay, let’s go ahead and utilize that turnaround. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Well, members of the Board, we’ve reached that point in our hearing this evening that I’m going to seek a motion for Area Variance No. 73-2005. Do I hear a motion? Well, hearing none, then as Chairman, I’m going to move that we approve Area Variance No. 73-2005. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 73-2005 CASE PRIME, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Rockwell Road and Hiland Drive. The applicant proposes to subdivide a 16.4 acre parcel into four lots. The parcel is zoned for SR-1A, and the subdivision will result in lot sizes 5.4 acres, 5.2 acres, 2.7 acres and 2.5 acres. Specifically for Lots Two, Three, and Four, there is a proposal to share a common driveway. Lot Two is already developed. Lots Three and Four each require 100% of relief from the required 40 foot frontage upon a public street per Town Code Section 179-4-090. This Board reviewed the relevant criteria on January 18, 2006, and the majority of the Board members voted against 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) granting the relief requested. The applicant filed a petition under CPLR Article 78 seeking court review. The court issued a judgment holding that the matter was remanded and that, quote, assuming on remand competent proof is presented that the Sketch Plan does, in fact, meet the turning radius for fire trucks, the petitioner’s variance should be granted, unquote. In a letter dated August 24, 2006 which is considered an order of the court, the court further stated that, quote, the scope of the hearing, be it public or otherwise, is limited to whether there is a sufficient turning radius for fire trucks. This decision and order is on Page Eight. No other issue is relevant insofar as the court can determine, on Page Eight again, that, in the event the turning radius is sufficient, quote, the petitioner’s variance should be granted, unquote. Consistent with the court’s remand order, a hearing was scheduled for October 18, 2006. At the onset of the hearing, the public was advised of the court’s order, and informed that the court had determined that the only relevant issue was whether the turning radius for fire trucks was relevant. A public hearing was opened. The applicant was afforded the opportunity to provide additional evidence regarding the turning radius of fire trucks. Members of the public were similarly permitted, consistent with the law, to present evidence regarding the turning radius for fire trucks. Consistent with the court’s judgment, the Board is limiting its consideration to the interest of the turning radius of fire trucks. However, as the applicant is aware, the Board has filed a Notice of Appeal and hereby preserves its right to perfect that appeal. While this Board respectfully disagrees with the determination of the court and believes its original decision denying the relief sought was the correct decision, we are mindful of our obligation to abide by the court’s ruling. In considering this application, there are five criteria that must be addressed, first, whether this will cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby property. Certainly subdividing this property and granting this variance for relief from the required 40 foot frontage for each of two properties will change the neighborhood. This is one factor which weighs against granting the relief requested. Second, whether the benefit sought by the applicant could be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an Area Variance. The benefit could be obtained by creating a compliant Town road. However, the cost of creating such a road would limit economic feasibility of the project. The court held that this alternative was not feasible because it could not achieve the benefit sought by the applicant, and we are constrained to apply the court’s reasoning until such time as it is overturned, if ever. Third, whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. Again, 100% relief for each of the two lots is substantial. Nonetheless, this is only one factor which must be considered. Four, whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact or effect on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The narrow question here is whether the granting of a 40 foot relief from road frontage for each of the two lots will have this effect, and this Board finds that it will not. Fifth, whether the difficulty is self-created or not. This condition has developed over years. The applicant has owned the property for many years, during which the Zoning Ordinance has changed more than once. The conditions that now restrict development of the property were imposed after the applicant purchased the property and developed his own home. This Board determines that the difficulty was not self-created. The applicant has submitted evidence indicating that the shared driveway and road access meets the requirements of the fire department and is satisfactory to the Fire Marshal. Accordingly, consistent, again, with the court order, we must grant the variances requested and allow the shared access. Nonetheless, in order to ensure that this project does not adversely impact the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood and create an undesirable change in the neighborhood, certain conditions are required in order to grant the relief sought. The Area Variances are subject to the following conditions: First, all the subdivision deeds must include mutual covenants and restrictions which ensure that the shared driveway will be paved and maintained in good condition and that snow will be removed from the shared driveway so that emergency access is maintained during the winter months. Financial responsibilities for maintenance and snow removal will be placed on Lot Two, the current residence. Having one property owner responsible for these costs will minimize future disputes regarding the nature and extent of maintenance and will better ensure emergency access. In the event that Lots Three and/or Four are not developed at the same time or perhaps never developed, Lot Two will nonetheless be accessible. Second, there was considerable discussion regarding a turnaround on Hiland Drive which, according to neighbors, is currently unusable. The applicant is required to clear that turnaround at his own expense so that it is available for fire apparatus and all users of Hiland Drive, and, Three, there will be no further subdivision of the property or the individual lots created as a result of the subdivision. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of November, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) NOES: Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant MR. ABBATE-The vote for my motion is three yes, zero no to approve Area Variance No. 73-2005 with conditions is defeated. Ladies, and gentlemen of the Board, is there another motion? MS. RADNER-I think you misspoke there, when you just read off the count. MR. ABBATE-I did? MS. RADNER-Repeat that again. MR. ABBATE-I’ll say it again. The vote is four no, and three yes. The motion I submitted is defeated. Do we have another motion from members of the Board? All right, ladies and gentlemen of the Board, I’m going to seek advice from Counsel. How’s that? MS. RADNER-I would remind the members of the Board that the direction that you have received from the Court is that the Court remands the respondents denial of the petitioner’s application for an Area Variance. However, assuming on remand, competent proof is presented that the sketch plan does, in fact, meet the turning radius for fire trucks, the petitioner’s variance should be granted. Three of you have now voted with the Chairman’s motion to approve with conditions. It’s possible that some of you wanted to vote to approve but don’t approve of the conditions. In which case you should make your own motion. If the members of the Board who voted against it are voting against it because they believe that there has been competent proof that the sketch plan does in fact meet the turning radius of fire trucks, they should make a motion to deny and cite to the record in support of their position. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Counselor. I thought that was quite clear. Members of the Board, is there a motion from any members of the Board? MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion to deny Area Variance application 73-2005. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 73-2005 CASE PRIME, Introduced by Allan Bryant who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Rockwell Road and Hiland Drive. The applicant proposes to subdivide a 16.4 acre parcel into four lots. The parcel is zoned for SR-1A and the subdivision will result in lot sizes of 5.4 acres, 5.2 acres, 2.7 acres and 2.5 acres. Specifically for Lots Two, Three, and Four, there is a proposal to share a common driveway. Lot Two is already developed. Lots Three and Four each require 100% of relief from the required 40 foot frontage upon a public street per Town Code Section 179-4-090. This Board reviewed the relevant criteria on January 18, 2006, and a majority of the Board members voted against granting the relief requested. Applicant filed a petition under CPLR Article 78 seeking court review. The court issued a judgment holding that the matter was remanded and that, assuming on remand competent proof is presented that the Sketch Plan does, in fact, meet the turning radius for fire trucks, the petitioner’s variance should be granted, unquote. In a letter dated August 24, 2006 which is considered an order of the court, the court further stated that, quote, the scope of the hearing, be it public or otherwise, is limited to whether there is sufficient turning radius for fire trucks. See decision and order, Page Eight. No other issue is relevant insofar as the court can determine, that, in the event the turning radius is sufficient, the petitioner’s variance should be granted. Consistent with the court’s remand order, a hearing was scheduled for October 18, 2006. At the onset of the hearing, the public was advised of the court’s order, and informed that the court had determined that the only relevant issue was whether the turning radius for fire trucks was relevant. A public hearing was opened. The applicant was afforded the opportunity to present additional evidence regarding the turning radius of fire trucks. Members of the public were similarly permitted, consistent with the law, to present evidence regarding the turning radius for fire trucks. Consistent with the court’s judgment, the Board is limiting its consideration to the issue of the turning radius of fire trucks. As the applicant is aware, the Board has filed a Notice of Appeal and hereby preserves its right to perfect that appeal. There are five criteria that must be addressed to grant an Area Variance. The first issue is whether the variance will cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby property. This is the factor most connected with emergency access. Certainly, subdividing this property and granting this variance for relief from the required 40 foot frontage for each of two properties will change the neighborhood. Neighbors testified, and this Board finds their testimony to be credible, that a turnaround shown on the 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) application and on maps, including the map reviewed by the Fire Marshal, has, in fact, been allowed to become overgrown and/or otherwise blocked. Thus, while on paper a turnaround exists, in reality, it does not. This is consistent with testimony provided at the earlier hearing indicating that vehicles, including plows, were required to back up, creating a hazardous condition on the road, and on at least one occasion leading to an accident. The addition of two more houses will further exacerbate this dangerous condition because the physical location does not match the plan as reviewed by the Fire Marshal, we are not satisfied that there is credible evidence that there exists adequate fire apparatus access. Moreover, the neighbors consistently and credibly reported that snow removal is a problem. Again, the plows have to back up, even under the existing conditions. While the driveway may meet the turning radius for fire trucks when clear of snow, the applicant did not satisfy this Board’s concern that access will be sufficient when there is snow on the ground. There is no mention of consideration of this issue in the Fire Marshal’s letter. While the applicant has suggested that mutually restrictive covenants on all the lots would require plowing, such covenants are not enforceable by the Town. The Town is unable to police the snow plowing of shared driveways. Given the length of the shared driveway involved, the cost of snow removal will be considerable. There is no guarantee that the applicant will always own Lot Two, and that future lot owners will diligently remove snow to ensure access by fire safety apparatus. A photograph submitted by a neighboring property owner shows that the roadside is overgrown and that there is a wire hanging across the road which could impede fire safety apparatus. While this could be addressed by the Planning Board during site plan review, it is nonetheless evident that the physical geography of the site is not consistent with the plan as presented to the Fire Marshal and that the application on paper does not accurately reflect the condition of the premises. For this reason, we find the Fire Marshal’s letter indicating that the turning radius is adequate not sufficient, credible evidence to meet the applicant’s burden of demonstrating that there is sufficient access for fire safety apparatus. The second factor for consideration is whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an Area Variance. The benefit could be obtained by creating a compliant Town road. However, the cost of creating such road would limit the feasibility of the project. The court held that this alternative was not feasible because it could not achieve the benefit sought by the applicant and we are constrained to apply the court’s reasoning. The third factor is whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. Again, 100% relief for each of the two lots is substantial. Nonetheless, the court has instructed us only to consider the fire access issue. The fourth factor is whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact or effect on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The narrow question here is whether the granting of 40 feet of relief from road frontage for each of the two lots will have this effect, and the Board finds that it will not. The fifth factor is whether the difficulty is self-created or not. This condition has developed over the years. The applicant has owned the property for many years, during which the Zoning Ordinance has changed more than once. The conditions that now restrict development of the property were imposed after the applicant purchased the property and developed his own home. The Board determines that the difficulty is not necessarily self-created. Although there have been other cases in which shared driveways have been allowed, those cases presented different situations than this present case. In two past cases where variances were granted to allow shared driveways, the applicants had sufficient frontage to provide each lot with a private drive but in both instances, the properties involved access onto Ridge Road, a busy arterial road, on which the Town has consistently discouraged additional curb cuts. In one case, the Clark case, a second gated emergency access approved by the Fire Marshal was provided to address safety concerns. In the second case, the Blackburn case, the driveway was flat with no grade issues. These decisions were consistent with the subdivision regulations which encourage double lot width or shared drives on high speed or heavily traveled roads. Here the applicant is not located on a heavily traveled road or arterial road. Hiland Drive is a dead end road. Rather than alleviating safety issues as was achieved by the grant of variances for Clark and Blackburn, the grant of the variance here would actually create or exacerbate safety issues. The court has instructed this Board to limit its review to whether there is sufficient turning radius for fire trucks in that in the event the turning radius is sufficient the petitioner’s variance should be granted. We have limited our consideration as directed by the court but find that the paper presented to the Fire Marshal is not consistent with the physical reality of the site. We believe that the maps presented by Mrs. Delahoyd show that the configuration of the turnaround on Hiland Drive has changed over time. Mr. Sotanski provided photographs that show that the terrain of Hiland Drive is considerably different from the plan and that will impact the ability of fire trucks to access the shared drive. Because the physical location does not match the plan as reviewed by the Fire Marshal, we are not satisfied that there is credible evident of 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) adequate fire apparatus access. So for those reasons, I move that we deny this application. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of November, 2006, by the following vote: MS. COYLE-Excuse me. MR. ABBATE-No, we’re in the middle of a motion. You had your opportunity to present your case. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Bryant NOES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Abbate MR. ABBATE-The vote to disapprove Area Variance No. 73-2005 is four yes, three no. Area Variance No. 73-2005 is disapproved. NEW BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 67-2006 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED RAMADA INN AGENT(S): SAXTON SIGN CORP. OWNER(S): GLENS FALLS INN ASSOCIATES ZONING: HC- INT. LOCATION: ONE ABBEY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF A 51.5 FOOT TALL FREESTANDING SIGN. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR A FREESTANDING SIGN. CROSS REF.: BP 2006-305 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: NOVEMBER 8, 2006 LOT SIZE: 5.11 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.9-1-29 SECTION: 140-6 PAT BONI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No.67-2006, Ramada Inn, Meeting Date: November 22, 2006 “Project Location: One Abbey Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes one 60.5 sq. ft. freestanding sign at 50.5-feet high. Relief Required: Applicant requests 25.5-feet of relief from the maximum 25-foot height requirement in a commercial zone, per §140-6 B(4)(a)[2]. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicants would be permitted to erect the freestanding sign at the desired height. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include reducing the height of the proposed at the present location or consideration of alternate locations. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for 25.5-feet of relief from the maximum height of 25-feet could be deemed considerable (50%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the community could be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2006-306: Issued 5/22/06, for 2 directional signs. BP 2006-305: Pending 5/22/06, 60.5 sq. ft. freestanding sign. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) BP 2006-304: Issued 5/22/06, 33.96 sq. ft. wall sign. Staff comments: The existing freestanding sign is 64 sq. ft. and 49-feet tall. The proposed sign is slightly smaller and taller, 60.5 sq. ft. and 50.5 ft. high. The applicant’s justification for the relief is the need for the sign to be visible to travelers along the Northway and a lower sign would be hidden by the trees. Alternate locations could be explored that may support a shorter sign. SEQR Status: Unlisted” MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form November 8, 2006 Project Name: Ramada Inn Owner(s): Glens Falls Inn Associates ID Number: 06-SV-67 County Project#: Nov06- Current Zoning: HC-Int. Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant is proposing placement of a 51.5 foot tall freestanding sign. Relief requested from maximum height requirement for a freestanding sign. Site Location: One Abbey Lane Tax Map Number(s): 302.9-1-29 Staff Notes: Sign Variance: The applicant proposes to install a 51.5 foot tall freestanding sign. The allowed height is 25 ft. The information submitted indicates the existing sign is to be removed that was 64 sq. ft. and 49 ft. high. The new sign is to be 60.5 sq. ft. and 50.5 ft. in height. The applicant as indicated the pole is being replaced due to its deterioration and the height is needed due to the existing tree height adjacent to the sign location. 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 11/9/06. MR. ABBATE-Gentlemen, I see you’re at the table. Would you be kind enough to identify yourself and your relationship with this variance, please. MR. BONI-Yes. I’m Pat Boni with Saxton Signs. KEVIN MARKAM MR. MARKAM-Kevin Markam, General Manager of The Ramada Inn. MR. ABBATE-Can I assume then that neither one of you are attorneys? Okay. Since you’re not attorneys, if, during the course of this hearing, there’s something you simply don’t understand, stop us, we’ll be more than happy to explain it to you, or, if you feel that you may have omitted something which is supporting your case, stop us again, and we’ll be more than happy to listen to it. So, if you are prepared to present your case, please do so. MR. BONI-Yes. You already mentioned everything that we want to do, but there is one thing is that we were already granted permission to replace this sign, and when we sent our guys up to change it, they found that the pole was not safe. So now we found out to replace the pole we have to go through a variance. The Town already approved the same sign, at the same height and size. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. Is there anything you wish to say at this time? MR. MARKAM-No. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Great. Members of the Board, do you have any questions for the appellant? MR. UNDERWOOD-Is this a replacement, just changing the logo on the sign, essentially? MR. BONI-It’s a brand new sign. We were going to put it on the existing pole, but now we want to put a new pole up to match the old pole. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. MARKAM-The Ramada logo has changed, and that’s the reason for the new sign, yes. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) MR. BONI-Yes, it’s a new corporate image. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. BRYANT-One of the things that’s mentioned in Staff notes is relative to possibly using a different location, and my question is, I know you want to use the same location because of the power and so forth and so on, but in reality you’ve got a gigantic parking lot that hovers along Interstate 87, and why do we have to have that location? Why can’t we have a normal sign further in the back of the parking lot there, closer to the road and everybody will see? MR. MARKAM-They would still have to see over the trees coming up the Northway. The vision is blocked from the trees, the height of the trees. MR. BRYANT-And you’re saying that every inch of your parking lot is covered by these gigantic trees? MR. MARKAM-That is correct, getting off the northbound exit, yes. MR. BRYANT-Now, on the Interstate highway, aren’t there signs that say lodging, Ramada Inn? MR. MARKAM-That is correct. MR. BRYANT-That’s what I thought. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. URRICO-I have a question. MR. ABBATE-Please. MR. URRICO-Since you mentioned in answer to one of the questions about the criteria there’s a business that can be lost when the public cannot see the sign, can you tell me if there are any studies, or do you know of any studies that relate the size of a sign to the amount of business that a hotel gets? MR. MARKAM-The only thing I can, I have not done a study. The only thing I can show from the force of our Hotel, over the course, since the summer months are over, are occupancy has dropped about 45%, and I can’t attribute that totally because of the sign, but I’m sure that has a big part of what’s going on, not being able to see us coming off the northbound exit. MR. URRICO-But you said you’ve had the same sign, or a sign, just, what a foot and a half lower than it is now, than you’re requesting? MR. BONI-Right. We’re still using the same pole. The sign itself is like an inch, or a little bit higher than the old sign. It’s narrower but it’s just a hair taller, and that’s one of the reasons that they’re asking for the variance. MR. URRICO-Yet business has dropped despite having that size sign? MR. MARKAM-I, myself, attribute part of that loss of business to not having a sign for northbound travelers, yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-I had a question. Was, the high sign that’s been there all these years, was that part of the original package when you built the place there originally? I think it was 1990 it goes back to. MR. BONI-It was 1990 is when they changed it to that. It was originally a Sheraton at that before, and when they changed it to a Ramada logo, they used the same height and just used the same pole. MR. GARRAND-The new sign is going to be a single pole freestanding sign similar to the old one? MR. BONI-Correct. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) MR. ABBATE-Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, any other questions at that this time? Okay. Well, what I’m going to do then is open up the public hearing for Sign Variance No. 67-2006, and if we have any members of the public who wish to comment on Sign Variance No. 67-2006, raise your hand, I’ll be more than happy to recognize you. Sir, would you come to the table, please. Would you be kind enough to speak into the microphone and for the record state your name and your place of residence, sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DON WEAVER MR. WEAVER-Yes. My name is Don Weaver, 78 Old Mill Lane, Dixon Heights. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Please tell us. MR. WEAVER-Okay. I own a piece of property in Dixon Heights and we got a notice that there was a hearing on this particular subject, and we talked to several people who live around us and became very concerned. Now we’re talking about a sign, I believe, which is 51 feet 7 inches. That’s what we’re told. Now, when you look out my windows, and we can see the flag and the flag pole, which is beautiful. It’s illuminated by a spotlight at night. I have no objection to that. We do have an objection to a sign that big in our back doors, and we’d like to know, we had no idea that this sign was going to be put up there. We don’t know exactly where it’s going to be put, but if I understand tonight that it’s going to be put on the flagpole. Is that correct? MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t think it’s on the flagpole. MR. ABBATE-No, it’s not on the flagpole. MR. WEAVER-I don’t know. All right. I have some things here that we asked people to sign if they were in favor or against, and I picked these out of my mailbox before I came tonight. We had collected over 70 of these before, I’m sorry, 60. Do you have them there, sir? They were delivered at noon today. MR. UNDERWOOD-I do. In the file, I just counted them up, there’s 48 in the file. MR. WEAVER-Forty-eight. I believe there’s about eight or nine here, which I would like to give to you. MR. ABBATE-Yes. If you’d like to introduce that into evidence, we’d be more than happy to accept it. Thank you, sir. Now is there anything else you’d like to say? MR. WEAVER-Yes. We would like to know more about this sign, where it’s going to be put. MR. ABBATE-Did you receive copies of the notice? You apparently are within 500 feet, is that the idea? And did you receive notification of what they intend to do? MR. WEAVER-Just to put up a sign, that’s all. MR. ABBATE-All right. Why don’t we do this, Mr. Secretary. For the benefit of the public, would you do me a favor, please. Here’s what I would suggest. MR. UNDERWOOD-We have the current sign and then you have the new sign. There’s the current one and the new one, the one that’s already there. MR. WEAVER-Yes. The proposed height of the sign, now I can see how the sign’s going to be mounted on the pole. Is it going to be mounted on the same pole that the old sign was? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. WEAVER-Okay. I’m also Vice President of the Dixon Heights Homeowners Association Phase III. That’s why I’m here tonight to find out more information. We’re having a meeting next Tuesday to discuss other business and they wanted some information on this. So that’s all the information that I need right now is this here, and is there a way I can get a copy of this? MR. UNDERWOOD-You can keep that one. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) MR. WEAVER-Keep this one? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. WEAVER-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. BRYANT-I just want to ask you one question, sir, if you don’t mind. Do you see the current sign now from your property? MR. WEAVER-Not the sign. The flagpole and the flag we can. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So basically this is going in the same location, in all probability you won’t see the sign, is that what you’re saying? MR. WEAVER-I don’t know. The sign is. MR. BRYANT-It’s only a foot and a half taller. MR. WEAVER-A foot and a half taller, that’s fine if that’s what it’s going to be. We didn’t know where it was going to be. If it was going to be down the Northway a quarter of a mile saying that the Ramada Inn was on the left coming up or what. We had no idea. This will explain some of the things I believe that we wanted to know. MR. BRYANT-Okay. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. MR. WEAVER-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-You bet. Do we have any other members of the public who would like to address Sign Variance No. 67-2006? If you’d raise your hand, I’ll be happy to recognize you. I see no other hands raised. Would you gentlemen please come back to the table. MR. UNDERWOOD-I have two letters to read. MR. ABBATE-All right. Mr. Secretary, would you be kind enough to read those into the record, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-As mentioned by the previous speaker there, we did receive public comment that was given to the Town this evening, and there were 48 signatures on those sheets that were passed around to the Dixon Heights neighborhood, plus the nine that were submitted. There was a second letter also received, and this was a message by telephone. “Mr. Dreon is concerned about such a large sign in his back yard and the nuisance it will cause. He is also concerned about the timing of the meeting, the night before Thanksgiving. Many people in his neighborhood will not be able to attend and he thinks in the future people should plan more carefully when they put controversial items such as this on the agenda. He would like to have the decision on the variance postponed until more neighbors can attend the meeting.” MR. ABBATE-I’d like to address that for a second. I’d like the public to know that this Board, in its infinite wisdom, understands the problem of having a hearing prior to Thanksgiving. So for the Year 2007 we intend to have our hearings based on the resolution that we’re going to pass hopefully in December, the first two weeks of November not to interfere with the Thanksgiving holiday and first two weeks of December, which is unheard of, for December not to interfere with Christmas. So the comment was made and we understood that and the Board members, without exception, understand his problem and have addressed the problem and hopefully we have resolved it for 2007. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, before you go on. Mr. Secretary, the signatures that you have, what does the petition say exactly? MR. UNDERWOOD-I do apologize. MR. BRYANT-I mean, are they in favor of it or opposed to it? MR. UNDERWOOD-They were all opposed to it. I apologize for not reading that. It says, “To All Dixon Heights Homeowners From Connie Schwartz, 71 Old Mill Lane, 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) nd Queensbury, New York On Wednesday, November 22, the Queensbury Planning Board will consider and possibly vote on a variance being put forth by the RAMADA INN. Ramada wants to erect a Fifty-one foot electric sign that will be visible to all or most Dixon Heights residents. It’s thought that this would be an eyesore for us. Please sign below on the appropriate lines and these notes will be delivered to the Planning Board before the Wednesday night’s meeting that starts at 7:00 p.m. Thank you.”, and they were all against the sign. It says please place this note in the mailbox at 78 Old Mill Lane. MR. BRYANT-Thank you. MR. BONI-Can I say something? MR. ABBATE-You certainly may. MR. BONI-I wonder if all these people realize that we’re replacing the sign. They may think it’s going on the flagpole, like this gentleman thought. MR. UNDERWOOD-I believe that that was the confusion. That’s been cleared up. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now before I ask members to offer their comments, I’d like to inform the public that the comments that are going to be offered right now by members of this Board are directed to the Chairman, and that comments expressed by Board members to the Chairman are not open to debate. So may I respectfully remind the members that precedence mandates that we concern ourselves with the evidence which appears on the record to support our conclusions, and that the evidence relied upon should be specifically stated. Additionally, any position you may take must be based on the regulatory review criteria of our laws and not simply on subjective preferences or not liking a project, and Board members obligated to make decisions on reliable evidence contained in the record of Board deliberations. I would now ask members to please offer their comments on Sign Variance No. 67-2006. Do we have a volunteer? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll go first. MR. ABBATE-Please. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Essentially what I think we’re looking at here is a replacement for a sign that’s currently existing, and as mentioned before, it’s been there since 1990, at the height of 49 feet, and in replacing this sign, they are going to replace it with a sign that’s slightly taller, but it will be in exactly the same place as the old sign, and the amount of relief that’s necessary, it’ll be at 50.5 feet high as opposed to 49 feet high, and I think it would be a little bit silly of us to deny them the fact of having this sign for a foot and a half. I think for someone to measure 49 feet or 50 feet by looking at it, to think that it was going to be a detriment to the neighborhood, obviously, since it’s been there since 1990, they were granted a variance at that point, and we can’t overturn a variance that was granted previously, unless it’s substantially different, and in this case I don’t think it’s substantially different. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Underwood. Do we have anyone else who would like to volunteer to offer their comments? MRS. HUNT-I will. MR. ABBATE-Mrs. Hunt, would you please. MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have to agree with Mr. Underwood. Essentially it’s a replacement and I know myself, going north on the Northway, if they didn’t have that sign there, I don’t think you’d know where the Hotel was, because even though the sign tells you that it’s there, you don’t know where unless you’ve got that sign, and so I don’t have any problem with it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mrs. Hunt. Members of the Board, do we have anyone else who would like to comment? MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-Yes, please, Mr. Bryant. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) MR. BRYANT-I’d have to disagree with both of the other comments. We have an opportunity here, because of whatever the problem is with the pole, it being safe or not safe, to re-think the location of the sign and the size of the sign. One of the other Board members had indicated that it’s difficult to find the Hotel. It’s difficult to find the Hotel, but in reality there is a directional sign that says Ramada on it right on Burke Drive. There are signs going north or south on the Northway that indicate that the Ramada is, and an arrow when you get off the exit pointing towards the left where the Ramada is and so forth and so on. So I think that that freestanding sign does very little, as far as directing people to the location. So it might be time to re-think where we’re putting the sign and try to get a more compliant sign, the fact that we have this opportunity now with the bad pole. So I’m going to be opposed to it. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, Mr. Bryant. Mr. Garrand, would you mind, please. MR. GARRAND-Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think that I agree with Mr. Underwood on this. I think this sign isn’t going to really have a big impact on the neighborhood. This sign was up for years, and I never saw a letter to the editor or heard any other complaint about this sign for many, many years. I also don’t think this sign is going to throw out very much light at all. The design of this sign is predominantly dark, and I don’t think it’s going to be a high visible target from almost anywhere except the Northway. I also wouldn’t want to see the trees and the other landscaping around the property removed, just so we could put in another sign. So I’d be in favor of this application. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-I kind of agree with Mr. Bryant somewhat but I’m leaning on granting the variance. I think the benefit to the applicant is pretty obvious that they’d be able to basically replace the sign. Although we’ve talked about feasible alternatives, I’m not sure that moving this sign to another location wouldn’t be more detrimental to the community than it is right now. It seems to me that once the community realizes where the sign’s going and it’s pretty much the same height as before, it’s not going to change their visibility, which is nonexistent right now, but it will help visibility from the Northway without really changing very much. So if that’s the case, I think that’s a win for both sides. While the relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance, I think it’s something we have to be careful about on this Board, because we’re going to be seeing more hotels along the Northway and we’re going to be seeing more cries to be seen by the Northway. So the size of the signs are going to increase as we’ve seen by Great Escape and as we’ve seen by other hotels dotting the Northway from Albany up to here, but this one is a replacement sign, like Jim has said, and I believe it’s going to be relatively unobtrusive compared to what it is now. So I’m willing to grant it at this point. I don’t see an effect on the neighborhood or community. Even though there is objection to it, I think there’s some misunderstanding as to where the sign is going and the size of it. So I think the neighborhood won’t be effected, and I think it’s not self-created because he’s replacing the sign, and it’s pretty much in the same location. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much for your perspective. I appreciate that. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I think, I, too, am going to be in favor. It strikes me that, I don’t think there’s a great deal of benefit, probably, from this sign of bringing in spur of the moment travelers, although that may bring in some, but I think there is a distinct advantage, I know from traveling that I’ve done, that to see a sign off in the distance and say, that’s where the place is, even if I’ve got a reservation that I made two weeks ago, and this particular Hotel is especially in that situation. It is in kind of a convoluted position to get to. So I think that there’s a distinct benefit from somebody traveling on the Northway to be able to see the sign and get some direction from it, just seeing where it is. To make it compliant, move it back, cut the height, then it would be visible from people in the parking lot, and that’s not the point of the sign. The point of the sign is to get people to the parking lot, and we’re guessing a little bit, but I think from the discussion we’ve had that I gather that the neighborhood that was concerned here tonight has not been bothered by the old existing sign that was there, and this essentially is replacing that. So I think we’re safe assuming that we’re not going to affect that neighborhood by approving this. Given all that, I think the benefit to the applicant is going to outweigh any detriment to the community. So I’d be in favor. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, Mr. McNulty. I would agree with my fellow Board members. I think each Board member this evening has made valid points. There’s no question about that at all, but my position would be with the majority of the Board and I, too, would support the application. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) MRS. BARDEN-Mr. Chairman, just one clarification to something that was stated. I don’t believe that an Area Variance was ever granted for the height of the sign. MR. ABBATE-Well, okay. Thank you. For the record, Staff indicates that an Area Variance was not previously granted. MRS. BARDEN-I’m not sure if they stated that. I think Mr. Underwood stated it, and Mr. Urrico reiterated that statement. MR. URRICO-Didn’t you say something about being approved? MS. RADNER-He said he got approval for a replacement sign, but when he found out he needed a new pole, he had to come back. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. MARKAM-Right. Someone on the Board mentioned about a variance. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I assumed, dating back to ’90, that it would have been reviewed by the Town at that point. MRS. BARDEN-I think it was just a change of copy from Sheraton to Ramada on the same pole. MR. ABBATE-The record would show that we made the adjustments accordingly, and thank you so much, Staff, we appreciate that. MR. UNDERWOOD-We’ve got to do the environmental thing. MR. ABBATE-Yes. We’re going to do that now. This is Unlisted. So I’m going to ask the Secretary to be kind enough to do an Environmental Assessment Form, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-The applicant is the Saxton Sign Corporation, and the project, again, is at The Ramada Inn, in Queensbury, at One Abbey Lane. In describing the project, they’re replacing an existing pylon sign pole and base due to deterioration. Will the proposed action comply with existing zoning and/or other existing restrictions? They do have a current permit in effect for that sign, and so I think that the hang up is that they’re replacing the pole that the sign rests on. MR. ABBATE-I agree. MR. UNDERWOOD-What is the present land use in the vicinity of the project? It’s commercial. Does the action involve a permit approval or funding now or ultimately from any other governmental agency? I would say no. MR. ABBATE-Agreed. MR. UNDERWOOD-Does any aspect of the action have a currently valid permit or approval? It does have Town of Queensbury Permit No. P20060305, and that’s on 5/22/06 for a new sign. Does the action exceed any Type I Threshold in NC, New York Conservation Regulatory Law Part 617.4? I would say no. MR. ABBATE-Agreed. MR. UNDERWOOD-Will the action received coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in the same law? I would say no. MR. ABBATE-Agreed. MR. UNDERWOOD-Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production and/or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? I would say no. MR. ABBATE-Agreed. MR. UNDERWOOD-Aesthetic agricultural, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources or community or neighborhood character? I would say no. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) MR. ABBATE-Agreed. MR. UNDERWOOD-Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats or threatened or endangered species? I would say no. MR. ABBATE-Agreed. MR. UNDERWOOD-A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? I would say no. MR. ABBATE-Agreed. MR. UNDERWOOD-Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? I would say no. MR. ABBATE-Agreed. MR. UNDERWOOD-Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified? I would say no. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Other impacts including changes in either the quantity or type of energy? I would say no. MR. ABBATE-Agreed. MR. UNDERWOOD-Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area? I would say no. MR. ABBATE-Agreed. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is there, or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? I would say no. MR. ABBATE-Agreed. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. That’s it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MOTION THAT THERE IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT INDICATING THAT THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT, AND UNLESS THERE’S A CHALLENGE FROM MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, I ACCEPT THAT BASIS IN ANTICIPATION OF NO NEGATIVE RESPONSES, AS SUCH I MOVE THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM BY APPROVED, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: nd Duly adopted this 22 day of November, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-In a seven yes to zero no, the Environmental Assessment Form is approved. The public hearing is now closed for Sign Variance No. 67-2006. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And again, I’m going to respectfully remind the members that we have the task of balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area. We all know what the five factors are to take into consideration. I’m going to request that you please introduce your motion with clarity, and the motion itself is not subject to debate. Any member not favoring the motion may exercise their right to vote no and/or to introduce their own motion. Is there a motion for Sign Variance No. 67-2006? 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 67-2006 RAMADA INN, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: One Abbey Lane. The applicant proposes one 60.5 square foot freestanding sign at 50.5 feet high. The relief required, the applicant requests 25.5 feet of relief from the maximum 25 foot height requirement in a commercial zone per Section 140-6B(4)(a)(2). What would the benefit be to the applicant? The applicants would be able to erect a freestanding sign at the desired height. Are there feasible alternatives? Feasible alternatives may include reducing the height of the proposed sign, but that does not seem to be really feasible, and alternate locations were also ruled out. Is it substantial relative to the Ordinance? While it is 25.5 feet of relief, it is really only 1.5 foot higher than the sign that’s there now, and the effects of the neighborhood or community would be moderate since the sign has been there for many years. It’s self-created only in the fact that they wish to have a sign advertising their business. So I make a motion that we approve Sign Variance No. 67-2006. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of November, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate NOES: Mr. Bryant MR. ABBATE-The vote for Sign Variance No. 67-2006 is six yes, one no. Sign Variance No. 67-2006 is approved. MR. BONI-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 68-2006 SEQRA TYPE: II ROCHELLE K. ADAMS OWNER(S): ROCHELLE K. ADAMS ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 129 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 156 SQ. FT. DECK ENCLOSURE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-ZONE. CROSS REF.: BP 2006-634 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: NOVEMBER 8, 2006 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 1.01 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-5 SECTION: 179-4-030 ROCHELLE & DAVID ADAMS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 68-2006, Rochelle K. Adams, Meeting Date: November 22, 2006 “Project Location: 129 Assembly Point Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 156 sq. ft. deck enclosure. Relief Required: The applicant requests 4-feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum front setback (Knox Road), per §179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the proposed 156 sq. ft. deck enclosure. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for 4-feet of relief from the minimum 30-feet could be considered moderate relative to the ordinance (13%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) Minor effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2006-634: Pending, 187 sq. ft. porch addition. BP 2004-855: Issued 10/29/04, septic alteration. BP 2002-750: Issued 9/17/02, 904 sq. ft. residential addition. Staff comments: The property has two fronts (Knox Road and Assembly Point Road), the architectural front is on Assembly Point Road. The proposed deck enclosure will not increase the existing nonconforming front setback from Knox Road. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. UNDERWOOD--“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form November 8, 2006 Project Name: Adams, Rochelle K. Owner(s): Rochelle K. Adams ID Number: 06-AV-68 County Project#: Nov06-14 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant is proposing construction of a 156 sq. ft. deck enclosure. Relief requested from front setback requirements of the WR- zone. Site Location: 129 Assembly Point Road Tax Map Number(s): 239.7-1-5 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to enclose an existing 156 sq. ft. deck. The deck enclosure is to be located 26 ft. from Knox Road where 30 ft. is required. The information submitted shows the location of the deck and house on the lot. The plans do not highlight the area of work or the distance as the application does provide this information. Staff recommends no county impact with the condition the plans highlight the area of work with setback information. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact with Stipulation The Warren County Planning Board recommends No County Impact with the condition the plans highlight the area of work with setback information.” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 11/9/06” MR. ABBATE-Okay. Good evening, folks. Would you be kind enough, please, to speak into the microphone, identify yourself and tell us where you reside, please. MR. ADAMS-I am David Adams, and I reside at 129 Assembly Point Road. This is my wife. MRS. ADAMS-I’m Rochelle Adams, same address, 129 Assembly Point Road. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now I’m assuming that you’re not represented by counsel. Okay. Then I hope you heard what I said earlier. If at any time during the course of this hearing, there’s something you don’t understand, all you have to do is raise your hand. We’ll be more than happy to explain it to you, and, if, during the course of this hearing, you feel you may have omitted something that would support your request, stop us. We’ll be more than happy to listen to what you have to say. So, what we would like you folks to do for us this evening, right now, is to explain to us, tell us why you feel we should approve your request. MR. ADAMS-I think first of all, explaining the property, we are on the corner of Assembly Point Road and Knox Road, which does give us two fronts, as it’s called, and for the record we are not the original homeowner of that home. It was built prior, and when it was built, I think the setbacks at that time were different. So now we have what we would call, or what is called an existing deck, and that deck was there when the house was built, and in compliance, and then I think something happened on Knox Road where the setbacks were changed, and it became 30 feet. So now part of that house is now not in compliance, but we’re grandfathered what we have, I assume. So we have an existing deck and what we really wanted to do is screen it in. That’s pretty much simplistic, I think. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) MR. ABBATE-Okay. Is there anything, ma’am, you’d like to add at this time? Okay. Well, then I’m going to move on and I’m going to ask members if they have any questions for Mr. or Mrs. Adams concerning Area Variance No. 68-2006? MR. BRYANT-I had a question, Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-Yes, Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-The screened in deck is not going to encroach anymore on the setback. All you’re doing is enclosing the existing deck, right? MR. ADAMS-Absolutely correct. Not going out farther in any direction. MR. BRYANT-Okay. That’s all I wanted. Thank you. MR. BRYANT-Board members, any questions? Okay. Then I’m going to continue. I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 68-2006. If we have any members of the public who would like to comment on Area Variance No. 68-2006, if you’d be kind enough to raise your hand, I will recognize you and ask you to come forward. Is there any member of the public who wishes to comment on Area Variance No. 68-2006? I see no hands raised, so I’m going to continue. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-I have three letters. MR. ABBATE-Yes, Mr. Secretary, would you be kind enough to read those into the record, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-This is addressed to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Office from William Bernard at 133 Assembly Point Road. “It has come to my attention that my next door neighbor to the south of me will be making an application for a variance to screen in their deck. This would be Rochelle Adams at 129 Assembly Point Road. As I will be traveling, I may not have my mail forwarded to me in time to receive your letter for me to respond with my opinion. I am the closest to the project both visually and audibly. I have seen the plans and think the house will look great. I am 100% in favor of the project. Thank you in advance for your consideration. William Bernard” Second letter says, “It is my understanding that Rochelle K. Adams is interested in a construction of a 156 sq. ft. deck enclosure. I think that would be fine. She will enjoy it and make Assembly Point more prosperous. Sorry I can’t be there at the meeting, but I’m happy for her. Thank you, Mary Trello” I don’t have an address on that one, and the last one. “Ladies and Gentlemen: Please let this letter be read at the public hearing for the application of Rochelle Adams for a deck enclosure to their home at 129 Assembly Point Road. I am in favor of their request for this deck enclosure. David & Rochelle have enhanced the neighborhood with their previous renovations, and I am confident that their project will be nothing less than the same style and elegance as in the past. Best Regards, Michael Dawson 115 Assembly Point Road Queensbury, NY 12804” MR. ADAMS-I have good neighbors. MR. UNDERWOOD-I guess they like you. MR. ABBATE-I’m going to ask members to offer their comments again, and the comments that the Board members are going to be making are directed to the Chairman, and as a result, they will not be open to debate. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board, I reminded you earlier about precedence mandating our concerning ourselves with the evidence, and I really see no reason to have to repeat it at this time. I’m going to ask Board members to please offer their comments on Area Variance No. 68-2006, and do we have a volunteer? MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, this is a reasonable request. The Adams are not going to encroach anymore into the setback, or not going to alter the structure in any way, other than to enclose the deck. Relief is minimal. I’d be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. MRS. HUNT-I have to agree. I think this is a modest proposal. Four feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum is not a lot, and I think that 156 square foot deck is modest, again, and from the plans it looks like it’ll be very attractive, and I have no problem. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d have to agree with the other Board members on this one. We’re not actually increasing the setbacks anymore on this. We’re basically going up with it. So I’d be in favor of this application. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. UNDERWOOD-We’ve had many other previous applicants come in and want to close in their decks, and usually in the case of the fact that they’re not going to expand those decks, I have no problem with this one. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-I’m in agreement with the rest of the Board. I would be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much, and Mr. McNulty? MR. MC NULTY-I can basically say ditto. I think since it’s not going to increase the incursion into the setbacks, I see no reason not to approve this. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Great. Thank you very much, and I certainly agree with all of our Board members. I do believe that your request is reasonable, and quite frankly, if I were in your shoes appearing before this Board, I would request the same thing. Now, having said that, I’m going to close the public hearing for Area Variance No. 68-2006. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And again, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board, we know what the five factors are. I don’t believe I have to go through that again, please. So I’m going to seek a motion for Area Variance No. 68-2006. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 68-2006 ROCHELLE K. ADAMS, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: 129 Assembly Point Road. Applicant proposes construction of 156 square foot deck enclosure. The applicant requests four feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback as per Section 179-4-030 for the Waterfront Residential 1A zone. Whether the applicant can achieve benefits by any other means, I don’t see how. Enclosing the deck, there’s basically only one way to do it. Will this provide an undesirable change in the neighborhood? Quite the contrary. I think it will be a desirable change. It’ll be an aesthetically pleasing enclosure. Is the request substantial? In this situation we’re not increasing any setbacks here. We’re using the existing setbacks and simply going vertical with it. Whether the request will have adverse physical or environmental impacts? At this point, we can see no adverse physical or environmental impacts on the neighborhood or the area. Is the difficulty self-created? Well it may be interpreted as self-created, because they’d like to enclose each side of the deck. So, yes, it may be self-created. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of November, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 68-2006 is seven yes, zero no. Area Variance No. 68-2006 is approved. Good luck, ladies and gentlemen. MR. ADAMS-Thank you. MRS. ADAMS-Thank you. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 69-2006 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED BROOKS BROTHERS FACTORY STORE AGENT(S): JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER(S): MOUNTAIN VIEW OUTLETS ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 1476 NYS ROUTE 9, MOUNTAIN VIEW OUTLETS APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TWO WALL SIGNS FOR ONE TENANT. RELIEF REQUEST FOR NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE WALL SIGNS 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) PER OCCUPANT OF A BUSINESS COMPLEX. CROSS REF: N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: NOVEMBER 8, 2006 LOT SIZE: 4.5 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-17 SECTION: 140-6 JON LAPPER & JEFF GORDON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No.69-2006, Brooks Brothers Factory Store, Meeting Date: November 22, 2006 “Project Location: 1476 NYS Route 9, Mountain View Outlets Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes the installation of two 79.7 sq. ft. wall signs. Relief Required: Applicant requests an additional wall sign where one wall sign per occupant of a business complex is allowed, per §140-6 B(3)(d)[4][b]. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicants would be permitted to install a second wall sign. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for a second wall sign where one is allowed should be deemed considerable (100%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the community could be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 64-2004: Approved 11/23/04, Mountain View Outlets, to construct facade, lighting and landscaping improvements to an existing retail building on Route 9. AV 85-2004: Approved 11/17/04, Mountain View Outlets, for construction of a clock tower addition to the front of the building, relief from front and TCO setback requirements. BP 2004-768: Mountain View Outlets, replaces sign of Factory Stores of America, 130 sq. ft. free-standing sign. SV 40-2004: Approved 7/21/04, for Mountain View Outlet Stores, applicant proposes to remove the existing 60 sq. ft. Factory Stores of America freestanding sign and replace it with a new double-faced electric 130 sq. ft. sign (Mountain View Outlet Stores). Relief requested from the minimum setback and maximum size requirements. SV 10-2004: Denied 3/24/04, for Carter's (Factory Stores of America), applicant proposes installation of a 42 sq. ft. wall sign for the Carter's outlet store, relief from the number of signs allowed per tenant in a business complex. Staff comments: The applicant states that the relief requested should not be deemed substantial because Brooks Brothers is leasing two store fronts, therefore, the number of signs on the plaza would be the same. SV 10-2004 was denied on March 24, 2004 for a second wall sign for Carter’s (42 sq. ft.) to replace the Levi’s sign, in the same location as proposed here (see parcel history and resolution). 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) SV 40-2004 was approved on July 21, 2004 for a 130 sq. ft. freestanding sign for the plaza (see parcel history and resolution). A condition of that approval was that the wall signs on the west end of the building facing State Route 9 be removed. SEQR Status: Unlisted” MR. UNDERWOOD---“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form November 8, 2006 Project Name: Brooks Brothers Factory Store Owner(s): Mountain View Outlets ID Number: 06-SV-69 County Project#: Nov06-17 Current Zoning: HC-Int. Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant is requesting two wall signs for one tenant. Relief requested for number of allowable signs per occupant of a business complex. Site Location: 1476 NYS Route 9, Mountain View Outlets Tax Map Number(s): 288.12-1-17 Staff Notes: Sign Variance: The applicant proposes to install two wall signs for one tenant at an outlet building facility. The applicant is allowed one 100 sq. ft. wall sign where the applicant proposes two wall signs each building 79.7 sq. ft. The plans show the location of the two wall signs. The applicant has indicated the tenant is leasing two retail spaces for operation of the store where the signage allowed by two separate retail spaces would be 100 sq. ft. for each retail operation. 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 11/9/06” MR. ABBATE-Gentlemen, I see that you’re here. Would you be kind enough to speak into the microphone, identify yourself and your relationship to Sign Variance No. 69- 2006, please. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper with Jeff Gordon, who is a principal in Mountain View Outlets. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-As the Board is aware from the Staff notes, and will probably recall, we were here two summers ago when Jeff’s company bought the plaza, and at that point it was very rundown and it wasn’t totally empty, but it had more low end tenants, more local tenants than national or regional tenants. Jeff’s company came in. He got the variance from the Board for the pylon sign which he felt was absolutely necessary to go out and start marketing the plaza, and he went to the Planning Board and did a site plan to change the façade. They connected to the new sewer line. They re-paved the parking lot, all the stuff that the former owner hadn’t been well maintained, and it needed to be upgraded. So now they have a plaza that’s more modern and attractive looking. At the same time, their efforts to re-tenant it have gone a lot slower than they thought, and part of that is just because of the location of the buildings, that it’s facing a little bit towards the north, away from the road. It’s the end plaza, if you will, in that outlet area, and not the most desirable location in terms of visibility when you’re getting off the Northway, but that said, over the summer, Jeff called me and said he’s negotiating with Brooks Brothers, which is just a very important potential tenant for this plaza, and I think also for that whole corridor. This is the kind of high end retailer that other high end retailers want to be around, and the application mentioned two and a half store fronts. It’s an 8,000 square foot space, which is a very significant size for an outlet tenant, certainly, in the Queensbury marketplace. We view this kind of like the Polo outlet on the other end of the plaza, you know, real high end that will draw other tenants there, and of course other shoppers. In terms of the benefit, well, Brooks Brothers basically signed a lease that said, yes, we’ll take 8,000 square feet of space. Jeff’s going to have to spend a lot of money getting them in there because the tenant improvements that he’s committed to are expensive, but more than that, the lease is contingent upon us applying for and getting this variance. They said we’re not going to make a commitment to an 8,000 square foot space in Queensbury unless we have better visibility. They would have liked to have been on the end, where Carters is, but that’s already leased, and Jeff did talk to Carters about trying to relocate and they were not willing. It’s a really big deal for them to get this tenant in there. Eight thousand square feet will take up a significant amount of the vacant space. There’s still plenty more to be leased, but that’s a significant sized tenant, but more than that, it’s just the fact that it’s this really high end retailer, and that’s going to do a lot for him, for the plaza, and I think also arguably for the rest of the neighborhood because having this tenant there will probably increase the quality of the tenants ultimately over time in some of the other plazas, just because it’s going to attract a more affluent shopper and they’ll have other high end stores. So we’re 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) coming to you, hat in hand, knowing that we were here two years ago, anticipated that the pylon sign would be all it would take to get some visibility out on the road, but we’ve got a lease with Brooks Brothers, and they’re saying they’ll take the space. They’ll make the commitment to Queensbury, but they’ve got to have something on the side of the building because their shop would otherwise just be facing away from the road. That’s pretty much it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-How many outlets does Brooks Brothers have? I know there’s one in Freeport, Maine. That’s the only one I know of. MR. GORDON-They’re all over the country. I don’t know exactly how many, but they’re one of the bigger ones. Nationally, there are hundreds, maybe 500, a tremendous amount of stores. MR. URRICO-They have one in Manchester, and I don’t recall their signs being that noticeable there. Why do they feel they have to have that kind of notice here? MR. GORDON-I’m not sure, I think Manchester’s a little bit of a different marketplace. The outlets are set up a little differently there than Lake George. MR. URRICO-They’re more low key. MR. GORDON-There, it’s more of, they’re very small and there’s many of them. So it’s more of a walking. Everybody walks up in Manchester. It’s really a night and day, compared to Lake George. We spent considerable efforts to try to get Brooks Brothers, and we offered them a very, very attractive deal, but one of their main problems with our center was the way you face it, and they said they would consider it if we could give them the end cap. Carters was not willing to give it up. That’s how valuable that end cap was, but because we kept pushing and pushing and offering a deal that was just, we believe in Queensbury, and we believe that this tenant will do remarkable in Queensbury, and they were willing to jump in with us, but they said the only way we would do it in your center is if you get us this sign on the end to give us the impression that we have the end cap. We need that visibility, and as hard as I tried, I mean, they made it a contingency in their lease. That’s how important it was for them. MR. LAPPER-The other good argument in our application was that by taking two and a half of the existing spaces, that, in terms of square footage, we would have, we could have two 100 foot square signs on that space. Granted, it’s not on the end like we’re asking for, but in terms of the signage, we’re taking reduced signage on the front of the store, because by asking for less than 80 square feet, we’re not maxing out and saying 100 on each sign. So we’re saying 79 and change on the front, and there could be 100 for each of the storefronts that are on the front. So we’re certainly not trying to ask for too much here, just the minimum that will get this tenant in. MR. URRICO-They’ll be on the monument sign as well? MR. GORDON-Yes. MR. LAPPER-But that’s a little. MR. GORDON-Right. MR. LAPPER-That’s a little sign. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, it could be 100 if there were two separate businesses. MR. LAPPER-That’s right. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but it’s not, it’s one business. MR. LAPPER-Yes, but in that space, I mean, in 8,000 square feet, we could have most of the other tenants. MR. BRYANT-Yes, it could be, and it could snow tonight, but I mean, the reality is it’s one business. MR. LAPPER-Well, it’s set up with two storefronts now. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) MR. BRYANT-I understand that. MR. LAPPER-And I’m only saying that in terms of there were two tenants in that space previously, two separate spaces, two and a half, as Jeff said. So it could accommodate that without renovations. It could accommodate two tenants, and there were. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Gentlemen, ladies, any other questions before we proceed? Okay. I’m going to open up the public hearing for Sign Variance No. 69-2006. If we have any members of the public who’d like to address this issue. Yes, sir. Please come to the table. Would you be kind enough to speak into the microphone and identify yourself and place of residence, sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ED MOORE, JR. MR. MOORE-My name is Ed Moore, Jr. My family owns French Mountain Commons Outlet Center which is a couple of yards up the road from Mountain View. I live in Queensbury, in Luzerne Place. I’m here just as a fellow landowner, a fellow outlet owner in the area, to give my support to Brooks Brothers coming to the area, and also to the sign. I think they’d be a great addition to the area and help bring customers to all the outlets, because we’re not just one outlet center. We’re really not in competition with each other, we’re all one. When somebody comes up from Albany area, even locally, they shop us all. So Brooks Brothers would be a great addition to area, and to the community and bring more, you know, more money into the area for shoppers from the Albany and southern districts, such as New York City. Also I feel the end cap, which was mentioned, if you can go back, can you show where those signs are? Not the signs, but the pictures? Where you had those group of six pictures up there. All right. See that middle one right there? That’s the end cap, right, that the fellow spoke about, right there. That is barren right now, and that’s the view, when you come up Route 9, that blank view of the peak is what you see, and there’s nothing on it. It’s just blank, and it’s now brown, and in all honesty it’s unattractive and it doesn’t give the center anything pleasing to the eye. It’s rather ugly, in my opinion, and I think, whether it’s a sign or something that would go up there would be more pleasing to the eye, to the people that visit our area, and also, too, to say, hey Brooks Brothers is here, let’s pull in, and also, too, I handle the leasing, advertising and maintenance for my outlet center, and I know people, I know the company. I know Brooks Brothers. Al McCullough runs it. They have Casual Corner. They also have Adrian Vinidini. They’re a top shelf company. They’re one of the best, and I would imagine, I haven’t seen a picture. I don’t know what it looks like, but I’m sure anything they put up there is probably going to look pretty good. So, just wanted to say that I think it would be great to decorate the area a little bit and have Brooks Brothers come to Lake George. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. MR. MOORE-You’re welcome. MR. ABBATE-Do we have anyone else in the audience who would like to address Sign Variance No. 69-2006? I see no other hands. Gentlemen, would you come back to the table, please. MR. LAPPER-Of course in my experience I’m only used to competitors complaining about applications. So it’s nice that he went on record just to indicate that it will be positive for the other outlet owners in the corridor because it’s such a high end tenant. MR. ABBATE-That’s what he was doing, Counselor? MR. LAPPER-Yes, that’s my paraphrasing it. MR. ABBATE-Before I ask members to offer their comments, again, their comments are going to be addressed to the Chairman and they’re not open to debate. MR. URRICO-Can I ask another question? MR. ABBATE-Yes, by all means, Mr. Urrico. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) MR. URRICO-Is there any possibility of a scaled down version of that second sign? MR. LAPPER-How scaled down? MR. URRICO-Well, did they suggest that they needed two signs of equal size? MR. GORDON-That’s a good question. That may be a possibility. They said hands down that they would definitely need a sign on the front of the building. I never had a discussion with them on scaling it down, but. MR. URRICO-Because as I recall when you did have a sign on that side, when it was Carters, it was much smaller than the. MR. GORDON-I believe Levi’s had a sign, yes, at one time there, but I believe, before I bought the center, all the signs were like these small, wood signs, and then I recently changed them over to the. MR. URRICO-You’ve done a nice job. It’s really very attractive. MR. ABBATE-Good. Thank you, Mr. Urrico. Gentlemen, ladies, any questions? All right. I’m going to, any comments you’d like to make at all on Sign Variance No. 69- 2006, other than Mr. Urrico? All right. Then I’m going to ask the Secretary, since this is Unlisted, would you be kind enough, Mr. Secretary, to read into the record the Environmental Assessment Form. Please. MR. UNDERWOOD-Should we deliberate first, before we do that? MR. ABBATE-I’ll do it again, I thought I asked members. Gentlemen and ladies of the Board, do we have any comments you’d like to make concerning Sign Variance No. 69- 2006? I think the answer to your question, Mr. Secretary, is read the Short Environmental Assessment Form into the record, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. The applicant is Gordon Companies. The project location, again, is 1476 New York State Route 9. Is the proposed action, it’s a modification or alteration, is what they have checked down on here. The amount of land effected, it’s a sign again, so it doesn’t really have any application, as far as that goes. Will the proposed action comply with the existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? No, I think essentially they’re getting a second sign when they’re only allowed one, re: the regulations. What is the present land use in the vicinity of the project? It’s commercial. Describe the area, it’s in the outlet mall area of Town. Does the action involve a permit approval or funding now or ultimately from any other governmental agency? I would say no. MR. ABBATE-Agreed. MR. UNDERWOOD-Does any aspect of the action have a currently valid permit or approval? I would say yes. MR. ABBATE-Agreed. MR. UNDERWOOD-As a result of the proposed action, will existing permit or approval require modifications? If we grant the variance, I would say we’ll be giving them double what they’re due, I guess, because presently you can only have a single sign. MR. ABBATE-All right. MR. UNDERWOOD-Will the action exceed any Type I Threshold? I would say no. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions? I would say no. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following, and that would be air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? No. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) MR. ABBATE-Great. MR. UNDERWOOD-Aesthetic agricultural, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources or community or neighborhood character? I would say no. MR. ABBATE-Agreed. MR. UNDERWOOD-Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats or threatened or endangered species? I would say no. MR. ABBATE-Agreed. MR. UNDERWOOD-A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? I would say no. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Other than it’s a sign, again, keeping that in mind. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Might be a positive for them, but I would say no. MR. ABBATE-Agreed. MR. UNDERWOOD-Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified? No. MR. ABBATE-Agreed. MR. UNDERWOOD-And is there, or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? I would say no. MR. ABBATE-Agreed. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MOTION THAT THERE IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT INDICATING THAT THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT, AND UNLESS THERE’S A CHALLENGE FROM MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, I ACCEPT THAT BASIS IN ANTICIPATION OF NO NEGATIVE RESPONSES, AS SUCH I MOVE THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM BE APPROVED, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: nd Duly adopted this 22 day of November, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-In a seven yes to zero no, the Environmental Assessment Form is approved. The public hearing is now closed for Sign Variance No. 69-2006, and, ladies and gentlemen of the Board, I went through and I reminded you of the task of balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area. We know what the five factors are to take into consideration. I ask that you introduce your motion with clarity. Having said that, is there a motion for Sign Variance No. 69-2006? MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, I’ll make a motion. MR. ABBATE-Yes, sir. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 69-2006 BROOKS BROTHERS FACTORY STORE, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) 1476 NYS Route 9, Mountain View Outlets. The applicant proposes the installation of two 79.7 square foot wall signs and the applicant requests an additional wall sign where one wall sign per occupant of a business complex is allowed per Section 140- 6B(3)(d)(4)(b). In considering this, we consider the benefit to the applicant, and the applicant would be permitted to install a second wall sign. The greater benefit of the second wall sign is it gives the applicant exposure to the northern traveling potential customer, which they would lose if this were not allowed. Feasible alternatives. To accomplish this particular purpose, the feasible alternatives are limited. The only real choice is to stay with just one sign which would be north facing. Considering whether this relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance, no question but that it is, in terms of allowing one applicant a second sign where one is allowed. However, as the applicant has pointed out, this particular tenant in this store or this complex is going to occupy more than two storefronts. So granting this variance will not increase the potential number of signs for this complex. The effects on the neighborhood or community, it’s been suggested that there’s moderate effects on the community, but I think they’re balanced. Obviously, if this were continued on all the other factory outlets, it could be a negative benefit, but as has been pointed out by a member of the public, there’s certainly some definite positive benefits to allowing this sign in the location requested. As far as whether the difficulty is self-created, in one sense it is, simply because the applicant wants a second sign, but on the other hand, some of it is due to the orientation of the existing building, which makes it difficult to get good exposure to the traveling public on Route 9. For these reasons, I think the balance in this case falls to the benefit of the applicant. Also, this being a Sign Variance application rather than just an Area Variance, and our Sign Ordinance suggests that a variance should be granted only if the applicant would lose the benefit of the sign if it were not granted, I think, in this case, the purpose proposed for this sign would be lost if this variance was not granted. I’d also like to specify in this that the variance is granted to the applicant, which is Brooks Brothers Factory Store, not the Mountain View Outlets. Given that, I would expect if this tenant ever left the Mountain View Outlets, that that would be the end of this variance, and should they have a different tenant come in, they would need to appear before us again to get permission if they wanted to continue a sign in this location. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of November, 2006, by the following vote: MR. MC NULTY- I would expect if this tenant ever left the Mountain View Outlets, that that would be the end of this variance, and should they have a different tenant come in, they would need to appear before us again to get permission if they wanted to continue a sign in this location. MR. LAPPER-That’s fine. MR. ABBATE-Do you agree to that? MR. LAPPER-That’s absolutely acceptable. MR. ABBATE-Let the record show that the applicant has agreed to the recommendation by Mr. McNulty. MR. BRYANT-I have a question. I just want to clarify the condition. The condition is, as you’ve stated it, that if Brooks Brothers ever leaves, that’s the end of that Sign Variance? MR. LAPPER-Yes. We acknowledge that part of our argument is that the nature of this high quality tenant. So if Brooks Brothers left and there was somebody else coming in, we would have to come back if we were going to try and argue to keep that sign. It’s there for the Brooks Brothers store. That’s what we’ve asked for. MR. BRYANT-To Counsel, what is the validity of that kind of condition? MS. RADNER-If the applicant’s agree to it, it’s perfectly valid. AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-Sign Variance No. 69-2006, in a vote seven yes, zero no, is approved. Thank you. Counselor Lapper, I understand that Stefanie DiLallo Bitter is no longer here this evening and that you have agreed to accept the responsibility for 72-2006 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Now I’m going to ask, for the record, if both counsels will agree to this unusual format, particularly in view of the fact that we’re talking about addressing Number 6, 7, and 8 Onondaga Drive, Cleverdale. Do you agree to this format? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MS. RADNER-Mr. Chairman, I don’t think you’ve stated on the record what the format is going to be. I think you need to set forth on the record what you’re going to do. MR. ABBATE-All right. For the record, the format will be as follows. Counsel(s), who represent Steven and Lisa Jackoski, which is Area Variance No. 70-2006, Lucile Lucas, which is Area Variance No. 71-2006, and Robert and Anne Mason, which is Area Variance No. 72-2006, have agreed to one hearing. The counsel(s) both agreed to this, for the record. MICHAEL O’CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-For the purpose of your record, I’m Michael O’Connor. I’m representing Steven and Lisa Jackoski with regard to Area Variance No. 70-2006, and I do so stipulate. I think it’s appropriate, given the fact that that’s an important part of the presentation. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Counselor? JON LAPPER MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, on behalf of the Masons and Lu Lucas, I agree as well. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Then, Counselors, if you’d be kind enough to proceed. Perhaps what we should do is ask the Secretary to read the intros into the record first, gentlemen, and then you can proceed. AREA VARIANCE NO.70-2006 SEQRA TYPE: II STEVEN AND LISA JACKOSKI AGENT(S): MICHAEL O’CONNOR, ESQ. AND WILLIAM MASON OWNER(S): STEVEN AND LISA JACKOSKI ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 8 ONONDAGA DRIVE, CLEVERDALE – TAKUNDEWIDE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE EXISTING 768 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A 2-STORY, 1,496 SQ. FT. SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM 2 SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS RELIEF FROM FAR OF THE WR-ZONE. CROSS REF.: N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: NOVEMBER 8, 2006 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 4,500 SQ. FT. TAX MAP NO. 239.8- 1-53 SECTION: 179-4-030 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 70-2006, Steven and Lisa Jackoski, Meeting Date: November 22, 2006 “Project Location: 8 Onondaga Drive, Cleverdale, Takundewide Description of Proposed Project: Applicants propose construction of a 1,496 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. Relief Required: The applicant requests: 5-feet of rear setback relief from the 15-foot minimum. 11-feet of side setback relief (east) from the 15-foot minimum. 2-feet of side setback relief (west) from the 15-foot minimum. Above relief per §179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone (lot widths between 50-60-feet). 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) And, FAR relief, for a total of 30% (411 sq. ft.), where the maximum is 22% per §179-4- 030 for the WR-1A zone. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 6. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to demolish the existing 768 sq. ft. camp and replace with a 1,496 sq. ft. SFD. 3. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited. 4. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The requests for relief, east side (73%), west side (13%), rear (33%), and FAR, taken cumulatively are considerable. 5. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood or community may be anticipated as a result of this action. 6. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2000-836: Boathouse. SP 66-2000: Approved 10/17/00, boathouse. BP 2000-95: Dock. Staff comments: The parcel area used in the application is 4,500 sq. ft., however the survey map shows 4,932 sq. ft. The latter figure changes the FAR worksheet, the total allowable floor area would be 1,085 (instead of 990), and remaining area potentially developable is 317 (not 222). Thus, the proposed is an additional 411 sq. ft. of floor area (1496-1085), resulting in a 30% FAR (8% relief). The parcel figures and the resulting calculations should be verified by the applicant. The request for relief appears to be considerable however, the redevelopment/expansion of the camp seems to be in keeping with the Takundewide Master Plan, which was approved by the Planning Board on September 23, 2003(building footprints are not to expand and any cottage expansion limited to a maximum of 1536 sq. ft.). The ZBA could consider conditioning any approval on site plan review by the Planning Board to effectively determine consistency with the Master Plan. This could include any potential impacts to the neighborhood or community, such as an evaluation of the visual impact assessment which is required for each proposed cottage expansion by the Board of Directors of the HOA before granting their approval, and reassessment of a community wastewater system as opposed to individual septic systems proposed for each of the three cottage expansions. Is it possible to retain the 36-foot maple on the HOA property (south of the rear property line)? It appears that it is in the vicinity of the proposed septic tank that will serve this lot. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form November 8, 2006 Project Name: Jackoski, Steven and Lisa Owner(s): Steven & Lisa Jackoski ID Number: 06-AV-70 County Project#: Nov06-21 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant is proposing to replace existing 768 sq. ft. single-family residence with a 2-story, 1,496 sq. ft. single-family 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) residence. Relief requested from 2 side and rear yard setback requirements as well as relief from FAR of the WR-zone. Site Location: 8 Onondaga Drive, Cleverdale- Takundewide Tax Map Number(s): 239.8-1-53 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to replace an existing 768 sq. ft. single-family residence with a 2- story, 1,496 sq. ft. (includes both floors) single-family residence. The home is to be located 4 feet from the east property line and 13 ft. from the west property line and 10 ft. from the south property line where 15 ft. is required. The information submitted indicates the home will be on the existing foot print. The submitted information included the mou between the Town and Takundewide addressing items such as expansion, septic compliance and floor ratio calc, neighboring property support for same location 2-story. Takundewide Board of Director letter for requesting 2-story home be built in same location. 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 11/9/06” AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-2006 SEQRA TYPE: II LUCILE LUCAS AGENT(S): JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER(S): LUCILE LUCAS ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 6 ONONDAGA DRIVE, CLEVERDALE – TAKUNDEWIDE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE EXISTING 768 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A 2-STORY, 1,471 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM 2 SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS RELIEF FROM FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-ZONE. CROSS REF.: N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: NOVEMBER 8, 2006 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 4,760 SQ. FT. TAX MAP NO. 239.8- 1-51 SECTION: 179-4-030 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 71-2006, Lucile Lucas, Meeting Date: November 22, 2006 “Project Location: 6 Onondaga Drive, Cleverdale, Takundewide Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of the existing 768 sq. ft. camp and construction of a 1,471 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. Relief Required: The applicant requests: 5-feet of rear setback relief from the 15-foot minimum. 4.5-feet of side setback relief (east) from the 15-foot minimum. 1-foot of side setback relief (west) from the 15-foot minimum. Above relief per §179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone (lot widths between 50-60-feet). And, FAR relief, for a total of 25% (317 sq. ft.), where the maximum is 22% per §179-4- 030 for the WR-1A zone. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to demolish the existing 768 sq. ft. camp and replace with a 1,471 sq. ft. SFD. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The requests for relief, rear (33%), east side (30%), west side (7%), and FAR, taken cumulatively are considerable. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood or community may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 89-679: Issued 4/1/89, for a dock and boathouse. SP 53-89: Approved 8/22/89, for a boathouse. Staff comments: The parcel area used in the application is 5,246 sq. ft., however the survey map shows 5,780 sq. ft. The latter figure changes the FAR worksheet, the total allowable floor area would be 1272 (instead of 1154), and remaining area potentially developable is 504 (not 386). Thus, the proposed is an additional 317 sq. ft. of floor area (1471-1272), resulting in a 25% FAR (3% relief). The parcel figures and the resulting calculations should be verified by the applicant. The request for relief appears to be considerable however, the redevelopment/expansion of the camp seems to be in keeping with the Takundewide Master Plan, which was approved by the Planning Board on September 23, 2003(building footprints are not to expand and any cottage expansion limited to a maximum of 1536 sq. ft.). The ZBA could consider conditioning any approval on site plan review by the Planning Board to effectively determine consistency with the Master Plan. This could include any potential impacts to the neighborhood or community, such as an evaluation of the visual impact assessment which is required for each proposed cottage expansion by the Board of Directors of the HOA before granting their approval, and reassessment of a community wastewater system as opposed to individual septic systems proposed for each of the three cottage expansions. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form November 8, 2006 Project Name: Lucas, Lucile Owner(s): Lucile Lucas ID Number: 06-AV-71 County Project#: Nov06-22 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant is proposing to replace existing 768 sq. ft. single-family residence with a 2-story, 1,471 sq. ft. single-family residence. Relief requested from 2 side and rear yard setback requirements as well as relief from Floor Area Ratio requirements of the WR-zone. Site Location: 6 Onondaga Drive, Cleverdale- Takundewide Tax Map Number(s): 239.8-1-51 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to replace an existing 768 sq. ft. single-family residence with a 2- story, 1,471 sq. ft. (includes both floors) single-family residence. The home is to be located 10.5 feet from the east property line and 14 ft. from the west property line and 9.71 ft. from the south property line where 15 ft. is required. The information submitted indicates the home will be on the existing foot print. The submitted information included the mou between the Town and Takundewide addressing items such as expansion, septic compliance and floor ratio calc, neighboring property support for same location 2- story. Takundewide Board of Director letter for requesting 2-story home be built in same location. 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 11/9/06” AREA VARIANCE NO. 72-2006 SEQRA TYPE: II ROBERT AND ANNE MASON AGENT(S): STEFANIE DI LALLO BITTER, ESQ., BPSR OWNER(S): ANNE S. MASON, REVOCABLE TRUST ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 7 ONONDAGA DRIVE, CLEVERDALE – TAKUNDEWIDE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE EXISTING 768 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A 2-STORY, 1,460 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE, 2 SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS RELIEF FROM 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-ZONE. CROSS REF.: N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: NOVEMBER 8, 2006 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 4,760 SQ. FT. TAX MAP NO. 239.8-1-52 SECTION: 179- 4-030 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 72-2006, Robert and Anne Mason, Meeting Date: November 22, 2006 “Project Location: 7 Onondaga Drive, Cleverdale, Takundewide Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of the existing 768 sq. ft. camp and construction of a 1,460 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. Relief Required: The applicant requests: 3.5-feet of shoreline setback relief from the 55.5-feet minimum (average setback of the houses on the two adjoining lots). 4-feet of rear setback relief from the 15-foot minimum. 3-feet of side setback relief (east) from the 15-foot minimum. 5-feet of side setback relief (west) from the 15-foot minimum. Above relief per §179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone (lot widths between 50-60-feet). And, FAR relief, for a total of 28% (an additional 307 sq. ft. of floor area), where the maximum is 22% per §179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to demolish the existing 768 sq. ft. camp and replace with a 1,460 sq. ft. SFD. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The requests for relief, shoreline (6%), rear (27%), east side (20%), west side (33%), and FAR, taken cumulatively are considerable. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood or community may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 89-678: Issued 3/1/89, for a dock and boathouse. SP 52-89: Approved 8/22/89, for a boathouse. Staff comments: Shoreline setback relief required was not previously identified. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) The parcel area used in the application is 4,760 sq. ft., however the survey map shows 5,243 sq. ft. The latter figure changes the FAR worksheet, the total allowable floor area would be 1153 (instead of 1047), and remaining area potentially developable is 385 (not 279). Thus, the proposed is an additional 307 sq. ft. of floor area (1460-1153), resulting in a 28% FAR (6% relief). The parcel figures should be verified by the applicant. The request for relief appears to be considerable however, the redevelopment/expansion of the camp seems to be in keeping with the Takundewide Master Plan, which was approved by the Planning Board on September 23, 2003(building footprints are not to expand and any cottage expansion limited to a maximum of 1536 sq. ft.). The ZBA could consider conditioning any approval on site plan review by the Planning Board to effectively determine consistency with the Master Plan. This could include any potential impacts to the neighborhood or community, such as an evaluation of the visual impact assessment which is required for each proposed cottage expansion by the Board of Directors of the HOA before granting their approval, and reassessment of a community wastewater system as opposed to individual septic systems proposed for each of the three cottage expansions. Is it possible to retain the 36-foot maple on the HOA property (south of lot 8)? It appears that it is in the vicinity of the proposed tile field that will serve this lot. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form November 8, 2006 Project Name: Mason, Robert and Anne Owner(s): Ann S. Mason Revocable Trust ID Number: 06-AV-72 County Project#: Nov06-23 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant is proposing to replace existing 768 sq. ft. single-family residence with a 2-story, 1,460 sq. ft. single- family residence. Relief requested from 2 side and rear yard setback requirements as well as relief from Floor Area Ratio requirements of the WR-zone. Site Location: 7 Onondaga Drive, Cleverdale-Takundewide Tax Map Number(s): 239.8-1-52 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to replace an existing 768 sq. ft. single- family residence with a 2-story, 1,460 sq. ft. (includes both floors) single-family residence. The home is to be located 12.25 feet from the east property line and 9.91 ft. from the west property line and 11.26 ft. from the south property line where 15 ft. is required. The information submitted indicates the home will be on the existing foot print. The submitted information included the mou between the Town and Takundewide addressing items such as expansion, septic compliance and floor ratio calc, neighboring property support for same location 2-story. Takundewide Board of Director letter for requesting 2-story home be built in same location. 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 11/9/06” MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Lapper, I believe that you requested to go first. MR. LAPPER-Yes. Thank you. In 2003, Bill Mason and I were before this Board and the Planning Board with two similar projects, which were to take the pre-existing cottages and basically keep the same footprint and build up to add a second story with dormers, and at that point I think those were the sixth and seventh over the last few years that have got to this point, and the Planning Board and the Zoning Board were interested in looking at this on a comprehensive manner to see what would happen, if there would be environmental impacts, over time, many or all of the cottages at Takundewide were expanded. We went into a lengthy review with engineers to look at traffic impact on the lake, septic systems, visual impacts, etc., and came to a memo of understanding that was signed with the Planning Board that was basically a set of conditions that would have to be complied with, and I’m mentioning that only because I’m not sure that Staff, when the Staff notes were written, just in terms of the institutional memory in the Planning Department, I’m not sure that they were fully up to speed with the memo of understanding, because the Staff notes don’t really contemplate everything that had been agreed to three years ago. So when we made the applications we looked at this and said, okay, we know what the rules are, we know what the parameters are, and I’m not sure that was reflected in the Staff notes. That’s why I thought it was important that we just start out with a little bit of history. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) MR. ABBATE-Okay. Staff, for Staff information, Board members do have copies of that understanding. I’m assuming that you do as well? MRS. BARDEN-Absolutely. MR. ABBATE-So then you are aware? MRS. BARDEN-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, for the record. Continue. MR. LAPPER-The biggest issue here, in terms of potential impact, is the septic systems, and what this whole project was about was taking what for the most part, all of the systems aren’t the same, but many of them have seepage pits, cess pools, some within 100 feet of the lake, as in this case, and to re-locate them and to build conforming systems that would be 100 feet from the lake. Part of the analysis last time was to look at whether or not a combined system should be done to put everybody together into one big system with a treatment plant, and it was determined that that was not best in this case, and that the soils could handle what was proposed. So everyone’s going to have their individual systems, smaller systems, but much less impact on the lake because they are 100 feet from the lake and the design is not just a seepage pit. That said, we’re just here with the next three to work it out and prove that we’re within the memo of understanding, and one other issue, it was a big argument, a big justification for this last time, is that there’s 18 acres of vacant common property here. So when you’re, when we’re talking about the variances and they seem like they’re a lot of relief being requested, it’s because we’re only talking about these lots that the individual owners own in fee, they own outright, are not much bigger than their actual footprint of their dwelling, but in fact everybody also owns one-thirty-second undivided interest in 18 acres of common property, so, because it’s a homeowners association, you can’t just look at it and say, you know, they have this postage stamp parcel. That parcel is part of a much larger piece of property, and that was really how the Board granted the approvals, the Zoning Board granted the approvals last time, taking into account that there was much more land. So it’s not like asking for a house just on a postage stamp, and I think that’s an important part of the argument, and let me pass it over to Mike at this point, and see what he’d like to add. MR. ABBATE-And for the record, Mr. Lapper’s comments dealt with Area Variance No. 71-2006 and Area Variance No. 72-2006. Mr. O’Connor? MR. O'CONNOR-His comments would also be applicable to the application of Mr. and Mrs. Jackoski. It’s part of the same subdivision, if you will. This is a unique subdivision. It is what appears to be what everybody is trying to set up rules for, for the future for subdivisions. This is a parcel of land. I think it’s 21 acres, and basically they’ve set aside 18.7 acres for common space, and I think that’s the goal of everybody in all these conservation subdivisions that we’re talking about, open space preservation, green space and what not, and you really should be applauding the applicant for doing that and giving them credit for it. If they had subdivided this as a cookie cutter subdivision, they probably would have lots that would be around 30,000 square feet, and if they each had a 30,000 square foot lot, they’d each be entitled to build a building of about 16 or 6600 square feet, without getting any variances, and they probably then wouldn’t have to have variances from setbacks, but instead what they’ve done is they’ve taken the pre-existing buildings, the pre-existing lots that they had, and they’ve agreed to substantial reductions as to what they potentially could do on this site. They do, by doing that, almost necessarily need variances because they’ve said that their own individual ownership will be smaller and not take into account the fact that they own one-thirty-second of this 18 acres that sits around them. In fact, if you look at the Jackoski subdivision, or application, the septic system that they’re going to propose is in the common area. It’s not on the small lot. So it’s not the case of trying to put 10 pounds of sugar in 5 pound bag. Actually it’s putting 5 pounds of sugar in a 25 pound bag, much less than their potential, and I think you have to understand that. You really have to understand the memorandum of understanding which I understand it took two years to work out going through all the impacts, all the ramifications that this potential build out might have. If you actually look at the engineering that’s in that memorandum of understanding, they nd talk about 31 structures having four bedrooms, and the 32 one having five bedrooms. Now, the Jackoski’s are proposing two bedrooms and a room that you could count as a bedroom. It’s a study, and you’ve seen it, it’s got a bath in near proximity to it. So I think you would consider it probably, or most people would consider it a bedroom. The septic system that they’re going to do is going to accommodate three bedrooms, even though they have two bedrooms. So we can talk statistically as to whether this is substantial or 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) not substantial, but if you look upon the impacts of the neighborhood, it certainly is not substantial. I would refer to, unless you have specific questions, the Staff comments that came out on the Jackoski application, and basically I agree that we made an error, and if you take a look at the dating, you’ll understand how we made an error. In making out the narrative part of our application, we said that the lot was 4500 square feet, when in fact by survey, which was dated the same day of the application, it’s shown that it is 4932 square feet. The lot’s larger than what we anticipated it to be. The difference is in 1983 they did not locate the lot or size the lot, if you will, for the mean high water mark. The survey in 2006 measures the lot from the mean high water mark, and that’s the difference, and I think there’s a letter floating some place from Van Dusen and Steves which gives that explanation. MR. LAPPER-That’s the same for all three applications. The lots are bigger than what was on the application. MR. ABBATE-All right. Well, let the record show that the comments by Counselor O’Connor were directed to Area Variance No. 70-2006. MR. O'CONNOR-And as to the other mathematical calculations that were made by Staff, I’m in agreement with them. We actually are looking for less relief than our application showed. On the east side yard, we’re looking for relief of 11.18 foot. That’s the side that’s toward the Hillman property, and I think as part of our application, you see a letter there from Paul Hillman that says he’s reviewed the plans and that he has no objection to it. In fact, we should make the point, and I think it’s true for all three applicants, nobody is talking about expanding the footprint. It’s the same footprints, the same setbacks that they presently have. They’re simply going higher. On the west side, we’re looking for, west side line, we’re looking for relief of 1.89 feet, and on the rear yard, we’re looking for relief of five feet, and we’re not, if you take a look at it again, as to the modesty of this application, the height requirement in that zone is 28 feet, and we’re building out at 23.5 feet. We haven’t gone the full height, and the same thing as to the lake frontage setback. This is a teardown. This is new construction. I’m not arguing that point. It’s at 55 and a half feet. It only has to be at 50 feet. They’re not trying to change that. There’s a separate Board that also looks at this, aside from you, and probably looks at it, from what I can see in their letter that’s attached to the application, with a little bit more exactitude, I’m not exactly sure how to say it, look at it closer than you probably do as to the impact of this proposal as to that subdivision. When we first saw the application, I said to Mr. and Mrs. Jackoski, you’re looking for side line setbacks that aren’t really balanced. Why don’t you try and center the building, and then we can come in and say we’re looking for as less relief, particularly on the west side line setback, which is the Hillman setback. They went to the Board and the Board said because of the visibility issues they did not want to see the building centered. So they took into account what impact it would have. The other comment that Staff made that I would like to address is that they’re talking about perhaps referring this to the Planning Board to see if it is in compliance with the memorandum of understanding. I think if you take a look at the cover sheet or actually look at the memorandum of understanding, I understand you have a copy of it? MR. ABBATE-We do. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, we do. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. You will see clearly that it does comply, and I don’t know the need to, not necessarily pass the buck, but to make that reference. The points of interest, in the final analysis, seem to be building footprints are not to expand. I don’t think any of these do. Height restrictions in the Town of Queensbury Ordinance must be followed. They are. Any cottage expansion would be limited to 1536 square feet, and each of these are less than that. Again, this is not trying to maximize what is potential. This is trying to just modernize the year round house that’s there, and this is not one of the original five cabins that was expanded. So Item Four is not applicable. This is not the addition of a residential unit. This is a replacement of an existing residential unit. This is not a subdivision of the common lands, and the only other real comment that is applicable is that note that a visual impact assessment will be performed for each cottage expansion. Agreed. Board of Directors in its review of each project will include in an assessment of view impact to adjacent homeowners and lakeside view before granting its approval. That was done in this particular case, and you’ve got a letter to that effect. I think those are the issues. We can go through the balancing test, whether it’s an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, and it’s the same as what you have there. You’ve got a single family house there. You’re going to have a single family house when you’re done. It’s going to have the same setbacks, which is 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) the issues that are before you. It’s going to be about three feet higher, I think, than the present house. It’s not going to visibly impact the character of the neighborhood, and it’s not going to be detrimental to the neighborhood, as is evidenced by the Board of Directors’ letter and by the neighbor’s letter. Can the benefit be achieved by some other feasible alternative? There is no other land available to the Jackoski’s. They border on the common areas, and part of the memorandum of understanding was that there would not be any subdivision, and Mr. Hillman has no desire to sell the adjoining, any part of his adjoining property. Is the relief substantial? I don’t think it’s substantial in this case or any other cases, because basically all the impacts have already been looked at, and basically what you’re doing is following a well developed and a well thought out plan as to how to develop this site in its totality. Jon and I appear in a lot of towns. We go to Lake George often, and up there they have a battle with the number of motel units that are being converted to single family homes and cabins that are being converted to single family homes, or that have been, saying, why don’t you come in with a master plan, and they’re starting to move in that direction to require a master plan to show what the total build out will be, so that everybody knows a starting point, and everybody has something to rely upon and there’s some clarity. Again, this is part of your zoning revision thing, that you want to have people have a document that they can rely upon, and I think that’s one of the stated purposes of that memorandum of understanding, right in the first paragraph. Will it have an adverse impact on the environment? No. In fact, we have a seepage pit, probably 70 to 80 feet from the lake. It’s been there since the place was built. Our septic system, as we’ve proposed it, will be 130 feet from the lake. It’ll be a modern septic system. We would be happy to stipulate that the septic system will be in compliance with Section 136 of your Town law, which I think is the only requirement. I think under Section 179-5-110, it says that any increase in the footprint or the living floor area of a principal structure, the applicant must be in compliance with Section 136, and we’re willing to stipulate that. Is it self-created? It’s like all these cases where you have pre-existing lots. This is a pre-existing lot. The zoning has changed a number of times since the lots were created, since the buildings were built. Yes, it is because they want to improve it, but no it isn’t because they didn’t create the initial lot. That’s basically our argument, if you will, for the record, as to why you should be approving this application. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now before we continue, I’d like our Secretary to the record documents I feel that are appropriate, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, those comments of Mike’s apply equally to the other two applications for the record, as well. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think in essence part of what we are looking for here was provided on all these applications and that was from the Takundewide Homeowners Association, and they basically signed off on the design standards, etc. As far as the other comments, I mean, when we get to the public hearing, there is a letter from the Lake George Water Keeper with his concerns that had been expressed on previous ones also, but I think that those are pertinent also, and I think that we should get into those when we ask our individual questions at this point in time. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Then we’ll continue. All right. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, do we have any questions concerning Area Variance 70-2006 to Mr. O’Connor? MR. UNDERWOOD-I have a couple of comments and questions I would like to ask. MR. ABBATE-Please do. MR. UNDERWOOD-When we had Takundewide go through this process, we had previously voiced our concerns that we’re not between a rock and a hard place, like we are in places like Rockhurst. In this instance here because of the common property in the area. We do have areas that would be or could be used in the future for dispersal of septic leachate and things like that, and I think that’s something, at this point, to consider here. I know that we like to always break things down into the individual units, and I think that the suggestion was made before that, you know, a group leach field might be something to be considered. I know that was not the interest of the Association because of the extravagant cost of doing something as such a large one would entail in the process, but in this instance here, I think that, you know, when we’re looking at these cottages set up in rows of two or three or something like that, it’s not always a good idea 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) from an engineering viewpoint, I think, to concentrate everything into one large mass and then try to deal with it. As has been suggested individual systems sometimes work better, especially when you’re in close proximity to a CEA as we are with Lake George here, but because I think we have three of these units that are adjacent to each other here, I think that we should, and I think that the Planning Board should consider, you know, if we approve these here tonight, that that should be one of our stipulations is that I think that you could have individual settling tanks for your septic off of each house, but I think that we could have a system that was applicable for these three projects, and I think it could be a model for the other ones in there. I mean, it would take a little bit of engineering to figure out where exactly you’re going to put these dispersal fields for the leachate, but I think that in this instance we can move things further than 110 feet from the lake. I live on a lake. I have land back behind my property, and I know my leachate is 300 feet or so back, and I think that here, because you have the depth that you could do the same thing on the Takundewide property. It’s going to involve putting in extra pumps and things like that to deal with it, but I think that, you know, I don’t think any of us probably feel uncomfortable with these expansions because we’ve dealt with them before, but I think the Number One issue is the septic issue, and I think that puts the onus on the people that are upgrading and putting the second stories in, and I know the Mason family’s probably not going to be happy because they own the bulk of these houses and if they all get converted, it may entail them spending more money on this process in order to accomplish the task, but I still think that it’s something that we should, that should be of paramount purpose here. Along with that, too, I think that it’s been mentioned, too, the stormwater regulations. We’re not increasing the size of these houses, and I think that because it’s new construction that the Planning Board will probably adequately deal with the stormwater issues, you know, and make sure that those are proper, and properly applied. So, that’s all I have to say right now. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, do you have any other comments? MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Garrand, please. MR. GARRAND-Yes, Mr. Chairman, I’m going over the Takundewide Homeowners Association, what they submitted previously to the Planning Board. Basically what they’ve submitted to the Planning Board was that Item 14 cess pools with grease traps are the systems where we will not allowed closed washers. Those include Lots Two, Three, Four, Six, Seven, and Eight. Now that encompasses what we’re looking at here tonight. I’m just wondering why these houses were designed with washer/dryer hookups in them. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s a reference to them as they exist on cess pools. If they re-build and do modern septic systems, then that would not be applicable. That was because of the existing condition. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Conditions as they stand now? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, right now. MR. GARRAND-And these entire systems will be more than 100 feet from the lake? MR. O'CONNOR-I’m familiar with the one for Jackoski. That’s 130 feet. The absorption area is 130 feet from the lake. MR. LAPPER-For all of them. They’re all more than 100 feet. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. MR. GARRAND-So the Homeowners Association will be modified once these places are re-built? MR. O'CONNOR-It doesn’t need to be modified. It says those units on cess pools will not be able to have cess pools. MR. LAPPER-The cess pool is being replaced by a septic system. MR. O'CONNOR-The cess pool is no longer going to be there. So they will be able to have them. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) MR. GARRAND-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-The Homeowners Association is also where, they’ve seen the plans, and they’ve seen the proposed septic. MR. GARRAND-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Gentlemen, ladies, any other questions? MR. BRYANT-Just out of curiosity, how many of these cottages in the 31 lots have been converted already to year round? MR. LAPPER-I think seven. MR. O'CONNOR-Seven to date have been approved for modifications. MR. BRYANT-Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-There were five before the memorandum of understanding and then two after that. MR. LAPPER-So it’s not like it’s been that many. I mean, it’s going to still take time. It’s not that everyone’s deciding to upgrade. It happens slowly. MR. ABBATE-Gentlemen, ladies, any other questions? Okay. If there are no other questions, then I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 70-2006. MR. O'CONNOR-Can we discuss, first, the comments of Mr. Underwood? MR. ABBATE-By all means, Counselor. Please do. MR. O'CONNOR-Maybe Mr. Mason wants to address them as to whether or not we do a group absorption area. My immediate reaction to that, and I’m not as familiar as John or Bill Mason is that this is the map which I think is still the applicable map in 1983, and I don’t think that was part of your application. BILL MASON MR. MASON-No, that’s the more recent one. This is the engineered drawing. This went in with the master plan. This is part of the master plan. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Did you see the mapping that went in with the master plan? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-The problem I had with your comment is that there is no apparent large area where you could put in a large absorption field. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m not talking a large absorption field. What I’m talking is dispersing the absorption fields as far out as possible, and that may mean making long trunk lines that snake around and things like that, where you have pumps that pump out to the hinter zones, you know, out in the far reaches of the property to do that. I think it’s something that could be considered, and I think it’s something that it’s reasonable to assume that when you’re going to convert all these properties over to year round residences that the impact of groundwater, on the groundwater out there is going to be substantial. I think anybody, even when you submitted your stuff before, it’s listed on there that you have clay soils very close to the surface which do not absorb water. Knowing that glacial soils are, I mean, I was a geology major, so I know what those soils are like out there, and anybody who’s dug out there will tell you that as you go down you get to hard pan, and you don’t get any absorption. That’s an impermeable barrier where you get sideways runoff at that point in time. I’m not going to argue the engineering implications of this, but I think that you’re going to have to be creative, if you want to do this, because I think we don’t have to accept mediocrity and low cost as the bottom line, and I think that in this instance here, you’re going to have to do whatever the best practicable solution is, whatever the Planning Board decides you’re going to do on it, and I think that that’s something that needs to be done. 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) MR. MASON-My name is Bill Mason, and I just, in addressing that, I’d agree with everything that you say. When we did the engineering studies, for the master plan two years ago, the engineer, we tested the soil in three or four different locations, deep holes it was three locations, and one of them was up in the area that is off to the right there, the big area that’s undeveloped, and we thought that would be the ideal location to put the community septic system, and in fact on the master plan we outlined that as the area that we would put that in, where we’d ever need it. The consideration that we got to was the engineers, in testing the soils, found that as he got closer to that area, the soils became less good for septic. So in fact he designed it with, he said it would still work. He could do it. It would require a lot of additional fill, but in the time period, in that time period, we were dealing with Lots 25 and 30, and the soils were better at 30 than they were at 25, and they got worse as we got into this area. So we do talk about that. In the eventual need where we’d ever need one, we’re fully willing and able to fund it, spend the money, and build it, but the engineers are telling us right now that that’s not the best way to handle it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I think you could use that argument on any property up on Lake George, if you really wanted to get technical, and I think, realistically speaking, it may be a raised bed system, you know, where you allow for some evaporation and dispersal, you know, as you said by bringing in appropriate fill for this to take place, but I think that, you know, if we see three this time and then three more and three more, pretty soon everything is all done, and I think that we have an opportunity and I think we’re obligated because of Lake George to make sure that we do things properly. Maybe what I’m saying is over the top, but there could be compromise somewhere along the way. MR. O'CONNOR-If you look at these three that we’re talking about, those are the ones that would be within a proximity of 100 or 200 feet of the lake. As the ones that are beyond it, that are behind it develop, they’re going to be outside the 200 foot range anyway. It’s not that we’ve got 32 units that are within 100 feet of the lake. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I buy that argument, too. MR. O'CONNOR-Or within 200 feet of the lake. I think the greatest restriction I’ve seen in your Section 136 is that if you put in fill systems, it’s not supposed to be within 200 feet of the lake. What they’re proposing for a septic here is not a fill system, and the absorption area is like 130 feet from the lake, 135 feet from the lake. MR. UNDERWOOD-I still think that your absorption area could be moved further back, and I think that’s feasible to do it. I mean, it’s not going to be something pleasant because it is going to cost more to dig up to where that is, but I think that, you know, you should consider that. MR. LAPPER-Well, we also, in the master plan we had to have a location for a septic field and then a replacement field for each unit. So, you know, just as the land that you’re thinking of is already sort of committed to potential expansion in the future, whatever that might be for somebody else, I’d also argue that there would be a lot more soil disturbance and tree removal if they had to do a fill system in the back, and that’s just another impact that has to be considered. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, anytime you build a house you disturb, you know, and I think that, you know, in the instance here, Takundewide has an awful lot of open space up there that could be utilized. I mean, I don’t know who ultimately comes up with the ultimate plan here, but I think we are obligated to take the properties that are closest to the lake and ensure that they have the least impact. We know that the ones further away are going to have less impact. That’s understandable. MR. LAPPER-None of us dispute that it’s a legitimate issue that you’re talking about, and that’s why we talked about it in the master plan, but in general, in terms of the variance tonight, three variances, it’s taking, and obviously the issue is you make it as good as you can, and that’s what you said, but taking the septic leach pit out and replacing it with a conforming system, 130 feet from the lake, is, right there, a big benefit from the existing situation. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, it’s a plus, but it’s still a cop out. MR. O'CONNOR-Do you want to take a look at the numbers, again, Mr. Underwood, that are within the 200 feet of the lake. Again, you talk about the Homeowners Association and the 32 units, I don’t know which units have already been modified. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) MR. UNDERWOOD-The ones further back we’ve dealt with before. MR. MASON-Number One has, and not, Two, Three, Four and Five. Those four have not. MR. O'CONNOR-There’s four potential other units that are unrelated to us that are beside us, if you look at that master plan. Everything else is back 200 feet from the lake. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, and I don’t have a problem with the ones that are further back. I don’t really have a problem with the ones that are further back. I think that we’ve adequately dealt with those previously, but I think it is the ones in the forefront, the fore- shore properties are the ones that are most important. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Any members of the Board have any other questions concerning any three of these? All right. Then I’m going to continue. I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 70-2006. Do we have anyone in the public who would like to address this issue? Yes, sir. Would you be kind enough to come to the table, please, speak into the microphone, identify yourself and your place of residence, please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. I’m a resident in North Queensbury. I’ve had the opportunity to comment on this project on previous applications before this Board and the Planning Board. Firstly, we should all understand that the existence of a cess pool is a violation of the Environmental Conservation Law. You’re polluting the groundwater, and remediation should be taken immediately. Just a few comments here on Staff notes. The calculation is made here that the difference between 22% Floor Area Ratio and 30% Floor Area Ratio is eight percent of relief. Somebody better start doing the math. It’s not eight percent relief. It’s more like 30% relief, and it’s significant. The subject of the 4500 square foot lot goes back to early surveys. I think if you check the deeds on these places, the 4500 square feet is correct, and the 4932 is something that they’ve come about as a result of surveyors indicating that he made a mistake, and I don’t think he made a mistake at all, but that can be clarified by looking at earlier surveys. I think you should withhold any decision this evening and take Staff’s recommendation that this project be referred to site plan review. The issue of wastewater is of deep, deep concern to everyone. They haven’t done perc tests, deep hole tests in this area, to this date. I don’t think, and the outcome of that will determine what they can do with regard to wastewater, and so any decision on your, with regard to variances could be premature. One other point I would just like to make is that, and this goes to wastewater. At the present time, all of these applicants have a permit from the Lake George Park Commission to operate a Class B Marina. A Class B Marina requires the operator to furnish toilet facilities open at all times, is what the regulations say. Now, I can tell you from being in the business, these toilets get used. People arrive to use their boats, the first thing they do is visit the restroom. The whole family, and they go out on the lake and they have their fun, and they come back. The next thing they do is visit the restrooms. Now, I don’t know where these people are providing their restrooms, but if they’re operating the Class B Marina from their residence, it has to be in the residence, and that puts a wastewater load on these systems, which I don’t think we ever consider, in sizing the facility, and to the extent that a Class B Marina is a commercial operation, maybe a Use Variance is required. This is truly new construction, and the criteria for new construction with wastewater facilities design is going to be required. That’s all I have to say, but seriously the wastewater issue, and when you look at, I can’t understand how an engineer can put together a recommendation for 32 individual systems, all doing the same thing, when you can put them altogether. Think of the cost effectiveness of putting in one system to take care of everything. You could put an effluent pump on each one of these facilities and put a small diameter line in the ground, put it in almost with a ditch witch to get it to a central treating facility, treat it under management control, you could put an RVC unit in that does a very fine job of primary treatment and then discharge it to a mound system. Truly they need a mound. The soils aren’t going to be good enough for anything other than a mound, and that’s the way to do it, and it’ll be done right, and then all of the homeowners can benefit. Right now you have a system where, you know, which one of these is going to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, the seventh, the eighth, the ninth? Which one of these homeowners is going to be left with, I’m sorry you can’t expand until a central facility is put in. Thank you. 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Salvador. Gentlemen, would you come back to the table, please, and would you like to comment? MR. UNDERWOOD-I have a letter to read. MR. ABBATE-Yes, before you comment, gentlemen, the Secretary would like to read. MR. UNDERWOOD-This letter was sent in by the Lake George Water Keeper, and it was sent to all three of the effected properties here. It’s essentially the same in each instance. This is sent to Takundewide Variance applications for Jackoski, Lucas, and Mason. “Dear Mr. Abbate: I have reviewed the submissions for the above referenced variance applications and my comments for each address similar site development issues and are incorporated into a single letter. Upon discussion with Susan Barden, it is my understanding that these applications will not require site plan review and I was interested in putting these site concerns into the record: 1. Each of the applications proposes to replace the existing structures and should be considered as new construction. A condition should be placed on each variance to address stormwater management for all constructed impervious surfaces as required for new construction. Currently, there are no stormwater management controls on site and this would improve drinking water quality in the area. 2. Design information should be provided for the proposed on-site wastewater treatment systems (OWTS). It is unclear the number of bedrooms each system is designed for and there is a lack of soil evaluations for the locations. There is the potential for encountering soils contaminated by the existing wastewater treatment system. A note should be provided how these soils will be managed if encountered. 3. Currently there is a hedgerow along the roadway. It is unclear if the hedgerow will be required to be removed to install the new OWTS. The hedgerow should remain or be replaced to provide a buffer to prevent vehicular traffic from driving on the OWTS which could impact the ability of the system to function properly. I look forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals in the defending the natural resources of Lake George and its basin. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Christopher J. Navitsky, P.E. Lake George Water Keeper” MR. O'CONNOR-What was the date of that letter? nd MR. UNDERWOOD-The date on it? November 22. MR. LAPPER-Neither of us received a copy of that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. It must probably came in today. We haven’t seen it either. MR. LAPPER-I guess, if I could start out. MR. ABBATE-Staff, why don’t they have copies? MR. UNDERWOOD-It just came today. MRS. BARDEN-It was faxed today. MR. ABBATE-You did fax it to the attorneys? MRS. BARDEN-No. It was faxed to our office. MR. ABBATE-It was faxed to the office today. MR. LAPPER-That should have been faxed to us, but that’s a procedural issue. MR. UNDERWOOD-There’s no time on it when it came in. So I have no idea. MR. LAPPER-It only would have taken a minute. It just would have made us better prepared, but I guess Mr. Salvador’s comments, and his tone sort of ignore the fact that we did this master plan. I mean, the Planning Board looked at this issue. This is not a surprise. The Planning Board looked at the issue, looked at the soils, looked at the existing systems and said that what makes sense for Takundewide is to do these individual systems, and it’s certainly not the case that we’re saying that that can’t be looked at again, but it’s not, you know, we were not avoiding that discussion. That was a large part of what took two years to get through this whole program last time. Mr. Salvador started out saying those systems have to be removed. They should be shut down, or something like that, and what’s there now are nonconforming systems that are 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) grandfathered that are not failing, and so he’s incorrect on the law on that point that the systems couldn’t be installed today, obviously, but they don’t have to be shut down. It’s just that we know that it’s better land planning to put in conforming systems, and that is what’s going to happen over time, and that’s what we’re here to talk about with these three. MR. O'CONNOR-We have no objection to you conditioning your approval upon us installing a fully compliant septic system with the existing Town regulations for each of these units, and I think that’s a, we haven’t done the soil test at this point. We’re outside the window for doing the soil tests. We plan on doing them as soon as the window arrives, or if the Town Board appoints somebody that will allow us to monitor the soil tests outside the window we’ll do them outside the window, but I think the septic system issue are really within the jurisdiction of the Town Board, if we’re not fully compliant as the submit the information to the Building Department here, Dave Hatin, and I think we’re going to be more compliant than 90% of the systems that are going in up there now. I mean, repeatedly we’ve applied for variances, and sometimes before this Board, to put in the system that’s 90 feet, 80 feet from the lake. This system’s 130 feet from the lake, and it sounds like, you know, you’ve got a group of units there and that they all should be thrown into one system, but everybody, it’s kind of like herding calves. You’ve got 32 owners, and everybody’s development plans aren’t the same thing. We’re talking about these three. I’m talking about one. Jon’s talking about two others, and we can represent what those people can do and will do, and I think we’re giving you the best management or the best plan that we can give you for those three people. I’m not sure where we get into the discussion of Class B Marina. I guess anybody who has a single, has a dock on Lake George is a Class B Marina according to Lake George Park Commission, if you happen to rent the dock out. Each of these units, I think, are assigned a dock, have the rights to a dock, but they’re used by, at least by our dock, I believe, is used by our people. We’re not in the business of renting out docks. It goes with the single family house, the same as you do on Glen Lake or whatever. It is new construction. We haven’t said it’s not new construction, and we anticipate that we will be required to comply with the requirements for new construction for a septic system. As to the comments by the Water Keeper, probably we aren’t required to do site plan review. This is new construction. It’s not modification. So it’s not site plan review required. I don’t know about the hedgerow. MR. MASON-Any hedges that we ever have to remove we’ll replace, and it’s my experience I just have to keep putting in more for these people. I just had to extend a hedge just yesterday for a guy because they have that issue. They want things blocked. They don’t want anybody driving out on the lawns, and they want the screening. So that hedge, the one hedge referenced there won’t have to be removed. That’s outside of the septic system, but there is another hedge that will need to get access and so on, and it will need to be removed and it will look beautiful. MR. O'CONNOR-And when Mr. Salvador raised that comment, it reminded me of another comment by Staff. They had concern about the maple tree that’s behind the Jackoski property. We’ve made every effort, by locating things where we’ve located them, to maintain that, and we’ve had discussions, I think, with the Homeowners Association Board of Directors that we will make every effort to maintain that tree, if it’s possible, during construction. We have no intention to intentionally harm or damage that tree during our construction period, and stormwater. We aren’t increasing the non- permeability on this lot any different than any different than what’s there now, and the square footage is the same, and my understanding of the stormwater regulations is that by construction projects you cannot increase the stormwater runoff from your project by what you’re doing. I do think that probably as a natural sequence of having a new house with new landscaping we can probably better handle what’s there existing, and probably decrease the stormwater without a great deal of effort from what’s presently there, but I don’t think stormwater is a big issue. MR. ABBATE-Two points I’d like to make, Counselor. Earlier you indicated that some of this was under purview of the Town Board. I just, for the record, under the purview of the Town Board, in their role as Department of Health, acting as The Department of Health. MR. O'CONNOR-Correct. MR. ABBATE-Correct. Okay, and the second point I’d like to make is to Staff. Staff, in the future, I would appreciate it, if we receive documents at the very last minute, I would appreciate that sufficient copies be made, not only for members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, but for the appellant as well, please. 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) MRS. BARDEN-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Because it’s unfair to be discussing a piece of correspondence when ZBA members don’t have it and the appellant doesn’t have it. Having said that, do we have any other comments? Apparently I’ve already covered that. I’m going to ask Board members, now, to offer their comments to me as Chairman, which would not be open to debate. Do we have some volunteers who would like to start out making comments on Area Variance No. 70-2006, 71-2006, and 72-2006? I hear none, I hear no comments, then I’m going to proceed. The public hearing for Area Variance No. 70-2006, 71-2006, and 72-2006 is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-Again I respectfully remind the members about the task of balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact of the area, and we know what our requirements are. We know the five factors. I don’t believe I have to go into that again. I am going to request that whatever motion you make, you make your motion with clarity, and I would suggest and request that if you’re going to make a decision based upon an appeal which you believe is substantial, please make clear your judgment for that basis, as well as any impact you judge there may or may not be on the environment and/or community. Having said that, I’m seeking a motion for Area Variance No. 70-2006. Do I hear one? MR. UNDERWOOD-If we don’t want to make one, do we want to refer this to anybody for a review or anything? MR. ABBATE-Mr. Underwood, I act as Chairman, I become very neutral. I don’t commit myself to anything. I make myself absolutely neutral in most of these instances, and I will move whatever the majority of the Board wishes to do. MR. UNDERWOOD-Can we discuss this a little further? MR. ABBATE-You certainly may. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, would you like to discuss this? MR. UNDERWOOD-I would say offhand that in general I basically would probably vote for your expansions here. I think that they’re reasonable and I think that in the past that we’ve granted similar requests at Takundewide, but I think that, because of the issues, and because of the close proximities of the properties that we’re dealing with here, I think that on the record you’ve also admitted that there’s probably a total of seven total down by the lake that are very close to the water, that those issues regarding septic and also stormwater, because of the proximity to Lake George and the CEA, does trigger in our minds a question mark, and that is that we’re not here to design septic systems, or to second guess the Planning Board, but I think that people that have more expertise would probably design a system that would be in the best interest of Lake George and Takundewide residents who are proposing to expand their cottages here, and so I would think that at the least we could condition any approval that we do here, if, indeed, we approve it, condition that on the Planning Board deciding what’s the best thing to do here, and the best thing to do may not be what you want, but I think that if you could live with the recommendation of what they thought was in the best interest of both the lake, and that’s the paramount one that I think that we should be concerned with, not the cost to the property owners, to bring it up to the best compliance. MS. RADNER-Mr. Underwood, I think if it’s your inclination to do that, that what you need to do is look at Section 179-14-050, having to do with referrals to the Planning Board, so that you get their referral and recommendations before you make your variance, rather than at least creating an appearance that you’re deferring your approval to another body. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I think in this instance it would make sense for us to get their best recommendation, and I don’t really think anybody on the Board is going to put a road block up and say you can’t expand. I think it’s a reasonable thing. MR. O'CONNOR-You said you’d like some further discussion. That’s the whole purpose of the memorandum of understanding and the two year study and the give and take that was given with the Planning Board. Everybody wants to have clarification of what you need to do to comply, and that document was put together. That document was signed by the Homeowners Association, it was signed by the Planning Board, and it says right in the beginning purposes of that, it was for the purpose of allowing individual owners to know what their obligations would be and how to go forward. Now, and I don’t know of 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) any change in circumstances. That document is not that old. That document’s only 2003. I don’t know of any change of circumstance between then and now that says because we’ve actually acted upon that we should have to be referred back to them. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t think that they created a one design septic system for every site that exists in Takundewide, though. I don’t think that you were implying that either, but I think at the same time I think that because we have these properties that are closer to the water, they should be of paramount concern to us and that Board also. I don’t think it’s going to throw a monkey wrench in the works as far as you. It may hold up a building construction for a little while, but I think it will accomplish the task of what we’re trying to do here, and that’s balance. MR. URRICO-Can I interject here? MR. ABBATE-Yes, Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-I have another question. When the original memo clarification was issued, there was a map attached to it, and the map is also referred to by the memorandum, regarding a future community septic area. Where is that? What has happened to that? What’s the consideration now for that? MR. O'CONNOR-The idea was that if there were a time where you had failures within the system, or you came to a point where you could not support individual systems, they then would go to a community system. MR. URRICO-But the map is dated 1983. The original map is dated 1983. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, that map was then updated in 2003, and on one of the submittals in 2003 that was attached to the memorandum of understanding, there was an area that showed. MR. URRICO-Alright. It’s 2003, I’m sorry. MR. O'CONNOR-The proposed community septic system was in the back part of it. MR. URRICO-It shows it where the tennis courts are. MR. LAPPER-Near the tennis courts. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Mason has related on the record that the soils back there aren’t in fact as good as the soils in the areas that we’re talking about for these three units. MR. MASON-And he has not done, as you mentioned, Mr. Underwood, he has not done the deep hole tests right in that area, the tests, yet. We were waiting for the Town Board. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-I can’t keep quiet anymore. I’ve read the minutes from the Planning Board on this mou and going over the master plan, and this is nothing but a rubber stamp for expansion of all 31 units, primarily, you know, nothing is ever said, in any of these discussions, in the minutes, you talk about not having a negative effect on the environment or the neighborhood because you’re all going to be year round dwellings at the end, but that’s not the way the property was originally designed. The property was originally a series of cottages that had a common area, and we’re going to use them in the summer and we’ll all live happily ever after, but now we’ve got year round dwellings with all the amenities that go with them, school buses, trash removal, plows, and so forth and so on, and frankly we’ve made seven mistakes already, and, I don’t know, I think this is a slippery slope, and I don’t. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, let me distinguish a little bit. You may have some concern there, but as to unit on Lot Eight, that was year round at the time the mou was signed. It’s been year round for some time, and I believe the same thing with the two units that Jon has. They’re on a year round system. They’ve been winterized. They’re used on a year round basis. They are not simple cabins or cottages, and that condition you’re not changing at all by allowing the expansion on that particular lot. Now I can’t speak for all of the balance of the other. 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) MR. BRYANT-They’re year round from Day One when they designed this subdivision. Is that what you’re saying? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-No. From the time that all the environmental considerations were taken into consideration in 2003, they were year round at that time. MR. LAPPER-I guess in general, Allan, what you had said about the master plan is that, yes, that was contemplating that, okay, let’s say that over time all 32 units are going to be upgraded because some of them needed to be upgraded. Is there going to be a negative impact on the environment, and that’s exactly what we went through, to say how should it be done, how should it be done to protect the environment and to put in better septic systems. MR. BRYANT-The negative impact is that you’re changing the use of the property. The property originally was designed prior, when you say 2003, we’re talking about when the subdivision was actually created, was designed as a bunch of cabins, summer cottages for people to enjoy the lake, and now we’re talking about year round residences on 32 lots, and there is a big difference. MR. LAPPER-I’m shrugging my shoulders only because that if it’s not done right, that could create a problem, but if you deal with septic systems, if you deal with site design, that can be accommodated. Remember, what’s unique here is that all they’re doing is adding these dormers upstairs. The footprints stay the same. So this isn’t, most of the applications you have are when people want to do, you know, three and four thousand square foot homes on a small parcel on the lake. I mean, yes, there’s a lot of cabins here, but they’re going to be small cabins. They’re just going to be raised up to have bedrooms upstairs. So it’s a pretty moderate request in terms of what’s actually being constructed, and that was all taken into account in the master plan. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that there was nothing binding, though, and I think, too, even though we have this master plan here, the septic issue is of paramount concern and I think that we’ve voiced the opinion here that we would like a purview of the Planning Board at this point in time, I think. MR. LAPPER-I mean, I hear you, but I just wonder if what we’re here tonight to ask for are these Area Variances that if you consider that there’s the 18 acres and not just the little footprint, they’re not substantial variances in that respect, and if you look at the Area Variances, and your only other concern is really septic. So maybe the issue is we go talk to the Planning Board about septic, which means that, you know, we’re not guaranteed anything until the Planning Board reviews the engineering, but maybe you can pass on the variances and then send us to the Planning Board to look at the septic. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it would streamline the process, though, if we, you know, I mean, we have three here tonight to deal with. We could have three next week, for all we know, or three in the first part of the next year. I think that the impacts are substantial enough, or the potential impacts. I mean, you have even said, and even the master plan recognizes the fact that if there’s a failure they’ll have to put a group system in, but who determines that? Do we wait until the whole thing goes belly up and then try and come in after the fact and retroactively fix it? MR. O'CONNOR-Why are you not abiding by the Ordinances, though? That’s, I guess, my question. There is a review process for a septic system. If we don’t comply fully with Section 136, which is the Town septic regulations, we have to go to the Town Board, acting as The Town Board of Health, for a variance or a waiver, whatever you want to call it, for some particular aspect. If we are fully compliant, we go to Dave Hatin and he issues it, if it’s in accordance with the Town’s rules and regulations for septics, and there are rules and regulations for septics within certain distances within a CEA, soil tests, soil depth, separation of soil to water. They’re all in place already. What triggers this, in your mind, that says we should go to the Planning Board immediately? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think you’re going to have to go to them anyway because you’re in a CEA, aren’t you? MR. O'CONNOR-No, we don’t have to. MR. UNDERWOOD-New construction in a CEA you don’t have to go in for site plan review? 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) MR. O'CONNOR-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-Why? MR. ABBATE-Unfortunately, at the present time. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s something that you may change. I’ve always said, you’ve got a lot of stuff that’s backwards in your Ordinance. MR. UNDERWOOD-Definitely. MR. O'CONNOR-If it’s a modification, we have to go. Brand new construction, you don’t have to go. MR. ABBATE-Unfortunately both Counselors are correct on that issue, at the present time. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s kind of like clustering. If you cluster, you have to abide by 15, you can’t use land over 15% slope. If you do a cookie cutter, it’s just reversed. If it’s clustering you can’t use. MR. LAPPER-It discourages cluster. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, area over 25% you can’t use that in your density calculations. If you do cookie cutter, you can use anything less than 15%, and I don’t mean to get sidetracked, but I don’t see, I can’t tell you what the owners of Lots One, Three, and Four are going to do. I can tell you what the Lot Number Eight is, and that owner owns an individual parcel in a Homeowners Association, but he should be recognized as an individual owner as he made his best efforts to be fully compliant with your rules and regulations, so as not to harm or have a negative impact, and I think in this case he has. MR. LAPPER-And everybody in the Association in 2003 signed on and said, we’re not going to go above that 1500 number in terms of square feet, and they all agreed to limitations. MR. ABBATE-Okay. We’ve heard from both Counsels and we’ve heard from members of the Board their concerns and what have you. We’ve reached a point now where a decision is going to have to be made. I’m going to request again that a Board member volunteer for a recommendation, whether it be a motion or whatever else they have in mind. Do we have a Board member who would like to make a motion or maybe recommend some other course of action? MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, I’ll make a motion. MR. ABBATE-Please. Mr. McNulty, would you please be kind enough to make individual motions. Starting with Area Variance No. 70-2006. In which case we’ll go through the procedures of voting, and then we’ll move to Area Variance No. 71-2006, and then to Area Variance No. 72-2006. Please, sir. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Let’s do that. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 70-2006 STEVEN & LISA JACKOSKI, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 8 Onondaga Drive, Cleverdale – Takundewide. The applicants are proposing the construction of a 1,496 square foot single family dwelling and they’re requesting five feet of rear setback relief from the 15 foot minimum, 11.18 feet of side setback relief on the east side from the 15 foot minimum and two feet of side setback relief on the west side from the 15 foot minimum. All the relief is per Section 179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone with lot widths between 50 and 60 feet, and also Floor Area Ratio relief for a total of 30%, 411 square feet where the maximum is 22% per Section 179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone. In considering this, the benefit to the applicant is the applicant would be permitted to demolish the existing 768 square foot camp and replace it with a 1,496 square foot single family dwelling. Feasible alternatives. The feasible alternatives appear to be limited and probably constitute just keeping the existing residence. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The request for relief, east side 73%, west side 13%, rear 33%, and Floor Area Ratio taken cumulatively are considerable. However, I would add that if you consider the common area that is included with this development, 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) the request for relief could be considerably less. The effects on the neighborhood or community. Staff suggests there might be moderate effects on the neighborhood or community as a result of this action. It all depends on I guess your perspective in this. Again, it certainly is moderate if considered in terms of strictly the lots that are allocated to each dwelling in this community, but again considered in its entirety, including the common area, I think probably the answer is it will be a minimal effect, and is this difficulty self-created? It’s self-created to the extent that it’s an action that is desired by the homeowner, but I think you also need to consider that it’s dictated by the layout of this particular Association and the relationship between the individually owned lots and the common area. Sum total, I think their request is reasonable and I move that we approve this request. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of November, 2006, by the following vote: MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we want to include a provision that the Planning Board review the concerns that we have? MR. MC NULTY-I don’t think I do. My feeling on this is we’re being asked for setback relief, period, and I think as Counsel has pointed out, there are adequate procedures for reviewing septic and what not, and also considering the effort that went into the memo of understanding and the plan that was done three years ago. I think that’s pretty well covered that. AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate NOES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand MR. ABBATE-The motion to approve is three yes, four no. The motion is defeated. MR. UNDERWOOD-Can we go back and possibly modify what we were going to do here? Because I’ll put some language in there that would satisfy me. MR. ABBATE-In that case, then, I would request that you take the motion. MOTION TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS AREA VARIANCE NO. 70-2006 STEVEN & LISA JACKOSKI, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 8 Onondaga Drive, Cleverdale – Takundewide. I would take the motion as was presented, but I would like to add the following caveat to that. We will condition the approval for the on site plan as reviewed, after careful review by the Planning Board to effectively determine the consistency with the Master Plan, and this is going to include the impacts and a thorough re-assessment of the community wastewater system or a group wastewater system for these cottages that are nearest to the water, as opposed to the proposed single individual systems. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of November, 2006, by the following vote: MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Underwood has made a modification to the motion. I think we’re going to put it to a vote whether we agree to the modification to the motion. MS. RADNER-No, he’s made a new motion, on the same grounds, but with a condition added. So you need a second, now, for that motion. MR. ABBATE-All right. AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate NOES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant MR. ABBATE-The vote for modification is five yes, two no. Area Variance No. 70-2006 is approved with modification. MR. O'CONNOR-Can we have some clarification? MR. ABBATE-By all means. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that what’s going to happen here is there’s going to be a review by the Planning Board of the project, and I think that that project will look at the 48 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) implications of not just the individual, but the two adjacent parcels, also, that are being proposed for expansion here. MR. O'CONNOR-That was my question. You’re talking about a group system for the three units? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think that that’s something that should be carefully considered by the Planning Board, and I think that the potential impacts as to whether or not this, in their minds, triggers a group system for the whole project out here at Takundewide. I think that there was a concern addressed by the Planning Board in the past regarding those issues, and I think it’s something that should be clarified by the Planning Board. MR. O'CONNOR-But specifically as to our variance application you’re looking at them looking at whether it would be better to have a group system for the three units that are before you tonight? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m not going to make any determination as to what the Planning Board is going to determine. They’re going to look at the project and they’re going to look at the adjacent projects that are proposed, and if there’s something that they think is better than an individual system, that’s up for them. They may totally agree with your individual systems. MR. O'CONNOR-I will argue for our system as is, and probably would bring in an engineer to convince them better than lawyers can. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think there were some outstanding issues, like Mr. Mason said, no deep water digging tests were done there on site. MR. O'CONNOR-You can’t do them right now. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, that’s understandable. MR. O'CONNOR-But my problem with part of what your motion is, I don’t want to be thrown in with the other lakefront lots that have no application before you now and be in never never land. MR. UNDERWOOD-No. I think it’s applicable to include the three here that we’re dealing with because they’re adjacent. MR. O'CONNOR-On that basis, I understand your reason for doing it. I disagree with you, and I wish you a Happy Thanksgiving. MR. ABBATE-Well, let’s make sure. What we have just approved as of this time applies to Area Variance No. 70-2006. Okay. MR. URRICO-Can I ask a question? I should have asked this earlier, but anything we do here tonight, isn’t it going to be reviewed by the Planning Board regarding the master plan? MR. BRYANT-No, it’s not. MR. URRICO-They’re the ones that devised the master plan. MS. RADNER-No. Staff reviewed it before referring, before giving it to you, but without your referral, it will not go to the Planning Board. MR. O'CONNOR-I walked, in my presentation and part of your record here is I walked you through each of the elements that would be applicable to this unit, and clearly we comply with each of those. MR. UNDERWOOD-They may tell you that and just give you the blank check to go right ahead. MR. O'CONNOR-Right now the problem is it takes you four months to get there. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, wintertime’s coming anyway. 49 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) MR. ABBATE-All right, gentlemen, we have to continue. I am looking for a motion for Area Variance No. 71-2006. Is there a motion for Area Variance No. 71-2006, please? MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a motion. MR. ABBATE-Mrs. Hunt, would you be kind enough to do that please. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-2006 LUCILE LUCAS, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: 6 Onondaga Drive, Cleverdale – Takundewide. The applicant proposes demolition of the existing 768 square foot camp, and construction of a 1,471 square foot single family dwelling. The applicant requests five feet of rear setback relief from the 15 foot minimum, 4.5 feet of side setback relief east from the 15 foot minimum, and one foot of side setback relief, west, from the 15 foot minimum. Above relief per Section 179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone, lot width between 50 and 60 feet, and FAR relief for a total of 25%, 317 square feet where the maximum is 22% per Section 179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone. On the balancing act, the benefit to the applicant would be the applicant would be permitted to demolish the existing 768 square foot camp and replace with a 1,471 square foot single family dwelling. The feasible alternatives are limited. Is this relief substantial? The request for rear is 33%; east, 30%; west, 7% and FAR taken cumulatively are considerable, but if you take into consideration the common property it is not. It’s moderate. The effects on the neighborhood or community would be moderate. The house is on the existing footprint and the height is below the maximum. The difficulty is self-created only because the owner wishes to replace a camp. I would condition approval on this to have the Planning Board effectively determine the consistency with the Master Plan and also re-assessment of a community wastewater system, as opposed to the individual septic systems proposed for each of these cottages. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of November, 2006, by the following vote: MR. GARRAND-Mr. Chairman, quick question, is that with the same stipulations as 70- 2006? MR. UNDERWOOD-So this is, I think as it was before, it’s conditional approval by us, based upon the best recommendations of the Planning Board. MR. GARRAND-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-For the septic issues. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Thank you. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate NOES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant MR. ABBATE-The vote for 71-2006, five yes, two zero. Area Variance No. 71-2006 is approved with stipulation. Now, ladies and gentlemen of the Board, I’m going to ask for one more motion, and that will be for Area Variance No. 72-2006, please. Do we have a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 72-2006 ROBERT AND ANNE MASON, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 7 Onondaga Drive, Cleverdale, Takundewide. The applicant is proposing demolition of an existing 768 square foot camp and construction of a 1,460 square foot single family dwelling. Specifically, the relief that we’re going to grant is that we’re going to grant 3.5 feet of shoreline setback relief from the 55.5 feet minimum, that’s the average setback of the houses on the two adjoining lots. We’re also going to grant four feet of rear setback relief from the 15 foot minimum, along with three feet of side setback relief on the east side from the 15 foot minimum, and five feet of relief, of side setback relief, from the west side from the 15 foot minimum. The Floor Area Ratio is also going to also need relief for a total of 28%, an additional 307 square feet of floor area, where the maximum FAR is 22 in the Waterfront Residential One Acre zone. As far as the benefit to the applicant, the applicant will be allowed to demolish the existing 768 square foot camp and replace it with a 1,460 square foot single family dwelling. We decided that the feasible alternatives 50 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) are limited. Although the relief does seem to be substantial here, it’s six percent from shoreline, twenty-seven percent from the rear, twenty percent from the east side and thirty-three percent from the Floor Area Ratio, taken cumulatively, they are considerable, but based upon the common property located at Takundewide, we do not feel this has an impact. Is the difficulty is self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created since they’re going to be converting from a cottage to year round. Also we’re going to include that same caveat that we did on the previous two, that the ZBA is giving conditional approval based upon site plan review by the Planning Board to effectively determine the consistency with the Master Plan, and specifically our requirements are going to have them address the re-assessment of the expansion of the Homeowners Association possible community wastewater system or a group system of the three effected properties here under discussion this evening. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of November, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate NOES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 72-2006 with stipulations is five yes, two no. Area Variance No. 72-2006 is approved with stipulations. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, gentlemen. MR. LAPPER-Happy Thanksgiving everybody. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. MR. MASON-Happy Thanksgiving. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, we still have two administrative items we have to take care of this evening, please. MR. URRICO-I have a question, a point of procedure, a point of order. MR. ABBATE-Sure, go ahead. MR. URRICO-We’ve had cases where items have been submitted to us after the packet has been delivered, and we haven’t heard the case based on that. Why did we accept the Water Keeper’s correspondence tonight? MR. UNDERWOOD-No. We oftentimes get letters, I never see the public comment letters until I read them into the record. So when I arrive and Sue hands me the package, I don’t know what’s in there. MR. URRICO-But I mean, should it have been read into the record at that point? MR. ABBATE-Well, the answer is yes. There are two stipulations for submitting evidence into the record. The appellant is pretty well restricted in that there are th deadlines, normally by the 15 of the month. However, when it comes to the public, the public may submit evidence at any time during the hearing. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Normally, this evening, I would like to ask Staff to please make sure this doesn’t happen again. Quite frankly, even if we get a fax at five o’clock, I don’t really care. I want to make sure that every Zoning Board of Appeals member gets it, and I want to make sure that the appellant gets it as well. That constitutes a fair hearing. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. Well, we’ll discuss that at a later time because it’s going to be it’s going to be very difficult. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a point, too, that that was public comment that you’re talking about. 51 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. MC NULTY-We also have people show up at the night of the hearing and we don’t hear it and the applicant doesn’t hear it until the person sits before the microphone and offers it. So, you know, it’s written that you’re talking about, but it’s the same thing as a verbal comment, it’s supposed to get the same kind of weight. MR. ABBATE-That’s true. That’s absolutely correct. MR. O'CONNOR-Your direction might be better to, he would have a lot more credibility if he shared his comments with the applicants, which would not be a big burden for him. He actually has the application in front of him. He knows who the representatives are, but he likes to play sandbag and ambush, whatever you want to call it. Some Boards have simply told him they aren’t going to put up with that because you come in here with, he’s got an engineering comment that sounds logical, we haven’t heard it. I mean, he is an advocate. He is an advocate that comes into these things. At the same time he sends that comment letter to you, he should be sending it to the applicant, and that might be just a simple suggestion by you, so that the applicant, okay, we take a look at it. We ship it off to an engineer and say, hey, give us some response here or come with us so that we can respond to it fairly. MR. ABBATE-Well, to respond to that. Staff is pretty good. This is really the one exception that I’ve heard. We received this apparently just quite late this afternoon, I’m going to guess. MR. O'CONNOR-I have no problems with Staff sharing their Staff comments. They fax them to us. They’re very good at getting them to us, and I’m sure that they can do that with that, but I think when you have somebody who is an advocate, who appears on a professional basis he ought to treat everybody with the same professional courtesy that we would treat him, and he should actually share his comments. MR. ABBATE-Of course, Counselor, you realize I have no control over what the public does. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, you can make a suggestion to him the next time he appears. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Can I ask a question? If the applicants here came up with a system that allowed them to take those three units, or some semblance of those three units, and pump it further back from the lake than on the individual site where they’re talking about, could we re-present that to you and go forward? MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t really think that we’re in a position to decide what’s a proper design, and I really don’t think the Planning Board is going to hold you up either. I think they’re going to. MR. O'CONNOR-Jim, just getting on their agenda is a nightmare. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Just getting on their agenda is a nightmare. You don’t table things like, I’ll be criticized for it. They table everything and anything. They make their own agenda busy. MR. ABBATE-Be fair to us, it’s inappropriate for us to comment on the Planning Board. MR. O'CONNOR-I shouldn’t comment on it either. That was not on the record. MR. SALVADOR-I have one suggestion in regard to the written submissions that came in late. Why don’t you read those at the beginning of the public hearing, and then everybody, the public and the applicant, knows what the written submissions are. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t think that you want to set the tone, though. I mean, if you get 500 negative ones, I mean, that’s not fair to the applicant. MR. SALVADOR-Well, you’re going to read them eventually. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. 52 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) MR. SALVADOR-It’s fair to everybody. I mean, Mr. Navitsky had some very valid arguments. He can articulate them better than I can, and I don’t have to waste my time. That’s all I’m saying. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Salvador. I appreciate that. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, we still have several administrative items to do. The first on the agenda this evening is going to be a recommendation for Chairman for the Year 2007. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a nomination for the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. ABBATE-You may very well. MOTION TO NOMINATE CHARLES ABBATE FOR CHAIRMAN OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR THE YEAR 2007, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: Mr. Abbate has been both a leader and a mentor to members of this Board. Mr. Abbate’s leadership has also produced a very judicious and efficient Board that should be a model to other Boards. Mr. Abbate’s experience and knowledge are both an asset and a benefit to the residents of the Town of Queensbury. So at this point I’d like to Nominate Mr. Charles Abbate. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of November, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-So we have a nomination for Mr. Abbate for Chairman for the Year 2007. Now, we’d like a nomination for Vice Chair for the Year 2007. Do we have a nomination, please. MOTION TO NOMINATE CHARLES MC NULTY FOR VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE ZONING , Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for BOARD OF APPEALS FOR THE YEAR 2007 its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: nd Duly adopted this 22 day of November, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-The vote for Mr. McNulty for Vice Chair is seven yes, zero no. Mr. McNulty is hereby nominated to the Town Board for Vice Chair for the Year 2007. I now would like a recommendation for Secretary for 2007. Do we have a nomination? MOTION TO NOMINATE JAMES UNDERWOOD FOR SECRETARY OF THE ZONING , Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for BOARD OF APPEALS FOR THE YEAR 2007 its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: nd Duly adopted this 22 day of November, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-Mr. Underwood was nominated for Secretary to this Board for 2007 with a vote of seven yes, zero no. One other comment, one of the recommendations that we’re going to be discussing, and I thought it was rather ironic, guys, this evening, when the public came up and said, gee, can’t you start the hearings earlier. Yes, as a matter of fact, it looks like we’re going to do a motion for December. Now, I do believe, I’m taking a beating from Staff, Ms. Hemingway. She says you simply have to do those approvals 53 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/22/06) for the minutes of the meeting. Is that correct? You don’t have them with you this evening? MS. HEMINGWAY-I don’t have them with me. th MR. ABBATE-Well, then, guess what, we’ll do them for December 20? MS. HEMINGWAY-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, might I suggest that we consider doing those at the beginning of the meeting? MR. ABBATE-Not a bad idea. MR. MC NULTY-Because otherwise we end up this time of the night or later and we say the heck with it, let’s put it off, and if we did it, it’ll be several this next time, but then if we did it at the beginning of every meeting, it would only be one or two that we’d have to do. MR. ABBATE-We’ll do it. Why not. If there’s a recommendation that makes the system better, by God, let’s do it. So what we’re going to do, ladies and gentlemen, in the future, Ms. Hemingway, the burden is going to be on your shoulders to say, Mr. Chairman, we th have to approve minutes of the meeting, and we will do it. Effective the 20 of th December, and by the way, the 20 of December, ladies and gentlemen, you’ll note we are meeting from 6:30 to 10:30, and we can thank the unsung heroes, such as Ms. Hemingway, who’s done a lot of work for us. MR. BRYANT-I thought we had to vote on that. MR. ABBATE-Not for December. We’re going to do 6:30 to 10:30 December. Mr. Bryant wants to vote whether or not we’ll hold a hearing from 6:30 to 10:30 p.m. on December th the 20. That will constitute one hearing because, as you probably already know, we th had a total of eight, and I’ve gotten two, possibly three, so on December 20 it was appropriate to have one meeting in the month of December because it appears we will only have five cases. MOTION THAT THE TIME OF THE ZONING BOARD MEETING BE MOVED TO 6:30 P.M. FOR DECEMBER 2006, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: nd Duly adopted this 22 day of November, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate NOES: Mr. Bryant MR. ABBATE-The vote is, I’m pleased to say, six to one no. 6:30 to 10:30 will be our starting frame for December 20, 2006. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much, but before we go, I’d like to make sure that everybody knows that we have with us this evening two alternates. We have Ms. Jenkin and we have Brian Clements, Joan Jenkin. This is the Board right here, and we welcome you on board. We thank you very much. We can certainly use you. On motion meeting adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Charles Abbate, Chairman 54