Loading...
2007-03-21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/07) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 21, 2007 INDEX Area Variance No. 14-2007 Katherine Lapham 2. Tax Map No. 239.16-1-11 Area Variance No. 42-2006 Ferraro Entertainment, Inc. 3. Tax Map No. 296.9-1-1 Area Variance No. 13-2007 Robert J. Muller 16. Tax Map No. 265.00-1-19.2 Area Variance No. 15-2007 Henri Langevin/Adirondack Sports Dome 22. Tax Map No. 309.5-1-3.12 Area Variance No. 16-2007 BBL, Inc. 26. Tax Map No. 301.10-1-82, 83, 84 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 03/21/07) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 21, 2007 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHARLES ABBATE, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, SECRETARY ROY URRICO ALLAN BRYANT CHARLES MC NULTY RICHARD GARRAND BRIAN CLEMENTS, ALTERNATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-BLANCHE ALTER LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. ABBATE-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals hearing dated 21 March 2007. 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 that 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. This 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. Other than administrative items, public comments will be invited 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. All questions from the appellant or the public will be addressed to this Board. All dialogue during the hearing will be between the appellant and this Board. Now, before we being, Mr. Secretary, I do have an administrative item, two, to be specific, to take are of, and that is the approval of the minutes of the meeting of February 27, 2007 and February 28, 2007. Ms. G., could st you let me know who was present at that time, please. Let’s do February 21 first, please. Okay. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 21, 2007 st MS. GAGLIARDI-Charles Abbate, on the 21, Charles Abbate, Charles McNulty, Roy Urrico, Richard Garrand, Joyce Hunt, and James Underwood. MR. ABBATE-We can do it, guys, with four, which is a majority. Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 21, 2007 ZBA MINUTES, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: st Duly adopted this 21 day of March, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Bryant 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/07) MR. ABBATE-Now, is my count correct, five? Do we have five for voting? Do that count again. We only had four. So the vote is four yes, zero no. The ZBA minutes of February 21, 2007 are approved. February 28, 2007 th MR. ABBATE-February 28, Ms. G., tell us who was here. MS. GAGLIARDI-Charles Abbate, Charles McNulty, Roy Urrico, Richard Garrand, Joyce Hunt, James Underwood, Allan Bryant MOTION TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 28, 2007 ZBA MINUTES, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: st Duly adopted this 21 day of March, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-The vote is five yes, zero no. The ZBA minutes of February 28, 2007 are approved. Having done that, Mr. Secretary, do we have any correspondence that should be read into the record, and if so, would you be kind enough to please read it into the record? MR. UNDERWOOD-No. MRS. BARDEN-Mr. Chairman, would you like to table Area Variance No. 14-2007 and open the public hearing. MR. UNDERWOOD-The one that didn’t show. MRS. BARDEN-Lapham. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s the one that got pulled. In case anyone’s here for that one. MR. ABBATE-Sure, I can do that right now. AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-2007 SEQRA TYPE: II KATHERINE LAPHAM AGENT(S): STEPHEN AND BONNIE LAPHAM; MICHAEL O’CONNOR, ESQ. OWNER(S): BONNIE M. LAPHAM ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 19 SIGN POST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RECONSTRUCT EXISTING DOCKS, AND SUNDECK (TOTAL 444 SQ. FT.) RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR DOCKS. CROSS REF.: BP 2006-903; LAKE GEORGE PK COM. PERMIT NO. 5234-34-06 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: MARCH 14, 2007 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.20 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.16- 1-11 SECTION: 179-5-050 MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-2007 KATHERINE LAPHAM, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: 19 Sign Post Road. Tabled until March 28, 2007. st Duly adopted this 21 day of March, 2007, by the following vote: MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, you’re tabling it until when? th MRS. BARDEN-March 28 . th MR. ABBATE-She requested the 28 specifically. Okay. AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-The vote is seven yes, zero no. Area Variance No. 14-2007 is tabled until March 28, 2007. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/07) OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-2006 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED (NEG. DEC. 2/20/2007) FERRARO ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AGENT(S): J. LAPPER, ESQ.; NORTHFIELD DESIGN & ARCHITECTS; JARRETT-MARTIN, ENG. OWNER(S): ANTHONY AND MARY SUE FERRARO ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 1035 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 20,858 SQ. FT. MINIATURE GOLF COURSE FACILITY AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK TO EXISTING AMUSEMENT USE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF THE HC-INT. ZONE, TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY SETBACK FOR ROUTE 9, AND FROM THE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR AN AMUSEMENT CENTER. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: JULY 12, 2006 LOT SIZE: 3.5 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.9-1-1 SECTION 179-4-060; 179-4-040; 179-4-030 JON LAPPER, TOM JARRETT, & JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APP., PRESENT MR. ABBATE-We have none. If we have none, then I’m going to ask that the petitioner of, in Old Business, Area Variance No. 42-2006, would you be kind enough to approach the table please, speak into the microphone and for the record identify yourself and your place of business, please. Gentlemen, if you are prepared, go ahead. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Keith Ferraro, to my right, on behalf of the applicant, the project architect, Jim Miller, and the project engineer, Tom th Jarrett. As many of you will recall, we were here on July 19, when we started this process, seeking the Area Variances, and at that meeting you referred us to the Town Planning Board for SEQRA review and for a recommendation on the variances. Now, as you are aware, the Planning Board process is not simple or quick in the Town of Queensbury, and it took us seven months to complete our review, at probably five meetings at the Planning Board. During the course of that seven months, we were asked to and agreed to make significant changes to the plan, which we will describe to you tonight. In general, what we’re trying to do is replace the somewhat antiquated water slide portion of the facility in the rear with a very upscale miniature golf facility in the front, and the main benefit to that, to the applicant, is that the waterslide has been somewhat usurped by all of the waterslide improvements that The Great Escape has done down the road, and the question is, should they make an investment in the waterslide at this facility, and they determined that it’s not really financially a good investment. So instead they looked at their site and said what do they need as a compatible use with what they have with the indoor activities and the outdoor activities, and they determined that a positive benefit for them would be miniature golf, and that also has positive benefits that we hope that we could convince the Town would be good because of taking out the vast majority of the front parking lot. When you drive by on Route 9, you see a sea of asphalt, and we would instead be able to replace that with a very expensively landscaped with stone, grass and shrubs and trees improvement on the front, and that’s how we started the process, and through the course of this, with the Planning Board, we were asked to, and agreed to look at some of the pre-existing uses on the property to see if we could mitigate some of the impacts from the pre-existing uses. Now if this project never changes, obviously they’d have the legal right to keep it the way it is now, until the end of time, but nevertheless we understood that if we wanted to get this to a position where it could get approved, we would have to go back and analyze the pre-existing conditions, in terms of noise, light spillage, landscaping, primarily, and we came up with, or the Planning Board came up with a whole bunch of mitigation that we agreed to. This was after we submitted detailed traffic studies, engineering analysis, noise tests, and tonight we’d like to describe to you how that process went, how it changed, and the good news is that in February the Planning Board did pass a resolution granting a negative declaration under SEQRA, and also a resolution expressing to this Board that they recommended the variance after we had changed the project. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Take a breather for a second. The Secretary is going to read into the record and show you the absolute effectiveness and efficiency of this Board. Would you read that into the record, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Just to refresh everybody’s memory, when they came in previously before us, I think that you were asking for relief for parking because you didn’t have adequate parking, based upon the size of the facility, and that was what we had sent to the Planning Board for their purview, to make sure that that was something that they were amenable to. I’ll read Staff Notes in. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/07) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 42-2006, Ferraro Entertainment, Inc., Meeting Date: March 21, 2007 “Project Location: 1035 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: The applicants propose construction of a 20,858 sq. ft. miniature golf course and associated site work. The applicants propose construction of a 20,570 sq. ft. miniature golf course and associated site work. The proposed attraction is to be placed 25-feet from the front property line. Additionally, 118 parking spaces are proposed, where 292 are required. Relief Required: The applicants request: ? Relief of 50-feet from the minimum 75-feet setback requirement of the travel corridor overlay zone, per §179-4-070. ? Relief of 25-feet, from the minimum 50-feet front setback requirement of the HC- Mod zone, per §179-4-030. ? Relief from the minimum parking requirement for an amusement center (1 per 200 sq. ft. of gross floor area), per §179-4-040. The required relief is 174 spaces. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SUP 35-2006: Pending, for this project. SP 35-98: Approved 6/23/98, 7/28/98, and 6/22/99. BP 98-602: Issued 9/30/99, 540 sq. ft. go-cart repair shed. BP 98-601: Issued 9/30/99, 2,080 sq. ft. go-cart storage building. BP 98-600: Issued 9/30/99, commercial additions. BP 93-562: Issued 9/28/93, building addition. Staff comments: The applicants request front setback relief and relief from the setback requirements of the travel corridor overlay zone for the construction and installation of a proposed miniature golf facility, to be located 25-feet from the front property line. Both of these requests could be considered substantial, specifically, 50% of relief from the front setback requirement, and 67% of relief from the setback requirement of the travel corridor overlay zone. However, there is limited available space on site for the miniature golf course due to the other existing facilities on-site. A feasible alternative may be to reduce the size of the proposed facility and, with that, increasing the setbacks. Additionally, relief is requested from the parking requirement for an amusement center. The number used by the applicant to calculate the parking requirement is 14,400 sq. ft. this is 70% of the total 20,858 sq. ft. facility (used for permeability calculation), additionally only the paved area of the go-cart track and the kiddie track were used toward the site parking requirement. The entire area of all uses on site should be used to calculate the parking requirement, and thus the amount of relief requested. The applicant’s stated justification for the parking relief is that the individual uses are seasonal and not all operational during the same season. The requested 60% of relief could be considered substantial.” MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that when we asked the Planning Board to do this, we asked for their recommendation, which they did make a record of resolution on and essentially that recommendation was done by Gretchen Steffan, and I’ll read that into the record. The recommendation from the Planning Board regarding the variances were as follows: 1. The minimum parking requirement of 118 spaces is reasonable. 2. The front setbacks for Highway Commercial zone and the Travel Corridor Overlays as presented are reasonable, and that was unanimously voted, you know, ayes on all of that. So that’s it. MR. ABBATE-Now that you’ve had that little breather, is there anything else you’d like to add before we start? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/07) MR. LAPPER-Yes. Before I turn it over to the architect and engineer, I’d just like to make one comment. In Susan’s Staff Notes, she said that if you just looked at the numbers, it would seem substantial, in terms of the percentages of the 50 foot building setback and the 75 foot Travel Corridor Overlay, but I just want to point out that in this case, we don’t have any building within 75 feet of the Route 9 that the setback that we’re requesting is only for the miniature golf, and what we’ve changed since we were here is that we’ve added more green to the front, even in front of that, not just compared to what’s there now, but compared to what we had proposed. So we have no building within 75 feet. It’s somewhat technical in terms of those variances, because it’s a mini- golf course, but with that said, let me start with Jim Miller, and then we’ll go on to Tom Jarrett. MR. MILLER-Good evening. I guess maybe to bring you up to speed a little bit of what transpired in our Planning Board process. As Jon mentioned, we do not have any structures within that front 75 feet off of Route 9. The only thing that’s impermeable there is the actual golf course fairways, so to speak, and the holes themselves. Within the golf course, it’s very heavily landscaped. It’s almost like a botanical jungle, if you look at our landscape plan, which I think you have in front of you, or we have that here for you. That was required by the Planning Board. It’s very heavily landscaped. In one of the last meetings with the Planning Board, they asked us to specifically reduce the number of parking spaces that we had, and that was by a number of 30 spaces. What we did is we took those 30 spaces out of the front Route 9 side. So what we have is a uniform buffer of green for 100 foot depth across the whole front of the property. The only thing that breaks that up is the entrance. The entrance is another point that I’d like to make. Previous, currently the property has two entrances. We’ve cut that back to one entrance, and we have DOT approval for that entrance. That happened some time in October. It’s more compliant with the Town Code. It’s less traffic concerns in and out of the project. The other part with the parking is our challenge of the numbers that are required, and we went through a lengthy exercise with the Planning Board of the owner taking daily counts of how many people actually were using the facility, and by looking at those actual counts, we don’t approach the 118 number that we’re proposing. MR. ABBATE-Who’s challenge are you referring to? Who challenged you on that? MR. MILLER-Well, what was challenged is. MR. ABBATE-Who? MR. LAPPER-The Board didn’t, the Ordinance did. MR. MILLER-The Ordinance specifies a certain amount. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. You’ve got to make that clear. So the Ordinance basically. MR. MILLER-Right, and that’s one of the reasons we’re here for a variance. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Fine. MR. MILLER-So we came back 30 spaces from what we had originally proposed during the Fall. The main premise here is that we’re trying to present a landscaped area to the public to the street. We’re trying to hide the parking out back, and our proposal revolves around that the use or the golf course use is a very low impact use. It is seasonal, and, you know, for a good part of the year, in a normal winter, that’s just going to be all snow out front. It’s not going to be parking. It’s just going to be very low impact. So that’s how we got to the 118 spaces. We’d like to present the argument that we do not have any structures in that front 75 feet. We do have some taller elements to the golf course, but they’re behind that, there’s a clubhouse and a tower structure, but they’re all back from that 100 feet. So they’re not of issue, and I guess the other thing is during the Planning Board process we’ve answered and complied with all the questions and concerns and recommendations presented to us. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Just for the record, we did a Negative Declaration on February 20, 2007. MR. LAPPER-The Planning Board did a Negative Declaration as Lead Agency. MR. ABBATE-Yes, as Lead Agency, that’s correct, just for the record. Before I ask any members of the Board if they have any questions, I have a question for Counselor. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/07) MR. LAPPER-Tom Jarrett wants to make a presentation as well. If you have a question. MR. ABBATE-I do have a question. Now, Counselor, you know what the procedures are. My question is, why did you submit this so late to us? MR. LAPPER-You have blow ups. That’s just an easier one to see. MR. ABBATE-Easier way to do it. You were doing it for our benefit? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. MR. JARRETT-The reason for that plan is that the Planning Board at its last meeting, last month, negotiated with us to drop parking from 120 to 118, increase the connector passage between the two properties in the rear of the building, and change the handicap spaces. You did not have that plan in your package. We felt it appropriate for you to see exactly what the Planning Board last made their decision on. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Fair enough. MR. JARRETT-Okay. I can address some of the technical issues that the Planning Board reviewed. As part of our site plan package to the Board, we addressed lighting and stormwater and wastewater. Stormwater and wastewater were relatively straightforward. Stormwater requirements were the Town’s as well as the New York State DEC’s SPDES requirements. Those were met with on site stormwater management systems. Wastewater, we’re proposing a connection to the Route 9 sewer system. All domestic wastewater on the site will now go to the municipal sewer. We also addressed lighting on the site. Virtually all the lighting on the site around the building will be compliant. The soffit lighting will remain, but all the wall packs on the building will be changed to compliant lighting, and all of the parking lot lighting will be compliant lighting, brand new. What we’ve also done, in somewhat of an innovative approach, is we’re proposing to change the go kart track lighting to turn the fixtures down to mimic down lighting, and it greatly reduces the spillage off site that you see right now, and the Board was happy with that approach. In addition to that, we have developed a winter lighting plan, versus a summer lighting plan, and we will turn off all the lighting in the wintertime, turn off all the lighting that we normally need in the summertime, we’ll turn that off in the winter as we don’t need it. One of the environmental issues that was raised by the Planning Board was noise. There are issues with regard to noise in the neighborhood, and we went to great lengths to study noise. We took several, there were several periods of noise readings taken at and around the facility, and we compared it with data gathered by the Town, and Great Escape. What we’ve done to try to mitigate noise is to add, obviously, the landscaping of the new miniature golf course, additional landscaping around the site. We’re adding trees to buffer and soften the noise impacts of the concrete abutments on the go kart track. We feel that some of that noise is emanating from that point of the track, and we’re mitigating that with additional vegetation, and lastly the noise within the Skateland facility, the indoor skating facility, will be mitigated with soundproofing on the walls. Some of that, some work inside has already taken place. The owners have changed their operations to some degree, moved some of the speakers around and added some soundproofing materials behind the speakers. We are confident that it has made a difference. The overall soundproofing in the entire wall on the inside has yet to happen. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now, Counselor, you understand, now, there have been some conditions that were brought to our attention, such as lighting changes in the summer and the winter. They are conditions, as well as sound conditions as well. MR. LAPPER-Yes, we’ve already agreed to all of that, absolutely, those would be conditions. MR. ABBATE-All right. MR. LAPPER-I also want to point out, if you look at the site plan, when we first proposed the parking, because we were not complying with the 292 spaces in the Code, and that, again, would be if you treated every use separately and said they were all going to happen at the same time. So we tried to maximize as much parking as we could, so we would ask for the minimum variance that we could ask for, but when we submitted our traffic studies, both in terms of, from the ITE Traffic Standards and also from the on site 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/07) use of parking that we counted, the Planning Board asked us, as Tom and Jim mentioned, asked us to reduce it even lower to 118 spaces, because they felt that what we had asked for in our variance, even that much wasn’t necessary, and it comes out mostly when you look at the front right along Route 9. Not only did we consolidate to one curb cut to decrease areas where you’re going to have cars entering and exiting Route 9, but we also took out, I don’t know, what was that, 12 spaces up front, 16 spaces up front, so that you’re not going to have anybody backing out onto that stacking area when people are pulling in or waiting to pull out. It visually softens the front because it’s more grass, but it also, in terms of traffic impact, it was a good place to take it off and that’s what the Planning Board wanted. So the parking is more towards the back. Before we turn it over to you for questions, I just want to ask Keith to walk you through the photos that we have. This was a golf course by the same company that’s designing this golf course. KEITH FERRARO MR. FERRARO-Yes. The photos I have back here on the chairs basically are from Kimble farms which is, of course, near Boston, and is of course the same manufacturer built probably about six years ago, and this is the theme that we’d like to emulate here at our facility, a very high end, very landscaped, so there would be a very nice green presentation to the road. Now of course it won’t look identical to that because they never build two facilities identically alike but, you know, we have several of the same elements included here, such as the water tower and the windmill and the water sluice, and the concentration of planting. MR. ABBATE-Have you concluded so far? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now what I’m going to do is ask Board members if they have any questions for the appellant. May I start with Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome. MR. BRYANT-Actually I have a question for Staff. I’m not clear about the calculation of the number of parking spaces, because you don’t really specify what you’re basing it on as far as the overall number of square feet of the structures, and are we talking about the combination of all the facilities? Are we talking about the square foot of the entire lot? What are we talking about here in the calculation? Because you don’t specify the number, and I want to know how you got the 292, because I had not been able, based on all these calculations that are on these drawings, to come to that figure. MR. LAPPER-We have a chart, Susan, on the front of our plans. MRS. BARDEN-I took the square footage of all the uses, the roller skating facility, the total square footage of the miniature golf course. MR. BRYANT-Okay. Let’s go through it slow. You’ve got the indoor facilities is 20,453? Is that correct? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MRS. BARDEN-Yes. MR. BRYANT-Okay. Then you have all the outdoor facilities, which are 30,861. Is that correct? MRS. BARDEN-Yes. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So that’s 51,000 give or take a few. You divide that by 200 and you don’t come up with 292, and that’s my question. I don’t understand how we got to 292, and I’ve got to tell you, this site plan is very confusing, and I would have gone by whatever the Town Code is, so that guys like me would understand that. Do you understand what I’m saying? It’s very confusing to me. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think part of it, though, stems from the fact that, you know, you’re counting the total surface area of the racetrack outside. You’re looking at the total 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/07) surface area of all the interior of that building which is not all used for, you know, it all has different uses as it goes. MR. BRYANT-Well, that’s all included here. That’s all included here. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, but I still think the formulation, when you look at it from that viewpoint, you’re not really looking at what the facility holds as far as capacity for human beings as far as using the facility. MR. BRYANT-No, but that’s not the Code. The Code specifically relates to the square footage, and I don’t see the calculation. It doesn’t translate. You’ve got 51,000 square feet, divided by 200, and you don’t come up with 292. Now, are we talking about the size of the lot, which the size of the lot is 152,000 square feet? Do you have to include all the green space in the calculation? MRS. BARDEN-No. MR. BRYANT-Well, tell me how it was calculated, so I can understand. MRS. BARDEN-It’s not the size of the lot. My calculation is different than the one that is given here. Again, because, and I think I explained this in Staff Notes, that they used 70% of the proposed miniature golf course, and only the permeability surface of the existing go kart track and the kiddy track. What I did was I took the total square footage of the building, Skateland, total square footage of the miniature golf course, the go kart track and the kiddy track to come up with the calculation. MR. BRYANT-That’s 51,000 square feet. It’s clear on the site plan. It spells it out. Do you understand, Mr. Jarrett? MR. LAPPER-Well, 51 times 5, because it was five per thousand, would be 250. Just rough numbers. MR. BRYANT-Well, if every 200 square feet, so if you divide 200 into 51,000, okay. MRS. JENKIN-You get 255. MR. BRYANT-Two fifty-five. Okay. Have you got a calculator? MRS. JENKIN-No, I just figured it out. MS. ALTER-I just did it. I got the same thing. MR. BRYANT-Okay. See, my point is this. I don’t understand how the calculation came to, and how we got to this point, and we say 292, and you can’t show me on this drawing, and you can’t tell me how it’s calculated, to come up with 292. So are we requesting relief on the 255 figure? MRS. BARDEN-You are requesting relief on the 174 spaces of relief. It’s 292 that are required. MR. LAPPER-Two hundred and ninety-two. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but you don’t show me how they’re required. Does anybody else have this question? I mean, am I out in the wilderness? MRS. BARDEN-Well, I suppose really. MR. BRYANT-Because there’s 40 spaces in limbo here. MRS. BARDEN-Right. What we should have done is we should have asked the applicant to come up with the actual square footage of everything and not 70% of the square footage. I mean, this is my calculation trying to identify what the relief is that they actually need, what’s required by Code, and with that, the relief that they need. MR. BRYANT-My only question is, had you listed the criteria for your calculations, I wouldn’t have a question. MRS. BARDEN-Right. Well, I told you that it’s a straight, you know, scaling this out as the square footage of these four. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/07) MR. BRYANT-So what are we asking for in relief, just out of curiosity? MR. LAPPER-We’re using 292 and backing off of that number. MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome. Let’s see. Mr. Underwood, would you like to give it a go, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think that, you know, in general, I don’t really have anymore questions. I think that they’ve gone the extra mile. I mean, the numerous meetings with the Planning Board, the reason that we referred this to the Planning Board was to come up with a reasonable number that they were comfortable with, and I think that, you know, the Planning Board specifically said they would rather see less than more. I mean, the limiting factors on the site are the size of the site. It just doesn’t accommodate anymore parking unless you crammed in more, and the Planning Board actually made them take away some of the parking they could have used out front there, you know, when you’re moving in and out of the facility. So, I don’t have any problems with it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Urrico, would you comment? MR. URRICO-Are we polling right now? MR. ABBATE-No, I’m just asking if you want to comment. MR. URRICO-You made reference to the amount of parking that is needed currently to accommodate traffic in the facilities. Is there any figure about? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. JARRETT-Eighty to ninety is about what the peak weekend in the summer is like. MR. URRICO-And that would be the roller skating rink and the go kart? MR. LAPPER-And the waterslide. MR. URRICO-And the waterslide. MR. LAPPER-And the traffic report that we did showed that replacing the waterslide for peak hour with the peak hour of the golf course would be relatively similar, but either way, we’re now proposing going from whatever, 88 we had to 118. So that’s 30 spaces more than what’s existing for overflow. MR. URRICO-What do golf courses, I mean, typically in the summertime there is always a wait somewhere, most of the ones that I’ve either visited or in this area. MR. LAPPER-In terms of the theory, in the summer, the golf course is going to be popular, but the roller skating is only going to be popular when it’s raining, and then you’re not going to be playing golf. So it’s really a shared parking concept, because they don’t all peak at the same time. MR. URRICO-What’s the height of the water tower? MR. MILLER-On the golf course? MR. URRICO-It looks like it’s pretty high in that photograph. MR. MILLER-That would be less than 35 feet, which I think is the Town Code. The exact height yet I don’t think has been determined. MR. URRICO-But it’s still going to be off the ground. MR. LAPPER-It’s something you’re going to see. MR. MILLER-It’s way back, though. MR. LAPPER-Yes, it’s more than 75 feet from the road. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/07) MR. URRICO-And the question about the paths. From Route 9, are there going to be paths close? It’s hard to tell from the diagram. MR. LAPPER-Well, there’s going to be one of those aluminum wrought iron fences. There’s going to be a fence. That’s one answer, a fancy, black, aluminum wrought iron fence. MR. URRICO-Will there be guests waiting for the next hole against the fence? MR. LAPPER-No. They’re all the way, you enter the site from the middle of the golf course, not by the road. MR. URRICO-Okay. So you won’t be able to see them from the road. MR. LAPPER-Right, and one thing we didn’t mention is that we now put in a sidewalk all along the golf course, along the parking area between the golf course and the parking area, and also a sidewalk to the front area where you enter either the go kart or the building for the skating, and that’s all new. MR. URRICO-Okay, and then the last question, off the wall a little bit, but the shrubs that are going to be placed there, are they going to be replaced as needed? What happens in the wintertime, as you know here, the snow gets pushed from the road onto the sidewalks, and if the sidewalk’s onto the facilities, and it tends to burn out the plants that are planted along those areas. MR. LAPPER-I think the Town has a requirement, in terms of Bruce coming out and checking after the first year to make sure they’re alive and you have to re-plant them, but let me let Keith address that. MR. FERRARO-I mean, part of the aesthetics of the whole course is the landscaping. We’re not going to let that be diminished to take away the total effect of what we’re trying to achieve here, by any means. So everything will be addressed continuously. MRS. BARDEN-They have to be maintained. All the landscaping that is part of the approved site plan needs to be maintained. MS. ALTER-I’d just like to clarify the parking issue a little further. What Mr. Lapper’s consultants did were to use the most onerous standards. We counted everything. We gave them a break. We said it was one parking space per two hundred square feet. When he calculated his 292, he based it on industry standards. He didn’t say it was all amusement park. He based it on specific uses, by using 250. So that’s the discrepancy. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much, Ms. Executive Director. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, just to extrapolate on that. When we go for relief, I mean, are we going to go on this 292, the fictional 292 figure, or are we going to go on the actual 255 standard? MS. ALTER-Well, I would say you should pick the higher standard, which would be the 292, because he’s basing it on industry standards. Susan was very kind when she did the review. She just classified it all as amusement park, but they broke it all down by skating rink, outdoor facilities, etc. MR. BRYANT-Thank you. I do have another question, Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-Sure, by all means, go ahead. MR. BRYANT-Relative to your comment about calculating the actual parking required, parking seems to be a big problem for me, okay. You went on to say that basically the waterslide world and the golf course are going to use the same thing, and I don’t necessarily agree, because I would be more likely to play miniature golf than I would be to go on a waterslide. MR. LAPPER-Because you don’t have a six year old. That’s the difference. MR. BRYANT-No, but I have a granddaughter that’s five. So, she would go, but I still wouldn’t go. The reality is, okay, I don’t know that that translates accurately. So I want to know, when you say you came to this formulation, if it was some kind of scientific 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/07) parking study, or if it was just, well, it’s a waterslide world facility and so many people are going. MR. LAPPER-No. We hired Creighton-Manning, who are very well respected Albany traffic engineers, and they did a report that we submitted to the Planning Board that came to that conclusion? MR. BRYANT-Where is that report? Is that in our package? MR. LAPPER-I don’t know if it is. MR. BRYANT-I don’t remember seeing it. It’s not in our package. MR. JARRETT-The Town has it. I don’t know if this Board has a copy. MR. BRYANT-Can I see it? MR. LAPPER-I’m sure that I have a copy. MR. BRYANT-Since the issue was parking, it probably should have been included in our package. MRS. BARDEN-You have whatever the applicant provided to you. MR. LAPPER-We’ve got it. MR. JARRETT-It was more directed at traffic generation than specifically parking, because the applicant did the parking survey, and Creighton-Manning did address the traffic generation for the two uses. MR. BRYANT-Traffic generation is one thing, but I’m really interested in parking, because parking is the issue. We’re going to give you relief on 174 parking spaces that you theoretically should be required. Something in black and white, something scientific should say in reality that’s an overstatement and therefore we really don’t need it. The last thing we want is to have an overflowed crowd at your miniature golf because it’s so attractive that they’re parking on Route 9. MR. LAPPER-To respond to you, we’re going to give you two things. We’re going to give you the parking survey that was done, the actual counts that were taken by Keith, pass that up to you, and we will get a copy of the Creighton-Manning letter MR. URRICO-Can I ask a question? MR. ABBATE-By all means. MR. URRICO-How many employees will be working, will be on the facility during peak times during the summer? MR. FERRARO-You mean actually working at any one time? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m just trying to calculate the additional cars that there’ll be. MR. FERRARO-Actually there should be probably two or three less, because it doesn’t take as many golf attendants as it would lifeguards. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. ABBATE-All right. We have to go to Mr. Garrand. Do you have any questions for the appellant? MR. GARRAND-No, sir, I don’t. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Then may I move on to Mrs. Jenkin. Do you have any questions? MRS. JENKIN-I just wondered about the hours. The miniature golf will have the same hours? They have evening hours, correct, as well as the waterslide? MR. FERRARO-Correct. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/07) MRS. JENKIN-Will the hours be the same, so the people coming in and out would be about the same time as the waterslide was? MR. FERRARO-No. Actually it will go later, because the waterslides didn’t go in the evening, but the hours will mimic the hours of the go kart track. MRS. JENKIN-And what are those hours? MR. FERRARO-Basically ten a.m. until midnight, in the summertime. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Clements, do you have any questions? MR. CLEMENTS-Is that the hours that you have now? MR. FERRARO-Yes. MR. CLEMENTS-I had a concern on the parking, too. Is this survey that you handed out to us the one that Keith did? MR. FERRARO-Yes, it is. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay, and what was the other one that, we also had another one? MR. JARRETT-That is a copy of the one that was submitted to the Planning Board. MR. LAPPER-Creighton-Manning Traffic Engineers did an analysis of the traffic generation for the mini-golf, for peak hour traffic generation for a mini-golf. MR. CLEMENTS-Can you summarize what they said? MR. LAPPER-Eighteen additional cars for the mini-golf. I’m sorry, they compared the mini-golf to the waterslide, and said that there would be about two additional cars, peak hour generated for the mini-golf compared to the waterslide. I think part of it with the waterslide, like Allan said, it’s in the back and you don’t see it, but when I show up there with my eight year old daughter and there’s bus loads of kids and cars and parents, I mean, in the summer it’s really utilized, you just don’t see it from the road because it’s behind the building. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do we have any other questions? MR. BRYANT-I have one more question, Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-Yes, Mr. Bryant has one more question. MR. BRYANT-This survey that they took, this is staff took this, your staff, did that include employees and everything? MR. FERRARO-Yes, it was every car on the facility. MR. BRYANT-Okay, and will there be required more employees? I would think there would be less employees with the golf than waterslide, right? MR. FERRARO-Yes. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So theoretically, the fact that old people are going to play golf. That would compensate somewhat for that, right? MR. FERRARO-Yes. MR. URRICO-I have another question. MR. ABBATE-Yes, please, Mr. Urrico, go ahead. MR. URRICO-I noticed on one of the surveys, at one time you had four buses on the facility. Where are they going to go under the new plan? Where would they park? MR. FERRARO-We would park them in the back. We would actually set aside some spaces for them in the center, where you have the doubled up parking. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/07) MR. URRICO-So it’s possible that you’ll have 90 cars and four buses on the facility at the same time? MR. FERRARO-It’s possible, and we could still accommodate that with the 118 spaces. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, ladies and gentlemen, I’m going to move to the public hearing, and I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 42-2006. Those in the public wishing to be heard, would you be kind enough to raise your hand, I’ll recognize you, ask you to approach the table, speak into the microphone, and identify yourself. Do we have anyone in the public this evening who would like to comment on Area Variance No. 42-2006? Would you raise your hands please. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. ABBATE-We have none. I’m going to move on, and I’m going to now approach that portion of the hearing, and I’m going to ask members to offer their comments, and I’d like to inform the public that the comments that are going to be offered by members are directed to the Chairman, and comments expressed by Board members to the Chairman are not open to debate. May I respectfully remind the members that precedence mandates 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 are obligated to make decisions on the reliable evidence contained in the record of the Board’s deliberations. I’ll now ask members to please offer their comments on Area Variance No. 42-2006, and I’m looking for a volunteer. Mr. Underwood, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Under the relief requested here this evening on the first two, that is the relief of the 50 feet from the minimum 75 foot requirements of the Travel Corridor Overlay and the relief for 25 feet from the 50 foot front setback requirements, I think the Planning Board has given its assurance that they’re comfortable with that, and I think I am, too. I think that we were worried about like, you know, siting like a major waterfall or something tall out there in front that would block the view for cars entering and exiting the site. As far as the other relief that was requested, and that is the relief from the minimum parking requirements, I think that you’re going to have a slight change in the use of the facility with the miniature golf outside in front there, and, you know, having played miniature golf with my kids, too, it’s an in and out type thing. A lot of people come. They play one round and they leave, you know. So there’s a quick turnover in the amount of traffic, and I think that this site also is going to be limited by the number of people that can play golf. You’re not going to have 300 people show up to play. They’re not going to wait that long. They’re going to go down the road to Pirates Cove or one of the other ones that are available. So I think it’s reasonable and I think the Planning Board also was comfortable with that, and I think that, you know, if you got into a situation with extensive crowds or things like that, you’ve also got next door Wilson’s next door, and that’s overflow available. So I don’t have any problem with any of it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Would anyone else like to volunteer to go? MR. BRYANT-I’ll go. MR. ABBATE-Would you like to go, Mr. Bryant, please. Thank you. MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with Mr. Underwood on the first two issues. I think the Planning Board covered it on the setback and the Travel Corridor Overlay. I don’t really have a problem with them. The fact that you have no major structures in that Travel Corridor Overlay I think is beneficial. On the parking area, I think I’m a little bit troubled by it. For example, based on your own survey, you’ve got some time with four buses and so forth and so on, and I can see if you, for example, take up those double back to back parking spaces with buses, which is conceivable, if you have four buses at any given time, you actually lose 28 parking spaces, which means you’re left with 90, and then you’ve got 85 in some places, and, you know, I think you’re cutting it very close, and the other thing is I know that Staff was trying to be kind with the estimate and so forth, but I want to be very specific about the actual relief that you’re getting and what it’s based on, so that later on you don’t subtract 174 spaces from 255, and come up with whatever. Do you know what I mean? I want to be very specific MR. LAPPER-We’ll certainly say 118 are going to be built. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/07) MR. BRYANT-Okay. We’re going to have to be very specific about that, but you see the troubling situation with the buses? MR. LAPPER-One thing we should mention. The buses happen often in the morning. The day camps. It’s the little kids that they use the buses for, mostly for the waterslide world, and now the little kids would come for mini-golf, but that doesn’t, it’s not, the buses are group activities, and that wouldn’t be a night when you have the tourists coming to mini-golf in the dark with the lights on. It’s just a different age group. So it really probably wouldn’t be a conflict between when the buses are there and when the site’s maxed out. MR. URRICO-Your own survey shows four buses at 2 p.m. and cars, 84 cars at 2 p.m. MR. LAPPER-And that’s the most, most, because the kids did stay in the afternoon for the waterslide sometimes, but that was the highest, and we’re still going to have 30 cars more than that. MR. ABBATE-I think, gentlemen, and ladies, we’ve had enough dialogue this evening. These questions should have been posed earlier. Right now I’m asking members to offer their comments. MR. BRYANT-That is part of my comments, Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-That’s fine, and your position is? MR. BRYANT-My position is I’m fine with the first areas of relief. I would be reluctantly in favor of the parking area, because I think it’s going to be very tight. I mean, but that’s based on your own figure. MR. ABBATE-Your comments are well noted and well taken. Mr. Garrand, please. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Chairman, looking at the 50 feet of relief in the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, I think when we look at this, we’re not having a building there. It’s a miniature golf course, and the height of this isn’t going to be spectacular. We’re not putting something up against the road that’s going to obstruct anybody’s view pulling in and out of businesses alongside it. I don’t think it’s a lot to ask for a miniature golf course. As far as the minimum parking requirements, we’re looking at the total square footage. If you look at the actual businesses themselves, they’re not going to be generating enough public there at any one time to make a big difference. Like Counselor stated, this is a lot of seasonal business here. In the wintertime you’re not going to have a lot of traffic for the miniature golf and the go karts, but in the wintertime you’ll have the skating rink. Conversely, you know, in the summertime you’re going to have the miniature golf and the go karts. So at this point, I would be in favor of granting this variance. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Garrand. May I turn to Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-I think I’ll run through the balancing test, since we haven’t done that yet. Whether the benefit can be achieved by any other means feasible to the applicant. There is a feasible alternative, and that’s not to build it, but it wouldn’t be beneficial to the applicant. I think we have to, and then we talked about the change in the neighborhood character. Well, this already a Fun Spot by name, so I think the character of that part of the neighborhood won’t be changing. The request is substantial, in respect to the setback and also the parking relief, and I think we have to be very careful. I know there’s, the tendency right now in the Town is to, we overacted many years ago in the amount of spaces that were asked of businesses, and now we’re tending to go back, and it’s asking, I think, a lot of this Board to try to calculate exactly how many spots are going to be needed. I don’t think we should be put in the position of having to figure out, you know, within 20 or 30 spots whether this is going to be enough or not, but that being said, I trust the calculations. I trust that the business in this case has done its homework, and I think the parking space is going to be sufficient, but it’s really borderline for me. I would support the application. I don’t see any environmental effects, and the difficulty is self- created, but that being said, I would support the application and all aspects of it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Urrico. Mr. Clements, please. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/07) MR. CLEMENTS-Yes, I also had a little concern about the parking. I think that the Planning Board did a good job with this one. Overall I would say that it’s probably a benefit to the residents because of the sound being quieter because of the lighting changes that you’re going to make. So I’d be in favor of it also. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mrs. Jenkin, please. MRS. JENKIN-Yes, the parking I feel, because I agree with Mr. Underwood. People will be in and out, and I would think that’s a concern, and I think there is a positive change in the neighborhood. I think you’ve done a nice job of the planning of it. It looks like a nice project. The only concern I have is the setback, because as you drive along there, most of the businesses are much farther back, but as you say, it is going to be landscaped. You will have the fence in front separating. So I would go with it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Well, I’ve listened to what the appellants have had to say, and I paid particular attention to what members of the Board have had to say, and I believe that there have been excellent comments asked by members of the Board, and I think there have been appropriate and reasonable conclusions drawn by the six members of the Board, and consequently I join the other six members of the Board in supporting their application. Having said that, Mr. Secretary, I know that there was, the Planning Board was Lead Agency and I do believe they did a Negative Declaration on February 20, 2007. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. ABBATE-And if that’s the case, then, we have concluded that portion of it. At this particular point, I’m going to close the public hearing for Area Variance No. 42-2006. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And 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, and while State law sets forth five factors to take into consideration, again, unlike an Use Variance test, this Board need not find in favor of the applicant on every one of the five factors. Rather, we must merely take them into account in deciding whether to grant an area variance. I’m going to request that you introduce your motion with clarity. At this point, I’m going to ask a volunteer to move a motion for Area Variance No. 42-2006. Do we have a volunteer? Mr. Garrand, would you be kind enough to do a motion, please. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-2006 FERRARO ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 1035 State Route 9. The applicant proposes the construction of a 20,570 square foot miniature golf course and associated site work. The proposed attraction is to be placed 25 feet from the property line. Additionally, 118 parking spaces are proposed where 292 are required. Relief requested. The applicant requests 50 feet of relief from the minimum 75 feet setback requirement of the Travel Corridor Overlay zone per Section 179-4-070. Relief is also requested of 25 feet from the minimum 50 feet setback requirement of the Highway Commercial Moderate zone, per Section 179-4-030, the relief from the minimum parking requirements for an amusement center, one per 200 square feet of gross floor area per Section 179-4-040. The required relief is for 174 spaces. In going through the test, is the difficulty self-created? It can be interpreted as self-created since they came to the Town for this proposal. Will the request have an adverse environmental or physical impact on the neighborhood? It will not. In fact, it’ll actually have a positive environmental impact of more green space and more permeable area added to the facility. The request may be deemed as substantial, given the amount of relief requested. Will this provide an undesirable change in the neighborhood or to the character of nearby properties? No, if anything it’s actually brightening up the neighborhood. It’s eliminating a lot of parking lot and putting in a lot of landscaping. Can the benefit be achieved by any other means feasible to the applicant? At this point I don’t believe so. For what they’re asking for for this size of facility, I think it’s a pretty good use of space. st Duly adopted this 21 day of March, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Abbate 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/07) NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 42-2006 is seven yes, zero no. Area Variance No. 42-2006 is approved. Thank you, gentlemen. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-2007 SEQRA TYPE: II ROBERT J. MULLER OWNER(S): ROBERT J. MULLER ZONING: RR-3A LOCATION: 33 ELLSWORTH LANE, SOUTH SIDE APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED AN OVERSIZED GARAGE (1,672 SQ. FT.). RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM THE MAXIMUM SIZE RESTRICTIONS FOR GARAGES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES. CROSS REF.: BP 2003-348, 3-CAR DET. GARAGE; BP 2000-228 SFD; BP 2001-715 INGROUND POOL; AREA VARIANCE NO. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: JANUARY 10, 2007 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 11.61 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265.00-1-19.2 SECTION: 179-5-020D DAN MANNIX, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-Specifically, just to review, and to jog everybody’s memory here, for anybody that’s here for this one. Mr. Muller received a letter from Bruce Frank, who’s the Code Compliance Officer, and that was dated July 5, 2005, and it says, “During an inspection of your project on July 5, 2005, the following deficiency was discovered: 1) The garage “as built” was measured to be 38’ x 44’ or 1,672 sq. ft. Your garage was proposed and approved to be 34’ x 44’ or 1,496 sq. ft. (596 sq. ft. of relief was granted in excess of the 900-sq.ft. maximum allowed by code).” It was deemed that it was best to present this as a new application tonight, as opposed to reviewing it in hindsight. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 13-2007, Robert J. Muller, Meeting Date: March 21, 2007 Project Location: 33 Ellsworth Lane, south side Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a 1,672 sq. ft. garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for an oversized garage on the property of 772 sq. ft. (in excess of 900 sq. ft. in floor area in a residential district), per §179-5-020 for the RR-3A zone. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to maintain the as-built structure on the property. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited to removing a portion of the structure. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for 772 sq. ft. of relief over the maximum 900 sq. ft. is considerable at 86%. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: 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 2003-348: Issued, 6/23/03, construction of a 1,496 sq. ft. 3-bay garage. AV 24-2003: Approved 3/26/03, 596 sq. ft. of relief for a 1,496 sq. ft. garage. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/07) Staff comments: Previously, the applicant was granted relief for a 1,496 sq. ft. structure (see AV 24-2003 resolution). Subsequently, a building permit was issued for the same. A site inspection revealed that the as-built structure was larger than previously approved (see Bruce Frank’s report), necessitating further application. The relief required with this application is 176 sq. ft. more than previously granted. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. You’re Mr. Muller? MR. MANNIX-No, I’m not. I’m a partner of Mr. Muller’s, Dan Mannix. MR. ABBATE-You’re an attorney? MR. MANNIX-Yes, I am. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Are you prepared to proceed? You know the rules. MR. MANNIX-I am. MR. ABBATE-Proceed. MR. MANNIX-I think Mr. Underwood accurately stated the case when he read into the record the application that the applicant submitted. You mentioned that you wanted to approach this as a new request for a variance, but it’s an interesting, from my perspective, it’s an interesting problem, that the plans were designed, approved and he hired some people to build it. It goes up. Mr. Muller has no idea how much bigger it is. He just sees his garage go up, puts his garage doors on, his windows in, picks his stone front. On inspection time, he said you’re 176 feet too big. He looks to his builders who maybe are not the brightest guys in the world, that didn’t do their measuring just right, but it went a couple of feet either way, and the price didn’t go up for Mr. Muller. So he never thought to ask what the problem would be. So at this point it is a very large garage. It houses all his vehicles. If you did have an opportunity to go up and see the structure, it is very aesthetically pleasing for him, but he and his family alone, because it cannot be seen from Ellsworth Lane or Bay Road. It’s an 11 acre parcel. I noticed in Staff’s comment, Paragraph Three, where it’s 772 square feet over the maximum allowed at 86%. Given the size of his lot, it seems like that’s a little bigger number than what it really should be, for the size of his lot, he also owns the adjacent acreage across Ellsworth Lane on the north, which is another 14 or 15 acres. So he’ll have no one building near him, or the possibility of anyone building near him that would see this structure, if that is a concern for the Board, but at this point the structure is up. It’s been up for a number of years, and I’m not quite sure what to do at this point, to be quite honest with you. MR. ABBATE-If I’m not mistaken, when he came before the Zoning Board of Appeals, he was given approval, in 2003, for a 1,496 square foot structure. Is that correct? MR. MANNIX-That’s correct. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. Just for the record. Have you concluded up to this point? MR. MANNIX-I have, unless, I thought it was accurately reflected in the record what Mr. Underwood said, unless someone has any questions I can answer them, I’ll be happy to. MR. ABBATE-All right. Board members, do we have any questions? Do any of the Board members have any questions for Counselor Mannix? MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-Yes, sir, please. MR. BRYANT-Thank you. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/07) MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. MR. BRYANT-Are you trying to say that the contractor made a mistake, but nobody was aware of it? I mean, you’re talking about 176 square feet, which doesn’t sound like a lot, if you had approval up to 1496, but if you extrapolate that in dollars and cents, you know, the contractor lost $1,000 there in 176 square feet. MR. MANNIX-That could very well be. MR. BRYANT-You know, having been in construction for 30 years, I wouldn’t make a 176 square foot mistake unless it was in my favor. MR. MANNIX-I can see your point. MR. BRYANT-So, you know, I look at the garage, it’s a beautiful garage. It’s well designed, but it was made, it was designed to be that size. You can’t convince me that somebody made a mistake, especially when there’s hardly, but not even two feet space from the end of the door to the end of the building. So I’m not necessarily buying that contractor made a mistake. Who is the contractor? MR. MANNIX-It was a number of guys that were just hired to do the work, is my understanding. MR. BRYANT-It wasn’t a general contractor? MR. MANNIX-No, it wasn’t. MR. BRYANT-You just hired a bunch of laborers. MR. MANNIX-That’s correct. MR. BRYANT-To put up a beautiful structure like this? MR. MANNIX-That’s my understanding. As far as, it was just the bare shell. The other work that you’ve seen from the outside and things of that nature were done by artisans, the stonework, the finish work. MR. BRYANT-I have a problem, when you say that somebody designed something as beautiful as that, as well built as that, and you just hired a bunch of laborers, you know, from the street corner. MR. MANNIX-I can certainly provide the names to you, once Mr. Muller gets back. MR. ABBATE-All right. Mr. Bryant has his say so far. Mr. Underwood, would you like to comment, please? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I spent all last year doing construction work and doing cement form work, and specifically working on a hotel up in Lake George much of the summer, and on numerous occasions, even though we had (lost word) out there and we had regular telemetry going, we screwed up, you know, and to assume what happened here, I would assume is the same thing that we did on numerous occasions. When you laid out the footings, somebody messed up and made the footings a little bit too long, and when you go back to put the cement forms on there, you either have to go back and re- pour the footing and correct the extension that you probably put on this building here, and I’m assuming that’s probably the case, and when the builder did it, they probably realized it, but said, we don’t want to have to have the cement truck come back and re- do it again, and so they probably just made the building four foot longer. That’s where they got the extra four feet. I mean, I’m guessing it’s just an error. MR. BRYANT-You made a five foot mistake? MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s four feet longer. I’m just guessing. MR. ABBATE-We don’t debate, gentlemen. Well, that’s why this Board is so efficient, we have two diverse points of view, which is fantastic. MR. BRYANT-Thank you. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/07) MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. Mr. Urrico, would you like to comment, please? MR. URRICO-Do you want me to give a third viewpoint? I just want to point out that the 900 square feet is not dependent on specific sizes of lots in this Town. So the argument that the lot is so big, while it may be true, it does not carry weight in terms of whether you can build in excess because you have a bigger lot. So I’m not sure whether you’re making that argument or you’re making the argument that you made a mistake. MR. MANNIX-I’m making the argument that a mistake was made, but that he was already here to get a variance for the size of the building, and it was granted, I’m sure, for a number of reasons. One of which, that I’m sure was taken into consideration, was the size of the lot, the position of the lot, the position of the garage on the lot, and again, I’m not. MR. URRICO-What it sounds like, and I’m sure you don’t mean it this way, is that it was a mistake, but given the size of the lot, then it’s okay, and that’s the thing I’m having a problem with. MR. MANNIX-No, I’m not saying it’s okay. I’m saying that the mistake was made, but taking into consideration all the other factors that were considered, when the original variance was granted, still hold true, even though there’s 176 more square feet, that’s all. MR. URRICO-I made the motion on the original variance, and I made the motion based on the facts that were given to me, and I find out those are not the facts any longer, and now you’re saying that he’s allowed even more because it’s a bigger lot. So that’s the problem I’m having. MR. MANNIX-No, I’m not saying he’s allowed even more because it’s a bigger lot. I’m saying the mistake was made to include 176 more square feet, but the variance that was granted, and I mean, that’s where I’ll stop, but the variance that was granted for 1496 square feet was granted for a number of reasons, and those reasons still exist. That’s my point. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Mr. Garrand, please. MR. GARRAND-I don’t have any questions for Counsel at this point. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-I don’t know as I’ve got any questions now, and my concerns, I think, basically echo what’s already been raised. We’ve encountered this kind of problem before of, oops, somebody made a mistake, but it wasn’t me, the applicant, it was that guy, the builder. I don’t know where I’m going to come down when we get finished, but it strikes me that the applicant is responsible for what gets built, regardless. MR. ABBATE-Yes, let me go one step further than that, Mr. McNulty. You’re absolutely right, and Counsel knows this to be a fact. Regardless of whether mistakes are made by contractors, the ultimate responsibility and the burden of responsibility to ensure compliance on Ordinances fall directly on the shoulders of the applicant. You’re absolutely correct, by law. MR. MC NULTY-And the other factor is I think as Counsel’s pointed out, right now at least, there’s a fair sized chunk of land here in a single ownership, and the building is not really visible from either road, even in the winter. So that’s a plus. However, there’s nothing to guarantee us that at some point in time this property will not be subdivided. If not by the current owner, then by some subsequent owner. So I think the argument that there’s a large chunk of land around this now, is something that we shouldn’t totally rely on. I guess that’s all I can say at this point. I don’t really have any questions. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Clements, please. MR. CLEMENTS-My only question was why, and I think that’s been answered. MR. ABBATE-Okay. That’s fair enough. From my point of view, it’s very, very basic. The Board members made excellent points of view, Counselor, and it’s hard for you to argue against what they’ve said so far. There may very well have been honest mistakes made, and let’s assume for the sake of argument they were honest mistakes, but the 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/07) burden of proof, nonetheless, falls squarely on the shoulders of the individual hiring the contractors. He’s responsible, by law, when things go wrong, if you will. Okay. Having said that, then I’m going to move on, unless there’s something else you want to comment about. At this point, then, I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 42-2006, and those wishing to be heard in the public, if you’d be kind enough to raise your hands, I’ll recognize you and ask you to come forward. Any hands? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ABBATE-I see no hands. Then I’m going to move forward. I’m going to, again, ask the Board members to offer their comments. I stated earlier, I don’t feel I have to repeat it, that the comments made by members of the Board are directed to the Chairman and will not be debated. I’m going to ask members, now, to please offer their comments on Area Variance No. 42-2006. Do we have anyone who wishes to start out? All right, Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome. MR. BRYANT-Back in 2003, I was opposed to the original application because there was a feasible alternative, that being build a 900 square foot garage and a 500 square foot accessory structure, which would have given you 1400 square feet, but unfortunately I was in the minority, which I am most of the time. As I look at this situation, there really is no feasible alternative, but the reality is that a mistake was made, and whether it was honest or not is not for us to determine, but in my view, in these cases, it’s really a civil issue between a builder and an owner. The easy way out, of course, is come to the Zoning Board of Appeals and get a variance for the extra 176 square feet, but we’re really not talking about that now. We’re really talking about the original variance, plus this now, and it is monumental, and frankly I was opposed to it in 2003, and I’m opposed to it now. It’s an oversized structure, and I understand a mistake was made, but it’s really not up to this Board to rectify that type of issue. So, Mr. Chairman, I’m going to be opposed to the application. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Underwood, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think if we look at the balancing test here, we’ve previously granted the relief for this structure, and I think had they come in and asked for a structure that was 38 by 44, I think that probably the vote probably would have been closer, because I think that, you know, it is a larger structure and I think that we need to be careful about what we allow in the community, but at the same time, we have to balance that based, I think the balancing test does fall on the behalf of the applicant, because if you look at the site, the rural nature of the site, the fact that no one is going to see this, I don’t really recall if we’ve granted any buildings as large as this. I don’t think that we have. I think this the whopper of all, but I think that, you know, in looking at it, I doubt seriously that Mr. Muller ran out to the contractors and said, add four more feet onto the building, I need the extra four feet. I think that probably a mistake was made by the builder. We’ve dealt with these before. I think that the owners are not prone to going out and measuring everything that’s built. Maybe that’s as requirement that we could build in to nip these things in the bud, so to speak, but I think that two years of building on this project has resulted in a structure that’s pleasing to the eye. It’s not a detriment to the neighborhood, by any means. I think that it is excessive, their request for a building this size, and I think that we should be concerned about what we grant, but at the same time, I don’t think it’s unreasonable what’s been done here, and I think it’s an honest mistake that was made. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Garrand, please. MR. GARRAND-Well, I’m going to have to agree with some of what Mr. McNulty said on this and also Mr. Bryant. The discrepancy seems to be it could have easily been rectified at the time when this was laid out. When you’re pouring a concrete slab, you have strings out there, and the strings tell you what the exact length and width of the structure are going to be. It’s very easy to follow. The only error could come is really if you look at the slab once you’ve poured it and you knowingly say, okay, we’ve made a mistake, we’re just going to build it larger without any regard for what the consequences are later. I also believe this should be a civil matter. It’s something between the builder and the homeowner. So I wouldn’t be in favor of this application. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Garrand. Mr. Urrico, please? 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/07) MR. URRICO-As I stated earlier, I made the motion the first time around, and I probably could use the same logic in saying I would be in favor of it this time, if it was coming to us with clean hands, as somebody used to say on this Board, and I’m still in favor of it, but I wish there was some sort of alternative in situations like this that we could rely on, because it seems like we’ve established the guidelines, and the guidelines weren’t followed, and now we’re re-writing the guidelines, in order to accommodate a mistake that was made, and that mistake can be made almost every time we grant a variance, and all we do is justify the mistake and move on and approve it, again, but that doesn’t seem to be the way the Code was designed to be enforced, but I would be in favor of it, for the same reasons that were given, and that’s it. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Clements, please. MR. CLEMENTS-I agree with Mr. Urrico 100%. I would say if this was in a different environment, a smaller lot or something like that, probably it wouldn’t have been passed the first time. So I guess I’m going to say I would reluctantly say yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-It’s a difficult decision, I think, on this one, because obviously disapproval is going to mean a fairly expensive fix on the part of the owner. So that certainly is one thing in favor of the owner, for granting this, but as I mentioned before, I’m discounting the size of the lot because we’ve got no practical guarantee that this would not be subdivided some time in the future, and even if we got promises or deed restrictions or whatever else, we still don’t have a guarantee that it wouldn’t be on a smaller lot at some point. So that mitigation for me goes away. I think like some of the other members have said, if this were coming fresh, I don’t know. I might or might not go for it, but this was a case where the applicant was granted relief for an oversized structure to begin with, and I think as Mr. Garrand pointed out, at some point somebody knew what they were doing with this, that the contractor or some one of the builders had a tape measure out there and they knew darn well what they did, because once they got the foundation in, they had to get the stone and everything else for that size structure, and I also will go back to what I said before. The applicant is responsible, and the ultimate case here, just like a commander in the military or whatever. Even though somebody that they didn’t know did something they didn’t know about, they should have. So I think there is a responsibility here. So I think, given that we’ve already granted permission for an oversized structure, in this case I’m not willing to grant another relief for it. I’m going to be opposed. MR. ABBATE-Okay. This is why I get paid the big dollars, okay. Obviously we have right now three and three, and I make it a point to listen very carefully to what all of the Board members have to say. In this particular instance, there’s no doubt in my mind that it’s pretty darn equal. Both sides, three and three, have presented very favorable positions, arguable positions that they’re correct. As Chairman, I have to take a number of other things into consideration as well, the fact that we act as a safety valve, the fact that we have to pursue the balancing act, and the fact that I have to somewhere along the line give the applicant the benefit of the doubt. In this particular case, I’m going to support the applicant only by 51%. So you can see that there is some doubt in my mind, but I feel an obligation, as a quasi-judicial board, that we have to provide, in certain instances, benefit of the doubt. Consequently I will support the application. Then what I’m going to do is close the public hearing for Area Variance No. 13-2007, and again, I will respectfully remind the members we have the task of balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area. I went through this earlier. While there are five factors to take into consideration, unlike the Use Variance, we don’t have to agree on every one of the five factors. I’m going to request a volunteer to introduce a motion with some degree of clarity, please, and I’m going to ask now that a Board member present a motion for Area Variance No. 13-2007. Do we have a volunteer? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll do it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-2007 ROBERT J. MULLER, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 33 Ellsworth Lane, south side. The applicant’s proposal is for us to accept his constructed 1,672 square foot three bay garage, which was built for vehicles, tractors and boat storage. Specifically he’s requesting 772 square feet of relief from the 900 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/07) square foot maximum size requirement for garages in residential zones per Section 179- 5-020, Section D. The benefit to the applicant would be that we accept his constructed structure in his choice of location here. Feasible alternatives appear to be limited to removing part of the structure as it’s already been constructed. We would feel that that is not acceptable, since it’s basically been covered with stonework on the outside. The 772 square feet of relief from the 900 square foot maximum height could be considered moderate, and I guess at this point we would consider it to be excessive relative to the Ordinance, but the applicant has also made mention of he will not, as a stipulation, be constructing any other accessory structures on the property, and this somewhat mitigates the application. The effects on the neighborhood or community are non- existent because it’s a enclosed site. It’s not viewed from any nearby properties, and the owner owns the other adjacent properties. The difficulty, although self-created by an error at some point by the contractor or for whatever reason that occurred, it’s more or less attributed to the size of the building. It’s reasonably close to what we previously granted, and so I think that we can go along with granting this extra relief. st Duly adopted this 21 day of March, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Clements, Mr. Abbate NOES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Garrand MR. ABBATE-Area Variance No. 13-2006 is approved. Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-2007 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED HENRI LANGEVIN/ADIRONDACK SPORTS DOME AGENT(S): STEFANIE DI LALLO BITTER, ESQ. OWNER(S): HENRI LANGEVIN ZONING: RC-15 LOCATION: SHERMAN AVENUE; DOUG MILLER SUBDIVISION APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 8,120 SQ. FT. ICE-HOCKEY TRAINING FACILITY WITHOUT DIRECT ACCESS TO EXISTING PUBLIC HIGHWAY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM REQUIREMENT FOR FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC STREET. CROSS REF.: SUB. NO. 6-2004; PZ 2-2003; AV 7-2004; AV 65-2004; SPR 17-2004; SPR 53-2004 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: MARCH 14, 2007 LOT SIZE: 1.2 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.5- 1-3.12 ADK. SPORTS DOME SECTION: 179-4-090 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 15-2007, Henri Langevin/Adirondack Sports Dome, Meeting Date: March 21, 2007 “Project Location: Sherman Avenue; Doug Miller Subdivision Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes an 8,120 sq. ft. ice- hockey training facility. It is also proposed that access will be provided from an adjoining property, not from a public highway. Relief Required: The applicant requests 40-feet of relief from the minimum road frontage requirements for each principal building, “and such frontage shall provide actual physical access to and from the lot to be built upon”, per §179-4-090. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to access the site from an adjoining private driveway and not directly from Sherman Ave. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited to providing direct access from Sherman Ave. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for 40 feet of relief, where 40-feet is the minimum is substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal negative effects on the community may be anticipated as a result of this action. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/07) 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 7-2004: Approved 2/25/04, 28-feet of relief requested from the maximum 28-feet in the RC zone, for construction of a 116,000 sq. ft. dome structure for use as an athletic facility. AV 65-2004: Approved 8/25/04, same application, requesting 40-feet of relief from the road frontage requirements. SB 6-2004: Approved 5/27/04, two-lot subdivision of a 20.61-acre parcel, creating lots of 19.2 and 1.2 acres, associated with a proposed sports complex/recreation center. Staff comments: As stated in the applicant’s agent’s cover letter, an identical application and request for relief was previously granted by the Board, however the applicant did not act on that approval, and as a result, the approvals have expired. While the request for relief is considerable, minimal negative impacts on the community may be anticipated as a result of this action. The relatively substantial lot size (5-acres) helps to mitigate any negative impacts that the oversized accessory structure might have on the neighborhood. SEQR Status: Unlisted” MR. ABBATE-I see that the petitioner is at the table. Would you be kind enough to speak into the microphone, and identify yourselves gentlemen, please. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper with Henri Langevin. I bet I can do this in two minutes or less. Henri is a commercial loan officer by day but passionate about teaching hockey at night, and this is something that he’s been wanting to do for a while. Nevertheless we got this approved, and he’s been focused on his day job. So that’s why it didn’t get built, but the plan is now to build it. When he called and said he was ready to go, we told him that his approvals had expired. So we had to start over again. In terms of the facility, everything in the Queensbury Ordinance says you’re supposed to have combined curb cuts, minimized curb cuts onto major arterials like Sherman Avenue, and this was designed the way it should be designed. What’s wrong is that the Code shouldn’t have this requirement that every lot has to use its frontage for access, and I hope that that’s something that gets changed in the future. So what we proposed, as the Staff Notes indicated, is reduces the impact on the neighborhood. It’s the right way to design this. This is a very low traffic generator we’re talking about. This is less than half the size of an ice rink. It’s only three kids scrimmaging on one side against three kids on the other side for training purposes. He doesn’t certainly need all these parking spaces, but he just didn’t feel it was necessary to ask for a variance. So the only thing we’re asking for is to share the one access drive, which is certainly designed to be suitable for this, and the adjacent site. Just one thing. When it talked about the five acre site, that was the whole site, including the sports dome, which has now been subdivided. So this site isn’t five acres, but the two together are, and that’s my story. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Have you concluded at this point? Okay. In that case there, I’m going to turn to my Board members, and I’m going to ask the Board members if they have any questions for the appellant? Any volunteers? MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-Please. MR. BRYANT-I want to point something out here, Ms. Barden. This is important. See, they calculated the, this is not an issue tonight, and I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman, but this is a learning experience. They calculated the parking on the actual building. They didn’t include the walkways and the other thing that the other building did, you see. So they’ve got 40 parking spaces. They’re required that by the size of the building. If you take into consideration the walkways and so forth and so on, they would need a heck of a lot more 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/07) parking spaces. You understand why I made an issue of the other situation because it wasn’t consistent. MRS. BARDEN-I didn’t take into consideration the walkways and other such things. MR. BRYANT-Well, there were structures there that you did take into consideration that really shouldn’t have been taken into consideration. That’s not the point. You’re right. It’s only going to take two minutes. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. MR. CLEMENTS-I just had one question. I was out there for the boat show the other day, and I was looking at, you had some parking plowed out near the front up by Sherman Avenue. Is that about the place where the rink will be, right behind where that parking was? HENRI LANGEVIN MR. LANGEVIN-Yes, just to clear the record, I didn’t know Doug was doing that. I showed up and I saw that it was plowed and he had things in there, but that’s where it’s going to be, yes. MR. CLEMENTS-That’s all right. I just was using it as a point of reference. MR. LANGEVIN-Yes. That’s where it’s going to be. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do any other members have questions for the appellant at this time? If not, I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 15-2007. Do we have any folks in the audience who’d like to address this particular variance? If so, would you kindly raise your hands. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ABBATE-I see no hands raised, so I’m going to continue on. Again, I’m going to ask the Board members for their comments, and I’d like to inform the public, again, that the comments by the members are directed to the Chairman, and there will be no debate. Do we have someone who would like to volunteer to address Area Variance No. 15- 2006? Since I’ve been picking on some permanent members, I think it’s time to put the feet to the fire to Mr. Clements. MR. CLEMENTS-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome. MR. CLEMENTS-I just wanted to say I think it’s a good plan. I think it’s better for traffic just to have one entrance and exit there. I would be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Clements. Gentlemen, ladies, do we have anybody else who wishes to go next? Any volunteers? MR. BRYANT-I’ll go. It was already approved, already analyzed, already gone through it, and we’ve done the balancing test a couple of hundred times, so I’d be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. All right. Let me go down the list. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-I think on the face of this particular request, it makes sense, as the Counsel has pointed out, to focus all access on the one spot. So I’d be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Underwood, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-I’m still in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-You’re still in favor of it. Okay. Mr. Garrand, please. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/07) MR. GARRAND-I would also support the Board’s previous decision on this. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much, gentlemen. Let’s see, we’re moving to the assessment form, and I do believe this is Unlisted, Mr. Secretary. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that we can accept the fact that we’ve already previously done this, and this is a ditto on that. So we can accept the form, and just re-vote it as we accepted it previously. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do you want to make a motion to that effect? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MOTION THAT WE FIND NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM THE PROPOSED BUILDING OF THE STRUCTURE AS WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY PERUSED IT, AND I THINK THAT AT THIS POINT WE CAN ACCEPT IT AND SAY THERE’S NO NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: st Duly adopted this 21 day of March, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Abbate NOES: NOES MR. ABBATE-The vote in favor of the Environmental Assessment is seven yes, zero no. In an seven yes, zero no vote, the Environmental Assessment Form is approved. At this particular point, the public hearing for Area Variance No. 15-2007 is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And again I respectfully remind the members that we have the task of balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area. We know what the five factors are. I see no reason to go back into it again. I’m going to request that we have a volunteer. MR. URRICO-I’ll be glad to do it again. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Urrico. I appreciate it. MR. URRICO-I just have a question. Are the lots still numbered the same? MR. ABBATE-It’s 15-2007. MR. UNDERWOOD-He said the lots. The only difference is I think that it referred to the whole five acres I think previously. MR. URRICO-All right. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-2007 HENRI LANGEVIN/ADIRONDACK SPORTS DOME, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: Sherman Avenue; Doug Miller Subdivision. The applicant is proposing to access a lot from other than the lot frontage on Sherman Avenue. The applicant proposes to build an ice hockey training facility back there and he would need access to that. In doing so, the applicant requests relief to access Lot Number 309.5-1-3.2 from the approved access drive from the Miller Athletic complex lot, which is already in existence, and even though the lot has more than the minimum road frontage on Sherman Avenue, the existing lot does. This one does not. In making the approval, I’d point to the balancing test, which shows that the benefit to the applicant can’t be achieved in another manner. That is that the benefit would show that the benefit to the applicant can’t be achieved in any other manner. This is the benefit that they’ve elected to choose, as a result of this is the better alternative. There won’t be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character, mainly because it’s limiting the number of curb cuts on Sherman Avenue, thereby improving that area somewhat from what it could be. The request is not substantial, considering what’s going in there and the benefits that will be achieved. The request will not have any adverse physical or environmental affects, and the difficulty is self-created, 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/07) but it’s created to actually improve a difficulty. So I would say that this a good self- creation. So I move that we adopt this Area Variance. st Duly adopted this 21 day of March, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-Area Variance No. 15-2007 is approved. Thank you very much, Counselor. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 16-2007 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED BBL, INC. AGENT(S): JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ./JIM MILLER OWNER(S): QEDC ZONING: MR-5 LOCATION: OFF LUZERNE ROAD; 83 AND 87 LUZERNE RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 59,466 SQ. FT. OFFICE BUILDING. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR PARKING ABOVE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE PARKING FOR OFFICE USES PER SECTION 179-4-040. CROSS REF.: SPR 18-2007; BP 2004-319 DEMO SFD; BP 2004-315 DEMO SFD; BP 2005-744 COM’L INDUS. BLDG; AREA VARIANCE NO. 66-2006 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: MARCH 14, 2007 LOT SIZE: 3.72; 3.30; 3.80 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.10-1-82, 83, 84 SECTION: 179-4- 040 JON LAPPER & JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-Are we considering this to be like a new application? MR. ABBATE-You mean 16-2007? MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, because, you know, we had previously heard this. Do you want me just to relate the differences between the old and the new. MR. ABBATE-You know, Jim, I think it might be a good idea. Just for consistency. Yes, please. I think that way we’ll keep the record clean. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 16-2007, BBL, Inc., Meeting Date: March 21, 2007 “Project Location: Off Luzerne Rd.; 83 and 87 Luzerne Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicants propose construction of a 66,000 sq. ft. office building with associated site work including 425 parking spaces. Relief Required: The applicants request relief from the maximum parking requirement for an office use (1 per 300 sq. ft. of gross leasable floor area), per §179-4-040. Specifically, 220 are required, with an additional 44 allowed (20% overage), totaling a maximum of 264 spaces, thus relief for 161 additional parking spaces is required, to total the desired 425 spaces. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicants would be able to construct an additional 161 parking spaces on their site. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for 161 additional parking spaces is deemed considerable relative to the ordinance (73%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/07) 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.): AV 66-2006: Approved 11/15/06, relief for 89 parking spaces, based on an 84,000 sq. ft. building, to total the same 425 spaces. Staff comments: Previously, AV 66-2006 granted relief for 89 parking spaces to attain a total of 425 spaces, based on an 84,000 sq. ft. office building. In the cover letter submitted by the applicant’s agent, the proposed building was deemed to be larger than needed and, with that, the building was downsized to 66,000 sq. ft. However, the total number of employees, 400, remains constant, therefore, 425 total spaces are still desired. The difference with this application is the amount of relief requested is larger than previously approved because the parking calculation is based on gross leasable area of the office building. Specifically, 280 spaces were required based on the 84,000 sq. ft., with an additional 56 allowed (20% overage), totaling a maximum of 336 spaces, thus relief for 89 additional parking spaces was requested. That request was deemed moderate relative to the ordinance (26.5%). This request, for 161 additional parking spaces, is deemed considerable at 73%. SEQR Status: Unlisted” MR. ABBATE-Okay. Counselor, are you prepared to proceed? MR. LAPPER-Yes, sir. MR. ABBATE-Please do. MR. LAPPER-For the record, again, Jon Lapper. What happened here simply is that when the site plan was designed based upon the tenant and the employees, they used some square foot calculation per employee to determine the size of the building and site it on the lot. They’ve now gone to the architectural design stage of doing this plan, and determined that the building could be smaller and could still accommodate the 400 people, and I believe that I sent in afterwards a floor plan that showed that. So while I’m sorry to have to be back and bother you again on this, it is the same well paying tenant that is consolidating its operations in the area where other communities were trying to entice it to relocate. It’s the culmination of the QEDC, Queensbury Economic Development Corporation requiring this land specifically for economic development purposes to encourage job creation and retention and to locate this on the new access road that’s going to be constructed by the Town, which has added benefits of taking, relieving traffic from the Main Street corridor for people that live on the west side of the Northway to get them onto Luzerne Road and off the Main Street corridor as soon as possible, but in terms of the site plan, it was always envisioned, when QEDC purchased the property, that they would find a suitable employer to locate a facility here. These are the same jobs and the same people that we talked about last time. It’s just that technically, under the Ordinance, if you, the parking calculation is based upon per square feet, and as we discussed last time, 300 square feet per employee is more like an executive employee, but for standard employees, the people that have multiple computer terminals and sit in a probably well appointed cubicle, but it’s not going to be 300 square feet, even if you take into account maintenance and conference rooms, etc. They don’t need that much building. So I’m not really asking for more parking. I’m really asking for less building, and in terms of the impact on the site, it means that the site will be slightly more green than what we talked about last time, but the parking needs are still the same, because the parking demands go by the number of employees, even though that’s not 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/07) how the Code characterizes it. So it’s the same project, the same application. It’s just that the building is smaller and the relief requested appears bigger when you compare it to the building, but it’s still a pretty good sized building at 66,000 square feet. It’s just not quite as large at 84,000 square feet, and that’s why I’m here and that’s what we’re asking for. MR. ABBATE-Thanks, Counselor. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, do we have any questions? MR. BRYANT-I love parking. The 220 parking spaces is based on 66,000 square feet that’s listed in the Staff Notes, and my question is your site plan shows 59,000. What are you including? That’s a difference of 21 spaces. MR. LAPPER-Are you asking the difference between 59 and 66,000? MR. BRYANT-Yes. MR. LAPPER-When we first submitted the application a month ago to make the deadline, it was 60,000, 59 and change, and then they got to the next level of detail and they came back and said okay, it’s not going to be that small. It’s 66,000 square feet, and I supplemented the application with a letter that said that it was a 66,000 square foot building. MR. BRYANT-Without a drawing. MR. LAPPER-No, there was. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m sure you sent something in. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s on this one here, I think. I’ll check and see. MR. LAPPER-Yes. It’s the one that has the, a floor plan with the employees cubicles and things. MR. BRYANT-I got one drawing. I didn’t get two drawings. MR. UNDERWOOD-I got something else in the mail. MR. LAPPER-It was something else in the mail. I don’t see it in the file here. I had a question for you, maybe related to that. Are all these employees, the 400, always working, or are they on multiple shifts on that building, presently? MR. LAPPER-It’s one main shift with almost everybody there, and there’s some people that work shifts, but there’s overlaps, so that we went through all that with them when they did a parking analysis and determined that they needed to accommodate everybody there. Sometimes there’s meetings, and in the afternoon, even if some people are working starting in the morning and some people start in the afternoon, there will be times when everybody’s there. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is it that the general trend that the business is growing and like the number of employees increases yearly, too? MR. LAPPER-The employees have been increasing, but not necessarily in the facility. So they feel that the 400 employees is sufficient, and the 25 extra spaces are for visitors and corporate people coming to Town, and they feel comfortable that, for this size building, that that’s, they’re not going to need more than 400 spaces. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I can’t imagine that they’d want to build something that they were going to outgrow immediately. MR. LAPPER-Right, and they’ve gone through that. I guess the answer is that there’s 370 employees today, and they don’t expect anymore growth than that, the 400. MR. URRICO-Mr. Lapper, you sort of hinted at the size of the parking facility. There’s going to be more green space. Will the spaces be bigger? 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/07) MR. LAPPER-No, the area in the back of the building to get to 84,000 square feet, it’s just that the building footprint is being pulled in. MR. URRICO-So how will that change the parking layout? MR. LAPPER-The parking doesn’t change. It’s just that there’s a little bit less building. MR. URRICO-Okay. So there won’t be, because you mentioned something about added green space. That’s going to be in the building footprint itself? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. URRICO-What was the building footprint? MR. LAPPER-Exactly. MR. BRYANT-Is this structure going to replace the Appollo Drive? This is Tribune Media, right? MR. LAPPER-The tenant hasn’t made a formal corporate announcement. So we haven’t been at liberty to disclose the tenant, but, yes, they are going to be consolidating their operations in two locations, one in Queensbury and one in Glens Falls. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MS. ALTER-Mr. Chairman, maybe at this point I could put on my Community Development hat. MR. ABBATE-You’d like to be recognized, madam? MS. ALTER-Yes, please MR. ABBATE-You’re recognized, please. MS. ALTER-Thank you. Usually I speak to you as the Planning Director, but tonight I’m going to speak to you as the Community Development Director. We’ve worked very hard, and I’m the new kid on the block. So I haven’t really endured as much as everyone else has. This is a very complicated project because infrastructure is involved, and for us to proceed to coordinate the infrastructure we need to know where the parking is going to be. So we need to finalize that aspect of the site plan. Normally you know I’m always the crusader for coordinated reviews. In this instance, since the only thing before the Board is a parking variance, I’m going to suggest that you do an uncoordinated review, and that you just look at the parking you complete your review, and then if there are issues that you have with respect to the Planning Board that you would like their insight and advice on, you may ask them for that. Of course the site plan will be going to them, but it’s sort of a chicken and egg situation. If they don’t know how many parking spaces are going to be permitted, they’re going to be reviewing several site plans. Also, we need to quantify the economics involved with the infrastructure. In other words, when the Planning Board sends out their Lead Agency letter and involves all the interested involved agencies like New York State Department of Health for the sewer extension and other things of that nature, New York State DOT for the traffic, we need to, in order to do a complete environmental review, have a quantification of what that’s going to be. If we don’t know how big the site is or how much landscaping because we’ve left the parking in abeyance, that will complicate the project, I believe. So I think it’s better if the Zoning Board opines on this part of the application, and then Mr. Lapper will go to the Town Board and to the Planning Board to complete the application. So this would be an Area Variance simply for you. There’s other obviously externalities involved with other agencies, but the only thing before you is the parking variance and the change in the size of the building, and the fact that there are shifts that have to be accommodated. MR. ABBATE-Okay, madam Executive Director, are you recommending that this Board address, focus in on the parking, and do an uncoordinated review? MS. ALTER-Yes, sir. MR. ABBATE-Unless there are any objections by the Board members, I’ll honor that request. Okay. Shall we proceed, then? Do we have any other questions from members of the Board before I continue on? Okay. The public hearing, now, is going to be opened for Area Variance No. 16-2007. Do we have anyone in the public who would 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/07) like to speak? Yes, sir. You come up here, and you sit up at the table. Now what I’d like you to do is speak into the microphone and identify yourself and your relationship to this, please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DANIEL DONOVAN MR. DONOVAN-My name is Daniel Donovan, and I’m just a senior at Queensbury High School, and I just would like to ask one question, if it’s possible. What kind of business is going into this office building? MR. ABBATE-Your question, then, for the record, is what type of business is going into this office building? MR. DONOVAN-Yes. I’m not quite sure, like, if it’s going to be many types of businesses. MS. ALTER-It’s going to be back off space. We can’t tell you the employer because the contracts have not been signed. MR. DONOVAN-I understand that. I’m just wondering if it’s like, you know, commercial or one of the? MR. ABBATE-Counselor, I think we might be able to take care of that. Counselor, would you address the question for this gentleman, please. MR. LAPPER-It is a technical information business that works on computer systems to generate information. MR. DONOVAN-That’s all I wanted to know. MR. ABBATE-Have we answered your question? MR. DONOVAN-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. MS. ALTER-Are you here for school? MR. DONOVAN-Yes. MS. ALTER-Okay. You can take one of those packages and I’ll sign it for you. MR. DONOVAN-Thank you. MS. ALTER-Okay. You’re welcome. MR. DONOVAN-Thank you for your time. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. I see no other hands, so I’m going to move on, and again, I’m going to ask Board members. You know the routine. I’m going to ask them to offer their comments, and again, the comments are directed to the Chairman and there will be no debate. So, having said that, gentlemen and ladies of the Board, do we have any comments, anyone who would like to volunteer to start out? MR. CLEMENTS-I will. MR. ABBATE-Would you? Thank you very much. We have Mr. Clements, please. MR. CLEMENTS-I think this looks like a good project. I was looking at the floor plan and it looks very similar to a variance for the medical building that we did up on Bay Road. So, I would be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much, Mr. Clements. Gentlemen, Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand the need for your parking. It’s the nature of the beast, and I’d be in favor of the project, you know, the variance for the extra parking, but there’s some things that I’d like for the Planning Board when it’s time for 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/07) everything is said and done, they really need to consider the type of lighting they use because it is a three shift situation. There will be overnight work and that sort of thing. You’re in a residential neighborhood, primarily, except for the cemetery. It’s kind of residential, and, you know, I’d eventually like to see like the Planning Board address that, and also the landscaping, and you know the green area, because there really doesn’t appear to be a lot of it, okay, and the final thing with all that parking, the stormwater management. MR. LAPPER-I can tell you that it’s an all brick façade. They’re trying to make a statement with this, and I know that the landscaping is going to be pretty sharp, too, because this is, you know, the real corporate headquarters type building for regionally, at least, and I mean, those are legitimate concerns. I know they’re going to spend money to do it right. MR. BRYANT-I’m only concerned about the lighting overnight. It’s going to be on all night. You’ve got employees in the middle of the night. It’s a residential neighborhood. MR. LAPPER-There’s probably a way to dim them at night to just make them as light as they need to be. So I’m sure that’s fine. MR. BRYANT-Well, hopefully the Planning Board will get these minutes. MR. ABBATE-Staff, I’m going to request that you submit to the Planning Board copies of the Zoning Board of Appeals minutes of the meeting, and let them know our concern about not only the overnight lighting, but the fact about landscaping. We’d like them to address, if possible, incorporation of more green space, and also we’re concerned, we’d like them to address stormwater place and options as well, please. MRS. BARDEN-Yes, and I would suggest that you put that in your resolution as well. MR. ABBATE-Okay. We’ll be more than happy to do that. Thank you, Staff. That was Mr. Bryant. Do we have anyone else with any questions for the appellant? MR. UNDERWOOD-No, we’re at our deliberations now. MR. ABBATE-Is that where we’re at right now? Did I close the public hearing? MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t think you did. MR. ABBATE-Okay. There are no other comments. So what I’m going to do, I’m at that point now where I’m going to close the public hearing for 16-2007, and again, I’m going to ask members to offer their comments, which we just did, and I’m going to move on to the assessment questions. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Chairman, I think you didn’t finish polling the Board. MR. UNDERWOOD-You didn’t finish polling us. MR. ABBATE-I didn’t finish? So anyway, Mr. Bryant had his say. Mr. Underwood, would you like your say, please? MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Last time when we reviewed this, I was pretty much adamant that I thought that as many mature trees on that site should be saved, and I think it’s within the purview of the Planning Board to not do a complete clear cut out there and then plant a bunch of two foot trees and assume that that’s landscaping. I would like to see those trees saved if possible. As far as my other concerns, I think there should be quantification by the Planning Board. If there are multiple shifts at this facility, then realistically speaking, I don’t think we’re going to be in a position where we need the 400. I mean, we can tentatively grant this permission for, which I have no problem with. If, indeed, we create all this parking and in the future that parking is no longer being utilized, I think, too that we can put a contingency in to restore the site, and put in more green space, as Mr. Bryant has also said, and, you know, I think those are things that we can include in our thing, in our comments to the Planning Board. MR. ABBATE-Fine. That’s not a problem at all. Okay. Can we go to Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-Sure. I think this is one of these cases where we kind of have to trust the applicant. It’s not like it’s a retail situation where they’re anticipating they’re going to 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/07) have all kinds of extra customers or whatever. It’s a case where they pretty much know the number of employees they’re going to have, and how many employees are going to be inclined to ride together and how many are going to drive their own vehicle and so on, and it cost money to put in parking lots. So I don’t think they’re going to expand beyond what they really realistically think they need. Having said all that, I think given that, I’ll trust the applicant and I’d be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Mr. Garrand, please. MR. GARRAND-Yes. Given the nature of the proposed business going in here, what you have is at the time of shift change, you have one, the first shift passing off work to the second shift, which requires two shifts to be there simultaneously. So I can definitely see the need for the additional parking here. At the same time, I’d also like to just say for the record, I think the Planning Board should consider the potential impact on the Foote and Clume residences as far as stormwater being directed towards their properties from a parking lot of this size. There is, I believe, a potential for flooding of these properties, flooding of their basements, and I think any potential impact should be explored by the Planning Board. MR. ABBATE-Okay. We’ll put that in the motion. MR. GARRAND-All right, sir. I’d be in favor of this. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-My initial concerns, well, let’s just go back. In my mind, it’s still the same application you made earlier. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. URRICO-You have X number of employees, and you have so much space that you need for parking, and regardless of the size of the building, the parking lot is still the same size. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. URRICO-So that hasn’t changed. So therefore I would be in favor of it, with the one stipulation, the same one I had the last time, that the Park and Ride facility not be used to subsidize parking that you might need in the main facility. MR. LAPPER-Yes. That’s totally fair. MR. ABBATE-And for the record you have no objections to that? MR. LAPPER-No. The Park and Ride is for a totally different use. MR. ABBATE-All right. Is there anyone I left out? Okay. Good. Now we’re going to move to the Assessment Form, and it seems to me that we’re going to defer, there was a previous SEQRA. MR. LAPPER-You can’t defer. MS. ALTER-You’ve got to do your new SEQRA. MR. ABBATE-All right, well, Mr. Secretary, you know what to do, and gentlemen, when he asks the questions, please respond. We’re going to do an uncoordinated review. MS. ALTER-Correct. MR. ABBATE-For the record, an uncoordinated review. MS. ALTER-Correct. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Does that leave us open to correction or alteration of our decision, then? MS. ALTER-No. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/07) MR. UNDERWOOD-No, okay. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. MS. ALTER-No. You just have a very simple phase of activity, and this way it doesn’t have to be on your agenda six times referring it back and forth. MR. ABBATE-And it makes sense. Okay, Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Again, the project applicant is BBL Construction. Their location is Town of Queensbury, Warren County. Precise location is off Luzerne Road, which will be ultimately located off the new access road that’s going to be constructed there. Is the proposed action, it’s new construction. Description of the project: the applicant is proposing to construct a new building which will accommodate a growing local business. The amount of land affected is seven plus acres. Will the proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? They’ve checked off no, and no because the proposed project will require relief from the parking requirement, and that’s the only thing that we’re addressing on this Board. What is the present land use in the vicinity of the project? It’s commercial. Describe the area? It’s adjacent to the proposed EMS building which is located off of Main Street down there. Does the action involve a permit approval or funding now or ultimately from any other governmental agency? And we’re going to say no. MR. ABBATE-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Does any aspect of the action have a current valid permit of approval, and we’ll say no. MR. ABBATE-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-And as a result of the proposed action, will the existing permit or approval require modifications? We’re going to say no. MR. ABBATE-No. MR. LAPPER-It does need approval from other agencies, Planning Board. MR. UNDERWOOD-It will need approval ultimately. MR. ABBATE-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. As far as the rest of the form goes, “Does the action exceed any Type I Threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” I would say no MR. ABBATE-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions?” I would have to say it will receive a coordinated review. MR. LAPPER-No. MR. ABBATE-The answer is no. MS. ALTER-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-We’re going to say no on all accounts. MS. ALTER-Right, because the Area Variance is a Type II Action. When it gets to the Planning Board, it will be Unlisted. MR. UNDERWOOD-They’re going to do it. All right. MR. ABBATE-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Could 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 or disposal, potential for erosion, 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/07) drainage or flooding problems?” What are we going to say? I think that Mr. Garrand pointed out that there may be possible flooding problems because it is a parking lot. MR. ABBATE-Yes, because we’re going to also, at that point, we’re going to, in our motion, bring to the attention certain aspects that we wish the Planning Board to address, and that happens to be one of them. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. “Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity”, I guess I just did that one. “Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” I would say yes again there. I mean, we were concerned with the amount of vegetation that was going to be cut to minimize that amount, and save the mature trees that are present on site, if possible as many as could reasonably be done. MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think also that we were concerned with the amount of parking, if it was determined to be excessive, that there would be a restoration of some of that green space, if need be in the future. MR. ABBATE-And that would also be addressed in the motion. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. “Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” I would say none, no. MR. ABBATE-None, no. 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 yes, it is going to be a change in intensity of use. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” I would say obviously growth if you’re going to put up a building that large with 400 employees, right? MR. ABBATE-All right. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified?” Anybody have any? MR. ABBATE-At this time, no, other than what we’re going to address in the motion. MS. ALTER-Remember we’re only looking at parking. MR. UNDERWOOD-Parking, yes. MR. ABBATE-I understand. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Other impacts” I would say no. MR. ABBATE-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” I would say no. MR. ABBATE-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-Under Determination of Significance, we’re not going to be doing that, I don’t think. MR. LAPPER-No, you have to. That’s what you’re doing. MR. UNDERWOOD-You have to. MR. ABBATE-Go right through the form. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/07) MR. UNDERWOOD-“For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial, large, important or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (i.e. urban or rural); (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope or magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference support materials. What are the ones that we identified? Possibly flooding in the neighborhood? MR. ABBATE-I can be specific if you’d like at this time. We’re going to address possible, address the stormwater plan and options. We’re going to address possible incorporation of more green space. We’re going to address overnight lighting, and we’re going to address one other thing. I think that was yours, Allan. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but we’re going to address that in a motion. MR. ABBATE-In a motion. MR. BRYANT-I mean, we can’t make a determination relative to that stuff in a positive light because we have no quantitative data. So we ought to just answer no to everything. MR. ABBATE-Well, we should because we’re only focusing in on parking anyway. So let’s just say no. MS. ALTER-I think it’s cleaner if you say no because the Planning Board will get into these topics. MR. BRYANT-Yes, because we don’t have the data to quantify. MS. ALTER-The only data you were given was the material that you needed to make a decision on the parking. MR. ABBATE-Right. MR. LAPPER-It’s fine with the applicant for you to say that those are issues you want the Planning Board to focus on. MR. ABBATE-Yes, so the answer is no. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. ABBATE-That’s it? Okay. All right. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, you heard the Secretary who has narrated each of the questions on the Environmental Form, and you heard the responses by members of this Board. MOTION THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM BE APPROVED, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: st Duly adopted this 21 day of March, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-In a seven to zero vote, the Environmental Assessment Form, which is an uncoordinated review, is approved. The public hearing is now closed for Area Variance No. 16-2007. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And we’re going to move on and I’m going to request that the members of the Board take a look at the balancing benefit of the variance against the impact on the area. You know what the rules and regulations. There are five factors to take into consideration. I am now going to request that a member of the Board volunteer to introduce a motion with some clarity. Do we have a volunteer? And during the motion, gentlemen, before someone volunteers, please take into consideration, I’ll be more than happy to reiterate those concerns that we wish the Planning Board to address. MR. BRYANT-I’ll make a motion. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/07) MR. ABBATE-Mr. Bryant, would you like to do that for me? Thank you. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 16-2007 BBL, INC., Introduced by Allan Bryant who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Off Luzerne Road; 83 and 87 Luzerne Rd. The applicant proposes construction of a 66,000 square foot office building with associated site work, including 425 parking spaces. The relief required. The applicant requests relief from the maximum parking requirement for an office use, which is one per 300 square foot of gross leasable floor space, per Section 179-4-040. Specifically, 220 spaces are required with an additional 44 allowed, 20% overage, totaling 264 spaces, thus relief for 161 additional parking spaces is required. The desired number of spaces is 425 spaces. Benefit to the applicant. The applicant would be able to construct an additional 161 parking spaces on their site. Feasible alternatives. There appear to be no feasible alternatives, simply because of the number of employees are consistent with the number of parking spaces required. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The request for 161 additional parking spaces is considerable, relative to the Ordinance. The effects on the community or neighborhood, there would be moderate effects on the community as a result of this action. Is the difficulty self-created? It’s absolutely self-created. The motion is made for approval with the following suggestions to the Planning Board. First, that they review the amount of lighting, particularly during the overnight hours. That they also review a detailed landscaping plan, and if possible to incorporate more green space in the project. They should also review, carefully review, the stormwater management plan, and the various options in that regard, and relative to the stormwater, a detailed analysis of the possible effects of the surrounding landowners. That the mature trees on site, if possible to save them, it would be a better fit for the site if they kept as many of those large trees, you know, not clear cutting the whole site if necessary, you know, keep some interspersed if there’s going to be islands out there on site, that the parking would look better. Also, quantifications of the shifts and the number of employees versus the actual parking necessary. The Planning Board should review that in depth. Also, that there should be a contingency for excessive parking and its possible removal and restoration as green space. That the park and ride would not be used to subsidize the parking. st Duly adopted this 21 day of March, 2007, by the following vote: MR. UNDERWOOD-And also there should be a contingency for excessive parking and its possible removal and restoration as green space. If they build 450 spots and they’re not using them all, and they can take out 50 and put more trees in, that’s something that could be considered down the road. The Planning Board can make that determination, not us. MRS. BARDEN-One other thing, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico’s comment that the Park and Ride wouldn’t be used for parking, additional parking for the site. MR. URRICO-It was put in the first motion that we passed that the Park and Ride would not be used to subsidize that parking. MR. BRYANT-Okay. I’ll agree to that as part of the motion. AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-Okay. The vote for Area Variance No. 16-2007 is seven yes, zero no. Area Variance No. 16-2007 is approved, and ladies and gentlemen of this Board, this Board is concluded. MR. LAPPER-Nine fifteen, not bad. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen of the Board, you did a great job. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Charles Abbate, Chairman 36