Loading...
2008.01.23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/23/08) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 23, 2008 INDEX Area Variance No. 59-2007 Schermerhorn Residential Holdings, L.P. 1. Tax Map No. 288.00-1-63, 64 Area Variance No. 3-2008 Frederick W. & Alice D. Schmalkuche 5. Tax Map No. 226.19-1-95 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. o (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/23/08) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 23, 2008 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHARLES MC NULTY, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, SECRETARY CHARLES ABBATE JOYCE HUNT ROY URRICO ALLAN BRYANT RICHARD GARRAND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. MC NULTY-I'll call the January 23, 2008 meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to order, and starting out, I want to quickly go through our procedures once again for anybody that perhaps is new here. As we handle each application, I'll call the application by name and number. The Secretary will read the pertinent parts of the application, Staff Notes and Warren County Planning Board decision if applicable into the record. Then we'll ask the applicant to present any information they wish to present to the Board. The Board will ask questions of the applicant. Then we'll open the public hearing. The public hearing's intended to help us gather information and understand it, about the issue at hand. It functions to help the Board members make a wise decision. It does not make the decision for the Board members. There will be a five minute limit on speakers. We will allow speakers to speak again after everybody's had a chance to speak, but not for more than three minutes, and only if, after listening to the other speakers, a speaker believes that they have new information to present, and, Board members, I'd suggest, because we have the five minute limit, that we not interrupt the speaker with questions while they're speaking. Rather we should wait until a speaker has finished his five minute period and then ask the questions. Following all the speakers, we'd read any correspondence into the record, then the applicant will have an opportunity to react and respond to public comment, and Board members will discuss the variance request with the applicant. Following that, the Board members will have a chance to explain their positions on the application. Then the public hearing will be closed or left open, depending on the situation, and finally, if appropriate, a motion to approve or disapprove will follow. Now tonight's agenda is a little bit changed from what was originally printed. First thing we're going to do in just a moment is approve some minutes that we should have approved last week. Following that we're going to briefly address the Schermerhorn variance, 59-2007, and I presume probably simply table it since the Planning Board has not completed the SEQRA review yet. We're bound so that we cannot do anything further until the SEQRA determination has been resolved. Following that, we'll handle Area Variance No. 3-2008, which we tabled from last week, to this date, and following that, there's some minor administrative matters that the Board will cover. So, having said that, we'll move first to the approval minutes. We have three sets of minutes to approve. APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 12, 2007 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2007, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 23rd day of January, 2008, by the following vote: MR. BRYANT-I had pointed out an error on the 12th relative to something I said regarding the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, did you make that correction? MS. GAGLIARDI-Yes. MR. BRYANT-That's corrected? Okay. Thank you. AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/23/08) Mr. McNulty NOES: NONE December 19, 2007 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 19, 2007, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Duly adopted this 23rd day of January, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty NOES: NONE December 26, 2007 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 26, 2007, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Duly adopted this 23rd day of January, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty NOES: NONE MR. MC NULTY-Okay. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-2007 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS, L.P. AGENT(S): J. LAPPER, ESQ. BPSR/MILLER & ASSOCIA TES/NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S): SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS, L.P. ZONING: PO LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GURNEY LANE & WEST. MT. ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2- STORY OFFICE (85,340 SQ. FT.) OFFICE BUILDING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM PARKING REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: SITE PLAN NO. 48-2007 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 LOT SIZE: 0.90 AC.; 16.12 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.00-1-63 AND 64 SECTION: 179-4-040 MR. MC NULTY-Now we come to Area Variance No. 59-2007 which we had tabled to tonight's meeting. As I explained at the beginning of the meeting, we're basically, at this point, waiting on the Planning Board to complete its SEQRA determination and make a decision on whether they're going to do a Negative Declaration or call for a Full Environmental Assessment, or whatever they can do in between, and until they do that, there's not much more that this Board can do. So, on that basis, I'm going to make a motion that we table Area Variance No. 59-2007 to our first meeting in February, which is February 20th, in anticipation of the Planning Board, perhaps, having acted by that time. MR. BRYANT-Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I understand your logic. However, Schermerhorn project was announced. It was in the paper, and it is on the schedule, and I don't want to stay here any longer than anybody else. However, there may be someone in the public who can't come back in the February meeting and this is their only opportunity to speak, to get on the record. So, I would recommend that you open the public hearing and allow the people to say their peace and then table the project. MR. MC NULTY-I guess it's up to the Board. My feeling and approach is that we had a decision point at our last meeting. Therefore, we presumably have heard all the pertinent comments pertaining to our decision. Any comments that would pertain to SEQRA evaluation are not appropriate for this Board to consider at this time because we passed a SEQRA determination to the Planning Board. MR. BRYANT-I agree with that 100%, but if somebody is here that wants to talk about the parking, and they're not able to be here in the February meeting, or they haven't 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/23/08) been here before, they're only recourse is to write a letter to put into the minutes, but in all fairness they should be heard. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I'm going to leave it to the Board. I've made the motion to table. We need a second if we're going to proceed. Does anybody wish to second? MRS. HUNT-I'll second. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. We have a second. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-2007 SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS, L.P., Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Tabled to the first meeting in February, February 20th, in anticipation of the Planning Board having acted by that time. Duly adopted this 23rd day of January, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty NOES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate MR. MC NULTY-I believe that's four yes and three no. So this issue is tabled until the February 20th meeting. AUDIENCE MEMBER-There are new things that we would like to say. New things. MR. MC NULTY-Then February 20th is the time, assuming that the Planning Board, at that point, has made a SEQRA determination. MR. BRYANT-Well, what if they can't come back in February? MR. MC NULTY-As you said, there's always the opportunity to send something in in writing. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Aren't you obliged to have a public hearing? MR. MC NULTY-We have had, we have had public hearing. AUDIENCE MEMBER-If the project was advertised to be on the agenda tonight. MR. ABBATE-You're going to have to come up to the mic and identify yourself, because it's on the record. JANE MC INTOSH MS. MC INTOSH-Thank you. My name is Jane Mcintosh. I just have a procedural question. I was under the impression that if the project was on the agenda tonight, and advertised, and you have not closed the public hearing, that you are obliged to hear public comment. MR. MC NULTY-I don't believe that's the case. We've had the public hearing open. This issue has had an opportunity for public comment. The applicant, I don't believe, is represented tonight. MS. MC INTOSH-Well, the public is represented. MR. MC NULTY-But there's nothing for us to work on or determine until we hear what happens with the SEQRA. MS. MC INTOSH-That's a separate issue, whether you have anything to actually work on. I believe you need to hear public comment. MR. ABBATE-If I could just comment, just for a second. In the event of a judicial review, better to err on the side of the public, rather than a decision by the Supreme Court that we cut off the people. If we're going to err, I would err on the side of the public to be heard. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/23/08) MR. BRYANT-I think it all speaks to the whole due process thing, and by not allowing the public to air their comments. MS. MC INTOSH-If you had said in the agenda, in the posted agenda, that this project was tabled, and that there would be no public comment tonight, that would be one thing. The people would not have come prepared to speak, but there was no, you know, condition to the agenda. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don't think it's any different than the first meeting we had, and they were allowed to speak there before the applicants ever showed up. I think any time you have a meeting, if it's a public meeting, and the public hearing hasn't been closed, I mean, I don't think we're subject to any termination, you know. MR. GAR RAND-But also in fairness to the applicant, they should be represented by counsel, should they wish to be. They should have the opportunity. MS. MC INTOSH-Well, they would have access to the minutes, just like anybody else would. MR. GAR RAND-But they wouldn't be able to respond to them tonight. It would be one sided tonight. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but that's not the case in multiple, multiple variances and applications that we've heard where the applicant had requested a table by fax, for example. The public was allowed to speak because it was an advertised application, and then, at the next meeting, when the attorney was present, then he could respond. We know that he's going to be here eventually. MS. MC INTOSH-And the applicant, of course, had perfect opportunity to be here tonight, unless someone told him, you know, not to come. MR. ABBATE-Well, that was my second point, counselor. It has been advertised, and the applicant, the appellant as well as the attorney had the opportunity to be here this evening. STEPHANIE BITTER MS. BITTER-I'm Stephanie Bitter. I'm with Bartlett, Pontiff. Unfortunately, I don't represent Rich Schermerhorn directly. Jon Lapper does, as this Board is aware. It was Jon's understanding, in speaking with Staff, and I'm sure Craig will concur, that due to the fact that the SEQRA determination wasn't finalized at the Planning Board, there's no action that's going to be heard this evening at the Zoning Board. So there's no reason to discuss it, in the applicant's point of view. Which is why, I believe, he sent a letter to table it, which was the purview of the applicant, understanding that the public will be heard in February when this application is heard again. MR. ABBATE-But our procedure is not dictated by anyone outside this Board. MS. BITTER-With regards to our request? MR. ABBATE-No. In other words, we can have all kinds of recommendations to table, but our procedures are dictated by this Board, not by outside sources. MS. BITTER-I understand that. MR. ABBATE-And the public hearing has not been closed. MS. BITTER-We understand, but it doesn't give the opportunity for the public not to speak if the public hearing hasn't been closed. There is going to be an opportunity in February for them to do so. MR. ABBATE-But that's your point of view. I disagree. As I said, if we're going to err, I'd prefer to err on the side of allowing the public to speak rather than the Supreme Court saying the ZBA erred by not allowing them to speak. M S. BITTER-Okay. Well, I'm just confused as to where we stand at this point. Because there's already been a tabling motion and now we're still discussing it. So I guess that's for the Board to discussed. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/23/08) MR. BRYANT-Yes, you know, the time has passed. We could have already had three or four people speak and get it over with. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, for the record, the applicant's agent, and I think the Secretary's going to find it in the file there, did submit a letter today. It's not a request for tabling, and I can certainly read it if you want, or maybe you can have the Secretary read it. The gist of it is, we understand that the Planning Board didn't make a SEQRA determination on January 17th. They've re-scheduled it for February 7th. Please table us as soon as you can after January 7th, but that's all, it's a request for as soon as possible after. MR. ABBATE-I didn't receive any letter. MR. BROWN-It came in today, it's in the box. MR. ABBATE-Did you receive the letter, Roy? Did you receive the letter, Joyce? MRS. HUNT-No. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. That's enough. MR. ABBATE-Well, there's something wrong here. MR. BROWN-It was transmitted to the Town this afternoon. We made copies and it's in the box for everybody tonight. MR. UNDERWOOD-There's nothing in the box. MR. BROWN-It's not in the file? Well, you can have mine, if you'd like. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Well, it really is whether the applicant asked for a tabling or not. Okay. We've heard people speak. We've heard the different sides. As has been pointed out, we have passed a motion to table this. So, in that sense, the issue is closed. If someone wants to make a motion to countermand that motion, I won't argue against it, and we can see how the vote comes down. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MOTION TO ALLOW THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK THIS EVENING ON AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-2007 SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS, L.P., Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: Duly adopted this 23rd day of January, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood NOES: Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty MR. ABBATE-Okay. That's it. So be it. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. The issue is tabled until February 20th for this Board. AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II FREDERICK W. & ALICE D. SCHMALKUCHE AGENT(S): STEFANIE DI LALLO BITTER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S): FREDERICK W. & ALICE D. SCHMALKUCHE ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 246 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE NORTHERN BOAT SLIP WITH A 1,008 SQ. FT. BOATHOUSE AND SUN DECK. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: JANUARY 9, 2008 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.239 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-95 SECTION: 179-5-050(6); 179-3-010 STEFAN IE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 3-2008, Frederick W. & Alice D. Schmalkuche, Meeting Date: January 16, 2007 "Project Location: 246 Assembly Point Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a dock addition of approximately 200 sf together with a new boathouse of 1 008sf ( 28x36 ) 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/23/08) I Relief Required: I Applicant requests relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement however, no specific setback has been identified on the plans. Additionally, during preparation of staff notes for this project it was determined that the proposed dock is in excess of the 40 foot maximum dock width and the overall dock square footage is in excess of the 700 sf maximum. This information was not provided identified by the applicant as part of the submission and request for relief. Additionally, clarification of what appears to be an approximately 6' x 6' dock "stub" on the on north end of the walkway along the shore. This "stub" is shown on some of the plans submitted but not on all. I Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: I 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be able to gain additional lakeside recreation area and boat shelter. 2. Feasible alternatives: There appears to be ample area available for compliant construction. The submitted map depicts approximately 32 feet between the required setback lines for compliant construction. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for approximately 8 feet of setback relief from the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial (40%). Additionally, the oversized dock in both width and total square footage may also be interpreted as significant relief when viewed cumulatively. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: No letters of support were submitted with the application materials. The proposed project appears to be relatively consistent with neighboring uses and structures, however, the sizes of neighboring structures is not known at this time. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. I Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): I SPR 51-2005 9/27/05 Seawall and patio AV 82-2001 10/17/01 Residential Addition WITHDRAWN SPR 63-1995 11/21/95 2nd floor addition A V 78-1995 10/25/95 2nd floor addition A V 42-1989 5/17/89 0 ft shoreline setback DENIED SPR 47-1989 9/19/89 boathouse on existing dock A V 82-1989 7/26/89 shoreline fencing SPR 85-1990 11/27/90 modification of SP47-89 for stairway I Staff comments: I Clarification of the exact proposed setback is needed prior to a decision on the project. Additionally, if the applicant wishes to seek approval for the proposed dock as submitted, additional relief is necessary and the project will need to be advertised as such. A review of SP 47-1989 reveals an approved plan for a 18' x 30' boathouse structure at a compliant location, basically, centered on the property. I SEQR Status: I Type II" MR. UNDERWOOD-"Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form January 9, 2008 Project Name: Schmalkuche, Frederick W. & Alice D. Owner(s): Frederick W. & Alice D. Schmalkuche ID Number: QBY-08-AV-03 County Project#: 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/23/08) Jan08-AV-3 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to replace northern boat slip with a 1,008 sq. ft. boathouse and sundeck Site Location: 246 Assembly Point Road Tax Map Number(s): 226.19-1-95 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to replace northern boat slip with a 1,008 sq. ft. sundeck and boathouse. The boat slip is to be located 3.18 ft. from the south property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. The information submitted indicates the new boathouse with sundeck is located in the same place as the original. The plans show the location of the boathouse with photos. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact" Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 1/10/08. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Thank you. I see the applicant's at the table. Would you identify yourselves, please. MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter, as Counsel, together with Frank DeNardo from Elite Docks. Mr. and Mrs. Schmalkuche are actually in the front row in the audience here with us this evening. I'd like to just start by thanking the Board for tabling it to this evening, due to the conflict that I had with last week's agenda. I want to just kind of give an overview of the background in this project first. The Schmalkuche's purchased this property in 2004. When they made that purchase, the shoreline consisted of the following, and I don't know if Craig can get the pictures up, but I did bring, these pictures are part of your packet. It consists of a sundeck as well as a crib dock, which is located on the southern end of the property. This crib dock is the nonconforming, pre-existing structure that exists, 3.18 feet from the southern boundary line, okay. Just so you can orient yourself with these pictures that we submitted, this picture is actually looking at the crib dock, the pre-existing, nonconforming crib dock, and this dock is actually the adjacent dock that's owned by the Town of Queensbury. This is actually looking to the north, and this is a marina on the one side. This is actually standing on the Town dock, so that you can see the pre-existing, nonconforming crib dock and the sundeck as it exists, and then this is obviously looking from the lake. So just so that you can get an orientation of what exists there today. Unfortunately, the sundeck that is really the main issue of our application has deteriorated such that it's an unsafe condition, and it sways in the wind and makes it unable to be utilized, not only as a sundeck, but also as a boathouse which it also uses for the berthing of boats in that area. When the Schmalkuches realized this, they sat down with Frank DeNardo and met with him to compile a plan which would not only help them utilize this structure and make it safe, but also minimize the impacts to the lake. Due to the fact that this pre-existing crib dock, which Frank had inspected, is such that it's sound and can be utilized, they want to be able to maintain that. There's no need to dig it up and re-create a crib dock, having impact on the lake, if it's not necessary to do so, at least that was their mentality on the topic. So Frank has developed a plan, which is part of your packet, to actually construct a sundeck which would actually utilize this crib dock for support on the southern end, and on the northern end a new crib dock would be established in a compliant location. I'm going to have Frank go into a little bit more details as to the calculations in just a second on the dock, but to respond to some of the comments that Staff mentioned, the first was the 700 square feet as to dock space. We're not sure, we might differ in our interpretation, or there just might be a misconception with the survey that was presented, but when Frank had come up with the calculation, he only measured what was considered to be docks, where the areas would actually be utilized for berthing of boats. He didn't measure the sundeck, because it's our understanding in reviewing the Town of Queensbury's Code, that that's not considered part of the calculation, and that might be our interpretation. It might be something to discuss with Craig, but I just wanted to present a little handout, so I can show you where we came up with that. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MS. BITTER-In reviewing the definition of dock, it specifically states that it's a structure which provides a berth to a watercraft and or a means of pedestrian access to and from the shoreline. Access, in our sense, we're looking at for purposes of boats or utilizing the water. In this case, a sundeck, obviously, is only connected to the parcel, providing no access to the water. Also, it might have been my mistake to kind of refer to this as a boathouse when essentially the sundeck is obviously a sundeck and underneath is a boathouse, which the supporting structures would be utilized for the berthing of boats, but if you look on the next pages, it defines a boathouse, which again shows that it's a structure which has direct access to a body of navigable water, and is used for the storage of vessels and associated equipment. Obviously that would be the areas that support the sundeck, which would be considered the crib docks, which Frank will explain he did utilize in that calculation. Frank obviously has experience in submitting permits for 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/23/08) docks, and he'll talk about how, in his understanding, that those numbers weren't usually utilized in those calculation, as well as with the Lake George Park Commission, it's consistent with just using the dock area that's used for boat berthing or storage, I should say. The next clarification I'd like to make is with regards to the stub referred to in Staff comments. That will, in fact, be removed with the reconstruction that we're proposing. So that's not going to be a part of the square footage, which brings us to the setback. It's our understanding, when we submitted this application, that the setback that was at issue was that of the pre-existing nonconforming crib dock, which is located on the southern end, which is the 3.14. That dock is obviously going to be utilized to support the sundeck which we're proposing, which is why we were really referring to that in our application. Craig had asked for clarification as to the distance of the sundeck, which I had asked our surveyor to provide, which is on Page Seven of the handout, but as I just explained, it's our position that it's a sundeck. So actually the distance should come from the dock, which is what's referred to in the Town Code that it's every dock needs to be 20 feet from the shoreline. It doesn't refer to every deck. So we understand that that's something that Craig gets to decide or interpret, but that's our position and that's why we were seeking that as the relief requested. We feel, in looking at this application as a whole, the benefit to the applicant outweighs the detriment to the community. In doing so, we look at it as obviously the benefit to the applicant would be to complete a safer structure, to construct a safer structure than what exists there today, and also be able to have two usable slips, which is currently what they do have, but the size of which, as I'll let Frank discuss, doesn't allow for anything but one regular size boat and like a canoe. The next is with regards to feasible alternatives. Due to the fact that the existing crib dock exists, 3.1 feet from the shoreline, and that we're utilizing it since it's of a structure that it can still be utilized, we feel that totally removing everything and moving everything over shouldn't be considered to be a compliant, or I should say a feasible alternative, since there is a crib dock that can be utilized and this way we're minimizing the impact to the lake, in addition to the fact that it's excessive in cost to do so. Is the relief considered substantial? We don't think so. Our position is that the only relief required is for the setback, as I just explained. Since the encroachment of the dock is something that already exists there today, movement of the sundeck should not be deemed substantial. The last is the effects on the neighborhood or the community. We don't feel this'll have a negative effect. As I briefly mentioned, the area in which we're encroaching on is actually owned by the Town of Queensbury, which they maintain a dock there. It's for the purposes of water supply. It's my understanding there might be like a small pump station there, but they've just actually replaced the water pipe that is there now. I think it was this Spring, and there wasn't an impact as to the locations of the docks. It's something that they're used to. Last and not least, is this considered to be self-created. Although the dock is a pre-existing nonconforming structure, due to the fact that our main purpose in making this renovation is to create a safer structure, we don't feel it should be considered self-created. I'm going to turn it over to Frank now. FRANK DE NARDO MR. DE NARDO-I have some additional information for you folks. Hopefully it'll clarify the setback we're looking for. On the first page is what's there now. The second page is I have everything highlighted so it's pretty explanatory. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. DE NARDO-I've got the calculations written down there on the second page. The square footage of the dock, 696 square feet is what we're looking for. That's including the original dock that's there. Now you can see the setback line there. That's the part of the dock we are going to be replacing all in yellow, and in turn we're going to be putting in two new cribs there, to make a more substantial safer structure there. That area is very vulnerable to ice damage, and we're lucky that dock is still standing there. Right now, I don't know how it is, because the original owner had it cabled to trees that were taken down there. I believe a couple of them were taken down by the Town because they were falling down, and those cables no longer exist. So this thing sways in the wind like a flag. So, it's pretty bad. The second page, or the next page, I should say, is the relief we're looking for, and the relief on the deck there is, on the east side, would be four feet, that would be lakeside, the outside part, we're looking for four foot of relief there, and on shore it would be nine foot of relief, and the rest of it sits within the setback. Hopefully I made that clear enough that everybody sees. I know the copies are horrible. The machine kind of went dusty on me for some reason. Do you have any questions on it? MR. BRYANT-May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/23/08) MR. MC NULTY-Yes, go ahead. MR. BRYANT-On the second page, the dock that's not colored, that's the existing one, correct? MR. DE NARDO-Correct. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So you're going to build this dock that's all in yellow, and you're going to replace the one along the shore, is that what you're going to do? MR. DE NARDO-Correct. That's a walkway. MR. BRYANT-Okay, and then the sundeck is going to actually sit between the two docks? MR. DE NARDO-It'll sit over the two slips, yes. MR. BRYANT-Okay. You were saying something about, I think you meant to say sundeck or boathouse and not dock. You were saying something about the dock being unstable, the existing? MR. DE NARDO-I'm sorry, the sundeck was unstable. MR. BRYANT-Okay. I just wanted to clarify that, because originally you said it was, you know. Thanks. MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I ask Craig a question? MR. MC NULTY-Go ahead. MR. UNDERWOOD-I kind of find it a stretch of the imagination that the deck isn't counted as living space. I mean, a deck on a house is, obviously, a deck on a boathouse. MR. BROWN-The sundeck on the boathouse is not counted against the square footage of the dock. It's just the surface area of the dock, the walking area on the lake level, so to speak. MR. UNDERWOOD-So that's all boathouses we've ever dealt with? MR. BROWN-Sundeck area doesn't count towards the square footage, and I could probably clarify a bunch of the questions that were raised by the applicant. MR. BRYANT-Well, I do have a question for you, relative to your estimate of the square foot of the dock. You have to naturally include the existing dock in that square footage. MR. BROWN-Absolutely. MR. BRYANT-And I think that's what you're not doing. MR. DE NARDO-That's what we are doing. MS. BITTER-We are doing that. MR. BRYANT-You are doing that? MR. DE NARDO-Yes, we are. MR. BROWN-I think what may not be in the applicant's calculation but it is in my calculation is the eighteen inch walkway between the two slips. That counts. I'm assuming it's a walkway. MR. DE NARDO-It's not a walkway. It's a center supporting structure for the upper sundeck. MR. BROWN-Okay. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/23/08) MR. DE NARDO-And it's relatively about eighteen inches, by the time you sandwich everything in, it comes out to about eighteen inches. You cannot walk on it. It's literally just a support in the center with the beams that come down. MR. BRYANT-So then that would not be included in the calculation of the dock? MR. BROWN-If it's not a walkway, that would not be counted in the calculation. MR. BRYANT-What does that make it now? MR. BROWN-It would take 48 square feet away from my calculation. So it put it under 700, but from the drawings that were submitted, it wasn't possible to tell whether it was a walkway or not, but it's not a walkway, and it's not going to come in on the building permit application as a walkway, then the 700 square feet total looks like it's fine. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So now it's 696, and therefore falls under the 700. MR. BROWN-For the square footage. MR. BRYANT-Correct. Okay. Then really the only thing that we're considering is setback. MR. BROWN-That's all they've asked for relief for is the setback, and I'm not convinced we're at the right number, yet, and I'll explain that if you want me to, but the other outstanding item is the overall dock width. The proposal to add to the north of the dock creates a situation where the overall dock width is more than 40 feet, and that's not something they've sought relief for tonight. If they want to reconfigure the plan and make it 40 feet, then it's a compliant structure, but based on the dimensions in the plans that were submitted with this application, I come up with I think 41.5. I don't have my notes, but I think it's 41.5. MR. DE NARDO-You added in the eighteen inches I presume? MR. BROWN-Well, that's towards the width, yes. MR. DE NARDO-No, because the eighteen inches takes away from the inside of the slip. The slip is 24 foot wide with the center piece. It's a 10, a 24 and a 6 is what it is. MR. BROWN-Well, again, I'm looking at this drawing that was submitted here that shows 12 feet to the support, and then you added the 18. MR. DE NARDO-Well, they added the 18. That was a mistake. MR. BROWN-If there's a mistake in the application that you want to correct right now. MR. DE NARDO-That's the mistake. The eighteen inches is a mistake, and that'll bring your calculation to a forty. MR. BROWN-Okay. If that's the case, if it's a mistake, then it's only forty feet, but again, based on what was submitted, it was included in the overall width. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but eighteen inches still exists, so it's still more than forty feet overall. MR. BROWN-But I think what the applicant's saying is the interior of the main slip is 24 feet. MR. BRYANT-That includes the eighteen. MR. BROWN-But the individual slips are only. MR. DE NARDO-I was just showing the center support structure as eighteen inches wide. That wasn't supposed to be counted as the difference. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So it doesn't add eighteen to the twenty-four. Okay. MR. DE NARDO-No, it does not. MR. BROWN-Each slip is only eleven feet three. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/23/08) MR. DE NARDO-Correct. MR. BROWN-So you take that nine and nine on each side. MR. BRYANT-Okay. Because that's not what it shows on the. MR. BROWN-Right, that's why I came up with 41 and a half. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. BROWN-And to get to the answer about the setback, what's been determined, and thus far unchallenged, is the relief that's needed. It's been determined that the relief is to the new construction only, and the new construction here is the sundeck portion. The dock itself is existing at 3.18 feet from the property line. I have no concerns about that. It's a pre-existing structure. They're not changing that. That can be maintained in perpetuity. The new construction, the new boathouse, for which there is not a setback dimension shown on these plans, that's the number we need to land on, and it looks, you know, guessing in the ballpark of 12, 13 feet. MS. BITTER-Right, and that's what the letter from Bill Rourke that I included in our packet was to clarify. MR. BROWN-Is there an actual number? MS. BITTER-He said 12 feet. MR. BROWN-Is that something you gave them tonight? MS. BITTER-Yes. Page Seven, I'm sorry. MR. UNDERWOOD-What's the status of the application with the Park Commission? You guys have got to get permission before you can do this, right? MR. DE NARDO-Correct. We're waiting for the okay on the Board here. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. DE NARDO-Hopefully. MR. BROWN-Okay. So with the new information that you were given tonight, 12 feet's the number. So they need eight feet of relief for the new sundeck. MR. UNDERWOOD-This is part of Shore Colony up there? MR. DE NARDO-No, it's not. This is private. The dock next door, the Town dock, is part of Shore Colony. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. DE NARDO-They have access to that dock. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. DE NARDO-And then there's a marina to the north. MRS. HUNT-I have a question. I just want to clarify in my mind. The old boathouse or sundeck is gone? MR. DE NARDO-Correct. MRS. HUNT-And the new one will be between the two docks? MR. DE NARDO-Correct, it'll be totally over one, one slip. MR. BRYANT-So just to clarify the required relief, all they really need is the 12 feet setback, that's it, we're all done? MR. BROWN-Eight feet of relief. Yes. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/23/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-From the pre-existing dock. MR. BROWN-From the property line. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. BROWN-And then Site Plan approval with the Planning Board, but that's not a relief. That's just review. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is there any sense of the size component of it in relation to the dock? I mean, it fits with all our setbacks otherwise. So for us it really would be a Planning Board issue if they were concerned about the size. MR. BROWN-Yes. If there's a regular size to sundecks, I think this would be in that ballpark. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, but I'm just looking at the other ones along the shoreline look like they're all kind of small. MR. BROWN-Yes. That's what they'd look at through Site Plan Review. MR. UNDERWOOD-They all appear to be that smaller size. Was there any sense of building it at that smaller size, or you just wanted to accommodate two boats? MR. DE NARDO-Well, if you see that one slip, if you go back one, Craig, that one slip on the other side there. MR. UNDERWOOD-It's just too narrow. MR. DE NARDO-It's very narrow, and we're going to take the structure down, I mean, to build it back the way it is and have nothing but that little slip there again. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. DE NARDO-That's a good picture. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Any other questions? Everybody's happy? And you've presented all that you want to present at this point? Then let's move on to opening the public hearing. I'll open the public hearing for this and ask if there's anybody that wishes to comment on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-I don't see anyone. Mr. Secretary, do we have any correspondence? MR. UNDERWOOD-Nothing. MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. Then I guess I'll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC NULTY-Any further questions from the Board? MR. BRYANT-One more question, Mr. Chairman. MR. MC NULTY-Go ahead. MR. BRYANT-Your existing sundeck, how big is it, just out of curiosity? MR. DE NARDO-I don't have the exact number. MR. UNDERWOOD-There's a 12 foot boat slip that exists right now. MR. DE NARDO-Actually I believe it's like a 14 or a 16 foot boat slip. MR. UNDERWOOD-It says on the survey it's a 12 foot boat slip. MR. DE NARDO-Twelve is it? 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/23/08) MR. BRYANT-Okay. Thank you. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. No more questions? MR. URRICO-We're looking at four feet of relief? What are we looking at as far relief? MR. BRYANT-Twelve feet of relief. MR. DE NARDO-Eight feet of relief. MR. BROWN-Eight feet of relief for a twelve foot setback. MR. ABBATE-Eight feet of relief, correct. MR. BRYANT-I thought there was a 20 foot setback? MR. BROWN-They want a 12 foot setback. MS. BITTER-We'll maintain a 12 foot setback. MR. BRYANT-Okay. I understand now. MR. URRICO-That's from the sundeck. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. All set, then? Then let's see where we stand and what our reasons are. I'll ask for Board comments. Rick, can we start with you? MR. GAR RAND-Sure. I think this is a situation where you've got an old boathouse. I went out there. I couldn't tell you anything about the integrity of the current boathouse, but I'd have to take the builder's word for it that it's falling down. When I looked at it, I couldn't get right down there and look at it. The road is basically curved down there, and I had to stand on the side of the road. I couldn't really tell too much. It looks like a marina down there, and I think anything we can do to minimize the clutter of this area should be done. I think, in situations like this, also, that the onus is on the builder and the homeowner to make sure that whatever is built there adheres to basically a twelve foot setback and under 700 square feet. A lot of times these things change as they get built, and this is one of those times I think they should measure twice and cut once. In any event, at this point, I'd be in favor of this application. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Thank you. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Yes. I think the builder has made a cogent argument for what he wants to do. The benefit would be that the applicant could get the desired construction that he wanted, and I don't think that the applicant thinks that there are feasible alternatives. The dock is, the old dock is not usable, and this would be an improvement. I don't think eight feet of relief from forty feet is substantial, and I don't think there'll be any effects on the neighborhood, and it's self-created only in the fact that they want a new dock that's safe, and so I would be in favor. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Thank you. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I think the request is reasonable. I don't have any real problem with it. To grant approval of this would be nothing out of the ordinary. We've granted requests that exceed what you're requesting here this evening before. I think your request, had I been in the position of the landowners, I would be requesting the same thing. So consequently I feel it's a reasonable request, and I would support it. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Thank you. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. In general, you know, the dock that's pre-existing on the south side there, I mean, that's really not going to be any change to that, other than just putting up the big beams to carry the thing across, and the new construction is going to be in a compliant area. My only question would be, I would leave it up to the Planning Board to decide, you know, if you factor in everybody replacing their boat docks with their sundecks on that whole shore there, they're all going to grow substantially in size from what's there at the present time, but if everybody's in agreement with that, as long as the Park Commission signs off on it, that's an issue for them. It's not really in our purview to 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/23/08) do that. So I don't really have a problem with that. It's not going to be that much of a disturbance on that shoreline. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Thank you. Allan? MR. BRYANT-I agree with the other Board members. Even though the request could be considered substantial, it's not really adding to the existing condition as far as relief, and it's more important to have a safe structure. So I'd be in favor of it. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Thanks, and Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm basically in agreement with everybody else. I mean, ideally we would want this put in a perfect location, but I don't think this is that situation. So I'd be in favor of it. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Thanks, and I'd feel kind of the same way. If it were all new construction, it would be an entirely different story, but, as the applicant's pointed out, it doesn't really make sense to demolish the southern leg that is in good shape. I also would echo Mr. Garrand's commend, however, of be careful on the measurement. We've had an awful lot of applications before us where they've come back and said, oops, we know you granted us X, but we did X plus Y, and I think this Board is approaching the point where we're going to say, sorry, take a chainsaw to it. So, be careful. MR. DE NARDO-I'm from Elite Docks. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Having said all that and done that, we need a motion, presumably, to approve. MR. BRYANT-I'll make the motion. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Thanks, Allan. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-2008 FREDERICK & ALICE D. SCHMALKUCHE, Introduced by Allan Bryant who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 246 Assembly Point Road. The applicant proposes an addition to an existing dock for a total square footage of 696 square feet of dock, together with a new boathouse of 1,008 square feet. The applicant requests eight foot of setback relief from the twenty foot minimum side setback requirement. Benefit to the applicant, the applicant would gain additional lakeside recreation area and boat shelter. Feasible alternatives. There appears to be ample area available for compliant construction. However, to do that, it would require to demolish the existing dock and cribs, and that really wouldn't be feasible. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The request for eight feet of setback relief from the twenty foot requirement may be interpreted as substantial. Effects on the community. The proposed project appears to be relatively consistent with neighboring uses and structures. Is the difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. However, there exists a safety hazard with the existing boathouse, and in all probability it's become a necessity. So, for those reasons, I move that we approve Area Variance No. 3-2008. Duly adopted this 23rd day of January, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty NOES: NONE MR. MC NULTY-There you go. MR. DE NARDO-Thank you. MS. BITTER-Very much. Could I ask the Chairman just for a moment of the Board's time? I just for a moment of the Board's time? If I could just bring one thing up. I just wanted to bring something up for the Board to consider, and obviously this is just something that's a possibility, and it's with regards to the action that was taken on Vittengl last week. I obviously am in receipt of the resolution, and I just was hoping to ask the Board if they would possibly reconsider the action that they took, and I 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/23/08) understood in reviewing the resolution that part of the reasoning was due to the sequence of events that occurred up until January, and I want to make sure that the Board was not under the impression that we chose not to be here or were ignoring the application in any way, and I know that Craig tried to articulate what had happened, however, it was purely a misunderstanding. Just so I can clarify something that I know that in November Jon Lapper was here before you explaining that there was clarification that needed to be made with the application that had been submitted by Mr. Vittengl because there was an issue with regards to the Floor Area Ratio that needed to be clarified with Craig. Jon had then later sat down with Craig in December to make that clarification known, but again, there was miscommunication as to was to communicate with Dave Hatin. Jon thought Craig would and Craig thought Jon would, and it unfortunately kind of went to the wayside with the holidays that passed. So when we did talk to Craig in January it was discovered that there was a misinterpretation and Craig immediately said that he was going to talk to Dave Hatin and get back to us, which was the reason I had sent him the letter asking for him to make that clarification and questioning why it was on the agenda. We didn't appear because, in looking at the agenda, it indicated no new information was submitted, so the application needed to be tabled, which was our understanding of the action that was going to be taken, and obviously that didn't happen, and in the spirit of due process, we would just request that the Board reconsider this action, because we do now have a letter from Craig identifying the Floor Area Ratio and what steps need to be taken. We are prepared to make a submission by February 15th so this can be heard by this Board in March, so that this issue can finally be addressed by this Board in the complete format that it needs to be addressed by. MR. ABBATE-What you're requesting is are-hearing. MS. BITTER-We're requesting for you to reconsider that, right. MR. ABBATE-It's are-hearing. MS. BITTER-That's true. MR. ABBATE-And you know what the numbers are you need for are-hearing? MS. BITTER-Yes, unanimous. MR. ABBA TE-A unanimous vote. MS. BITTER-Which, I understand that. MR. BRYANT-Could I respond to this, Mr. Chairman? Because I was the one who made the motion. MR. MC NULTY-Go ahead. MR. BRYANT-I have empathy with you. MS. BITTER-I understand. MR. BRYANT-However, when you have a meeting on December 8th, and I'm doing this from memory. MS. BITTER-Twelfth, December 12th. MR. BRYANT-Whatever, and then two months later we still don't have an answer, and this application has got a history of that, though. There was another no-show, and if I remember, there were in total four supposed appearances before us. Okay, and no new information was ever transmitted in all that period of time. So, I, you know, if this went for a vote, for re-hearing, I'd be totally opposed to it. I say re-submit the application. MS. BITTER-Right, and obviously that's what the applicant is trying to do, but obviously your denial creates a prejudice to making that resubmission since the circumstances as they exist still exist. So that's why we're put in a position where we want, and we're working efficiently trying to correct the issue does exist, and we don't want an enforcement proceedings to start, however, we'd obviously like to move on from the variance application. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/23/08) MR. BRYANT-Well, that's fine. You have the information by February 15th. You turn it over to Staff on a new application, and we'll move forward. You have new information now, okay, but to re-open the old thing, I don't know. I think we ought to start from scratch. MS. BITTER-Okay. We just differ in our opinions as to the reasons why, but that's for the Board to determine. MR. URRICO-I have no desire to re-open this, to re-vote on this. MR. ABBATE-No. I mean, if he wants to go, no absolutely, neither do I. It only takes one vote to say no. MS. BITTER-I realize that. MR. ABBATE-And I'll tell you right now, my vote's no. MR. GARRAND-I concur with Mr. Bryant. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I guess the answer then for you is. MS. BITTER-It's quite clear. MR. BRYANT-Well, it's not a lost cause because Staff is aware of your circumstances, and if you re-apply, you present a new application, I don't think enforcement proceedings are going to be forthcoming. MS. BITTER-Right, and we've obviously talked to Craig about that. MR. BRYANT-Because he understands what your situation is. MS. BITTER-But I wanted the Board to be aware that it wasn't as if everything was stopped in November and nothing happened since January, which I think Craig did communicate to you, but obviously, you know, that wasn't enough. MR. BRYANT-Start with a clean slate. MS. BITTER-All right. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-You're welcome. MR. MC NULTY-Thanks. Okay. I've got three presumably quick administrative type things. First off, about a year ago, we passed a resolution regarding number of copies of applications to be submitted, and such. This is a cut and paste job, but this contains the words of the previous resolution, and I thought it might be easier for people just to see what's there, to understand what we're suggesting now. I couldn't figure out how to make my computer print half of one page and half of the next page on a pdf. So I used a copy machine, but basically this resolution that we passed last year said for Use Variances, Area Variances and Sign Variance applications, we wanted essentially nineteen copies of the original application, of the deed, and the original denial letter. Staff now tells me that, at this point in time, they see no need for anything more than fifteen copies. MR. BRYANT-Does that include the original? MR. MC NULTY-So it would mean, for Item Number One, it would be the original plus fourteen copies. For Item Number Two, it would be a total of fifteen copies of the deed, and for Item Three, it would be original plus fourteen copies. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. URRICO-I'II ask this question again, since I asked it last year. Why do we need more than nine copies? We only have seven members of the Board, plus the two alternates. That's nine copies. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I can answer that, because Staff requested it. MR. URRICO-Okay. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/23/08) MR. URRICO-But we're not making the request. They're making the request. MR. MC NULTY-We need a copy for the official file. MR. ABBATE-Right, that's one, and nine. MR. MC NULTY-And that makes ten copies there and extra copies for transmittal to various places, including the Town Clerk. MR. BROWN-Correct. If an application has to be referred to the County, we want to have a copy to go to them. We always want to have an extra copy in the file in case somebody loses one, it's easy to have one. Staff, whoever's going to be reviewing the Staff Notes. So nineteen just was too much. Fifteen is what it's always, always been. MR. URRICO-I just hope we're not sending them to each of the schools, because I know they were on a distribution list at one point. MR. BROWN-Agendas, but not applications. Just agendas. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Well, I think it makes sense, Mr. Chairman, quite frankly. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. MR. ABBATE-If Staff is willing to live with that, so be it. MR. MC NULTY-Yes, it was the Staff's suggestion. MR. ABBATE-No problem. MR. MC NULTY-So, you know, I figured anything we can do to reduce the burden on the applicants is fine. So, in that case, I'd make a motion. MOTION TO AMEND THE AREA, USE AND SIGN VARIANCE APPLICATIONS FOR THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, AND NOTE THAT THIS MOTION SUPERSEDES THE MOTION OF LAST YEAR AT THIS TIME, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: The wording essentially as it is, with the following changes. Item Number One, we now call for an original plus 14 copies. Item Number Two, we'd call for a total of 15 copies of the Deed, and Item Number Three, we would call for the Original denial letter plus 14 copies. Everything else remains the same. Duly adopted this 23rd day of January, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-It makes sense. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Next item, at the moment, it looks like we're going to have possibly a maximum of three cases on our first February meeting, including Schermerhorn. The second meeting, at the moment, it doesn't look like there's going to be anything. Now, what's going to happen with Schermerhorn I'm not sure, because it depends on Planning Board. It may be that we're back to the same situation of tabling. MR. ABBATE-If I could make a comment. MR. URRICO-Can I just jump in real quick? My problem with what transpired here tonight and what transpired the 12th was that we had already reached a point of polling. We were already, I mean, I basically stated my position, as everybody else on the Board did, and we were getting set for a motion. MR. ABBATE-That's correct. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/23/08) MR. URRICO-And so now we're, you know, we're going to re-open the public hearing because it wasn't closed that night. Are we going to re-hear everything that we heard that night? Are we going to be here for four and a half hours hearing the same stuff all over again when I've already stated my position. I've already made up, I'm on public record as stating my position. Are we going to go through this whole thing again? That's my question? MR. ABBATE-Once a motion is moved, it may not be interrupted. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but no motion was moved, but I want to answer you, because that's a very important point that you bring out, and the reason I took the position I took tonight was because I was at the last Planning Board meeting, and they did not allow public comment. I think that is a flawed procedure, okay. It's up to the Chairman to spell out what we will allow in the public record. If, for example, Linke wants to get up and throw popsicle sticks on the floor, frankly, the Chairman can put an end to it and say we've already heard that discussion. If you don't have something new, let somebody else speak. It doesn't have to last four hours, but it's critical that we allow everybody the opportunity to speak. See, I think tonight we should have allowed those that wanted to speak the opportunity, and if, and the Chairman is in control here, okay, and if they get up and they start saying the same old thing, say, you know, at the last meeting you said that. Have you got anything new? If not, let somebody else talk, and that's how to run through it. MR. URRICO-Well, we're probably going to have the same situation come up at the next meeting. Because I don't see the Planning Board making a decision before that. So, in that case, are we going to say, limit the discussion to the parking situation and the parking situation only? That's the only thing we're addressing? Is that what we're going to do? MR. BRYANT-That's what the Chairman should do. There's no question about it, but if we're going to have Schermerhorn on any night, we shouldn't hear anything else. MR. ABBATE-Yes. May I address that for a second? There was a good article in the Post Star chastising the Planning Board, and I agree with the Post Star. Anything past, first of all, in the law, it says we must hold a hearing within a reasonable period of time. Our hearings are scheduled from seven to eleven. Anything past seven to eleven, we should cut it off right there. To prevent what happened with the Planning Board and being chastised, I suggest we do Schermerhorn on an entirely separate date. MR. UNDERWOOD-We have to. MR. ABBATE-I mean, you know, that's my recommendation. MR. BRYANT-Even if we don't come to a conclusion that night, let the public speak, you know, because you stated your position, and I stated my position, that doesn't mean that, come the time to actually vote, make a motion and vote, that we're going to have to re- poll the Board. Because we may have new information. MR. UNDERWOOD-Here's the other thing, too. In other words, we deferred the SEQRA review to the Planning Board, all right, and I know before the meeting we were kind of discussing amongst ourselves. What does the SEQRA review have to do with us? Okay. In other words, we had one item that we were dealing with with Schermerhorn. That was the parking issue, the excess parking that they were requesting, all right. Nonetheless, if we had done the SEQRA review, we would have to go through that whole form and we would have to address every possible SEQRA outcome of any kind of effect it would have, whether it was frogs or whatever that lived down there or anything else like that. So I don't think that we can dismiss the SEQRA review, except for that area that we're going to be making our decision on, parking issue only. In other words, all those other issues come into play with SEQRA, traffic issues, etc., etc., etc. You can compound them all in there. So, in other words, our decision, our rationale, has to be based upon, in other words, if we went through the SEQRA process, I'm sure that people would say, well, wait a minute, wait a minute, there's a possibility it might be an issue with a CEA or something like that, or the parking or the traffic issues that we dealt with prior to that, also. So, in other words, I think that we're going to have to have time to see, we're going to have to be provided with those minutes of that Planning Board meeting where they reach their decision. We're going to have to look at the total analysis that they did, because that is going to have a bearing on what we do and our decision making process. I mean, it's not like say you put the blinders on and you only look at parking lot. There's a big building there. There's all those other things that go with it, too, but our 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/23/08) decision making should be based upon the big picture, not just focused on one little tiny thing. All those things come into play there, but, I mean, when we make our rationale, the parking issue should be the important aspect. MR. ABBATE-Well, also, Jim, in our motion to the Planning Board, if I'm not mistaken, we specifically requested they do a traffic study. So a traffic study has to be part of our decision. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think there was more question in our mind that it was, it may not have been primary issue, but it was secondary to that, generated by the excess parking that we were going to provide. MR. MC NULTY-Well, yes, but there's, I guess, two angles on it. One, if, for instance, the Planning Board should look at the traffic issue and come back with a conclusion, it's not an issue, it's not a problem, under SEQRA, we can't look at it and say we don't agree, we think there's a major problem. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, they make the decision for us. MR. MC NULTY-They've made the decision. We cannot question it. MR. ABBATE-Correct. MR. MC NULTY-The only way we can handle some of those is backing into it on the basis that if we allow the increased parking that it changes the character of the neighborhood or something to that effect. MR. UNDERWOOD-It's the least common denominator versus the greatest common denominator. The parking really sets the tone for whether the project goes. MR. ABBATE-Can I make a suggestion, guys? We better be careful. Okay. I would terminate this conversation. We've said too much already. You can't do this. MR. MC NULTY-Well, we can't evaluate any of the factors. So I think probably Chuck is right. We've gone about as far as we should on this tonight. MR. URRICO-But I agree it should be on the agenda by itself. MR. ABBATE-Yes, really, truly. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. How does everybody else feel? Do you think it should be a separate item? MR. GARRAND-We shouldn't be hearing cases after eleven o'clock at night, especially, you know, like me, I know I've got to be up at six o'clock in the morning. MR. URRICO-I'm already working by that time. MR. ABBATE-And I'm a working man now, too. MR. GARRAND-And to focus on these things late at night, I'm 60% at best, trying to focus on these things. If Schermerhorn goes, you know, until ten o'clock at night and we're not going to hear these other two things until eleven, eleven thirty at night, I think Schermerhorn should be on its own. MRS. HUNT-I agree. MR. ABBATE-I agree. MR. BROWN-Just a couple of procedural things. When you requested that the Planning Board be SEQRA Lead Agency, you give up any rights to perform any SEQRA reviews. So you can't talk about anything, as far as the SEQRA aspect of the project goes. MR. ABBATE-Absolutely correct. MR. BROWN-You're stuck with the five criteria. The specific resolution that was passed to the Planning Board was that we request that you be Lead Agency and pay special attention to traffic and transportation. So you know, a traffic study was part of the applicant's submittal to the Planning Board. It's not something that you're going to get 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/23/08) back as part of the recommendation from the Planning Board. What you're going to get from the Planning Board is a notice of their SEQRA determination. We find this project to have a negative declaration. There are no adverse environmental impacts, or, we're going to pos dec this and find that there are significant adverse impacts and they have to do an EIS, Environmental Impact Statement, it's going to be one of those two things. So, you know, if there's a thought of, well, we can't focus on this, but we can focus on that for SEQRA, you can't focus on anything SEQRA related once the Planning Board makes a determination, because you kind of gave up that right to them. Timing wise, procedurally, I know that the two items, other than Schermerhorn, that are on are similar in scope and scale to the project that you saw tonight, not huge. Not that anything is an easy project before the Board or a slam dunk or they should have an answer within five minutes, but I know that they're not large. I do have confidence in this Board that they can get through them relatively quickly and still have time to do two and a half hours on Schermerhorn before you even get to ten o'clock. That's my opinion. You can certainly limit what comment you take during the public hearing, focus it only on the parking. I can tell you right now that of the 30 people that were here in the audience tonight, probably more than 90% of them want to talk about other things besides parking. They want to talk about traffic and stormwater and Rush Pond and things that don't really play directly towards the parking variance. Having said that, you know, when that time comes, you can certainly do what you want to do for the public hearing. The other procedural issue is, the Planning Board has this on for a February 7th decision on the SEQRA. If they make a decision that night, the first possible meeting that you guys could hear it is the 20th. That allows that application to go back to the Planning Board, if they want to see it again, in February. If you wait and hear it on the second meeting, there's not an opportunity for the applicant to get back to the Planning Board in February. Do we have to rush through it? No. Is it a highly publicized project that I can tell you that, in my office, we try and schedule it as quickly as we can, like we do with any big project. That's not any special treatment, but we put it on agendas to try and get it back before the Boards as soon as possible. So, obviously you guys are goin~ to set your own schedule. I'm just trying to let you know why we came up with the 20t for the two small items and the Schermerhorn application. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I disagree completely and if necessarily I'll do a motion. MR. BROWN-I'm not surprised. MR. ABBATE-I'm going to do a motion right now. MOTION THAT AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-2007 SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS, L.P. BE HEARD ON A SEPARATE MEETING BY ITSELF, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 23rd day of January, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty NOES: NONE MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Then I would suggest, Craig, that we've tabled Schermerhorn to the 20th. So that's when we should hear Schermerhorn, and we'll put the other two on for the 27th, and that answers one other question I had, but I'll throw it out for thinking in the future. The other question I had was, if we had just one meeting with substantive cases, is there anything that anybody would like to see in a workshop meeting at some point, and we don't need an answer now for tonight, because we've got time, but be thinking about that, whether there's anything coming up that strikes you that you'd like to hear more from, whether it's a spiel from the Town Attorney on rules of evidence or something on anything from, anything, map reading, whatever, you know, you feel that either you or the rest of the Board maybe could benefit from. Keep it in mind, raise it whenever, and when we get an opportunity, we'll have a list of topics to throw there. One other thing that also we don't necessarily need an answer tonight, is Staff has asked if we would take a look at the checklist that he's using for applications, and I've got copies here I'm going to pass out, and see whether there's anything on here that you feel we don't need to have checked, or if there's something missing that we would like to have Staff and perhaps the Chairman look at when we're evaluating completeness of an application, or any missing information. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/23/08) MR. ABBATE-Well, in that vein, we have a resolution passed by the ZBA that indicates that there are five specific things that must be included, a deed, a pre-conference hearing, the signature, a survey, and something else I don't recall. MR. MC NULTY-Right. MR. ABBATE-So we're not going to modify that, I hope. MR. MC NULTY-The goal is not to necessarily modify that. The question is, is there anything else. MR. ABBATE-Besides that. MR. MC NULTY-Besides that, and, you know, what's on this list is a fair number of things. MR. BROWN-Yes, not to interrupt, but that's the generic checklist application from all the applications. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. BROWN-What the question is is are all those things on that checklist things that you need to see every time. Do you need to see, for every application, handicap parking and where the energy distribution parts are? Those are really Site Plan things. Sometimes they play in, sometimes they don't. What the goal is, for both all planning and zoning applications, beginning immediately, is to require the applicants to provide, to both Boards, the Planning Board and the Zoning Board, responses to all those items. If they don't have any handicap parking as part of their boathouse application, they provide a response that says not applicable. That way when we review the applications at the Staff level for completeness, and if they've given responses to all the items, it's complete. If the Board's not satisfied with the information that's provided, it's up to the Board to say, I don't accept your not applicable response. I want to see this information. MR. ABBATE-So we're not modifying those things that you and I talked about. MR. BROWN-No. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, that's okay. MR. BROWN-With that in mind, you know, give this list a thought. If there's something you want to see or. MR. MC NULTY-No, and the point is, if there isn't a response to some of these things that are on the list, then it's going to be determined not to be complete. MR. ABBATE-Yes, I understand. That's a good idea. Why not. MR. MC NULTY-And we don't want to unnecessarily determine something not complete. MR. ABBATE-Agree. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. MC NULTY-So just take a look at it and scribble some notes on it or email me some notes or bring copies the next meeting, whatever, or if it all looks okay, that's all right, too. We just want to make sure we're on target, and I think that's it. So meeting adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Charles McNulty, Chairman 21