Loading...
2008.03.19(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/19/08) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 19, 2008 INDEX Area Variance No. 5-2008 K-Twin Holdings/Daniel W. Krueger 1. Tax Map No. 296.20-1-9 Sign Variance No. 56-2007 1093 Group, Rite Aid Store 2. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-55 Area Variance No. 1-2008 Brian McCall 11. Tax Map No. 302.08-1-39, 38 Area Variance No. 6-2008 Dawn Sweet 12. Tax Map No. 309.7-2-26 & 27 Area Variance No. 7-2008 Daniel Hunt 15. Tax Map No. 308.1-1-56 and 57 Area Variance No. 8-2008 Morgan Vittengl 17. Tax Map No. 289.17-1-48 Area Variance No. 9-2008 Gregg Brown 25. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-7; 239.7-1-6 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 03/19/08) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 19, 2008 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT JIM UNDERWOOD, ACTING CHAIRMAN RICHARD GARRAND JOYCE HUNT JOAN JENKIN, ALTERNATE BRIAN CLEMENTS, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT ROY URRICO ALLAN BRYANT CHARLES ABBATE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll call the March 19, 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, that’s me also, 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 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. We’re a little bit short-handed here tonight, and I want to remind all the applicants, if you’re present in the room here, that normally we have a seven member Board, but because we’ve got a bunch of people sick out with the flu this week or out of town, for various excuses, because we’re only sitting five members here tonight, if we’re going to approve your applications, it’ll have to be approved on at least a four to one vote to approve it. So if at the time, you know, if there’s any of you who feel like you have a controversial one that you don’t want to deal with, based upon the fact that we’re not sitting a full Board here, then you could withdraw and request a tabling motion for a subsequent meeting in the future. I know some of the ones we have tonight are pretty routine ones that we’re going to be dealing with. Some of them are not, you know, and we’ll make that decision in regards to that when you come up before us here. AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II K-TWIN HOLDINGS/DANIEL W. KRUEGER AGENT(S): RICHARD E. JONES ASSOCIATES OWNER(S): K-TWIN HOLDINGS/DANIEL W. KRUEGER ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: WEST SIDE MEADOWBROOK RD., NORTH OF QUAKER RD. INTERSECTION APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 4,329 SQ. FT. OFFICE BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED SITE DEVELOPMENT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT YARD AND SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM WETLANDS CLEARING REGULATIONS AND RETAINING WALL HEIGHT. CROSS REF. FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT SPR WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: FEBRUARY 13, 2008 LOT SIZE: 0.22 AC.; 0.43 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.20-1-9 AND 10 SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-6-060 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/19/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-I do have some old business to read in, and this is in regards to one of the subjects that we dealt with at our last meeting, and that was the K Twin holdings, which is located at the west side of Meadowbrook Road, north of Quaker Road intersection, and that was a project where we had the Planning Board to assume Lead Agency status in regards to the SEQRA review, and for their recommendations on that project. It’s a small lot surrounded by wetlands, and they were intruding pretty close to the wetlands, requiring almost full relief from the wetland setbacks, and so I think maybe what we’ll do tonight, do we need to do a? MR. BROWN-Yes, I think what you want to do is a resolution granting them your approval to be Lead Agency. You requested it last time. They did a seek last night. So to formalize it, you just want to do a resolution. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I haven’t really had a chance to read through what they said here because this just got handed to us at the beginning, but in essence I think what we’ll do is I’ll make a resolution. MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL S GRANTS LEAD AGENCY STATUS TO THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD IN REGARDS TO SITE PLAN NO. 7-2008, FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 4-2008 AND AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2008 K-TWIN HOLDINGS, BASED UPON RECEIPT FROM THEM OF THE FACT THAT THEY MADE A RESOLUTION INDICATING THAT THEY WOULD ACCEPT LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR REVIEW OF THAT PROJECT, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: th Duly adopted this 19 day of March, 2008, by the following vote: MR. UNDERWOOD-And I’ll read their motion. “MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD SEEKS LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR SITE PLAN NO. 7-2007 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 4-2008 K TWIN HOLDINGS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic:” And it was unanimously adopted by the Board members that were present that evening. And that was dated March 11, 2008. So I’ll put forth that resolution that we accept this from them. AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 56-2007 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED 1093 GROUP, LLC/RITE AID STORE AGENT(S): BLAIR COMPANIES OWNER(S): 1093 GROUP, LLC ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 724 GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF ADDITIONAL WALL SIGNS ON THE FAÇADE OF THE RITE AID STORE. ALSO THE APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF AN ADDITIONAL FREESTANDING SIGN ON THE PARCEL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE SIGNS. CROSS REF.: N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 LOT SIZE: 2.88 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-55 SECTION 140 STEPHANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-Staff Notes on that, and I think there’s some additional information because there’s been some consolidation of the signs on that project, trying to bring them more into conformance here, but I’ll read the Staff Notes regarding that. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 56-2007, 1093 Group, LLC/Rite Aid store, Meeting Date: March 19, 2008 “Project Location: 724 Glen Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of an additional free standing sign and multiple additional wall signs. Relief Required: Applicant requires 2 additional wall signs. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/19/08) The original application materials requested relief for 7 signs. The applicant has since consolidated some of the original signs into one location above the main entrance and the appropriate sign permit has been issued for the same. Further, a sign permit has been issued for the free standing sign on Glen Street. The directional signs; 4a, 4b, 4c, 5 and 6 do not require signs and have already been installed at the site. The relief requested with this application is for signs 2A and 2B, the Food Mart and 1 Hr Photo signs respectively. The additional monument sign on Lafayette would be eligible for an Off Site Sign permit from the Planning Board, if the size were reduced to 10 sf maximum. If the applicant wished to proceed with the proposed 28 sf sign, relief is necessary per section 140-5, A as the sign is on an adjoining property. Note: No property owner authorization has been submitted for that parcel. Additionally, no setback information for the proposed freestanding sign is shown on the submitted plans. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the proposed signs in the preferred locations. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a lesser number of signs, consolidation of signs, and smaller signs. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for multiple wall signs where only one are allowed may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: The community is a commercially developed portion of Route 9. Would a variance for multiple signs trigger additional requests for surrounding properties? 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Site Plan Review approval for Rite Aid ( minutes previously provided) BP 2007-255 FS sign BP 2007-247 wall sign Staff comments: As noted in previous comments, property owner authorization is needed for the property in which the additional freestanding sign is proposed. An alternative to seeking a Sign Variance is for the applicant to seek an Off Premises Sign Permit from the Planning Board, however, the maximum allowable for such a sign is 10 sf. SEQR Status: Type Unlisted” MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter for the record. I’m an attorney with Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes. We were one of the authorized agents that was submitted, I believe, in December. As the Staff Notes identify, throughout the process here, the client has reduced the relief that has been requested in consolidating the signs, based on the Board’s concerns. At this time what we are seeking is two additional wall signs, as noted in the Staff comments, which are titled Food Mart and One Hour Photo signs. Respectfully, those two signs total 11.12 square feet in size. We are allowed to have 100 square feet of wall signage, and what we’re requesting in total would be 91.67 square feet, if you total all the wall signs that we’re requesting. So we’re actually under the size of the wall signs that are allowed under the Code, but we feel that due to the design of the building it would be more aesthetic to place the signs in the location as presented in the application, so that it’s not looked at as one big, huge, cluttered sign, 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/19/08) which identify the services provided to the customers. The reason for these additional signs, as I just mentioned, is to outline for the customers driving on Glen Street the services that are provided with this Rite Aid location. I know that at prior meetings it was discussed whether or not a look that’s being presented here in Queensbury has been dealt with in other towns, and actually it was just actually a Rite Aid that was constructed in the Town of Lake George that was part of our February submission demonstrating that layout, showing that it’s very similar to what we’re presenting here this evening. These two signs would be subtle. They would be backlit. It would be channel letters, very attractive signs, so that they don’t generate a great deal of attention and wouldn’t be something that would be beyond the requirements of the Code. As for the off premises sign, I know that there’s still a question as to authorization that exists. Again, in our February submission we had presented a sign permit application that was signed by Mary J. Canale. She’s the owner of that property. I know in September it was discussed that the arrangement between the Rite Aid owner and Mary Jane Canale was that there’s an easement of record which allows Rite Aid to put a monument sign on the Lafayette Street. That monument sign would obviously lessen the traffic present on Glen Street, which obviously a lot of congestion is on Glen Street, and re-route a lot of the customers to utilize that Lafayette entrance, which would be a positive impact for all the area in that vicinity. What would be presented with the sign, it’s 39.99 square feet, as I said, it’s a monument. As you can see, what we had in our layout, if I can bring your attention to, it’s described as CA, the actual depiction. The sign has a blank cabinet incorporated in that 39.99 square feet, and that would actually be because the parcel that Mary Jane Canale owns is currently vacant. When a business occupies that premises, that’s where their signage would occupy. So there wouldn’t be a need for another monument sign. Everything would be consolidated on that one sign. MRS. JENKIN-So actually the Rite Aid sign is 27 square feet? MS. BITTER-The Rite Aid sign, yes, is 27.99 square feet. MRS. JENKIN-Twenty-eight. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody have any questions? MR. CLEMENTS-I just had one. I have this diagram right here. MS. BITTER-Yes. MR. CLEMENTS-Is that sign, Sign Number Seven? MS. BITTER-Yes. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. MRS. JENKIN-And the picture of the, this is the Lake George Rite Aid? MS. BITTER-Yes, the one in the packet. MRS. JENKIN-And these are the signs that would be used on the Glen Street one? MS. BITTER-Right. MR. GARRAND-Have you gone to the Planning Board for an off site sign permit? MS. BITTER-No, we haven’t, because of the size of the sign. It doesn’t classify for the requirements. I think it can only be, I think it’s 10 square feet maximum. So this sign would be 39, obviously 28 is to occupy the Rite Aid, but the remaining area, like I said, is for a future tenant if someone does occupy that. MR. GARRAND-Okay, and we have, on file from Ms. Canale, the authorization? MS. BITTER-I’ve submitted it with our February submission. It’s actually, I think, Page Three, Four, I’m sorry. MR. BROWN-Yes, just to be clear, Mr. Garrand, it’s a signed copy of a sign permit application. It’s not the Owner’s Authorization page in the variance that we typically see. MS. BITTER-Right, that was the discrepancy. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/19/08) MR. BROWN-Yes. There’s a signature, but it’s not, you know, what we usually see. That’s all. MRS. JENKIN-So you need a separate piece of paper? You need a separate authorization than this? MR. BROWN-Well, as attorney Bitter will probably attest to, it’s always nice to have an original signature in the file, and that’s not what we. MS. BITTER-Which we can supplement. I think there was just some, when we saw the Staff Notes I understand where Craig’s coming from, that this was just what was submitted. MR. UNDERWOOD-I have a question for Craig. If you look at the whole corridor there, is there any sense that eventually they’re going to try to put any kind of a service road that connects all those parcels through there, parallel to Route 9? MR. BROWN-I’ve not seen any plans to that effect. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, I haven’t either, but I’m just thinking for future purposes, you know, as those parcels are redeveloped, you know, I mean, nothing usually lasts that long. MR. BROWN-Along Route 9? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. BROWN-Yes, I would think not. There’s a pretty substantial Niagara Mohawk right of way that goes through there between Red Lobster and that little strip mall some place. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, but I was thinking more or less from Valvoline down to the south, you know, it would make sense, you know, in the grand scheme of things. MR. BROWN-Like an alley kind of thing, yes. That would be great, but. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, knowing with that big blank that you’ve got with that big blank parcel in the back there, too, that that’s probably going to get chucked up with buildings at some point in the future also. Yes, my only thing, with that access road in the back there, right now it only feeds one place, you know what I’m saying, and eventually, you know, that could morph into feeding more than one, one of those parcels back there, and I think the question in my mind would be, on that sign, you know, whether, by permitting this sign to be oversized, what happens when everybody else loops into it or becomes part of that. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-Does Rite Aid own that parcel where that road exists there? MS. BITTER-No, they have an easement. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s an easement. MS. BITTER-And I guess, it’s my understanding the easement language allows them to have a sign on Mary J. Canale’s property. MRS. JENKIN-So the whole road is an easement, so that actually the property line goes like this? MS. BITTER-Yes. I don’t have the actual Site Plan. I’m not sure how the tax maps break out, but it’s my understanding that’s part of the easement. MR. UNDERWOOD-How do we work it with easements? Like once that parcel gets developed in the back there, though, I mean, is that who owns that parcel where the easement is now? MS. BITTER-Mary J. Canale. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/19/08) MS. BITTER-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Okay. MRS. JENKIN-My feeling that it is a tremendous advantage to try to get some traffic away from Glen Street. So I think that the road itself onto Lafayette is really, really good. I’d like to see more of that, but I guess I don’t understand, if you went to the Planning Board, do they have to give their approval, first of all, for the 10 square foot sign, and then you have to come back to us for a variance on that, or what? MR. BROWN-Well, if you went over that 10 square feet, that’s correct, it would be back before this Board. It wouldn’t qualify for an off premises sign. MRS. JENKIN-Right, but they would have to give the first permission for it, would they? MR. BROWN-No, not necessarily. That’s just an option for somebody that a 10 square foot sign works for, they can go to the Planning Board. If they know automatically they want to go to 11 or 50, they have to start here. You don’t have to start at the Planning Board. MRS. JENKIN-So if we gave permission for that, then it would be a done deal and they wouldn’t have to go to the Planning Board at all. MR. BROWN-Correct. MRS. JENKIN-So it could be done tonight? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is there any thought given to making it a 10 square foot, or is that just too tiny? MS. BITTER-They said it was too small, and because most of these signs are prefabricated, this is the signage that, the smallest they have that would fit this purposes, because it’s also a monument sign. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m thinking more in a sense of, I remember when we did Staples. Remember Staples wanted a sign on the other side of their building so you could see it from Quaker Road and things like that. We get into these little things, and you’re thinking, the amount of traffic that’s generated on Lafayette Street as compared to Route 9 is pretty minimal, and I think that given the fact that you can now, at the present time, see the building, you know, as you’re passing up Lafayette, once people realize where Rite Aid is, I think that they might utilize that back access point. MS. BITTER-Absolutely. Especially with the signage, they’ll know that that driveway connects it to, the local traffic especially. MRS. JENKIN-How high is it? MR. UNDERWOOD-Six foot eight or something like that. MRS. JENKIN-Is that the base of it there? MS. BITTER-Right. MRS. JENKIN-So this is the whole sign here? MS. BITTER-On CA? MRS. JENKIN-Yes. MS. BITTER-It looks like it’s about six feet, with the base being eight. Is that how it’s read? MR. BROWN-Yes. It looks like it’s six feet tall, nine feet four inches wide. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. So it’s only six feet tall, then. MR. BROWN-Correct. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/19/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-So it’s pretty similar to that one across the street over there for Tractor Supply and all those. MR. BROWN-Yes, that’s right. MR. UNDERWOOD-We did the same thing there, where we just kept cobbing stuff on lower down as more places came in and we kept it at a minimal height. All right. Shall we open up the public hearing? Okay. I’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak in regards to this request? Okay. It looks like no one wants to comment on that, so I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-Anything else you want to add? MS. BITTER-No, not at this point. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I guess I’ll pole the Board. I guess I’ll start with you, Brian. What are your thoughts on, and make sure you detail both of the requests. We’ve got the two wall signs requested, as well as the freestanding. MS. BITTER-The monument. MR. CLEMENTS-First of all, I think that they’ve done a good job of consolidating some signs. I know they’ve been here two times before, and we’ve narrowed it down so that it’s quite a bit smaller signage that they have now. I don’t have a problem with any of these. Actually the two signs that they’ve got on the side, looking at the picture, look fine. I think that having one over Lafayette Street would be would be a good idea, so that people would go in on that side. So I would be in favor of both of those, the signage on the walls and the freestanding sign. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich? MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was in favor of this last time around, but I also think it’s a distinct advantage that we’re going to be combining two signs into one with respect to the monument sign. On the façade of the building, I’ve been over three different states, and I’ve seen these Rite Aids all over the place, and it’s really not as obtrusive as what’s allowed in some other areas. I think it’s, you know, a good way to do it. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan? MRS. JENKIN-I’d agree, 2A and 2B. I think that it’s an advantage to have them spread a little bit apart so that there isn’t a whole group of signs that are fighting with each other, and I said before, I think that it’s a good idea to have the entrance on Lafayette, and I would be in favor of that sign as well. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I have to agree with my fellow Board members. At first I was reluctant about 2A and 2B, but as you said, combined the signs are not over 100 square feet, and I have no problem with the monument sign. So I’d be in favor at this point. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess I’ll go along with what everybody else has said. I think that in one respect, like when you compare it to looking at the one up in Lake George, this building façade is kind of stark, you know, and if you’re driving along Route 9 going north, and you look at the side of the building, there’s really not going to be anything at all on the side of that building, and you’re saying to yourself it almost looks like it needs something to, you know, or some kind of decorations put up on it or whatever. Unfortunately there’s no windows on that side of the building, and I think that, you know, had they incorporated some windows in, we could have requested that these signs go in the windows, and if you go to the Rite Aid store up in Warrensburg, when you drive past that one, all the signs for one hour photo, food mart, they’re all in the windows of the façade of the building, and I think that that’s something that maybe could have 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/19/08) been worked in when they came in with the plans for the building itself, but, I mean, it is kind of a, you know, it’s not like a done to the teeth building, but it’s not really unpleasant to look at either. So I think I would go along with the two wall signs also. I think they’re small enough so they’re not going to be brightly, gaudily lit up, and I would assume that those signs are going to turn off at nighttime when the building shuts down operations? MS. BITTER-I think they said at the last meeting it might be a 24 hour operation. So I know that they’re dim lit. They’re channel signs. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but, I mean, again, they’re red, so they’re not really like bright, neon yellow or something like that glaring in your eyes. MS. BITTER-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-As far as the one over on Lafayette Street, I think that, you know, we could condition that with maybe a caveat that in the future if other businesses are served by that access road, I would think it would be important for us to think about the future, not just the present. In other words, we’re looking at this application, and I could go along with everybody else and say that, you know, it’s a little bit oversized, at 28 square feet from 10 square feet, but 10 square feet, as you said, is kind of small. This sign isn’t up on a pole. It’s a monument sign down on the ground. So it’s not really that big of an extra presence on Lafayette Street, but at the same time I think that, should in the future this road become incorporated into other businesses along that stretch of road there, I think that we might need to go back and revisit this and lower the size of that sign down to accommodate other businesses, and I think at that point in time we could go with a 10 square foot for all the other businesses they put on there, because I think that would give us more of a sign that would be of equal value to anybody who might apply for a signage in the future on that parcel. I don’t know how you guys feel about that. MRS. JENKIN-That sounds good. That’s fine with me. MS. BITTER-Or utilize the blank panel. Is that essentially what you’re talking about, like in the Price Rite? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, you know, just so, you know, like you could keep your 28 square feet for now, but in the future you might get limited to a piece of the pie, you know, in the total size that might be permitted. MR. GARRAND-Counselor, would the applicant be amicable to that? MS. BITTER-I think that we’re understanding that the 12 square foot was the area that would be available for future tenants. If, obviously, there’s discussions with future tenants that modifications have to be made, the sign that’s being approved is the 39 square foot sign. So I think I understand what he’s. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I think we need to keep in mind that, you know, you don’t own the property there. Who knows what’s going to get built back there in the future, and somebody might want their big monster sign out there, if that’s going to be the main access point for that parcel. We don’t know. MRS. JENKIN-The only thing is, if we’ve given the approval for the variance, then it would then be grandfathered in, wouldn’t it, in the future? MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I think just with, you know, we could bring it into conformance, in other words, when there become more multiple businesses that could possibly be on that site, at that point in time, there may need to be a reconfiguration. That drive’s not going to be just for the access to, you know, the pharmacy that’s existing now, but it might be some other businesses that are tied in at that point in time, too, but I know that, in the sense that on a corner you’re allowed to have signage on both sides, right, on a corner lot? MS. BITTER-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So does somebody want to make a motion? MR. BROWN-This is an Unlisted Action. You’ll have to go through the SEQRA. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Yes, I guess we better do that. I’m sorry about that. Okay. Under the Short Environmental Assessment Form here, again, the project applicant is 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/19/08) the 1093 Group LLC. The project name is the Rite Aid Pharmacy. Project Location is Queensbury in the County of Warren, and the project location is 724 Upper Glen Street. In describing the project, it’s an 11,153 square foot Rite Aid Pharmacy has been approved for Site Plan approval. We proposed to install additional signage that will require variances. The amount of land affected on this project is 1.605 acres. Present land use in the vicinity of the project is commercial, and will the proposed action comply with the existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? Yes. Does the action involve a permit approval or funding now or ultimately from any other governmental agency, state or local? Yes, it will require a Sign Variance, and is it still going to require review from the Planning Board for that sign? MR. BROWN-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-We’re superseding that. Okay. As a result of the proposed action, will the existing permit or approval require modification? No. All right. “-“Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” Yes or no? I just need a yes or no. I would say no. MRS. JENKIN-No. MR. GARRAND-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. “Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” I would say no at this point. MRS. JENKIN-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” I would say no. MR. GARRAND-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” I would say no on that. MR. GARRAND-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” I would say no. MR. GARRAND-No. MR. CLEMENTS-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“C4. 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 think we are talking about a Sign Variance here, and there was some concern in Staff Notes that it might trigger requests for more signage in the area, but I think that we’ll just have to deal with that in the future. Based upon what we’ve done here, I don’t think it’s going to be that great of a change. “C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” I would say, other than more business generated on Route 9, no. MR. GARRAND-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?” I would say no. MR. GARRAND-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?” I would say no. MR. GARRAND-No. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/19/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?” I would say no. MR. GARRAND-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. GARRAND-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-No. Okay. MOTION TO ACCEPT THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM AND IN GENERAL WE FIND NO POTENTIAL IMPACTS AS A RESULT OF THE REQUESTED EXTRA SIGNAGE ON THE PARCEL, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 724 Glen Street. th Duly adopted this 19 day of March, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Does somebody want to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 56-2007 1093 GROUP, LLC/RITE AID STORE, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joan Jenkin: 724 Glen Street. The applicant proposes construction of additional freestanding sign and multiple additional wall signs. The applicant proposes placement of an additional wall sign on the façade of the Rite Aid store. Also the applicant proposes placement of an additional freestanding sign on the parcel. Relief requested from the number of allowable signs. On the balancing test. Can benefits be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant? At this point, benefits don’t seem to be able to be achieved by other means feasible. Will this produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood or character to nearby properties? I cannot see any undesirable change in the neighborhood or character in any way to nearby properties. Is the request substantial? I think this request might be deemed moderate. Will the request have adverse physical or environmental impacts on the neighborhood? No, it will not. Is this alleged difficulty? I do believe it to be self-created. As an added condition, more than two businesses in there, re-visit the issue of the size of the sign with respect to being in compliance, should there be more than two businesses utilizing that access road. So I make a motion we approve Area Variance No. 56-2007. th Duly adopted this 19 day of March, 2008, by the following vote: MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we want to include anything in there about future development on that parcel in the back or consolidation? In other words, I would think it would be valuable for us to recognize that possibly other businesses will eventually use that access road, and that if they request signage back there at that time, the 28 square foot sign that we’re granting relief for tonight would be subject to review and probably downsizing at that point, to bring it in. MR. GARRAND-Would you say two or more businesses back there, more than two businesses? MS. BITTER-Because they have to utilize, I think it’s like the 12 square foot. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, but I’m just saying, in a sense, if we end up with five or six businesses back there, and they all want to go on the sign, then we’re going to have to reconfigure, and at that point, probably more of a plaza concept, you know, where you would have everybody have additional signage and that that point that sign would be reviewed. I guess we could just grant it and not worry about it until it happens. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/19/08) MR. GARRAND-I can throw it in there. MS. BITTER-I just want to clarify for a second. If they choose to utilize the 12 square foot panel, the two businesses, then essentially they’re still abiding by the approval, because they’re not expanding. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, they’re okay. MR. GARRAND-Yes. More than two businesses that want to use that area. MS. BITTER-Then as long as they stay within the, right. Okay. MRS. JENKIN-They may not be happy about that. MS. BITTER-I do understand. AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant MS. BITTER-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II BRIAN MC CALL AGENT(S): ALBERT S. MUGRACE OWNER(S): BRIAN MC CALL ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 274 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN 2,550 SQ. FT. METAL ADDITION; 3 WORK BAYS AND STORAGE TO THE EXISTING TIRE REPLACEMENT FACILITY/OFFICE/STORAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: JANUARY 9, 2007 LOT SIZE: TAX MAP NO. 302.08-1-39, 38 SECTION: 179-4-030 MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do we have anybody here from the Tire Warehouse people here this evening? MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, I think you’re going to find in the file a note from Mr. McCall that said he would not be able to make it tonight. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. BROWN-Realizing that this Board asked the Planning Board for a recommendation, the Planning Board has acted yet, so you guys can’t really do. MR. UNDERWOOD-As a note regarding this project, we were going to re-hear this this evening because we had requested some information from the Planning Board regarding their recommendations in regards to the project, but the Planning Board has not just provided the requested recommendation for this application. On February 11, 2008, the Planning Board tabled the application at the request of the applicant until their April 15, 2008 meeting. Again, just to remind people, the applicant was proposing construction of a 2,550 square foot addition to the existing auto service facility, and there were numerous issues on the project regarding drainage that was going to be done. This was a joint project with the Town to relieve flooding problems in the area, and until such time that they deal with that at the Planning Board level, I don’t see that we can act on the project in any way, shape or form. So I think what we’ll do is go along with them. If they’re requesting to be tabled until the April 15, 2008 Planning Board meeting, then probably the earliest we would receive any information back would be some time around, th after the April 15 meeting there, within a couple of days. So would it make sense to put them on a May or put them June? th MR. BROWN-Well, I was going to suggest April, but, the April 15 is a Tuesday. You guys do Wednesday nights. We obviously would have the resolution from Tuesday th night’s meeting to bring to you, say if you tabled them to the 16 of April. You always run the risk of whether the Planning Board acts on it or not. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you think they’re likely to look at the whole big picture down there? Because I know they were talking about that extra drainage link that they had to put in temporarily and things like that. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/19/08) MR. BROWN-Absolutely. I think that’s exactly what the Planning Board’s waiting for is that type of stormwater information. So, I would, worst case scenario, you get to April th 16 and you still don’t have anything from the Planning Board, you put it off again until May, but just to keep it current, in case you do have it, we may want to keep it going forward with the project. th MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. I’ll make a motion that we delay them until the April 15, th well, it would be the May 15, right? th MR. BROWN-April 16. th MR. UNDERWOOD-April 16 meeting. MRS. JENKIN-But that’s the day after. Would we have information and be able to look at it beforehand? MR. BROWN-Well, we would have the resolution from the Planning Board with their recommendations we could bring to you that, the next night. If you want to table them until the next week, we could get it to you and have a week to assimilate it. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would think it would make more sense to have it be the second meeting of the month. rd MR. BROWN-The second meeting, so the 23. MR. UNDERWOOD-That way there’s time in case they’re trying to work things out with you or something at that point. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-2008 BRIAN MC CALL, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: rd 274 Quaker Road. Tabled until the second April meeting, April 23. th Duly adopted this 19 day of March, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II DAWN SWEET AGENT(S): THOMAS DERECKO OWNER(S): DAWN SWEET ZONING: SFR-10 LOCATION: 44 MALLORY AVENUE APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 30.25 SQ. FT. DECK WITH STAIRS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 2007-621 SFD; BP 2007-535 DEEP HOLE PERC TEST WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.29 AC.; 0.55 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.7-2- 26 & 27 SECTION: 179-4-030 TOM DERECKO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 6-2008, Dawn Sweet, Meeting Date: March 19, 2008 “Project Location: 44 Mallory Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a 30.25 sf deck with stairs on the front of their home. Relief Required: Applicant requests 4.55 feet for relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement of the Single Family Residential (SFR-10) zoning district. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/19/08) Applicant would be permitted to maintain the structure in the constructed location in order to have a front entrance to their home. 2. Feasible alternatives: There appears to be limited to perhaps a regarding of the site in order to eliminate the need for steps and a deck on the front of the house. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for 4.55 feet of setback relief from the 30 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate (15%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: A letter of “no objection” signed by three parties was submitted with the application. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2007-621 issued 10/23/07 1325sf SFD Staff comments: With the submittal of the neighborhood comment letter which is signed by the immediate southerly neighbor ( Kingsley ) and the westerly neighbor across the street ( Sweet ) it would appear as though the most affected parties are satisfied with the construction. The constructed deck does not appear to be out of character with the surrounding properties. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll open it up to you. MR. DERECKO-Well, as you can see, it’s an oversight by all, the gentleman that put in the foundation for us, etc. It’s not feasible to remove the deck and grade it up, do the windows and the foundation, or move the foundation. There’s really nothing more to be said. I mean, it’s pretty basic and straightforward. MR. UNDERWOOD-Was there any thought given, did you guys actually want to have a larger porch on the front of the house? I mean, was there any consideration given to that? Because, I mean, in a practical sense, I said it’s kind of a minimalist entry to your house, and it would be kind of nice to have a closed, you know, some kind of a. MR. DERECKO-A bigger porch with railings and a roof over it. Yes, that was thought about, but it was thought against. I, myself, do not live there. Dawn is the owner of the property. She’s down in Florida right now working, and I’ve discussed it with her and she said, no, not in the future. The small front entrance. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because I’m thinking, you know, in the future, if they did decide, they could always come back and ask for a variance on that in the future, and this would suffice for the moment. MR. DERECKO-Okay. That sounds great. Thank you. MR. BROWN-Just for the record, could we get you to identify yourself for the tape? MR. DERECKO-I’m sorry. My name is Tom Derecko. I reside at 3 Zenas Drive in Queensbury, and I’m representing Dawn Sweet. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody have any questions at this point? 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/19/08) MRS. JENKIN-My thought, when I looked at it, was because the driveway is over here, on the side of the house, that if you had put the stairs so that they face the driveway, it would be, and I don’t know whether you can still move them, but it would be less of a setback, and it would be just more natural, because I don’t know if you’re planning to have a walkway out to the street? Or you’re still going to have a walkway that goes around to the driveway, correct? MR. DERECKO-There’s a side entrance to the house that they’re using mainly, that goes into the driveway. MRS. JENKIN-So you’re not even using this? MR. DERECKO-Basically not. It’s there for a front entrance of the house for emergency purposes. MRS. JENKIN-Well, you have to have something. You can’t have a door four feet off the. MR. DERECKO-Yes, it would be an awful jump, but the side entrance would be the main use. MRS. JENKIN-That was just my own suggestion, I guess, to turn it sideways. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else at the moment? Okay. I guess I’ll open up the public hearing. Would anybody in the public wish to speak on this? Okay. I’ll read in the two letters that came in from the near neighbors. This one is “To Whom It May Concern: I hereby state that the undersigned do not object to the porch and the stairs in the front yard on 44 Mallory Ave.” And that’s the Carpenters, the Kingsley’s, and Keith Sweet, and a second one here, “To Whom It May Concern: I give my permission for Thomas Derecko to be my, that’s designating you, yes, that’s it. MR. DERECKO-That’s just Dawn giving me. MR. UNDERWOOD-So that would be it. So I guess I’ll close the public hearing at this point. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’ll poll the Board. Joyce, do you want to go first? MRS. HUNT-Well, I think the problem is the situation where the house is situated on that property, it’s so close to the front. MR. DERECKO-That’s correct. MRS. HUNT-And rather than using the back, and I don’t think 4.55 feet of setback is too much, and I think it’s a very attractive porch, and I would have no problem with it. MR. DERECKO-Thank you very much. MR. UNDERWOOD-Go ahead, Brian. MR. CLEMENTS-I would also be in favor of this, although you know that we’ve had other people come in that have done the construction and then they’ve asked for the variance afterwards. I think that this was an honest mistake. It looks like it would fit in with the rest of the neighborhood. So I would be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan? MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I don’t see how you can really avoid, the 4.5 feet is not a big amount of setback, and I would be in favor of it, rather than having to change it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Rich? MR. GARRAND-I think part of the purpose of having zoning like this in the Town is to keep residents from overbuilding towards the road, and I don’t think 4.55 feet is significant at all. So I’d be in favor of this. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/19/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I, too, would be in favor of it. I think, you know, in regards to Joan’s request, maybe having to come up and make (lost word) corner there to make it in, but it’s always a pain when you’re carrying stuff up and down stairs and you have to turn and robot around and try and make your way through. So, from a practical sense, it makes straight access more acceptable to me, and as far as the amount of relief, four feet isn’t a whole lot of relief. I mean, we have, at numerous points in the past, had similar requests from the public, and I think we almost always have given them the four or five feet of relief when it was a small amount that was requested. So, at this point in time, I’d be more than happy to approve it also. So does someone want to make a motion? MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-2008 DAWN SWEET, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: 44 Mallory Avenue. The applicant has constructed a 30.25 square foot deck with stairs on the front of their home. The applicant requests 4.55 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement of the Single Family Residential zoning district. Whether the benefit could be achieved by any other means feasible to the applicant. The feasible alternatives appear to be limited because of the way the building is sited on the property, and there needs to be steps into the front door. Would there be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties? I don’t think so. It seems to fit in very well with the building. Whether the request is substantial. I do not think 4.55 feet of relief from the 30 foot requirement is substantial. The request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects. The nearest neighbors have no problem with it, and it can be interpreted as self-created only because the applicant wishes to have an egress from their house. So I would ask that we approve Area Variance No. 6-2008. th Duly adopted this 19 day of March, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. You’re all set. MR. DERECKO-Thank you very much. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thanks. AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II DANIEL HUNT OWNER(S): DANIEL HUNT ZONING: SR-1A LOCATION: AMERICAN WAY, PRIVATE DRIVE OFF LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES BOUNDARY LOT LINE CHANGES TO REMOVE ROAD FRONTAGE FROM ONE LOT AND ADD THE FRONTAGE TO ANOTHER. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQIUREMENTS. CROSS REF.: ADMINISTRATIVE 2-LOT SUBDIVISION: AV 57- 2006 VARIANCE APPROVAL EXPIRED ON SEPTEMBER 27, 2007 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: MARCH 12, 2008 LOT SIZE: 3.01 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.1-1-56 AND 57 SECTION: 179-4-090 DAN HUNT, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-Now, I will remind the Board members that last year we approved this variance, just as it’s going to be presented to us again this evening, and I don’t know, for the sake of brevity, if we need to go through the whole thing again, from scratch? MR. BROWN-I think for the purposes of making the record, I think we need to do that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Just for the purposes of the record, I guess we will. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 7-2008, Daniel Hunt, Meeting Date: March 19, 2008 “Project Location: American Way, private drive off of Luzerne Road Description of 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/19/08) Proposed Project: Applicant proposes boundary line changes to remove road frontage from one lot in order to add the frontage to another lot. Relief Required: Applicant requests 40 feet for relief from the 40 foot minimum road frontage requirement per section 179-4-090. Specifically, lot 3 currently has no road frontage while lot 1 does have frontage. This proposal is to reassign the 44.73 feet of road frontage from lot 1 to lot 3. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to redesign the lot layouts as desired in order to, apparently, develop lot 3 with a single family dwelling. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited as both, lots 2 and 3 currently exist without road frontage. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: While the requested relief appears to be substantial at 40 feet ( 100% ), the physical frontage that currently exists to service these three lots will remain as is. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: No letters of objection were submitted with the application. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be attributed to the pre-existing non-conforming configuration of the lots. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 57-2006 Same relief as currently sought approved 9-27-06 Staff comments: The current proposal is exactly the same proposal that was presented to and approved by the Zoning Board in 2006. Failure, by the applicant to file an updated map with the County Clerk resulted in the expiration of the previous variance. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March 12, 2008 Project Name: Hunt, Daniel Owner(s): Daniel Hunt ID Number: QBY- 08-AV-7 County Project#: Mar08-37 Current Zoning: SR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes boundary lot line changes to remove road frontage from one lot and add the frontage to another. Relief requested from minimum road frontage requirements. Site Location: American Way, private drive of Luzerne Road Tax Map Number(s): 308.1-1-56 308.1-1-57 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes boundary lot line changes to remove road frontage from one lot and add the frontage to another. Relief requested from minimum road frontage requirements. The information submitted indicates there parcels with the project where lots 1 and 2 would not have the required road frontage but lot 3 would have frontage. Then lot 3 would provide road access for lots 1 and 2 as part of a permanent right of way as noted on the plan. The information also indicates the applicant received a variance for this project that has expired therefore this variance is requested. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. Warren County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 3/17/08. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/19/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-So I’ll leave it open to you. Go ahead. MR. HUNT-Yes. My name is Dan Hunt. I’m the property owner, and as you just said, this is exactly the same proposal as before, and unfortunately something came up and post-dated everything as far as the project went. So now I’m back to get it rolling again. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody have any questions they want to ask him? Okay. I guess I’ll open up the public hearing. Is anybody here wishing to speak on behalf of this project, for or against it? I don’t see anybody. So I guess I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-We do have to do the Short Environmental Assessment Form, again, on this one. So, I’ll go through that quickly. MR. BROWN-Yes. This is a Type II. MR. UNDERWOOD-It is? So we don’t need to bother. Okay. Sorry about that. All right. Why don’t we poll the Board quickly, then, see what people want to do here. I guess I could just re-read the old one back in again, verbatim what it was, and that’ll speed things up here. Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-2008 DANIEL HUNT, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: American Way, private drive off Luzerne Road. He’s proposing a lot line adjustment between two lots that will result in one lot not having frontage on a public highway, and this lot will have access to Luzerne Road from the existing private drive located adjacent to the property. In essence he’s requesting full relief from the frontage requirements, and I think we need to recognize that the road that currently exists to the second parcel back there will now be extended further back to the third parcel in the back. Then probably a home will be constructed on site as a result of that. It’s a reasonable request. These are pre-existing, nonconforming, well, I guess they would be conforming lots except that they don’t have frontage. So both the second and third lots would need relief for this, and I don’t think that we would find any change or negative to the neighborhood as it is. So I would move for its approval. th Duly adopted this 19 day of March, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant MR. HUNT-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II MORGAN VITTENGL AGENT(S): STEFANIE BITTER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S): MORGAN VITTENGL ZONING: WR- 1A LOCATION: 155 BIRDSALL ROAD APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 168 SQ. FT. CONNECTION (ADDITION) BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS. ADDITIONALLY, RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF.: BP 97-247, GARAGE; AV 42-2007 DENIED WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.29 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-48 SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-13-10 STEPHANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 8-2008, Morgan Vittengl, Meeting Date: March 19, 2008 “Project Location: 155 Birdsall Road Description of Proposed Project: The 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/19/08) Applicant has constructed a 168 sf connector addition between the existing home and garage on the subject property. Relief Required: - Applicant requests 6.46 feet of relief from the 15 foot minimum side setback requirement of the WR-1A zone. Additionally, the applicant seeks 211 sf of Floor Area Ratio relief. The addition creates a 23.62% FAR condition on the property. The application materials reference a 22.6% condition. Further, the applicant seeks relief for the expansion of a non conforming structure as the existing home violates the current minimum setback requirements. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: The applicant would be able to maintain the constructed addition and have an enclosed passage way between house and garage. 2. Feasible alternatives: Construction of an addition that meets the setbacks, appears possible. Such addition may be smaller or require relocation of the septic tank, but possible. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance: 6.46 feet of relief against the 15 foot minimum requirement (43%) may be interpreted as moderate to substantial when viewed against the Town Zoning requirements. A 23.62% FAR versus the 22% requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Three letters of support were submitted with the application. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty in this proposal could be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Previously, the applicant had constructed a smaller enclosed porch area at the garage door area between the garage and home. This work was performed without a building permit and without an area variance. We informed the applicant of the need for both approvals and ultimately the applicant removed the enclosure. AV 5-1996 Setback relief for Single Family Dwelling and garage approved 6/19/96 AV 9-1998 Additional setback relief after AV 5-1995 approved 4/22/98 AV 42-2007 Setback, FAR and Exp. of NC structure denied 1/16/08 Staff comments: The addition does not encroach any further into the property line setback area than the previously approved house and garage, which were granted an Area Variance and an additional Area Variance after construction. The applicant states that the area above the garage will not be finished as living space, however, consideration may be given to removal of the access to the area above the garage from the breezeway area to help discourage use of the space as living space. As noted above, the access to the upper garage area was originally approved to go outdoors at the northeast corner of the garage. Further, per section 179-5-110, with the addition of living space to this structure, which is located in a Waterfront Residential zone, the applicant is required to insure that the existing septic system meets current standards. Historically, the ZBA has sought the answer to this issue prior to rendering a decision. SEQR Status: Type II” 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/19/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-I will remind the Board, too, that in correspondence from the applicants, that, you know, last Fall we disapproved a similar request here. I think it was in December that we did this. MS. BITTER-January. MR. UNDERWOOD-Or, excuse me, January, excuse me. In addition, since that time, I believe that they’ve filed suit, and so this is in the courts at the present time. So I think it would be pertinent for the Board, before we continue, to maybe have a quick discussion as to whether we want to, if we thought it was reasonable to consider this a new application or, in lieu of the fact that it’s in the courts right now, do we wait until that’s resolved, one way or the other? MS. BITTER-If I could just add to that, Jim, I don’t mean to interrupt, but I don’t know if many of you members were here at the time that I had asked for a re-hearing once that denial was issued because the problem that we were faced, when that denial was issued, was there was miscommunication between the applicant and Staff, as well as what the Board intended to do on the evening that that denial had occurred. It was our understanding that because a submission hadn’t happened or hadn’t occurred at that point, that no action was going to be taken by the Board, and unfortunately, where we thought it was going to be tabled, where Staff thought it was going to be tabled as well, and as the agenda stated it was going to be tabled, obviously it was not. So when I came before you the week after, I explained that there was purely a miscommunication. It wasn’t meant that we didn’t show up at all. We didn’t think that anybody had to. So that’s why we had asked for a re-hearing. At that time, many of the members had indicated that it would be better just to submit a new application, due to the fact that part of our application was going to incorporate work that we would be performing in the garage to eliminate the Floor Area Ratio question, which reason for the discussion that was occurring between Staff and the applicant up to that point, and they had indicated, at that time, that we should submit because it would be deemed a new application. The reason that we sued the Article 78 is obviously, as everyone is aware, you only have 30 days in which to make that Article 78 application occur. So, to preserve the applicant’s rights, we did make that suit, as well as make the submission that we had identified to the Board we would do. So that Article 78, although it’s pending, the Town hasn’t answered it at that point. Everything’s kind of in limbo, waiting for this application to be heard. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m not going to speak for anybody else, but I would think it would make sense for us to try to resolve the difficulties we’ve had here. I mean, there was a lot of, I don’t know if you would label it as stonewalling on your part, but, at the same time, it didn’t seem like we were moving forward to any resolution regarding the difficulties here. MS. BITTER-Right, and that’s why I think in this application we’ve made sure that everything that Staff has requested has been submitted. We’ve answered the questions at least to this point. MR. UNDERWOOD-Maybe for the benefit of the Board, then, you would, I mean, we’re all familiar with the project since it’s already been done, but I mean, as far as the, I don’t know if it was a deal that was worked out or suggestions on the part of the Town Community Development Department, in regards to, I think there was a sense on our part that, you know, we were looking at a development of that upstairs in the garage there, and if you were trying to eliminate that, that was going to make the situation better as far as. MS. BITTER-Right, and I think that’s what, there was a discussion, I think the meeting actually occurred in December, between Craig, Dr. Vittengl, and Jon Lapper, where that discussion had occurred. There was a question as to, I think, who was supposed to speak with Dave Hatin, and ultimately we realized that Craig thought we were. We thought Craig was, and it just, essentially, that’s where the ball got dropped. So what was resolved is that we would make, we would remove the finished ceiling in the garage as well as the insulation, additional lights and outlets to make it compliant, place a door separating the area above the garage and the downstairs living space to bring the structure up to Code with the addition of fireproof doors and fire resistant sheet rock, and then once the approvals were made, bring Dave Hatin in to make sure that the garage was considered to be Code compliant. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/19/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I ask a question of Craig? In regards to what’s proposed for upstairs there now? It’s just going to be storage essentially? Is it going to be finished off with sheet rock? MR. BROWN-Well, I think that’s a better question for the applicant. MR. UNDERWOOD-For the applicants, then. MS. BITTER-It’s just going to be storage. I think actually there were pictures showing there’s kayaks there. It’s going to be utilized as a garage for purposes. Is that the best way to describe it? Rough storage. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, I would assume at some point it would make sense, to ensure that there wasn’t going to be like a bathroom created up there in the future, or anything like that, I mean, it would be your word that that was not going to occur. Obviously, I would think you would want to resolve this at this point. MS. BITTER-At this point. MR. GARRAND-Yes, that was the whole issue, all along, you know, why this couldn’t have been resolved before, just a question for Staff. Are you comfortable with what’s been done with respect to the changes that are going to be made in this house? MR. BROWN-As far as what’s proposed? Yes, and no. Obviously we had a conversation, and the list that attorney Bitter read from was kind of a synopsis of what we discussed when we sat down with Dr. Vittengl and Dave Hatin from the Building Department. Subsequently, other applications similar to this have come in, separate properties, different owners, where there’s a room above the garage and a connection to the house and we’ve taken a little bit different approach where you can’t have any access from the house if you don’t want to count it as Floor Area. We did have a conversation. We did come to an agreement that if you put a door there, so I’m not going to go back and change my decision on that. It’s not ideally what I’d like to see, based on these additional applications that have come in. So, to answer your question, I think with the removal of any finishes, sheet rock, insulation, anything like that up there that’s going to facilitate occupancy of the space, I guess I’d be satisfied with that. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is there any sense that the sheet rock is going to, you know, predicate some future use of that as living space? So upstairs is just going to be the rafters up there and that’s it? MR. BROWN-Just rough studding and plywood on the floor. That’s my understanding. MORGAN VITTENGL DR. VITTENGL-There’s no sheet rock there. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I knew there wasn’t. DR. VITTENGL-Okay. MRS. JENKIN-You said you removed lights from up there? DR. VITTENGL-No, there are fixtures there, in the ceilings. There’s cans to light the area up above. MR. UNDERWOOD-Obviously they need lights. MRS. JENKIN-Ceiling lights, but no outlets or anything? Are there outlets also, you know, wall outlets? DR. VITTENGL-There’s wall outlets, and again, obviously that space needs something. If you’re going to go up there at night or, you know, a minimum amount of structure for, a couple of lights were in the ceiling when I got my CO. That was all approved, and there were some outlets on the wall, but the extra outlets, I use it as a work space up there. I have my saws and things like that. MRS. JENKIN-You do? 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/19/08) DR. VITTENGL-Well, I did, on the side, but it’s totally unfinished. There’s no flooring. MRS. JENKIN-There’s no flooring now? DR. VITTENGL-Well, there’s plywood. MRS. JENKIN-Just plywood. Okay. DR. VITTENGL-No plumbing, no heating, no sheet rock. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is the access now the stairs up inside the garage? Are there stairs accessing it at the present time, or there’s nothing up there now? You’ve got stairs that go up from the door leading upstairs? DR. VITTENGL-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Okay. MR. BROWN-From inside the house. MR. UNDERWOOD-From inside. Well, I would assume that there’s not any plan to put any kind of heating up in there or anything like that either? You’re not going to bring water over? DR. VITTENGL-No, I think we’ve had an interesting adventure here, and as much as I’d like to come back and visit you folks again, I would prefer not to. So, you know, no, we need storage there. It’s a small lot. It functions very well for that, and I’d be elated if that’s what we could use it for. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Any other questions anybody has at this time? Okay. I guess I’ll read those letters that came in, or I guess I’ll open up the public hearing. Is there anybody here wishing to speak on behalf of this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. JENKIN-Just one question about the stairs. I’m not sure. The stairs to the attic are accessed from the breezeway that you’ve built, are they? And so that’s inside? DR. VITTENGL-Correct. MRS. JENKIN-There’s no outside access to the? So it’s all covered in there, I can see this. DR. VITTENGL-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-So you would go in and then get up through there. DR. VITTENGL-And that was exposed. The original had kind of emptied to the outside on a deck, which was exposed to the outside, again, and that was the main reason for safety, trying to make sure that the snow and ice or whatever in that area wouldn’t affect that. MRS. JENKIN-Right. Okay. So that stairway was there before, original, that’s an original? DR. VITTENGL-Yes. It emptied to the outside, correct, and then there was a deck that came across and into the garage. MRS. JENKIN-So you haven’t added that stairway after you built the breezeway? DR. VITTENGL-No. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. You just incorporated it. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Craig, the original proposal on that was for the stairs on the northeast side there? So that was back on the driveway side? 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/19/08) MR. BROWN-No, I guess the garage is to the south. The house is to the north, if you’re trying to get north/south oriented, and the original staircase came out behind the breezeway that you see on that back corner. It came down to a little landing, yes. If I could just ask one question, so that there’s no surprise in the future. Are there any plans to change the structure at all? We talked about using it for storage, and I just opened up the plans to see that there’s really no way to get things up there from the outside unless they go over the rail through the slider, is that the deal? DR. VITTENGL-Correct. Yes. MR. BROWN-Okay. So there’s no other doors to be put in? DR. VITTENGL-No. MR. BROWN-Okay, or you have to go through the inside to get stuff up there? DR. VITTENGL-Correct. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’ll read those letters in from the neighbors, and this one’s addressed to the Board. “We would like to speak in support of the proposed variance application before the Board. The Vittengl family has managed to build an attractive home on a very challenging lot. The property is well maintained, and compliments the neighborhood visual character. There are no apparent adverse effects upon natural features. It is our belief that the proposal is consistent and appropriate for the area, and we encourage the Board to give consideration for approval. Sincerely, Russell Pittenger” And the other one, I think that was the Frejborgs next door. DR. VITTENGL-The immediate neighbors to the west of the Frejborgs and to the east of Papuzzas, I think both of those letters. MS. BITTER-I have them here if you need them, too. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, that would be great. I’ll just read them in. “To Whom It May Concern: We are the neighbors of Morgan and Mary Vittengl on Glen Lake. We have no concerns with the addition of a breezeway between their house and their garage. We feel it is a nice addition and will improve the looks and value of their property. Based on the workmanship of the garage recently constructed, we have no doubts that the breezeway will be built with the same quality. If you have any questions for us, please feel free to contact us.” And that’s Joe and Patty Papuzza at 175 Mannis Road, and the last one, “To Whom It May Concern: Subject: Our good neighbors the Vittengls on 155 Birdsall Road. We, Anita and Frey Frejborg, live since 1996 at 153 Birdsall Road, and the Vittengls property faces our property line on the east side. If not mistaken, it appears to us that the Town of Queensbury has raised some concerns regarding a recent breezeway addition which connects the Vittengl’s house with the garage. In spite of not knowing any details behind this pending concern on the Town’s behalf, we would like to take this opportunity to share with you our viewpoint in regards to this new addition. On a positive note for the Vittengls, let us first briefly revisit the Vittengl’s initial house construction and some concerns we had back in 1996 about the narrow nature of the lot and as well as the potential for an adverse impact on the neighboring properties. Well, Anita and I are today pleased and impressed with the planning, architectural and beautification undertakings done by the Vittengls to the former rugged lot. Our earlier concerns proved to be unfounded, and we are delighted the way things have turned out. The new breezeway addition is another example of the Vittengl’s tasteful planning and a logical architectural solution that will further enhance the already positive image of the property. This attractive addition also has a positive impact on our view towards the east direction. Thank you for taking the time to consider our views in this matter.” And that’s Frey and Anita Frejborg at 153 Birdsall Road. That’s it. MRS. JENKIN-Did you remove the deck on the garage? DR. VITTENGL-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-That’s done, that’s removed at the back. So you don’t have any access at the back of the garage anymore? DR. VITTENGL-Correct. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/19/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-And then I guess I’ll poll the Board. I’ll start with you, Rich. MR. GARRAND-Certainly. I think, given the implementation of the stipulations agreed on by Staff and the applicant, they’ve answered all the questions I’ve had for about the past seven months. I think implementation of that will basically resolve all the issues. The variance itself, what is it, 6.46 feet, you’ve already got that, given where the structure is now. You’re not going to be encroaching anymore into the setbacks. You’re just going to be extending basically what you already have. At this point, I’d be in favor of this application, given what I know now. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan? MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I think with the letters of support and the appearance of the driveway, it certainly is an addition and certainly an addition to the neighborhood. It’s a desirable change in the neighborhood right now. The question about the garage has been floating back and forth, and I really wasn’t part of that discussion originally, but it looks like you’ve taken care of that well. I think that being covered is a desirable change for you, and so I would say it’s self-created, but it’s a positive move for you to put the breezeway, a covered breezeway, in a nice form the way that you have between the house and garage, so I would be in favor of it now. MR. UNDERWOOD-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I think I’d like to listen to the other Board members. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Sure. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. This is a minimal connector between two buildings, and it does unite the buildings, and I think the relief is minimum to moderate. I did have some reservations because it’s been built before you came to us and not after, but I would have no problem with this. I mean, the letters of support that were given, and I don’t think it’s going to be a detriment to the neighborhood. I would be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’ll go next, then I’ll let you go, Brian. How’s that? This has been a long and convoluted process here in trying to resolve this issue. I guess one of the things that still kind of sticks in my craw here is the fact that I’ve never heard anything from your behalf that you would apologize to this Board for, you know, creating this difficulty for us, and I think it was purely self-created. I mean, I think in the past, the past record when you had to come in and get variances and then get extra relief when the contractor screwed up and put the thing too close to the property line. It’s not a fun process, and many of us who live on lakes have had to deal with having to go get extra variances, including myself, you know, and things like that, but, you know, that’s understandable, but in this case here, I think you went ahead with this project, and I don’t know how you thought you were going to get it through without somebody finding out eventually about it, but I think it would be pertinent, incumbent upon you, I think if I’m going to grant you relief for this project, I would like at least an apology, a sincere apology to the Board members, and as you well know, some of the Board members get really bent out of shape when people push the limits of what they’re allowed to do, and I don’t think that’s wrong that they react that way, because I think that what we’re trying to do is, we have a set of rules to follow, and if we had that set of rules to follow, anybody can come in and ask to bend the rules, and, nine times out of ten, we bend the rules for people. We very seldom turn people down. In regards to your project here, if it didn’t exist and you were asking me to do this project, I would think it would be fully reasonable what you’re requesting to do here, and I don’t think that the extra floor area ratio, I think that what’s been resolved, as far as the garage and what your future plans for the garage are, I don’t want you to just assume that you can go out and start sheet rocking, three weeks from now, and blow it off like it doesn’t matter, or anything like that. I mean, if you want to use your garage as a workshop upstairs, I don’t have a problem with that. I mean, it’s your property. You can utilize it, but don’t push the limits again, because it was unnecessary. You could have come in and asked and we probably would have granted you relief to do what you wanted to do here anyway. As far as the relief that you’re requesting, the Floor Area relief is not that much greater than what you’ve got here. Again, it’s a tiny lot. It’s hard to position anything on that lot and not have to require some kind of relief at all. So I would be willing to grant you the relief as requested, and resolve the issues, just to get it out of the picture so you can get on with 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/19/08) your life and we can get on with ours here, too, and, in the future, if you’re going to do a project or you want to do anything up there, please come in and ask first. All right. So, that’s it. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I’m just going to have to agree with 100% of what Mr. Underwood said. I guess I would reluctantly say that I would agree to the project. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Is there anything more you guys want to add? MS. BITTER-No, but thank you. Thank you for taking the time. I realize that this has been a long process and I definitely want to say that, with regards to the miscommunication, that I would take the blame for that. There wasn’t any way that we were trying to insult this Board by not being there at that January meeting and to continue, but we were trying to come to a resolution to understand exactly what the Board needed to see, and we didn’t know exactly what that was, so I want to at least have the Board (lost word) that, and I think that the Vittengls would both agree with me by saying that this has been a long process, and it started with really a misunderstanding on their part that because of the way the property sat, that this wouldn’t be a further encroachment. So they really didn’t consider the fact that a variance would be necessary. MARY VITTENGL MRS. VITTENGL-And we do apologize. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Okay. Apology accepted. Does somebody want to make a resolution on it? MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a motion. MR. UNDERWOOD-Or motion, excuse me. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-2008 MORGAN VITTENGL, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: 155 Birdsall Road. The applicant has constructed a 168 square foot connector addition between the existing home and garage on the subject property. The applicant requests 6.46 feet of relief from the 15 foot minimum side setback requirement to the WR-1A zone. Additionally, the applicant seeks 211 square feet of floor area ratio relief. The addition creates 23.62 floor area ratio on the property. Further, the applicant seeks relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure as the existing home violates the minimum setback requirements. Whether the benefit could be achieved by any other feasible means to the applicant. I think they’ve made a good case that this is the only feasible alternative. Undesirable change to the neighborhood character or properties, I don’t think so. In fact, there were three letters of support from neighbors in the area. The request is minimum to moderate, and it will not have any adverse physical or environmental effects, and it was self-created only because the Vittengls wanted a way to get from the garage to the house without having to go outside. The agreement that the applicants will reach with Dave Hatin and the Building and Codes Department regarding the future use of that property, there will be stipulations put in there as to what you can and cannot do there, and that includes the fact that it’s not going to be developed into living space, etc., and that includes, water, electric, whatever. th Duly adopted 19 day of March, 2008, by the following vote: MR. UNDERWOOD-I would think the only thing that we want to add on that is that you, the agreement that you will reach with Dave Hatin and the Building and Codes Department regarding the future use of that property. There will be stipulations put in there as to what you can and cannot do there, and that includes the fact that it’s not going to be developed into living space, etc., and that includes, water, electric, whatever. I mean, if you want to use it as a part-time workshop or a place to work outside the weather, that’s fine, but I think any attempt to turn it into a bedroom or anything like that would be verboten. MS. BITTER-Absolutely. AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/19/08) ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant MS. BITTER-Thank you very much. MR. VITTENGL-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II GREGG BROWN AGENT(S): STEFANIE BITTER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S): GREGG BROWN ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 31 KNOX ROAD & 29 KNOX ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO TRANSFER 180.88 SQ. FT. OF PROPERTY TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: SUBD. NO. 11-1991 SUNSET HILL FARM WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: MARCH 12, 2008 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.63 AC.; 0.62 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-7; 239.7-1-6 SECTION: 179-4-030 STEPHANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 9-2008, Gregg Brown, Meeting Date: March 19, 2008 “Project Location: 31 Knox Rd. & 29 Knox Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposed a lot line change in order to transfer 180.88 sf to the adjoining parcel. Relief Required: Applicant requests 16,137.5 sf of relief from the 1 acre minimum lot size requirement of the WR-1A zoning district. Currently, the parcel, as approved by the Planning Board per a 1992 subdivision approval, is 15,956.5 sf below the 1 acre minimum. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to convey the land as desired and, apparently, eliminate an existing parking easement with the neighboring property. 2. Feasible alternatives: There appears to be limited as any conveyance would require relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: While the request for to create a parcel which is 36.63% below the requirement, the proposed 180.88 sf change equates to a 0.004 acre conveyance or 0.65% of the original parcel. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: It appears that the only affected party, David Brown, will benefit from the conveyance. The proposed conveyance does not change the existing road frontage of the subject property. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 44-92 Dock and Boathouse approved 9/22/92 BP 96-476 SFD C/O issued 1/27/97 AV 59-96 Shoreline setback approved 7/24/96 SP 14-07 Retaining walls and site improvements pending Staff comments: 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/19/08) The proposed lot line change does not alter the existing road frontage of the subject property. While this proposal is not a subdivision that would require the ZBA to seek a recommendation from the Planning Board pursuant to Town Law 277, consideration may be given to seeking comment from the Planning Board, as this lot line change also requires approval by the Planning Board. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March 12, 2008 Project Name: Brown, Gregg Owner(s): Gregg Brown ID Number: QBY-08-AV-9 County Project#: Mar08-31 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes a boundary line adjustment. Applicant proposes to transfer 180.88 sq. ft. of property to neighboring property. Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements. Site Location: 31 Knox Road & 29 Knox Road Tax Map Number(s): 239.7-1-6 239.7-1-7 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes a boundary lot line adjustment. The project is to transfer 180.88 sq. ft. of property to neighboring property. The applicants property is 0.64 acres and currently does not meet the 1 acre minimum lot requirement. The applicant has indicated the land to be transferred will eliminate an easement for parking on the applicants property. The transferred property will allow the neighbor to use the property for parking. 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 3/17/08. MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stephanie Bitter for the applicant, from Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes. As we’ve described, we’re seeking a variance because the lot is under the one acre requirement already. We’re just doing a simply boundary line adjustment with our adjacent neighbor, but because of the fact that it’s non-compliant to begin with, it triggers the variance that is necessary. Obviously, these two individuals are brothers, and when the parcels were transferred, an easement was created for a parking easement in which David Brown would benefit. At this time, modifications were being done to Gregg Brown’s property, and the brothers have discussed it, and David Brown is willing to terminate the parking easement, so long as this boundary line adjustment is provided, the 180.88 square feet, which being proposed this evening. We feel when you look at the balancing test, as outlined in our application, that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the community. The benefit is obviously to the removal of the parking easement which encumbers his property at this time. The alternatives are minimal because of the fact that the property is already compliant to begin with. So whatever modifications are done, for purposes of a boundary line adjustment, are going to create a variance request or something close thereto. Should it be considered substantial relief? We don’t feel that that would be the case in this instance, due to the fact that merely this would be a paper change, as to the boundary line, and the only physical change would be that the parking would then be placed on what’s considered to be David Brown’s property, as opposed to Gregg Brown’s property, and as mentioned, obviously David Brown would be the benefitted party in this instance, and the affected party with the boundary line adjustment. MR. UNDERWOOD-Does anybody have any questions, so far, with you guys? Okay. Why don’t we open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody in the public who wishes to speak on this. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JEFF BAKER MR. BAKER-Thank you. My name is Jeff Baker with Young Summer in Albany. I’m the attorney for Dr. and Mr. Collins, who are the adjoining landowners. Simply put, this is a lot more complex than just a matter of transferring 160, 180 some odd square feet between two properties. This really is part and parcel of a much larger endeavor by the applicant, involved with the redevelopment of his property, and it triggers more than just this lot line adjustment question for the ZBA. Because what’s being done here is not only the extinguishment of the parking easement that Mr. David Brown has on Gregg Brown’s property, but essentially, although it’s unstated, the abandonment of a driveway easement that Gregg Brown has over David Brown’s property, and what they’re going to be doing is right now his driveway and access crosses over his brother’s property onto Knox Road. That’s going to be eliminated, and instead the driveway is going to go 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/19/08) directly through the substandard road frontage onto Knox Road, because you know you’ve got a minimum road frontage of 40 feet. This has a road frontage of approximately 18 feet, and that’s not just a minor issue of we’re just going to move in and push it through that area, because that area is now vegetated. It has a utility pole that intrudes upon that, not the pole itself, but the support area, and is going to change, dramatically, the character of that access driveway, the views through the property from the Collins’ property and most importantly, this all works interregnum is by making these changes then allows the construction of a new garage, and a new covered walkway, in an area that dramatically affects the views coming from the Collins’ property, and as laid out in my letter, and as it’s shown in your Staff Notes, Mr. Brown originally got an easement for this property, excuse me, a variance, in 1996, when the house was getting rebuilt where it was, but it was within the setbacks that applied for the shoreline at the time which was 75 feet, and he asked for and obtained a variance to build it within 50 feet. One of the prevailing reasons that he sought the variance, and the arguments of why it wouldn’t have a negative impact on the neighbors, is by leaving the house where it was, within the proximity to the shoreline, it afforded a view, a southerly view from, it wasn’t the Collins’ property, their predecessors and interest property, through there in the back. So it was a question that if the house was going to get moved back to the 75 feet, then that would have blocked the view from, at the back of the house, but would have opened up a view to the front of the house. The decision was, for a variety of reasons, well, it’s better to leave it where it is, and build it there and not have a setback and preserve the existing view to the back. That was a fine decision at the time. There’s no question about it, but now what’s being happened is part of this, and I’m bringing this all up to you, it’s in front of the Planning Board, but it’s relevant to your consideration, is that by making all these changes, the promises that they were going to preserve, essentially, that rear view through the property is now going to become a wall of structures, where it will be a continuous wall of structures from Gregg Brown’s house, his covered walkway, his garage, and his brother’s house, which will do a line, and block off that whole line, and block off the views, not just from the Collins’ property, but from the people who use Knox Road and people on the lake looking back to the shore. You will have essentially an unbroken and monolithic line of structures in there. MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I ask a question? MR. BAKER-Yes, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-So in regards to the project on that property south, or I guess it would be south of the Collins’ property, they’re going to rebuild the whole house there? MR. BAKER-No, no. That house is already existing, and I don’t think there’s anything, no, that was what was proposed in ’96 was rebuilding that house. I think they essentially used the same foundation or area. They reduced the overall scale of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-But you’re talking, they’re going to build a garage in that, where the driveway is back there? MR. BAKER-Yes. You should have, it’s not on your Site Plan, and I’m sorry I didn’t have a copy of it. MRS. JENKIN-And where would the covered walkway be? MR. BAKER-Let me show you that. MR. UNDERWOOD-So is this entire project before the Planning Board as we speak, or it’s been submitted? nd MS. BITTER-It’s pending. It’s going to be heard on April 22. It’s been in front of them for over a year, I think, or almost a year. MS. BITTER-Close, because of the modifications. MR. BAKER-There have been a variety of issues related, because the overall project, this is a Site Plan of the overall project, involves recreating the shoreline with the seawall, adding patios, landscaping issues. There have been stormwater issues involved in that, and then building the garage behind it and the covered walkway. So all of this goes together, and the access to the driveway currently. MR. UNDERWOOD-So they’re going to come through that 18 feet? 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/19/08) MR. BAKER-Yes, exactly. They’re going to come through that 18 feet through here, instead of where they’re generally going through is up this area right in here now, and right here at the, what do we call that, the northeast corner, I guess it is, there’s a utility pole, and we’ve got, Dr. Collins has a picture of it. The utility pole is actually right, is on the Collins’ property, but the support for it crosses over, there’s a guide wire, support for it. It’s going to have to be moved, and last summer National Grid came and started to, they were going to put a new pole right in front of the Collins’ property, and do that over, and she objected and they stopped doing it. They realized that didn’t make sense. It’s important to know that the utility lines and services for the Collins property are underground, from a line across the street. Now, I don’t know this for certain, but we’re pretty certain about it, that the utility lines for David Brown’s property also go underground. He paid for those going underground. These are, apparently, Mr. Gregg Brown is determined to have them above ground, to save costs, but he wants to put the utilities on his neighbor’s property, the line, and impact them. MRS. JENKIN-On the Collins’ property? MR. BAKER-On the Collins’ property, yes. That’s another issue. MR. UNDERWOOD-We’re kind of getting a little off base here, because we’re looking at the bigger picture here, but, the utility lines out there now, are those through lines? Are they dead end at that point? Or do they keep going all the way down Knox Road? CAROL COLLINS DR. COLLINS-No, they dead end. MR. UNDERWOOD-At that pole. DR. COLLINS-At that pole with the guide line, but they go underground just to Dave Brown’s, and you can see a picture of the transformer. MR. UNDERWOOD-But they don’t keep going overhead past your house to the north? DR. COLLINS-No. The other people come in from the other direction. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Good. MR. BAKER-And when you look at that area where the line is, there are trees, you know, it’s a vegetated area. There are trees on the Collins’ property which, you know, is right on the edge, and the branches hang over onto Mr. Brown’s property. Those are all going to have to be cut back, which are, you know, has the, for the driveway. There’s no way to get the driveway in there without cutting out all those trees. We can show you on the picture on here, the branches to the trees. MRS. JENKIN-My question is, changing the lot line is not going to change this project here. Is it? They’re still going to go ahead with this covered walkway and the garage. MR. BAKER-Not necessarily, and it’s a question we can Ms. Bitter, because part of, it is my understanding that the deal here is Dave Brown has a parking easement on Gregg Brown’s property, okay. By building the garage in this area, see, up here, right, exactly, and changing the driveway configuration, he’s altering the parking easement on the David Brown property. In fact, excuse me, on the Gregg Brown property. David Brown appeared at the Planning Board some time in the last year, I don’t know the exact date, at one of these, and objected to the Site Plan on this saying it was going to impact his parking easement on his brother’s property. The Planning Board pointed out that, he may have a legitimate point, but that is a private real estate matter between the parties. It wasn’t an issue for Town jurisdiction, which of course is correct. This is, I believe, how they’ve tried to resolved the dispute between the brothers on those easements, but it is all tied together, and I don’t think it’s appropriate for you to start entertaining this application for the transfer of the land until you also get the application, because I think you need a variance to put a driveway through a frontage that is nonconforming, that is substandard. You’re increasing the level of the substandard element of the property. Because that’s not a current access way the same way you’re looking at this one. MS. BITTER-Craig Brown’s here. He can tell you right now. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/19/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m just going to say, in reviewing that with Craig, they would have to still have relief from the 40 foot. They’ve only got 20, or is it pre-existing because they’ve got 19 feet out there? MR. BROWN-No variance is required to put a driveway in there. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Even though they’re going to put one in where there never was one before? MR. BAKER-Well, I would argue that it is, because you are, you’re increasing the nonconforming nature. You’re not changing the frontage area, of course, but it hasn’t been used, and there’s always been the alternative access to that, and I think it does require consideration. MR. UNDERWOOD-Not to get into a debate here, but I can understand why you would want your own driveway access. I mean, everybody probably wants their own. I mean, I have an easement on my property that my neighbors use to access their property, but, in looking at what’s proposed here, I’m wondering, you know, why the old access is not acceptable, or is that still under consideration with the Planning Board, keeping it as is? MR. BAKER-I can’t say as to what that is. I haven’t appeared before them on this. I was recently retained, and they have, they’ve been focusing primarily to this point on stormwater issues and the shoreline questions. Like I said, this changes, you know, by allowing them to change the driveway configuration allows for the construction of the garage in an area that previously was, you know, represented to be left undeveloped to preserve the views. It’s much like you just had on your previous application where somebody represents that they’re going to be doing something and then comes back in, 15 years later, and changes it. I think there’s a reason to hold somebody to that, and there has been no showing as to why this is necessary, and clearly they’re all tied together, and I think it has to be taken collectively. I think, for SEQRA purposes also, while usually an Area Variance on something like this is a Type II action, is part and parcel of the overall project, which I believe has been considered an Unlisted Action by the Planning Board, because it’s a Site Plan approval in a Critical Environmental Area, and I think you have to at least consider as part of that, otherwise we’re doing classic segmentation here. MR. UNDERWOOD-We’re listed as a Type II here, Craig? MR. BROWN-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-It says on this plan here that this replacement easement is for parking. So the jog here, that comes in here, they’re going to use this for a parking place? MR. BAKER-For David Brown, for the adjoining parcel’s property. MRS. JENKIN-For David Brown. MR. BAKER-Right, not for the applicant. MRS. JENKIN-And that’s why he wants this triangular piece, because he wants to be able to park there? MR. BAKER-He wants to let his brother, David, the adjoining property owner wants, they were going to give that to him in exchange for, he has an existing parking easement, and I don’t know exactly how it’s defined, but he is allowed to park I think one or two vehicles. David Brown is allowed to park one or two vehicles. David Brown’s allowed to park one or two vehicles on Gregg Brown’s property. They’re going to extinguish that easement and transfer land from Gregg Brown to David Brown to use as the parking. MRS. JENKIN-So it’s now a parking place now? MS. BITTER-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-It’s a parking area now. MS. BITTER-A parking easement. MR. BAKER-It’s a parking easement now, and that area, we can show you the pictures, is now generally somewhat paved. You’re going to increase the amount of pavement by 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/19/08) paving the area that goes through the pre-existing frontage that has not been the driveway. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. We were supposed to be limiting you to about five minutes. MR. BAKER-Yes, I know, I appreciate that. MR. UNDERWOOD-We’re kind of way over that. I think we have a basic understanding of this now. So I think what we’ll do is we’ll ask if there’s anybody else wishing to speak on behalf or against this project. DR. COLLINS-Hi. My name is Carol Collins, and I’m here with my family, my husband, John, and my daughter Ashley and my son Brandon. I’ve lived on Knox Road all my life, and this has been a very stressful and difficult project because we’ve always been a community that appreciates and does the best for the lake, and there’s been some changeover in things that are being done, but this project here I think is really a very difficult project. I look at it, as a scientist, as something that is not good for the lake. It has a lot of environmental problems, but more importantly is the issue you’re dealing with tonight, and that is a very significant visual impact. People use Knox Road as a promenade, you know, everyone walks it. People come from everywhere to walk it, and this here will end up as sort of a cement, a blacktopped area that’ll be quite large. I have a picture of what it would be looking like from our perspective now. We will be cutting limbs off of trees, and I think you are all probably very familiar with what’s going to be happening. Our stand of trees there will become very fragile. Broomsticking of all these trees, when you limb them up, is going to cause these trees to come down in a very short time in the next storm. I mean, if you don’t have the bottom of the trees, that’s why they topple over, and that’s really why we’re seeing all the problems we do today. This is a little awkward for me, but I think that there’s some relationships that are going on between my two neighbors, and we are getting impacted by it. This wish to exterminate the easement between these two brothers is because of a certain relationship, and we’re impacted by it, and I don’t see why that should be, not with all these kinds of changes that are being proposed, where they’re going to take this whole area and now make it wide open on what used to be a beautiful lane. I have other, let me just turn it over to my husband. JOHN COLLINS MR. COLLINS-I’ll be brief. My name’s John Collins. You know, if you look at the issue that’s before the Board right now, it’s simply extinguishing the parking easement and granting a small, 180 square feet of land in exchange. You have to stand back and say, what if you don’t grant that variance? In the vacuum that you’ve been put in, Gregg Brown still has his current driveway access, and Dave Brown has his two car parking easement on Gregg Brown’s property. That was the deal that they struck in 1992 to split the properties up between the two brothers. It was a family property, and then they both went on to develop the houses. They both reconstructed houses in the late 90’s, early 2000’s timeframe. Dave Brown built a house. He’s got a half court basketball court behind his house because he knows he has his parking easement. So now the proposal is, extinguish the parking easement, grant the transfer of land, and where the current driveway entrance is, is going to be a parking lot for Dave Brown, and then right next to it, in that 18 foot road frontage, is going to be a brand new driveway that comes in, and we suffer because the trees are going to be impacted. You’re going to probably come up 12 feet or so to clear out enough room for a car, because a car cannot go along the property line without cutting the trees, and then you’ve got the utility pole issue, and the proposal has been to put another pole over, a second pole, over in front of our property, run the anchor line down, and then go from the new pole to the old pole to the Gregg Brown’s property, and part of the reason we’re upset, there’s been lousy communication with Gregg Brown on this thing and an inability to listen to reason, and, by the way, I would encourage you to go back to the 1996 minutes of the Board meeting in which the variance to allow him to have his house within 50 feet of the lakefront, to hear the impassioned pleas about how important views are, both from our property and from his property, and now he’s throwing us under the bus with regard to views, and we’re upset about it, and we want, listen, everybody has their property rights, but it ought to be done right and in conjunction with the idea of preserving the character of Lake George, and between the trees that are going to get cut and the vegetation that’s going to get removed, with just moving the driveway entrance, and then when you roll into all the other project, there are a number of significant trees that are being taken down, and it’s just plain not right. Thank you. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/19/08) DR. COLLINS-In terms of stormwater, by cutting that piece of property off their land, and adding more pervious surface, I think it’s going to affect their stormwater numbers, which have not been calculated. So I do think that that impacts the stormwater management numbers for the other project that’s not before you, and I think that’s very significant, if you knew that they’re having so much trouble with their stormwater problems. MRS. JENKIN-Currently, is their pavement for the parking areas now? Is it currently paved? DR. COLLINS-No. It’s grass. Well, no, but when they add another driveway, it will be. MRS. JENKIN-That’s going to be paved, but currently it’s not, it’s a dirt driveway in now? DR. COLLINS-No, it is paved right now. MRS. JENKIN-It’s paved now. DR. COLLINS-Right. MRS. JENKIN-It’s just they’re adding the extra 17 feet or 18 feet of pavement for your lot line. MR. COLLINS-Eighteen feet in width, the length is much farther. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I think we’re going to cut you off on time, because we gave you way over what was necessary, and I think we’ll have Ms. Bitter come back up and make some comments. MR. COLLINS-Thank you. DR. COLLINS-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Before you begin, I would just like to say, I think that, you know, it’s always important for us, I mean, when I received this, I thought to myself, gee, it’s just a lot line adjustment. MS. BITTER-And if I could respond to that right off the bat. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Certainly. MS. BITTER-I can tell you that I’ve sat down with Craig a number of times, because as they mentioned, this application has been going on for a while, and mostly because of the comments of the neighbors and the concerns that have been presented. When we discussed this, we found the projects to be independent of each other. This is a boundary line adjustment. This is what’s occurring. I understand what the Collins’ are saying, that, you know, it’s something that the brothers have struck as an agreement, and it was raised at the Planning Board level, but a number of these issues that they brought up, stormwater, trees, asphalt, are all items that are being discussed entirely at the Planning Board, and very, very carefully, and actually the project that’s before them, and I haven’t gone into detail because you’re not the Planning Board and obviously they’re dealing with that, is to obviously, is actually to reduce the impervious surfaces that exist there. The stormwater project that they’re implementing is actually to improve the stormwater conditions of the lake, but I’m not going to go into details before you, but I didn’t find it, when I talked to Craig, necessary for you to submit all the materials that are before the Planning Board, since obviously the Planning Board’s reviewing that now, and, this is a modification of a subdivision. So if this Board does approve this, it has to go before the Planning Board to have that modification approved as well. So I wasn’t meaning to leave anything out, by any means, but, in my mind, this is the scope that Mr. Brown is seeking at this time. MR. GARRAND-It still appears, though, as we’re putting the cart before the horse. MS. BITTER-And actually, to present a comment by Staff, is if you find it necessary to find a recommendation from the Planning Board, since the Planning Board has everything in front of them, I don’t have a problem with you doing that, since obviously you guys would have to be listening to, reading a lot of minutes to be brought up to speed as to what has happened and how this project has evolved over the course of the last many months. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/19/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-I would just make the comment on this one, you know, in regards to this, what you’re requesting from us, the project in totality, in other words, the garage and all the stuff that’s been presented to us by the neighbors, I mean, I think that is important. It really has little to do with whether we grant this or not, because you’re going to have access to that property. You can park in your garage at any point at any time. MS. BITTER-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-Notwithstanding the fact, though, that this still has to go to the Planning Board, I think that, you know, we should, I think at all times, endeavor to make things work for everybody, not just that we’re trying to throw a wrench in the works and stop things or that we’re kneejerk reacting to neighbors that don’t want a project or something like that either. MS. BITTER-And with the months that we’ve spent on this, Mr. Underwood, I want you to know that we’re not kneejerking by any means. MR. UNDERWOOD-No. I assume it’s been a difficult process and that it’s not finished yet. You still have some work to do before everything is granted, as has been presented to us here this evening, but in regards to that, I would just defer to the Board’s, you know, what the Board members wish to do here, you know, whether we want to act tonight. I would just say, for myself, whether we act tonight or not is not important at this time. I think that, you know, the access, whether it remains the same, or we grant relief for the new access point, the changes that are going to occur on this property are directly a result from the building project has nothing to do with us at this point in time. Nonetheless, though, I think that the Planning Board probably is going to make an attempt to work things out for everybody in regards to the project. I don’t think it’s going to be just looking at it from your viewpoint. MS. BITTER-Right, and you’re obviously, you’re only hearing it from the Collins’ perspective, and instead of going into details. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, and that’s understandable, but I think that we want to make sure that we make a decision that’s in the best regards of the community. I think that we’ve listened to both sides here tonight, and I think probably what needs to happen next is that it needs to go back to the Planning Board, let them peruse it. Maybe they can tweak things and make things work for both of these parties here. So it’s more amenable to both of them. I mean, looking at the thing here, I can see some obvious things you could do to make it work, but I’m not going to make the decision here tonight. I don’t think that we should. I think it would be premature on our part to do that. So I think we’ll send it to the Planning Board. MS. BITTER-And this matter is actually going to be, it’s scheduled to be before the nd Planning Board April 22, the Site Plan, I’m sorry. So, obviously, if you want to make that recommendation, I’m not sure what their schedule is like, but. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would make the recommendation, too, if you’re going to go back to them, you’ve heard what the neighbors say. Obviously that’s going to have a bearing on the project, and even though things are in a conformingly built manner it appears on the plan where they want to build things, nonetheless, I think that neighbors should consider neighbors, and neighborly relations as far as that goes. I mean, it might be a good time to get together with the neighbors and communicate. That always works. So, what’s your feeling? Do you guys want to table this? MRS. HUNT-I just have a question. I don’t know, will there be two driveways, then, going to Knox lane? MS. BITTER-I don’t believe so. I don’t believe so, but I’ll have to get clarification on it, pursuant to the Site Plan. MRS. HUNT-I don’t know how you can do it without. I don’t see how you could do it without having two driveways. MS. BITTER-I’d actually have to get clarification on that. MRS. HUNT-You have one driveway next to the other. MS. BITTER-Because unfortunately, Jon Lapper has been before the Site Plan for the Planning Board of this matter. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/19/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-On the plan they show a low boulder wall, you know, along that, along the north side of the piece of the pie that we would be granting the variance for. So, there would only be a single one. MRS. HUNT-How could there be a single one? MRS. JENKIN-No, but it would be for the two properties, there’s one for each property. There would have to be. MRS. HUNT-He has his driveway. MR. UNDERWOOD-His driveway is going to come to here, and ends right here. MRS. HUNT-And then this will have another one. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. That’s adding a second one. MRS. HUNT-Adding a second one. MRS. JENKIN-But they have two now, don’t they? MRS. HUNT-No, one. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, it’s a shared access point at the present time. MRS. JENKIN-They share the driveway. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s interesting. MR. BROWN-I did have something to add, if you’d let me here. What would probably make a lot of sense for this Board to be able to answer all the questions, and I’m not as up to speed with all the finite details as Counsel and the neighbors are in this project, but I would think that if part of the proposal is to remove the driveway access in favor of Gregg Brown, over the David Brown property, that we’d like to see that, and also what the potential is, or what the proposal is, as far as that driveway in the Town right of way. It’s not either Brown’s property. It’s Town property, north, or on the top side of this map, of those heavy lines. So that’s all under the jurisdiction of the Highway Department. So certainly if the driveway, where it says proposed conveyance, if that portion of the driveway was to be removed, in favor of a driveway slightly to the north to come in to the 18 foot of frontage on the Gregg Brown property, I think this Board should have that plan to show where that driveway is and what’s going to stay, what’s going to go, in favor of parking versus access, and also to be sure that that information gets to the Planning Board, so when they send a recommendation back to you, it’s based on what’s actually going to happen there at the road. So everybody knows what’s going on, and the neighbors can see what it is, you can see what it is, the Planning Board can see what it is, and we can all iron out what reviews are necessary, if any. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. BROWN-Just a suggestion. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anything else you want to add? MS. BITTER-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, then here’s what my recommendation is going to be for the Planning Board, and I think we’re going to pass this on to the Planning Board, and what I’m going to, the Number One question I’m going to ask the Planning Board in regards to what we’re being asked to grant relief for here, and that is the transfer of property, a lot line adjustment here. At the time that this original subdivision occurred, there must have been some forethought on the part of the Planning Board as to the access. In other words, you were taking a single Waterfront Residential lot, splitting it up into two lots, and the access point that was done at that time, I don’t know how that related to what was there previously, but I’m sure they’re going to have a record of that. I would like to hear from the Planning Board, certainly we can get into the argument of whether or not we need the 40 foot of relief thing, and I think that’s still a question mark with you, Craig. Maybe you want to go back and. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/19/08) MR. BROWN-Well, I can answer that question right now. The answer is still no. They’re not required to get a variance to put that driveway in there, and you’re probably going to have a very difficult time getting this Planning Board to tell you what the 1992 Planning Board was thinking when they did this, but we could certainly pull the subdivision map that was approved for Sunset Hill Farms when it was originally done to see if there are any specific notes on shared access for those two lots at that point. Hopefully there’s some sort of reference on there, and from what I can tell, and there’s limited information here on what’s in the right of way, but I think there’s still potential to have one curb cut off Knox Road, and then if immediately (lost word) in different directions, there’s ways to only have one curb cut on the road. There may be a lot of driveway and pavement in the right of way, but only one cut onto the driving surface. There’s more detail needed. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m going to ask them, then, for whether or not they feel that it’s redundant to have two driveways located so very close to each other, and if there’s any benefit to that, to the neighborhood or the community at that point in time. Secondly, also, in regards to the proposed project, I mean, that’s not in our hands. That’s their prerogative as to how they deal with that, and, you know, it’s unfortunate that, you know, the garage is going to be built in somebody’s view shed, but that’s the way it is. I mean, when you have property, if it’s going to be built in a conforming manner, meeting the setback distances from the property lines, there’s not a whole lot we could say to change that as a Board, but I think our issue really has to be the driveway access point, and I think at that point, I would like some kind of clarification on their part as to whether they think there’s a benefit to preserving that greenery in the front there on the road where the new driveway access would go, or if they consider that to be, you know, not detrimental to the community at this point in time. I would think that would be the pertinent thing. As far as the power line being moved and things like that, I mean, I don’t think that’s our jurisdiction on that. That’s not going to come into play there, but I would ask them for a recommendation as to whether a shared drive, as existing, is something that can be utilized by both parties. I think there were issues, also, in regards to the amount of impermeable area there, and whether that was going to increase or decrease the amount of impermeable area. It would seem to me it’s probably going to increase their impermeability because they’re taking a chunk of their property off at that point. MS. BITTER-There’s a lot going on towards the shoreline, obviously, you guys aren’t familiar with that, though. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Yes. I mean, we’re really not privy to that information at this point in time, but in general, I would like some succinct commentary on the shared parking access versus creation of individual parking access on that point, and that’s what we’re looking for. Does somebody want to second that? MRS. JENKIN-I’ll definitely second that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Maria, do you want to vote? MS. GAGLIARDI-That was the motion, then? MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s the motion then. MR. BROWN-I have to sympathize with Maria, here. I know she’s going to have to transcribe this tomorrow. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2008 GREGG BROWN, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joan Jenkin: 31 Knox Road & 29 Knox Road. Requesting commentary from the Planning Board in regards to whether the continued shared access point is more or less suitable than what’s being proposed to us, that is the creation of two individual access driveway points to both of those adjoining properties of the brothers Brown on Knox Road. Tabled to the first meeting in May, pending Planning Board recommendations. th Duly adopted this 19 day of March, 2008, by the following vote: MR. BROWN-And do we want to table this to a specific date? MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think we’ll table that based upon, that may be something that they can deal with coming up very quickly here. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/19/08) MS. BITTER-In April. th MR. GARRAND-Well, this is the 26 of April or something they’re coming up? nd MR. BROWN-Well, they’re scheduled for April 22. th MR. UNDERWOOD-So we’d have it by the 15, or, no, we wouldn’t. MR. BROWN-You’d probably have to go to a May date. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Let’s go to the first meeting in May. MR. GARRAND-Pending Planning Board recommendations. MRS. JENKIN-I would like more information, too. I don’t think that this piece plot plan that we got is nearly complete. MS. BITTER-You want the Site Plan. MRS. JENKIN-Yes. MS. BITTER-That’s fine. MR. BROWN-Well, I think specifically what we want. MRS. JENKIN-Because it doesn’t give you an idea of what’s happening here. MR. UNDERWOOD-This thing that was submitted to us tonight, that’s got the information. We can, and we’ve got the pictures here. MR. BROWN-Okay, and keep in mind, many of the trees, and I’m not familiar with those pictures, but many of those trees could be in the right of way, and neither of the Browns or the Collins have control over what happens to those trees. So, I mean, if the Town Highway Department wanted to go in there and cut them all down, they could do that. They’re in the right of way. Hopefully they’re not going to do that, but it’s Town property. At least that’s the way this is mapped. It’s not private property. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I guess I’ll ask for a recommendation, if it is Town property where those present trees are existing there, then, does anybody have any right to cut them down but the Town? In essence. You can’t put a driveway onto our property, right? MR. BROWN-Well, yes, there is a connection from the drive surface to your property line that’s in the right of way that everybody has in front of their property. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant MS. BITTER-All right. Thank you very much. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Does anybody else have anything they want to talk about this evening before we signoff? Okay. I’ll make a motion that we close the meeting, then. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, James Underwood, Acting Chairman 35