Loading...
1997-11-24 SP (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/97) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING NOVEMBER 24, 1997 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT PAUL HAYES, ACTING CHAIRMAN BONNIE LAPHAM, SECRETARY ROBERT KARPELES ROBERT MC NALLY MEMBERS ABSENT CHRIS THOMAS LEWIS STONE BRIAN CUSTER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR -JOHN GORALSKI STENOGRAPHER -MARIA GAGLIARDI AREA VARIANCE NO. 76-1997 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED CR-15 JEWELS DONUTS, INC. OWNER: MARK F. LA POINTE 22 W. MAIN STREET CORNER OF MAIN AND CAROLINE STREETS APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A DUNKIN DONUTS SHOP. APPLICANT REQUESTS RELIEF FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-24. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 11/12/97 TAX MAP NO. 131-5-1, 34, 33 LOT SIZES: 0.17, 0.17, 0.17 ACRES SECTION 179-24 ROBERT LENZEL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LAPHAM-Project applicants Jewels Donuts, Inc., 95 Saratoga Avenue, South Glens Falls, NY 12803. Property owner Mark F. LaPointe, 22 West Main Street, Queensbury, NY. Description of the project, a Dunkin Donut shop. Zoning classification, CR-15. Any previous Planning Board or Zoning Board determination regarding this property - attached is a copy of a previous area variance. Present use of property: Private residence and limousine service business. Proposed use of property: Dunkin Donut shop. The following questions reflect the criteria for granting this type of variance: How would you benefit from the granting of this Area Variance? It would allow us to construct a Dunkin Donut shop for income. What affect would this variance have on the character of neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community? Enhance area values, appearance. Can see no adverse on the health or safety. Will add approximately 15 jobs, additional sales tax revenues, additional real estate and school taxes. Are there feasible alternatives to this variance? No. Is the amount of variance substantial relative to the Ordinance? We know from past experience the variance will allow more than adequate space to safely operate a Dunkin Donut shop. The proposed use is in keeping with the purpose of the commercial residential zoning. Will the variance have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district? No.Staff Notes: Town of Queensbury Zoning Board ofAppeals, Area Variance No. 76-1997. Project applicant: Jewel Donuts, Inc. Project location: corner of Main Street and Caroline Street. Applicant proposes construction of a commercial enterprise, Dunkin Donuts. Applicant is requesting relief from Section 179-24 requiring a minimum of one acre in area for commercial uses. The proposed lot measures approximately 22,500 sq. ft. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapters 267 of Town Law: One, benefit to the applicants The applicant would be allowed to construct and operate a commercial enterprise. Feasible alternatives. Feasible alternatives are limited due to no construction or acquisition of additional property in conformance with the Ordinance. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The relief may be interpreted as substantial. Affects on the neighborhood or community? An increase of the density of allowed commercial use is anticipated as a result of the proposal. Is this difficulty self created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel history: The subject parcels are currently used by Sue Howard Limousine. Staff comments: The applicant request for relief from the minimum lot size requirement will allow for development of a commercial enterprise on an approximately one half acre lot. The Main Street corridor is subject to increased commercial development and the associated impacts. The corridor will be the subject of a traffic planning and analysis study. SEQR status: Type II. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/97) MR. HAYES-Okay, I'll open the public hearing. Excuse me, the applicant MRS. LAPHAM-No, I have to read my Planning Board stuff. At the meeting of the Warren County Planning Board held on the 12th day of November 1997 the above application for an area variance to construct a Dunkin Donut shop was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to approve. The Warren County Planning Board approves this Area Variance specifically for this plan for Jewel's Donuts, Inc. Signed by Tracy Ross, Vice Chairperson. MR. HAYES-Mr. LaPointe. SOME DISCUSSION - Cannot be transcribed. MR. LENZEL-Robert Lenzel from Dunkin Donuts. MR. HAYES-Is there anything you want to add since your last application? MR. LENZEL-No, not really, just some comments that were made in the reading in regards to anticipated traffic increase and things of that nature. I'm not sure if I mentioned it to this Board at the last meeting. We are not a destination like a MacDonalds or anything like that. We are an impulse and what I mean by that is we feed directly off the existing traffic. There is roughly, I think, looking at DOT studies about 22,000 cars depending on the season and the peak and like that, 22,000 cars a day there. We’ll use less, we need to utilize for our sales and its been our experience in this general area with those counts and demographics in the area that we use less than one percent of the existing traffic which converts into about a little over 200 cars a day. And I think my point being is that where we won't add to any existing traffic problems that are currently on that road. Also the fact that it is a corner lot I think also enhances us utilizing that property in a more safe nature than if we didn't enjoy the corner itself. I'm not sure if there is anything else that I really need to comment on that I hadn't commented on at the last meeting. If there is anything else that I can answer for you folks I'd be more than willing to. MR. HAYES-Is there any questions by the Board members. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, you said you’re a co-owner of the property? MR.LENZEL-No, the property is owned by Mark LaPointe and Sue Howard, that’s Sue Howard’s husband. My name is Robert Lenzel, I own Jewel's Donuts, Inc. myself and Bud Morrison. MR. KARPELES-Is this plan pretty finalized, is this the way its going to be? MR. LENZEL-No, this is the second draft. There was an original draft that came down from corporate Dunkin Donuts. We send them the particulars to the lot and they’ll send us back like a preliminary site plan. Well also send, when we send the information well send zoning manuals and codes and things of that nature and they’ll draw something up. We've taken what they sent to us with some of the current information that we have, like the possible widening of the road and we worked this up with Dick Jones, our architect, who has worked on two other projects with us in the past, South Glens Falls and Fort Edward, making necessary changes. Now, anything we can do to improve the lot or the planning as such to meet codes or anything to add comfort to the Board we're more than willing to look at and try to accommodate to any degree. MR. KARPELES-But, you are definitely figuring on entering on Main Street and exiting on Caroline Street? MR. LENZEL-That would be our desire. What the, I believe that is a County Road? What the curb cut allowance on that is, at this point, we haven't even begun to investigate that, so where that will end up at this point I really don't know. Like I said, the particulars to it, I think what we are trying to demonstrate here is a possibility for the actual probability of developing this site on half acre as opposed to a full acre and doing it safely and in accordance with. MR. MC NALLY-You mentioned widening the road. Did you make any changes to your plans based on future expansions of Main Street? MR. LENZEL-Yes, what we had done, Dunkin had sent to us, corporate Dunkin had sent to us if you look at your plans they are 9, 10, 11, and 12 the parking spaces on the Main Street side, that was, the parking ran in the other direction. What we've done here is we've turned it into parallel 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/97) parking to hopefully accommodate two things - one, is to give us more of a green area and also, too, if there is a widening of the road to also be able accommodate that. If we lost up to 10 feet it wouldn't have an impact on the lot in any way. And also if need be if there is ever a need for a larger vehicle to be on to the lot by setting the parking up parallel would also accommodate for that. MR. HAYES-Is there anything meaningful about that we should be considering about that Broad Street expansion, John? MR. GORALSKI-I think what they have done is they've accommodated the setback is 75 feet because of the potential and they have set back the building 75 feet and they have given you some room for some green space along Main Street. The status of that whole project is that a study is going to be done looking at different alternatives to improve traffic circulation on Main Street. That will be, the study should be completed by March. At that time Warren County DPW win finance the design of the project which will probably take through the summer, you're probably looking at some type of project under construction spring of 1999, but I think that the site plan as its drawn here will accommodate anything, any type of reconstruction that takes place there. They will obviously try to minimize any type of taking of any property along Main Street. The plan right now is to have a center turning lane and have one east bound lane and one west bound lane. MR. MC NALLY-And the shaded area on your diagram isgreen area that you propose? MR. LENZEL-Yes, it is, which is roughly a thousand foot more that it requires at this point to help accommodate any of these situations that might occur. MR. MC NALLY-What is to the rear of the property along Caroline Street? Is that another private home? MR. LENZEL-I believe it is a private residence. MR. HAYES: I'm assuming it's a private residence to the west as well then, along Main Street? MR. LENZEL-Yes, it is. We've been able to meet all the required setbacks and the green spaces on all those areas as to not be intrusive in any way. MR. GORALSKI-I should also point out if this gets approved it will require site plan approval from the Planning Board. MR. HAYES-Any more questions? MS. LAPHAM-What are your hours going to be? MR. LENZEL-That hasn't been established yet. I just hope to get past this, like I had mentioned at the last meeting I'm not sure if there is any ordinance dictating whether we can 24 hours or not. I'm not sure, the company likes to see that happen for sales reasons. They get 10 percent off the top so its attractive to them. If we do stay open 24 hours or allowed to stay open 24 hours the customer counts during those hours are so small that I just don't know how they could interfere or be intrusive to anyone. We currently own and operate the three existing Dunkin Donuts, two of them are surrounded by residences, actually one of them is completely surrounded by residents and the 11 years we have operated South Glens Falls we've never had any difficulties with the neighbors, we've always maintained good rapport, so, I don't anticipate this being any different. MR. MC NALLY-Are you planning fencing or screening or shrubbery between the existing, well the proposed store and the residences at all? MR. LENZEL-That, what will be in the green space we haven't even anticipated that. In South Glens Falls our property is completely closed by shrubbery except with the exception of the street side of course and its helped do a nice job of isolating us from the community in that regard. MR. HAYES-Any more questions? MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. HAYES-Okay, I will open the public hearing and anybody that is in favor Of the application please step forward. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/97) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HAYES-Anyone opposed? Please step forward and speak into the microphone. MR. HAYES-Could you state your name please for the record. MR. WILLLAMS-My name is Nathaniel Williams and I am the owner of the property on Caroline Street that connects to. MR. HAYES-The south end immediately to the south end. MR. WILLIAMS-Yes, immediately to the south. I have obviously some concerns as far as, you know, putting a business in there that could potentially operate 24 hours a day. How its going to affect certainly, you know, that property. How its going to disturb, you know, people that are living there with the traffic, the lights. I'm concerned about the snow handling, you know, where is the snow going to go? I'm concerned about overflow parking when during the peak times and what have you, I'm certainly concerned that people are going to be possibly forced to park out on Caroline Street. My property is very, very close to there and I'm sure that some of that overflow parking is going to be along in front of my property. I'm also concerned about the traffic flow, I think with the exiting onto Caroline Street ifs going to force a lot of that traffic down Caroline Street and out over to Garner, down to Western and over to Richardson which is going to increase the traffic certainly in those neighborhoods that don't currently exist. Certainly anybody that lives in that area and what have you knows how very difficult it is to come off Caroline Street and make a left onto Main Street. It’s almost impossible as it stands right now. I don't know about the proposed widening or if that will take place or what have you, but I certainly can see a real back up of traffic, traffic right there in that area and, uh, if it isn't backed up there then it forces it over to Garner, down Garner to Richardson where you've got a red light in order to get out onto Main to make a left hand turn, so I think the traffic pattern is going be forced further back into the residential area and that's kind of why I oppose it. MR. HAYES-Okay, thank you Mr. Williams. MR. WILLIAMS-Thank you. MR. LENZEL-May I respond to some of those issues. MR. HAYES-Absolutely. MR. LENZEL-In regards to snow removal, what we do at all of our sites is we store what we can on the premises, usually green space or things of that nature. And then we have it hauled away as needed, maintaining all of our needed parking at this point. The lighting, I can't address that issue because I don't know, I know that they have kind of softened their lighting, interior and exterior like I mentioned the Greenwich store is what this store will know look like hopefully and I think that it is a much softer lighting than what we currently have. At that point I don't know if they'll be anything on the back of the building, most of our lighting is in the front of the building, pylon sign is toward the street, the soffet lighting is around the front of the building where the pedestrians are in regards to customers. The next thing, as far as causing traffic problems I think its important to understand that we choose that side of the road because its what we call the breakfast side of the road. Like I said we only enjoy the existing traffic, we don't create additional traffic and if we do its the numbers are so small that they don't even show up as percentages. And what that means is that if someone is to be on that road there headed into Glens Falls during the peak hours, that’s why we need to be on the traffic side of the road, the morning side of the road. They're on a destination, usually headed toward or into the city for whatever particular reason, as far as the point I guess I'm trying to make here is once they enter the property, do what they need to do, and then exit, when they get onto Caroline they're headed in the same direction they were. I think you’ll find that less than one half of one percent of the traffic will cross, you know, make a left coming out of Caroline, minimizing any difficulties that that might cause. I forgot what some of the other concerns were, I guess what I'm trying to say. MR. MC NALLY-Overflow parking. MR. LENZEL-Pardon me? MR. MC NALLY-Overflow parking. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/97) MR. LENZEL-That’s a good point, at any particular even during our peak hours which are from 6 a.m. til noon we have in South Glens Falls and we anticipate this being the same volume of, in dollar volumes, which converts into customer counts and things of that nature and vehicles, during our peak hours we found that we have about 25 to 30 places, parking places, in South Glens Falls and less than half of them are utilized at any given point. Drive-thru is a big draw, people don't utilize a lot of the parking that is there. I can't see this with our experience that we've had with the three other stores. Having any overflow parking, it doesn't happen. It hasn't happened. It’s been our experience, I've been at this 15 years, and we've never had every parking space full. So I don't anticipate anybody parking on the street. I don't anticipate us not being able to, we have 19 spaces here, we have handicapped spaces, we have a service drive, an escape lane, there is plenty of other places on the lot that if we did experience this, which I truly don't feel we would experience there are other places for them to park on the lot. I just don't see that happening, like I said, the three stores we have I don't anticipate this being our highest volume store and I don't anticipate that being a problem. MR. MC NALLY-Did you have a lighting plan? MR. LENZEL-Pardon me? MR. MC NALLY-Do you have a lighting plan? MR. LENZEL-Not at this point. MR. MC NALLY-Preliminary or otherwise regarding lighting at the site? MR. LENZEL-No, we hadn't. Dunkin sent out a standard set of plans that they would just plug into any location, obviously that would have to be worked as needed. At this point, like I said, I'm trying to minimize, uh, because if this doesn't happen, I haven't gone that far because if this doesn't happen tonight then the project's over so I'm taking it one step at a time and to have a lighting plan at this point or even a preliminary site plan other that what you see here it hasn't been investigated. MR. MC NALLY-What would involve, there has been some concern, and I think legitimate, regarding lighting at the rear and screening residential homes. MR. LENZEL-Yes, uh, huh. MR. MC NALLY-I'd feel a lot more comfortable if I had some idea what your plans were. What would be involved in getting information regarding these issues. MR. LENZEL-What would be involved to go that far I'd have to, if I got past today that would be my next step and that next step would cost me about $7,000 worth of architect work to answer these questions and I'm doing all that I can to not spend that $7,000. I don't have a heck of a lot of money. So I'm not trying to be evasive by any means, I'm just saying that it hasn't been investigated at this point. As far as screening ourselves from the neighbors anything that the Board recommends, I believe that if we do get that far we have to go in front of the Beautification Committee I believe if that’s and those I'm assuming at that point those concerns would be addressed to everyone's satisfaction. There, it just, this as we all know this is a changing corridor. There is no question about it. That's why there are traffic studies being done, there is currently less than half a mile down the road Subways and Lox of Bagels and 24 hour gas stations, convenient stores that are mixed, the same corridor, same traffic, same people mixed with residents and I just feel that if they can successfully accommodate the needs and concerns of their neighbors that we should be able to do also. MR. KARPELES-Can we elaborate a little more on snow removal. It doesn't look like there is much space to pile snow on this lot. Do you pile snow in the parking spaces? MR. LENZEL-No, not at all. MR. KARPELES-In other words, you'd be willing to have a condition on this that the snow would have to be removed if it blocked any parking spaces. MR. LENZEL-Well, first of all I wouldn’t let that happen. Also I wouldn’t plow snow toward the front of the property or the side of the property, that would one, enclose the property itself and I think that’s a bad thing to do. The next thing is people have to enter and exit safely so that’s not a good place for snow. As an example, we just built the Fort Edward store, it’s 10,000 sq. ft. lot with an 1 100 sq. ft. building, it’s quite a small lot. We have a private residence on the back with a 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/97) fence on the property line that was already there, there was an existing fence. We push all the snow to the back of the property making sure not to in any way damage anybody's property. I guess my point is that that lot is so small and with the some of the volumes of snow that we have here, I have snow hauled away once or twice a week so it doesn't stay on the lot long, if it is on the lot its on the back of the property. I would never do anything on the roads to cause any visibility problems. I would never eliminate any parking, that wouldn't be my desire and that wouldn't be advantageous to us to do so. Snow removal happens constantly so that's a normal course of business. MR. HAYES-Is there anyone else that would like to come forward and speak in regards to this application? Please state your name for the record. MS. WILLIAMS-Yes, I'm Kathilyn Williams, I'm Nathaniel William’s wife and we own that property behind the property we're talking about on Main Street. The one thing that I'd like to mention is that I always took Main Street home from work or shopping. If you travel that area you know that the Northway is there and people work in Albany and Clifton Park, a lot of our people work that way so he mentioned the traffic flow being, I forget what he called it, breakfast side, morning side, that is not absolutely true. If you're heading from Glens Falls onto the Northway its bumper to bumper traffic in the morning. I also want to mention that there are no sidewalks, children going to school have no place to walk but on the street so if you have traffic being diverted because of that exit onto Caroline Street they're either going to go down Garner to Western or up Garner onto Richardson. There are no school buses. That's it. MR. HAYES-Thank you Mrs. Williams. Is there anyone else that would like to speak? I’ll close the public hearing then and lets talk about it. MRS. LAPHAM-We have some. MR. HAYES-I'm sorry we have some. I'd like to open the public hearing to include correspondence. MS. LAPHAM-From Impressive Imprints, 38 Main Street, Queensbury, NY to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Queensbury from Gary Randall. As a local business owner I am looking forward to more commercial businesses like Dunkin Donuts in this area. These changes will have a positive effect on Main Street. Queensbury which needs more recognition and commercial establishments such as these. I am in favor of a variance for relief of the minimum lot size requirements of Section 179-24 to allow the growth needed in this area. Thank you. Gary Randall, Impressive Imprints. MR. HAYES-Is that it? MRS. LAPHAM-That's it. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-Thank you. Well close the public hearing. I guess we’ll start with the guy who put me in the hot seat here, Mr. Karpeles. MR. KARPELES-Well, the question here is we're just looking for relief from the size of the lot, not the commercial aspects of it and I really don't see where the size of the lot has too much of an affect upon the traffic pattern. I think even if it were a one acre lot that we would still have the same traffic concerns. So, therefore, the things that concern me are the things that would be influenced by the size of the lot. I'm concerned about the septic system and you are assuring us that you have gotten, its going to have to go before Site Plan review. MR. GORALSKI-It would go before the Planning Board for Site Plan Review and then also our building department would also have to approve it. MR. KARPLES-And I'm concerned about snow removal, but I realize its to your benefit that you keep all your parking spaces open and so forth. So when I look at it I really think I'm favor of it. I think I would approve it. MR. HAYES-Bob? 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/97) MR. MC NALLY-I've got mixed feelings. When I drive by this property I see the three lots, I see the current uses, definitely the corridor is commercial but the lot is undersized by about half of what it should be. The Town Board in its infinite wisdom decided that it should be a full acre and your proposal is a little bit greater than a half acre I think. While you meet all the setbacks it occurs to me that, and this is my opinion, this seems to be shoehorning a Dunkin Donuts into this lot. And I'm concerned, it would certainly be a great benefit that you could operate a commercial enterprise and that would be a good thing. I think that it would be an improvement over the existing structures in the sense that it would be a new structure, it would be a more viable business, the consolidation of small parcels. There may be no feasible alternatives unless you acquire more property. You've managed to acquire 3 properties so far. The relief is substantial though, you are asking for half the existing Ordinance and the affects on the community and the neighborhood concern me. I mean, if you came to me, and said Oh, this is my plan for screening, this is my plan for fencing, my lights are going to be this. Then I think I could better balance the commercial interests that you have with your neighbors. Because behind you it is residential and while they are impacted by businesses on Main Street that are already there, I’m just concerned what the affect is going to be by approving a Dunkin Donuts on an undersized lot. Don't get me wrong, I understand that you don't want to spend a lot of money on these plans and things like this. But I have to balance these things. You're not giving me enough information that I can consider what kind of impacts its going to have on the neighbors. MR. LENZEL-You don't feel that those same concerns would exist even if I purchased everything around me and bought a full acre. MR. MC NALLY- No, if you had a full acre you might have more green acre, if you have a full acre you may have the same problems but what my real concern is what are your plans because I am inclined to grant this, but I’d be more inclined to do so if I knew what kind of contingencies you would allow us to impose on this property regarding screening and lighting. MR. LENZEL-I understand. MR. MC NALLY-And I don't want to straight jacket you, put handcuffs on you and say you can do this, you can do that, you can do the other thing if you don't have any plans. I'm kind of at a loss. I'd be more inclined to pass it, what's this applicant going to do though to prevent the problems. You say its going to the Planning Board which is fine, but if we grant this variance and there are no conditions on it and it goes to the Planning Board and they say nothing you can do anything you please. I think we have certain obligations to balance these interests and I'd like some more information. MR. LENZEL-Wouldn't the Planning Board at that point have to address the same concerns that you have brought up. MR.. MC NALLY-I suspect that they would. I don't know that they will though. They have that obligation and we certainly also have the obligation though in balancing the communities interests with your private interests. MR. LENZEL-Had I realized at this point that much more information that was needed I perhaps would have tried to accommodate you folks at that point, but just some of the questions you're asking of me at this point haven't even investigated. I'm just taking a natural course of action here and I'm just trying to attempt to prove that I can safely and comfortably operate a Dunkin Donuts on a half acre of land. Like I had mentioned South Glens Falls is a half acre and if you people visit the site and think that its congested or cumbersome I just can't see that being, now you go to Fort Edward and that’s a whole different story and like I said its a 10,000 sq. ft. lot, 1100 sq. ft. building, its a difficult place to be. South Glens Falls being very similar in size to this is quite a different picture. MR. MC NALLY-But can't you agree that the use that you are proposing is a lot different than the current use as a limousine service. MR. LENZEL-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-That'd be a more intensive use and its going to be a more 24 hour type use so I'd be concerned with respect to cars coming around that drive thru and then the lighting shining in neighbors windows and things like that. I'd be concerned about you know what kind of screening there is going to be, what kind of lighting there is going to be. Can you make us any promises? Can you tell us what’s going to be there as you sit here today. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/97) MR. LENZEL-No, not at this point I can't. But what I can say is that we can we will do all we can to accommodate things. These are not unusual issues that you have brought up. We had the same concerns when we built South Glens Falls 10 years ago. Like I said we are completely surrounded by residents on three sides there, screening problems, lighting problems the same concerns that we currently have here have been addressed to everyone's satisfaction as far as I can tell there has been no like I said we have maintained a good rapport with all our neighbors whether they are commercial or residential. MR. GORLASKI-If I could maybe throw something into the mix here, I assume you are aware, but I just want to state it for the record. You can place any conditions on your approval whether he agrees to them or not, you know, so if you wanted to say you need to put a six foot fence around the southern and western property line, you can't have any lighting behind the building that’s greater than six feet tall, you need to put shrubs at a certain height and a certain spacing around the perimeter of the property. Then if he can't live with that well that's really not your problem. If you want to put conditions like that on the approval you can do that. MR. LENZEL-I guess that was my point that we would do all we can to accommodate whatever your wishes were. I hope that at this point that not knowing what our plans are that the conditions are I guess reasonable or until we can address some of these issues. I just thought that when we if we got past this point there were still many hurdles to jump and I just didn't think that all of these things had to be addressed at this point. I understand what your responsibilities are, I truly do. MR. MC NALLY-When I said I didn't want handcuffs on you, I could do just what he's saying and say there is a motion or make a recommendation to the rest of the Board I want fences six feet tall or something like that. But I'm not going to do that if I don't have to and if you have plans existing already that is going to show me what your intentions are, that’s why I asked you the questions. MR. GORALSKI-The other option is obviously to table the application and have the applicant come in with ways to address the concerns that have been brought up tonight. MR. MC NALLY-What was your drop dead date for our approval. MR. LENZEL-Pardon me? MR. MC NALLY-What was your drop dead date for our approval? MR. LENZEL-Well, I to be quite honest with you I have been in front of Queensbury before and I never got this far so I didn't plan on going any further to be honest with you. I lost about $15,000 on Dix Avenue because the Board was asking me questions like what am I prepared to do if people don't stop at stop signs, you know, things of that nature. There's no way I can come back that type of approach. I hadn't even thought that far, I truly hadn't. MR. HAYES-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I am kind of leaning with Bob right now I guess. I'm very concerned about the screening for the neighbors. I do think that if this were on an acre lot, yes, some of these same problems would come before us, but it wouldn't be quite so congested and so worrisome and I guess I would like to see a little bit more information on protection for the neighbors in back of them because that is all residential in back of him. MR. LENZEL-At the last meeting I invited you folks to visit the South Glens Falls, I keep going back to that because it is so similar to what we have here and you look at a half acre and half of what the requirement is, it just, I look at what I have in front of me or when I walk the site and I think well maybe its not, but spending most of my time because 95 Saratoga Avenue, South Glens Falls is our headquarters or our main store, whatever and I'm almost always there and I just cannot get myself to draw that conclusion that its a tight spot to be, cumbersome on customers, intrusive or anything of that nature. MR. MC NALLY-Don't get me wrong, it’s just that if we let you out of here with a variance without conditions that are expressed and can be enforced they are not enforceable so us visiting the South Glens Falls store is good and I agree that your store is going to be fine store, don't get me wrong, I do think you are going to do a good job. It's just that we can't guarantee that without some kind of promise that’s enforceable. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/97) MR. LENZEL-Absolutely. MR. MC NALLY-And that requires information. MR. HAYES-Well, I think the applicant has done a good job answering the questions that have been put in front of him, I think he's come prepared and has certainly has addressed a lot of the most obvious questions. The reservations that the panel members have brought up are important and the public has spoken by expressing concerns about that, but I guess I don't need to elaborate too far being that it doesn't seem like since we only have four panel members here tonight that you have the support that you need, so I guess saving everybody's time would you like to table the application and come back with those improvements or would you like us to take, we certainly take a vote or whatever, but a. MR. GORALSKI-You can take a vote, I doubt if you're going to get. MR. HAYES-I guess I'm trying to cooperate with the applicant being that we only have four members and you need all four unfortunately in this circumstance so uh. MR. LENZEL-I understand that, I'm not sure to be honest with you how to answer that. That's like a $7,000 question to try to answer. MR. GORALSKI-You know, I don't think that its a $7,000 question. I think what they’re asking for is, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, is a couple of things. Some type of a screening plan that would protect the neighboring properties, some type of a lighting plan or at least some guidelines for lighting that you can live within that would minimize the impact of lighting on the neighbors. Those seem to be the two biggest issues. MRS. LAPHAM-Yeah, really. I'm not inherently against the Dunkin Donuts on that comer, I just want to know what you're going to do to take into consideration your neighbors, your residential neighbors. MR. LENZEL-Well, I think at this point that, uh, I would be open to any suggestions. Are you folks looking for, you had mentioned, a fence, a six foot fence, I know it was just an example, but I would like to see us stay away from something like that. Six foot shrubberies I just feel adds more appealing aesthetic value to the property. I can go to the architect and say come up with something for the green space and address these concerns. I guess I could do that at this point. MR. MC NALLY-I think tabling it for a short time in order for you to come up with this information, something we could sink our teeth into would be a good idea. And I do think its a good project. I don't think your walk away from here unhappy. You may have to getus further information and take into account your neighbors concerns. MR. LENZEL-In regards to that, there are only so many things that I can truly address. MR. MC NALLY-Lighting and screening and that would include presumably shrubbery, trees, or fencing, lighting, type of lighting and height and I don't know what your architect might suggest, but certainly to lessen the impacts of the people behind you and away from Main Street aren't quite so impacted. MR. LENZEL-Okay, that’s reasonable. MR. MC NALLY-I can make a motion to table or we can do it on consent. MR. HAYES: I'll make that motion I guess, Chris usually does that, so I'll make it. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 76-1997 JEWEL DONUTS, INC., CORNER OF MAIN AND CAROLINE , Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: Duly adopted this 24th day of November 1997 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Karpeles, Ms. Lapham, Mr. Hayes NOES: None 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/97) ABSENT: Mr. Custer, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas MR. MC NALLY-If you can get us that information we'd appreciate it. Well act on it then. MR. LENZEL-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-What well do is well plan on putting this on the December agenda, well give you a couple of weeks, if you can get us the information in a couple of weeks so we can get it to the Board in time for them to review it before the meeting. If you call me in my office we can work out a specific date. MR. LENZEL-Okay, that’s fine. All right, we're all set. MR. HAYES-Thank you for coming. MR. LENZEL-Thank you. USE VARIANCE NO. 77-1997 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED UR-10 PAUL G. SCHUERLEIN OWNER: LINDA PAQUIN 188 DIXON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES OPERATION OF A PLUMBING BUSINESS IN AN EXISTING STRUCTURE. PROPERTY HAS A USE VARIANCE FOR OPERATION OF A CARPET CLEANING BUSINESS. APPLICANT SEEKS A USE VARIANCE FOR A NONCONFORMING USE IN THE UR-10 ZONE, SECTION 179-17. TAX MAP NO. 92- 2-7.1 LOT SIZE: 0.54 ACRES SECTION 179-17 MARK LEVACK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HAYES-Mr. Schuerlein, Mr. Levack, do you have anything to add to your application? MR. LEVACK-No, but we’re certainly here to answer any questions that the public may have regarding the application this evening. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Does anybody have any questions? MR. MC NALLY-You don’t intend any major increase in activity at the site? There’ll be no retail sales you said the last time you were here. PAUL SCHUERLEIN MR. SCHUERLEIN-No retail. MR. MC NALLY-And you’re basically going to use the place for storage? Do you have any plans for outside storage? MR. SCHUERLEIN-No. MR. MC NALLY-All interior, and how many vehicles are you going to use, you said? MR. SCHUERLEIN-Two. MR. MC NALLY-Two vehicles. MR. SCHUERLEIN-Yes. MR. HAYES-And you’re removing the gas pumps then, that’s my understanding. MR. SCHUERLEIN-We’ll comply with Code, or whatever. MR. HAYES-Okay. I’ll re-open the public hearing on this application. Those wishing to speak in favor of the application, please step forward. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED RICHARD PETITE 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/97) MR. PETITE-Richard Petite. I live at 319 Dixon Road, two lots down from the structure. I’ve lived there for approximately four years now, since I’ve moved in, and as long as I’ve been a resident in that neighborhood, I’m all for anybody like Paul to come in and straighten the property up. It’s always been looking run down, needs paint. Anything that can be done with that property on that side of the road, it would be nice to have someone who’s a responsible businessman in the neighborhood. That’s all. MR. HAYES-Thank you. MR. KARPELES-When you say two houses down, you mean two houses south or north? MR. PETITE-North. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in favor of the application? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? I’ll close the public hearing. Excuse me. We have additional correspondence. MRS. LAPHAM-From Timothy Ruscio, Manager, Prudential, November 22, 1997 “I am writing this, as I do not expect my schedule will allow attendance at Monday’s meeting concerning the Use Variance 77-1997. I live at 55 Zenas Drive, which is behind the existing carpet cleaning business. The last time the owner of the carpet service applied for a variance and was refused. He promised the residents that the property would be cleaned up and made presentable. That was a number of years ago, and there’s been no progress or improvement in its appearance. The building is as much of an eyesore now as it was before. I don’t see a new owner improving the situation. Traffic on Dixon Road is already heavy with a major townhouse project in the vicinity, as well as an office complex and major housing developments. Dixon Road is a favorite for speeders, since the Town straightened the road. There is significant commercial traffic currently as there are businesses located on Harold Harris Road. Dixon Road is used as a shortcut and as a bypass of Aviation Road. When the new bridge is installed at Exit 19, Dixon Road will experience increased use. We don’t need to burden this area any more than it is currently. Dixon Road is used by bicyclists, joggers, and children. This is a residential area and we have a right to live without the increased commercial traffic that this or any other businesses will bring. Do I need to remind you of the little girl that was hit and killed by a speeding car on the corner of Zenas Drive and Dixon Road approximately five years ago. That intersection is no more than 50 yards from the property in question. I have young children that play in the area, and the increased hazards are unacceptable. This is a residential area and should be kept that way. Sincerely, Timothy M. Ruscio, 55 Zenas Drive, Queensbury, NY” PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-I’d like to discuss it. I guess we’ll start with Bob down on the end. MR. MC NALLY-I don’t have any problem with the application, provided the conditions are placed on the property and the Use Variance allowing him to use the property, but without an increased retail sales use. The points he raised about traffic and what not really don’t apply. I remember Warner Clark and the carpet service, and you’d come in and out of there all the time dropping off your rugs and picking them up, but if they’re not going to be used for people purchasing plumbing supplies or visiting your business, except as the owner or your employees, I don’t have a problem with that, salesmen, that kind of thing. So the use is not going to increase that. It’s basically commercial to begin with. So I don’t have a problem with it. On the four points, can a reasonable return be realized as the property is zoned. It’s a commercial property. That’s one hell of a rug drying room that they have there, but I’ll accept the points made by Mr. Levack in his papers to the effect that there can’t be a reasonable return based on the numbers that he’s provided to us. Even if you divide the lot in two, what is it, 1.9 acres, and the zoning is 1 acre residential. Even if he did divide it, the return would not be that great I don’t think, and I don’t think the variance is going to alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and the hardship is unique to the property. It’s not self-created. So, I’d be in favor of it. MRS. LAPHAM-I would be in favor of it, because I think it’s going to be a less intensive use than what there was before, providing that Mr. Schuerlein does exactly what he says he’s going to do, which is no retail, no salesmen coming to call, that he has the one or two vehicles, and he uses it strictly for storage. I think it could even be a benefit to the neighborhood, because he would possibly clean up the buildings. MR. HAYES-Okay. Bob? 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/24/97) MR. KARPELES-I agree with the other observations, and I feel that it will enhance the property because I believe that he’s going to improve it. I think it’s getting kind of run down now, and I believe that he’s sincere when he says he will improve the looks of the property. MR. HAYES-I agree with the rest of the Board members. I think that, in the case of a Use Variance, which has very definite criteria, I think that the bases have been touched in this application very well, and I also agree with Bob that the benefit to the neighborhood, as far as updating that property and improving it, is a thing to definitely be considered, and I believe that Mr. Schuerlein will do so. His residence is across from my parents, and he improved that dramatically, by first hand knowledge of his personal habits, if you will. So I’m in favor of the application as well. Would anybody like to make a motion, since I have the privilege of not having to tonight. MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 77-1997 PAUL G. SCHUERLEIN , Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: 188 Dixon Road. The applicant proposes operating a plumbing and heating business in an existing structure located in a UR-10 zone. The proposed project requires relief from the requirements of Section 179-17, UR-20. Commercial activities are not allowed in a UR-10 zone. I move that we approve the application to the extent it requests and will allow Mr. Schuerlein to operate a plumbing and heating business in the existing structure. The structure was built for commercial purposes. It was always used for commercial purposes, and it is my opinion that no reasonable return can be realized on the property as it is currently zoned. The applicant has shown financial evidence regarding the return on the property, and I believe he’s demonstrated that there can’t be a reasonable return. The alleged hardship is unique to the property, in that it is due to the previous use of the existing structure as a carpet cleaning business, pre-dating the existing zoning code. The requested variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. While the area is residential in character, the subject property has historically been used in a commercial manner. Moreover, the property has been empty for some time and the applicant proposes improving the property and beginning to use the property in a manner in accordance with most commercial concerns, such that the continuous and commercial enterprise will not be anticipated to essentially alter the character of the neighborhood. The alleged hardship is not self created in that it’s attributed to the Zoning Ordinance and the fact that this property was built before the date of the existing Ordinance. It’s my proposal, however, that if we approve this Use Variance, that it would include an express condition that there be no retail sales or retail use of the property, and that there be no outside storage of plumbing supplies or materials on the property. th Duly adopted this 24 day of November, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Custer, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas MR. LEVACK-Thank you. MR. HAYES-Thanks for coming back. Okay. I’d like to close the November 24, 1997 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Paul Hayes, Acting Chairman 12