Loading...
2000-04-20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 20, 2000 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE ROBERT MC NALLY NORMAN HIMES MEMBERS ABSENT PAUL HAYES CHARLES ABBATE ALLAN BRYANT CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 13-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A MICHAEL A. KAIDAS OWNER: MICHAEL AND SUSAN KAIDAS 43 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES RELOCATION OF EXISTING 50 SQ. FT. SIGN DUE TO THE RECENT INSTALLATION OF THE BIKE PATH BRIDGE WHICH NOW BLOCKS THE VISIBILITY OF THE SIGN AND SEEKS RELIE FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 2/9/2000 TAX MAP NO. 105-1-1.3 LOT SIZE: 1.84 ACRES SECTION 140 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STONE-This was heard two months ago and was tabled. I’ll ask the Secretary to read the tabling motion in, and I believe we’re going to handle this pretty much as if it were not heard before. Mr. O’Connor, you indicated that you would try to summarize what went on. MR. O'CONNOR-I’ll try and summarize. MR. STONE-Rather than read six pages of minutes into the record. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. STONE-Go ahead. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I’ll start with the tabling motion. “The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following: Sign Variance No. 13-2000 Michael A. Kaidas, Meeting Date: February 23, 2000 Tabled Motion to Table Sign Variance No. 13-2000 Michael A. Kaidas, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: For either a change in the application and/or a full compliment of Board members for its consideration. Duly adopted this 23 day of rd February, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone” MR. STONE-Before we go further, let me apologize for the fact there are only five of us, one of whom has to recuse himself because of a conflict of interest with the applicant’s agent. It is a Thursday night. Apparently, it was my point of personal privilege to move it from Wednesday, but we would have been here on Thursday anyway, because we have three meetings this month, but also because of the unusual nature of this particular application, I would like to read in Paragraph 140-13, Variances of the Queensbury Code for the Sign Ordinance that we have. It’s a little bit different than we normally have for ordinary variances. So I’d just like to read this in. “The Board of Appeals may vary or alter or adapt the strict application of any of the requirements of this Chapter, in the case of the exceptional physical conditions whereby such strict application would result in substantial difficulty or unnecessary hardship that would deprive the owner of the sign of the reasonable use of the same. No variance in the strict application of the provisions of this Chapter shall be granted by the Board of Appeals unless it finds that there are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land or the sign and not applying generally to land or signs in the neighborhood, and that said 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) circumstances or conditions are such that the strict application of the provisions of this Chapter would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of such sign or land where the variance would otherwise be in general harmony with the restrictions established for the area and where it shall find that the request made is the minimum variance that will accomplish the necessary objectives intended and that the granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter and with the Master Plan of the Town of Queensbury and will not be otherwise injurious to the neighborhood or detrimental to the public welfare.” I wish we could write in multiple sentences and not one, but having said that, I will turn it over to the applicant. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 13-2000, Michael A. Kaidas, Meeting Date: April 20, 2000 “43 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED NO NEW INFORMATION TO DATE Applicant has relocated a 50 sf sign into the Quaker Road right of way and seeks relief from the Sign Ordinance to maintain it at this location. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief to maintain as 50 sf free-standing sign in a non-conforming location, in violation of the Sign Ordinance, § 140-6B., (1), (a). Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to maintain the sign with preferred visibility. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include relocation of the sign onto the property in a compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 25 feet of relief from the 15 foot requirement may be interpreted as extreme. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Placement of signs within a right of way may set a precedent that will negatively impact the community. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty can be attributed to the recent construction of the Warren County Bike Trail Bridge across Quaker Road which obstructed the visibility of the “old” sign when travelling East to West on Quaker Road. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Sign Permit 89-1244 12/14/89 50 sf free-standing sign (middle of property) Sign Variance 132-92 12/17/92 allow maintenance of 2 free-standing sign in business complex Staff comments: nd Moderate to substantial impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Allowing the placement of a permanent free-standing sign within the County right of way for Quaker Road requires approvals from the Department of Public Works. The applicant has apparently secured the necessary County approvals, however, the local, Town impacts should be considered when diverging so significantly from the purpose and intent of the Town Sign Ordinance. Common practice is to secure all necessary approvals prior to installation. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted” MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of your record, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor, representing the applicant, and with me at the table is Michael Kaidas, one of the applicants. I would specifically state that I reserve the rights of the applicant as to challenge the jurisdiction of this Board on this application, but I am prepared to go forward and make an application that I would ask you to decide on the merits, and for the new members on the Board, the reason I challenge the jurisdiction is because we’re talking about a sign that is totally within a County right-of-way, and not on private property. MR. STONE-Okay. You remind me that we should read Mr. Round’s, the Zoning Administrator’s, comment on this same subject into the record. MR. O'CONNOR-Right. I understand that. MR. STONE-Let’s just read that. MR. O'CONNOR-Notwithstanding that, I still reserve our rights. MR. STONE-I understand you do, but let’s find out what you’re reserving. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. This is a memorandum to the Zoning Board of Appeals, from Chris Round, Zoning Administrator, dated April 10, 2000, regarding the Kaidas Sign Variance, Sign Variance 13-2000, “I have reviewed the meeting minutes for the Kaidas Sign Variance (SV 13-2000) of February 23, 2000. The application was tabled pending a change of application and/or a full complement of ZBA members. Additionally, the members raised a question regarding the action in front of the ZBA and the ZBA’s jurisdiction. The applicant requests relief from the Town’s Sign Ordinance that requires a minimum 15’ setback from the front property line for freestanding signs. This application is unique in that the relief requested would allow placement of the sign on the adjoining property and the adjoining property is the Quaker Road ROW owned by Warren County. The applicant also has indicated Warren Co. DPW has issued approval to place the sign at this location. It is my determination that the application is an area variance, not an off premise sign application, and relief can be measured cumulatively. The request is for 25 feet of relief from the 15 foot setback (15’ + 10’). Generally, Warren County may not place “private” (non-highway related) signs in the ROW. The ZBA is hearing the request for relief – not authorization to allow placement of a sign in the ROW.” 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) MR. STONE-The other point, before you start again, and I apologize for this, is that, in the tabling motion, there were two conditions, one for new information, and one for a full Board. It should be noted that there was no new information submitted to date. MR. O'CONNOR-There will be as part of the presentation. MR. STONE-Fine. MR. O'CONNOR-My understanding was not necessarily for new information but for us to look at the alternatives and see if we could come up with a new location that might be more satisfactory , and we have looked at that and I have information on that. MR. STONE-Proceed. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Let me begin. If I can, I will try to be brief, but if you have questions or you think that I’ve missed something, let me know. This whole thing began in 1991, 1990. At that time, Michael Kaidas developed the site into basically three separate uses for three separate businesses. There was a building on here, and at that time, he renovated the building and leased it out to Key Bank. The area in yellow is the area that is leased out to Key Bank. I think that’s a very important fact of what we’re going to present to you tonight, that maybe we didn’t have before. Last month or the month before, I was kind of drafted, at the night of the hearing, and I didn’t have my old 1990 or 1991 file, but some of the questions were raised, could we move this sign from where we have put it further west, or could we make some combination with Key Bank, and maybe use that as an alternative to what we were proposing. If you take a look at the lease that I have submitted to you, that lease goes through the Year 2011. There’s a five year extension right on there, that we believe that they probably will extend, we hope that they will extend. So they have total control of the area in yellow, until the Year 2016, 2011 at the least. I visited the site. I talked to the manager and asked her whether or not I could broker some type of deal where maybe we would be able to have some type of combined sign or something of that nature. Her immediate response to me was that they were not satisfied with the effect on their existing sign, because of the bridge and the abutment that was built. She did not, she said that she would not recommend any further signs over there, because she already has a problem. She’s also said that she was not the person that would make the decision. It would be somebody in their Real Estate Department, and Key Bank’s Real Estate Department is now being handled out of Cleveland, and she would try and contact somebody in Cleveland and get back to me, or give me a name, and I’ve not heard that, but they have an absolute right, as is expressed in that lease, to control this area here, and I don’t know why they would give up that right, and I think it’s very speculative to think that they would. So what we’ve got to deal with is the area that we have control of, which is over in this area here. This is where the Lion’s Eye Bank Institute, that’s run by Albany Medical Center, is located, and there’s the Kaidas Kitchen building which is built in the back here. This is the area that we truthfully have control over, that we can try and somehow come up with a satisfactory location. I don’t think the Board had that information last week, and I think it changes the whole ballgame. In 1998, after we had set up the separate businesses and set up two freestanding signs that served everybody’s purposes, the County came along and built the abutment and the bridge for the Bike Path. The construction plans show that the abutment for the Bike Path on the south side of Quaker Road actually extends beyond what would be the common boundary line. They extend out into what is County right-of-way, but if you were going to extend our front property line right across, it would intersect into the abutment. So it’s out in here that they have their abutment. I had a figure, and I apparently was wrong on my figure last week, and it’s in the minutes, I asked, Mike wrote a letter I think in October of 1999 complaining about the fact that his business was going to be totally blocked, visually, from any traffic coming in a westerly direction on Route 9 and asked the County to do something about it, and he had different meetings with different Supervisors and whatnot, and something was going to be done. Nothing was done, but something was going to be done. I asked, from a separate point of view, and at that point I wasn’t representing Michael, except that I’ve gotten a copy of the letter that he had written to the Supervisors, why did the County do this? Why didn’t the County do what a private citizen would do? A private citizen wouldn’t block off its neighbor, couldn’t. In fact, you’ve got a 75 foot Travel Corridor setback there that says you don’t build a building out within 75 feet of the property line, but a County is not subject to that zoning rule, and they could do what they did, and basically, I guess, it was cost. If they were going to put a pier system out here, like they did across the road on the north side, they have a pier over there. They don’t have a solid embankment, they don’t have a solid foundation underneath the bridge. It’s suspended, and part of that was they had to use the column system, because they also had to cross the stream that goes parallel to Quaker Road on that side. On this side if they were going to do that, I’m told that the estimate was probably $125,000 additional. They were going to put another column in here and move the beginning of the embankment back away from the road, so that they wouldn’t block visibility. It would have been an extraordinary amount of money that they would have had to pay for it. Ron Montesi was kind enough to come tonight. He was a Supervisor at that time. He was involved, and I don’t know if the Board has any particular questions as to the fact that this is not something created by Mr. Kaidas. It is something 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) created by the adjoining property owner, and I would offer him to, he says I owe him a cigar, if you have any questions on that fact. I think Mr. Round, in his short opinion tonight, even states that this is a unique piece of property, and I don’t think there was any question by any Board member last week that this is something that was self-created by the applicant. What we’re trying to do is make the best of a bad situation, and that’s really as simple as what we’re trying to do. If you don’t have any questions, I also would go back. MR. STONE-Well, the only question I would ask of Mr. Montesi, was, in fact, a figure mentioned? Was there a number that was put forth at the County level for savings, do it that way? RON MONTESI MR. MONTESI-Ron Montesi, former County Supervisor from the Town of Queensbury. The original design came four or five months before the construction bids were issued. At that point, Mr. Kaidas, myself, Fred Champagne, and there was another Supervisor there, sat down and Mike pointed out to us, Pat Beland from the County, how his sign was going to be effected. At that point, we said, well, the County ought to, I mean, if we say we’re for economic development, if we say we’re for business, we ought to be helping you, not hurting you. So there’s no question that we asked our engineer, what’s it going to cost to put another, gee, he said, you know, even if we put another bridge abutment up, and put another put another strand of steel that may still block his sign anyway. I mean, the sign will be underneath the strand. So we said, well, then moving the sign and saving $125,000 on this project made some more sense. At the time, we said, Mike, where do you want a sign? Do you want it at the end of the property? He said, I don’t think that will help me because cars will have already gone by if we put it on the western end. They would have already gone by his driveway, and also the driveway for the Bank. So, the logical place, the place that made the most sense, where his visibility would not be impaired, is where it was put. The County felt strong enough that they wanted to help in the moving of that sign because we felt we had wronged him. We did, in essence, block that. Not intentionally, but as an afterthought, the cross factor did play a role, but it was too late along the lines. That bridge, by the way, I think was in the vicinity of $400,000 as it stands now. So 80% funded by the Federal and State government, but the County and the taxpayers share was 20%. We felt that that was the best solution to take care of a unique situation. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. One other point that I would go back to in the old history of this property is Staff Notes back in December of 1990. They recognize that there were different uses on the property, and that there was actually a purpose for allowing us to have two freestanding signs and two entrances onto the site, and the comments I think then of John Goralski, said because traffic moves at a high rate of speed on Quaker Road, any left hand turn movements are dangerous. I recommend that both exits be posted, and to minimize any potential hazard, also, all trucks making deliveries to Kaidas Kitchens should enter and exit through the easterly driveway to avoid conflicts from the pedestrian and vehicle traffic around the building, around the Bank building, and that’s why it was set up, and if you go down and look at the site, we’re also talking about a site that has internal signs already set up. If you come in from the driveway on the westerly end of the property, you will see that the drive-in traffic is directed very nicely around the back of the Bank. The traffic that’s going to go into the building or into the Bank, is directed to the front of the Bank, and we don’t want to get our truck traffic for Kaidas Kitchens involved in that. We want to be able to give separate and distinct notice that, use the driveway on the east if you’re going to go into either the Kaidas Kitchen business or you’re going to go into the Lion’s Eye Institute. The sign itself, if you take a look at what’s left, there isn’t much there, as far as maneuverability. It sounds like it’s substantial, because I think Chris Round is correct, that we are asking for 25 feet of relief. We’re asking to use up the full normal 15 foot setback, and then encroach into the County property by 10 feet, and we do have the County permit that’s been issued. It sounds like it’s substantial, but I’ve been up and down the roadway a number of times in the last few days, trying to visualize what we are doing and not doing. The sign actually sits in to the abutment, if you’re traveling in an easterly direction. The abutment comes out behind the sign. It really does not look like a freestanding sign. It almost looks like a wall sign, if you’re going in an easterly direction. If you’re coming in a westerly direction, you do not get to see the full sign, until you’re about 270 feet east of the bridge, right about in the middle of the two entrances that go into the shopping area to the east of us Aldi. Then do you get to see the full sign, that’s if you’re driving in the lane that would be the lane that you would use for purposes of turning, to go to take a turn and go into something on the south side of the property. MR. STONE-I think there’s no question that, on a vertical plane, perpendicular to Quaker Road, everything you’re saying is correct. I don’t think there’s any doubt, and certainly I would say, and I would assume the Board would go along with me, that Mr. Kaidas is entitled to have a sign that people can see, and he was wronged. There’s no question about that, wronged, it was out of his control, but all I’m hearing from you is moving it in a perpendicular way, and I think, from what I’ve read in the minutes, that there was some thought on the Board, two months ago, is there an alternate 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) place to put it, not further or closer to Quaker Road and I think that’s one of the things I thought was being looked for. MR. MC NULTY-That’s what we were hoping for. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MC NULTY-Although I think Mr. O’Connor may have made the point, partly, with the lease that’s available. We did not have the knowledge about the lease at that time, and some of our thought was maybe it could be moved over near the Bank. MR. O'CONNOR-I thought it was more toward moving it to the west, than moving it forward and back. MR. STONE-Yes, to the west. MR. O'CONNOR-We don’t have. MR. STONE-I know. I agree with you that all I’m hearing is you’re saying it has to be 25 feet relief, where it is on the perpendicular plane to Quaker Road. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. There’s about maybe 30 feet of frontage that we have control over. If you move it further east, it becomes more hidden behind. MR. STONE-You can’t move it east. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, you could move it five, six feet maybe east, but you’re going to be more hidden behind the embankment then you presently are, and if you move it further west, you’re then going to make it subject to maybe a truck clipping it as it goes in and out of that driveway. The other point which I didn’t have last time we were here is actually this sign is 12 feet from the pavement. There is still more County right-of-way in front of this. It’s not like we’re right on top of the pavement. It’s actually 21feet from the travel lane. So, it complies, from a visual, practical sense, with the 15 foot setback, as much as many other signs, and I make that point to say that what we’re asking for is not substantial, practically, although the figure is 25 feet. We don’t have an alternative. We’ve explored everything that we can, and I don’t know what else we’re going to do if we’re going to have a sign. MR. STONE-Okay. So that’s your position. So we can, are there any other questions of Board members? MR. HIMES-Yes. I’ve got something. I haven’t gotten through the minutes. I wasn’t at the last meeting. The sign was constructed before there was any application for a variance. Is there any history to that? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. There is history to that. MR. HIMES-I’m just more or less curious here. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I can answer it. Michael can follow, is that Michael had been told that everything was taken care of. He made arrangements for the sign, he had nothing in writing, and not by Staff, but by the Supervisor who he had been dealing with. MR. HIMES-Thank you. I think, too, as you’ve both said, that the sign, there’s some symmetry there. It comes out. When you look at the abutment, face the abutment, the sign is right, you know, it doesn’t stick out. I think they did the best they could to not encroach, at least visually or any other way, onto the roadway, where if you were to just continue that abutment, the sign is right on a line with it, which I think is a bonafide effort. MR. UNDERWOOD-To me, it just seems a logical. MR. STONE-Let’s not tell where we’re coming from. I’ll open the public hearing, if you’re done. MR. O'CONNOR-I’m done. MR. STONE-Okay, and see if there’s any. I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor? Anybody opposed to this application? Opposed? Is there any other correspondence, beside that entered by Mr. O’Connor? MR. MC NULTY-I don’t believe so. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) MR. STONE-Okay. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions of the applicant? Then, Jim, why don’t we start with you. What do you think about this thing? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think in view of the fact that the western property, the western end of the property is not available for re-siting the sign, and that the driveway is on the eastern end of the property, and it abuts the abutment there, that this, it’s logical to leave the sign where it is. I think you could, you know, move it three or five feet one direction or the other, but the fact that it’s already there and that it doesn’t seem to really intrude because it is against the abutment, that I think it’s logical to leave it where it is. MR. STONE-Norman? MR. HIMES-Yes, I agree with what Jim has said, and it is unique. It is a really unique situation, and the County involved, and you’ve still got to get pretty close to the property to see the sign even where it is. So you need to have something that can be seen, as was said, before you get to the property, not after it, and sometimes I think that anyone driving down that road that takes their eye off the road to look at anything is taking a chance, but it is visible. I think that that’s very reasonable. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-The last time, I really didn’t like where the sign is. I still really don’t like where the sign is, but, looking at the lease, we are almost dealing with two separate pieces of property here, as far as the lease is concerned, which changes the picture, for me at least. I’ll agree that any business is entitled to a sign. Certainly the County has wronged the owner with the way they put the bike trail in, and thinking about it, to some degree, the bike trail for me mitigates the problem because it does kind of shield the sign so it’s not like it was a freestanding sign out there that you could see from both directions for a half a mile. Having said all that, I think given the circumstances, I’m incline to allow it to stay where it is. MR. STONE-Okay. I pretty much feel the same way. Obviously, Mr. Kaidas has a problem that was not of his making. I would prefer the sign not be where it is, for a variety of reasons. One, I think it’s out too far, but it has to be seen. Two, I’m concerned, and I hope when we make a motion we’ll be very specific, in talking about the uniqueness, if you will, because we don’t want to be flooded with a lot of people who want to put signs in the traffic Travel Corridor Overlay. We’ve had enough requests for signs close to Quaker Road in the past, and we certainly don’t want to open a door to have anymore. So I’m hoping that when we make the motion that we make this very specific, but certainly, Mr. Kaidas is entitled to a sign. The new information that you’ve given us is obviously helpful to the Board members. While I wasn’t here the last time, it is helpful to me in saying, in a sense, it is two properties, and they’re both entitled to a sign. So, having said that, I will call for a well stated motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 13-2000 MICHAEL A. KAIDAS, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes: 43 Quaker Road. The applicant has relocated a 50 square foot sign in the Quaker Road right-of-way and seeks relief from the Sign Ordinance to maintain it at this location. The applicant requests relief to maintain the 50 square foot freestanding sign in the non-conforming location in violation of the Sign Ordinance Section 140-6B(1)(a). In considering this motion to approve the request, we consider the Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of the Town Law. The benefit to the applicant would be the applicant is going to be permitted to maintain the sign with the preferred visibility. Feasible alternatives may include relocation of the sign onto the property in a compliant location. However, this would make it next to invisible. Three, is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Twenty-five feet of relief from the fifteen foot requirement is certainly extreme. Effects on the neighborhood, placement of signs within a right-of-way may set a precedent that will negatively impact the community. However, as we have stated in their discussion, this is a very unique situation. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty is attributed to the recent construction of the Warren County Bike Trail Bridge across Quaker Road, which obstructed the visibility of the sign in the old location when traveling east to west on Quaker Road. Given the circumstances presented by the applicant with the lease that precludes placing the sign elsewhere along the road frontage of the property, and making allowances for truck access to the entrance road, I believe 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) leaves us with a unique situation that there’s virtually no other place for a sign for this business to be placed. So in this particular case, for this unique situation, I move that we approve the request for the variance. Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-2000 TYPE II WR-1A CEA JOSEPH & NANCY POLONSKY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN EXISTING NEWLY CONSTRUCTED DECK AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF. AV 5-1998 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 2/9/2000 TAX MAP NO. 9-1-18 LOT SIZE: 0.28 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-60, 179-79 JONATHAN LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STONE-Again, let’s read the tabling motion in. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Regarding Area Variance No. 14-2000, for Joseph & Nancy Polonsky, “The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following: Area Variance No. 14-2000 Joseph & Nancy Polonsky Meeting Date: February 23, 2000 Tabled Motion to Table Area Variance No. 14-2000 Joseph & Nancy Polonsky, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Tabled in lieu of the investigation of feasible alternatives and/or the additional compliment of Board members. That we table the application until the 26 of April. Duly adopted this 23 day thrd of February, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 14-2000, Joseph & Nancy Polonsky, Meeting Date: April 19, 2000 “Project Location: Assembly Point Description of Proposed Project: NO NEW INFORMATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO DATE. Applicant has constructed an open deck closer to the lake than a previous variance allowed and seeks relief to maintain the deck. Relief Required: Applicant requests to maintain a 34.9 foot shoreline setback in lieu of the 45 foot setback granted as part of AV5-98. Also, since the existing structure does not comply with the setback requirements, relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure is requested. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to maintain additional outdoor recreation area. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a smaller proposal. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: An additional 10.1 feet of relief from the 45 foot setback previously granted may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Area Variance 5-1998 2/18/98 setbacks and FAR relief Building Permit 98-380-temp. c/o – 10/13/99 – 2670 sf single family dwelling Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The low, near ground level deck may present a more significant impact with the construction of a railing as necessary per New York State building code, (18 inches to in grade). The shoreline setback relief was specifically defined in the recent 1998 variance. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. LAPPER-Good evening. MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Lapper, I will give you the same privilege that we just gave Mr. O’Connor to try and summarize this without reading, I think it’s even more pages of minutes into the record. MR. LAPPER-I have even less to say than he did, because it’s a simple issue, I think. It doesn’t mean it’s a simple decision, but it’s a simple issue. Unfortunately, like the last application, for the record, for the new members, my name is Jon Lapper. I’m an attorney with Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) and Rhodes in Glens Falls. Unfortunately, this was also constructed before coming to the Board for a variance, and this was as a result of, when the house was constructed on the lake, and had already received a variance for the setback, due to the size of the lot and the location of the prior house, the grading didn’t work out the way it was planned and the way the building permit application read, so that the door was above the ground and they had to figure out a way to get to the ground, and what they did, this is admittedly not the smallest deck, although it’s probably the nicest deck that could have been constructed, but because of Mrs. Polonsky’s handicap, they made the stairs a little wider than what you could do. It’s not the minimal stairs, but it was done so that it would be convenient, and it was done very attractively with very expensive wood, and some of the neighbors are here tonight who weren’t here last time, to speak, that they are very pleased with the way it looks, and in considering this, so we are coming in for an after the fact variance request, unfortunately, to ask the Board really to excuse the Polonsky’s for doing this before coming to the Board, but to recognize that it’s minimal, in terms of the impact on the site and the neighborhood because it’s a very attractive little deck and stairs, and the only alternative that I can come up with, after thinking of this since the last meeting, would be to really do a lot of re-grading on the lakeside, which I think, in a lot of ways, would be more of an impact, because you’d see a big mound of dirt that would be there, coming out the door, instead of the really small and attractive deck, but we are certainly throwing ourselves on the mercy of the Board, because we should have been here, the applicant should have been here before it was built. I mentioned last time that he mentioned to me that his architect told him during construction when this was discovered that, just go ahead and do it, it’s not a problem. I think that the architect was focusing on the building code issue, saying, hey, you have the stairs there. They can’t be above the ground, you’ve got to do something, but nobody was, they didn’t consult with the zoning attorney. They weren’t thinking. They didn’t consult with Craig, obviously, but they weren’t thinking about what had to be done at the Town, and that’s unfortunate. So I think they came up with something very attractive, and it’s just unfortunate that we’re here for this reason, and that’s it. If the Board has any questions of me or of Joe. MR. STONE-I think that the last thing you talked about, Mr. Lapper, is the thing that bothers me the most, is that somebody who should know better said, don’t worry, go ahead. You’ll either get the variance, or you don’t need it, and these are the kind of things that we get, as you know, we get very upset about, and I think that’s why a decision wasn’t made two months ago. MR. LAPPER-Sure. MR. STONE-I gather, because there was, as I read the minutes, there was a great deal of concern about the whole situation. Having said that, the only question I have, in looking at the property, obviously, there is a grade there, and it must have been surveyed. You didn’t see that it sloped one or two, or however the gradient is? JOSEPH POLONSKY MR. POLONSKY-I was an absentee payee. I depended on the architect and the builder. I wasn’t there that much. I am not a builder. I have no idea what grading it would be or what was what, and I was totally shocked, after everything was all laid out there. MR. STONE-You mean you wanted your house to be level inside? Is that what you wanted? MR. POLONSKY-Pretty much. MR. STONE-Okay. I’m being facetious. MR. POLONSKY-As a matter of fact, we were away when this spec decision was made by the architect. The architect no longer works for me. He’s really a New York architect, and I don’t know whether he knows what’s going on. That’s not the only mistake we’ve got, but this is the biggest mistake right now. That’s why we’re here. MR. STONE-Okay. Any questions of the applicant, since a number of you were here at the original hearing. MR. HIMES-Just one comment, Lew. In connection with the expense involved, because of this already being constructed, wouldn’t there be any mitigating effect in connection with the people who designed it, the people who you refer to? Might they not be liable, if something were done in violation of, in an area that they are very commonly exposed to and should understand they have created this problem for you? MR. POLONSKY-I looked into it. The courts are open from nine to five. It would be a very expensive litigation, and, like I said, the courts are open from nine to five, and the judge would have to decide. I don’t know whether I’d win or not, at that point, but there was consideration. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) MR. HIMES-Do you agree with that, sir, from a legal standpoint? MR. LAPPER-I’ve only represented the Polonsky’s since this came to their attention, through the Town, that there was a violation. So I really wasn’t any part of, and I don’t really know the history of who said what to who when and when it was discovered, but I mean, ultimately a decision had to be made, and Joe was part of the, okay, if the architect’s telling him that doing this type of a deck is going to solve it and look visually appealing, Joe was aware of that. It was just that Joe’s not schooled in zoning enough to know that he should have come here first, and the architect said go ahead and do it, and he did it. So, I mean, in terms of when the decision was made and whether it was authorized, and I don’t know if this is a clean case. I just wasn’t involved. MR. STONE-No other questions? Craig, I’m looking at the minutes. Did we leave the public hearing open on this? It doesn’t say that we closed it, but it doesn’t say that we left the public hearing open. MR. BROWN-Yes. I think we would have left it open if it was going to be tabled. MR. STONE-Any other questions of the applicant? Okay. Let me open the public hearing, even if it was still open, we’ll open it again. Anybody here wishing to speak in favor of the application, in favor of granting the variance? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN BOB STEWART MR. STEWART-Mr. Chairman, gentlemen of the Board, my name is Bob Stewart, and I live on Assembly Point, and I’m two houses away from Mr. and Mrs. Polonsky. I wasn’t involved in the situation as the house was being built, of course, but I do think that the solution that they have come upon with the deck is a very handsome situation. I think it’s a vast improvement, clearly, over what had been there before, and I think it’s graceful. I think it blends with the property and with the lakeshore. It’s not a huge, overblown type of a situation, and certainly from a neighbor’s point of view, I would have no objection whatsoever for it to remain, and I would have some concerns if you tried to abridge it and shrink it up or chop it up somehow, to gain a couple of feet in terms of setback. I have some concern of what the end product might look like. Because I think, long range, and I’m sure what this Board is after is to have a nice looking, finished product, and not something that is just cobbled up to meet some footage requirement. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. STEWART-That’s about all I have to say, but I’ll answer any questions if you have any. MR. STONE-Okay. I have a question of Mr. Polonsky which I’ll ask after the public hearing, but, anybody else wishing to speak in favor? MILFORD LESTER MR. LESTER-My name is Milford Lester. I’m an adjacent property owner, but not directly adjacent, a nearby property owner. I spoke at the last hearing. I think the solution that the Polonsky’s came to was a very good one for the circumstances. I want to just step aside and say I really admire you guys for doing the jobs that you do. You’re really protecting us against ourselves, but in this case, in an after the fact situation, I think that the deck is attractive. I think any changes in it would mar the project, and I see no bad effects with it, as far as the neighbor goes. So I urge you to approve the deck. MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody else wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor? MR. LAPPER-I also have a letter of support. MR. STONE-All right. We’ll get to it. Why don’t you give it to the Secretary. Anybody here wishing to speak opposed to the application? Opposed? All right. Correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-Correspondence. This is addressed to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, regarding Nancy and Joseph Polonsky property appeal, Assembly Point, Lake George, from Charles and Lillian Adamson, neighbors on Assembly Point. “The new Polonsky home is attractively situated in the middle of their lot. Their deck is of modest size, with steps leading to the level yard. It is unobtrusive and does not block any view. We do not consider this deck to be any problem and hope the Board will consider the request for a variance positively. Charles Adamson Lillian Adamson” 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) MR. STONE-Any other correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-And I don’t believe there’s any other new correspondence. MR. STONE-Okay. Then I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions of the applicant? I have a question of the applicant. You have a deck, which is a very attractive deck. What do you plan to put on that deck when you’re using it? MR. POLONSKY-Absolutely nothing. We don’t want to block our view. We’ve got a patio down below, and that’s where we will have our furniture, our entertaining and everything else. MR. STONE-Okay. So are you willing to stipulate that during the summer months there would be nothing else on that patio? MR. POLONSKY-Just me walking down it. MR. STONE-Well, I understand that. MR. POLONSKY-And if you allow me to sit on the steps. I’d appreciate it. MR. STONE-Well, you can sit on the steps. That’s reasonable. Any other questions of the applicant? Okay. Let’s start with Norman. What do you think about it? MR. HIMES-I tend to favor the variance, for one reason. You mentioned the disability. They had to have something that’s going to be larger than normal in connection with how far it extends from the back of the house toward the lake. MR. POLONSKY-My wife is due to go for surgery on both hips within the next two years. She has hip problems. MR. HIMES-I think that’s another factor that’s in favor of the application, and I tend to agree with it. MR. STONE-All right. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I’d like to hear the other Board members. My comments are already part of the record. MR. STONE-Okay. We’ll put you on hold. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, my comments, too, are also part of the record, and I’m not sure I can add an awful lot. I am torn. I don’t like the idea of another variance on top of a variance, when the builders should have been paying attention to what their limits were. At the same time, I hear what the neighbors are saying, and I’m inclined to agree if we try to re-engineer the deck, the result probably is going to be less attractive than what’s there now. I really don’t know which way I’m going to go, and I guess, like Bob, I’d like to hear what the rest of the Board has to say. MR. STONE-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think this is another case of an unfortunate incident. It appears that, on waterfront properties we deal with these constantly, you know, whether it’s side setback or setback from the lake or whatever it happens to be, but I think at some point we have to recognize the fact that, as waterfront property owners, we have an obligation to the lake, too, and in this instance, the deck has been created. It’s a nice looking deck. It obviously is there for a purpose. It’s over and done with. To tear it all up, to me, would be extreme to do something like that, at the same time, but I don’t know where we all end up with eventually, I mean, we’re going to be hitting these, you know, from time to time, endlessly into the future. Whether we have to have architects post performance bonds or whatever it is, in regards to what they do, it certainly wasn’t created by the property owner per se, but it was created by his architect. At some point we have to deal with the future of the lake. If you constantly chip away 10 feet here, 10 feet there, one addition here, one addition there, it compounds the problems. That would be my main concern, but I think that in this instance, where the deck is done, it doesn’t appear really it’s not something that really sticks out like a sore thumb. So I would be inclined to say we should keep it. MR. STONE-I have obviously a number of concerns. First, if the applicant had come forward, and I’m not blaming Mr. Polonsky for not coming forward for this deck, but if the applicant had come 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) forward with the plans for this deck, even with my strong concern for the lake and strong concern for following our waterfront zoning, it is a nice deck. It is as unobtrusive as a deck can be. I mean, it’s basically on the ground. Probably anybody from the lake will never even see the deck, unless Mr. Polonsky is standing on it, like he says. So, given that, strange to hear me say this, but I would probably have no problem with having granted the variance for the deck as it currently exists. The point that I am concerned about is the one that Mr. McNulty and Mr. McNally, I guess, alludes to is the fact that a variance was granted for this thing, which meant that somebody was aware of the process. That this thing was going to be closer to the lake than it was supposed to be. A variance was granted. Relief was granted, and therefore, and then ignored and I, quite frankly, don’t know what to do about that. It’s very troubling to me that the process was followed, and then not followed. So we can’t really say that there was no knowledge of the fact that a variance was necessary, which puts me in a big dilemma. I mean, if this were a new application, I would look at it and I would say, tasteful. It’s not really going to impact the lake, and I would have no problem with it, but I, quite frankly, am conflicted. I don’t know what to do. I don’t want to deprive Mr. Polonsky of the opportunity to have a very tasteful deck that is really not in the way, as far as the lake is concerned, but we can’t just plead ignorance in this case, and I’m not sure where I’m going to go, which obviously there are three of us in this particular vote. Do you want to add anything to this, Bob? MR. MC NALLY-Well, I think the point is that this was no accident. The plans called for ground level dirt to be brought up to the level of the rear entrance of the house, and it could have been. It was just that this builder and architect chose not to do that, even though that’s what the plans called for. The architect and the builder said, what the heck, let’s just do it, and the Board’s not going to stop you, and I’m conflicted, like you say. On the one hand, we could have a house that’s closer to the lake, and it would be very difficult for us to take down the house. This is a deck, a nice deck, but it’s still just a deck. I like Mr. Polonsky, and I’m sure he’s a fine man, but at some point, we’re going to have to say, this is enough. My comments are pretty clear from the first part of the record, but, that being said, where is this Board going to draw the line? When are we going to have someone tear down a house, or a deck? Is it tonight, or are we going to wait until another deck? I mean, some of the applicants, you come to us, and you say, listen, we’re going to ignore the Code. We’re going to ignore the setback. We’re going to come get a variance from you. We’re going to build to that variance. Then we’re going to go beyond that, and as long as we do it nice, it’ll be okay, and I’m not sure that that’s what the Code intent in setting a shoreline setback, as long as you do it nice, you can go right up to the shoreline. It’s one hell of a nice looking deck. MR. STONE-A year or so ago, I made a speech, while sitting on this Board, using a visual effect, namely that I am not a rubber stamp, and that’s the thing that troubles me. This Board is not a rubber stamp Board, and I think Mr. McNally is very correct in saying, at some point in time, and this may be it, we’re going to have to say, enough is enough. We see too many of these things, and this is not a personal thing. Please understand that, but this may, we have to say to the community that you cannot do things without consulting the Zoning Board of Appeals, if, in fact, it requires a variance, and, having said that, let me call for a motion. MR. LAPPER-Could I respond before you make your motion? MR. STONE-You certainly may. MR. LAPPER-Certainly, sitting here as a land use attorney who appears before you and other Zoning Boards all the time, I’m sensitive to what I’m hearing, and, certainly, when I talked to Joe the first time, I was sensitive, because anything after the fact is not a good situation, and precedent is very important, but that said, I’m looking at the plan for what was there, that was supposed to be the balcony area that was going to be built out, and it was clear from the plans that on grade there was the patio area. So just in terms of what we’re really saying, what the difference is with whether or not there’s four feet of fill put in and something then is considered on grade, versus what’s there now, it would be, to do that, it can be done, and you could then exit the structure and it would serve the purpose, but it wouldn’t look as good. So it’s just a question of, is it more important for precedent to say, we want you to bring dirt in and to bring it up to grade, so that you can get out of the house, or should we do something that just, that looks better and that the neighbors like? MR. STONE-Well, but there could be less deck there, from a horizontal standpoint. It could be cut back. Obviously, one cannot make one giant step out of the front of the house, but you could have a set of steps beginning right at the building, going down, which would require less variance, and might even, Craig, could we come in within the original variance with just a set of steps? I don’t know. I’m not sure what the numbers were. MR. BROWN-The original variance gave him a 45 foot setback from the shore, rather than a 50. MR. STONE-Okay. So where does the house actually sit? 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) MR. MC NALLY-Forty-five. MR. STONE-The house is at 45? MR. MC NALLY-And it’s 10.1 feet extra variance is what you’re looking for. MR. LAPPER-I think the house is farther than 45. MR. BROWN-It shows 48 on the plot plan, but it’s not really measured the shortest distance. MR. LAPPER-Yes. Forty-five was just the old variance line, Bob. MR. MC NALLY-I see what you’re saying. MR. LAPPER-The deck is six feet wide, and then the stairs. So, in terms of a six foot deck, this wasn’t, that was just something to get out of the door and to walk down the steps. It wasn’t a 12 foot deck, in other words. There wasn’t. MR. STONE-Yes, but the stairs could start at the building. MR. LAPPER-You’d probably need a landing, no matter what. I mean, if you maybe take a couple of feet off, but you’d probably need a landing. MR. MC NALLY-You’re looking at 10 and a half feet of relief is what you asked for. MR. LAPPER-We didn’t have it surveyed. So Craig and I used, scaled it off. MR. MC NALLY-So they’re changing what their application is? It’s not 10 and a half feet anymore? MR. LAPPER-No, it’s 10 and a half feet of relief. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. LAPPER-From that old variance, from that 45 foot line. MR. STONE-Yes. It’s 34.9, according to Staff Notes, the original Staff Notes, and 45 was granted. So it’s approximately 10 feet additional relief. Well, Bob, do you want to try a motion? Whatever which way you want to go. I mean, there’s a number of things that can be happening. One, we could say, no, the whole thing has to come out, back to the original variance. Two, we could say, yes, you could go to where you are, grant the application. Three, we could say, if the applicant were willing, we could minimize the amount of relief necessary by cutting the depth of the deck down to something that would be practical, in terms of getting out of the house comfortably, but wouldn’t be out as far. Craig, am I correct on those? Those are the three things that I see. MR. BROWN-I think there’s another alternative that was discussed in the last motion, that the applicant could request a tabling for more members, if they wanted to go one more time. MR. LAPPER-Well, perhaps we should table it and go back and look at it, and see if we could take a couple of feet off, if that would be practical, if that’s the direction the Board’s going. To me, if the applicant were forced to make a concession, in a situation where you’re asking for, grant us what we built, even though we told you you didn’t have permission to build it. You had some permission. That would, I think, be looked on more favorably by some of us. So, I mean, if you’re willing to table it and come back with a possible alternative. Is the Board comfortable with that? MR. MC NALLY-I’m comfortable if the applicant wishes to table it, but I think the ultimate issue is not have a half-ass deck. I mean, it’s a nice deck. If he really wants to cut the deck in half, I’m not sure that’s a real feasible alternative. MR. LAPPER-Well, he doesn’t want to. I’m just saying that if that’s what we’re hearing. MR. STONE-But I heard the applicant say he uses it for egress and ingress. That’s all it’s going to be used for. It doesn’t have to be as wide as it is to do that. MR. MC NALLY-If they want to table it, I can understand that they want a full Board, or perhaps an opportunity to think about it. MR. STONE-Sure. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) MR. POLONSKY-I really basically feel, you know, I know I’m wrong, okay, and I know where you gentlemen are coming from. I sat on the bench for 24 years, and I just retired, and I know there’s times you’ve got to make tough decisions, and this is a real hard decision for you gentlemen. It would be, to me, yes, we can cut it back and everything else. I don’t know what it’s going to look like. I know we will go for an additional expense for something that might not be as attractive. I will go along, you know, any way the Board wants it to go, but I really want to say that if, at the time, I felt that I was depending on other people, which I was stupid for doing, and I’ll pay the piper for it, but I did not, in my heart, do anything intentionally. I would have been before this Board if I knew it was a matter as serious as this. Thank you. MR. STONE-I think that we have, a number of us on this Board have probably chaffed for a couple of years in similar situations, and this is an opportunity that I guess we feel we can ask you to take a look at it. I would argue that you could do this as attractively as the current deck by, if you took out some of the boards and moved the whole thing back. It’s still going to be a very attractive deck, but you’re willing to table it. MR. HIMES-Would it be possible to ask the parties involved, that are responsible for this, to acknowledge it or, you know, in keeping with my earlier comments about the aspect of recovery and cost, even the cost that may possibly result from any kind of compromise? Could there be some acknowledgement that, yes, we did make a mistake, or something to kind of corroborate, confirm the record? MR. POLONSKY-I left my architect on pretty bad terms. I don’t know whether he would come, wouldn’t come, or where I would stand. MR. STONE-Well, on the basis the applicant is willing, I will move to table. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-2000 JOSEPH & NANCY POLONSKY, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes: The application is tabled in lieu of investigation by the applicant of feasible alternatives, and/or the additional compliment of Board members. We will table this to the first meeting in May. Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes MR. POLONSKY-Thank you, gentlemen. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-2000 TYPE II WR-1A CEA WILLIAM WALKER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE PILOT KNOB ROAD, KATTSKILL BAY APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND STORY ADDITION ONTO EXISTING DWELLING AND SEEKS FLOOR AREA RATIO RELIEF, SETBACK RELIEF, AND RELIEF FOR EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF. SPR 25-2000 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 4/12/2000 TAX MAP NO. 18-1-21.2 LOT SIZE: 0.37 ACRES SECTION 179-60, 179-79, 179-16 GABE ARMANDO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 23-2000, William Walker, Meeting Date: April 20, 2000 “Project Location: Pilot Knob Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a second story addition and a small single story addition. Relief Required: Applicant requests 24 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement and 1.48% relief from the 22% Floor Area Ratio requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. Also, the applicant is requesting relief from § 179-79 for the expansion of a non-conforming structure. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired additions and gain additional living area. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include interior alterations to eliminate the new single story addition and no construction. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 24 feet of relief from the 50 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate, while the 1.48% relief from the 22% requirement may be interpreted as 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) minimal. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Neighborhood concerns include whether the use of this building is associated with the bed & breakfast business across the road. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Site Plan Review 5-1988 to demolish two buildings and construct new camp AV62-92 create two lot subdivision non conforming lots – tabled – no action Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The creation of the lot in question must be resolved prior to any action on this application. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-You’ve got County, too. MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form MR. STONE-Is there a County in there? MR. BROWN-There is a County in there. It was approved with a couple of conditions. MR. STONE-That’s what I thought. I only have this sheet. There should be a formal. MR. MC NULTY-Yes. So if you only have that, then that would be all I would have. MR. STONE-You ought to have the whole County. MR. MC NULTY-In this. MR. STONE-There it is, right there. MR. MC NULTY-Yes, there we go. “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form Project Name: William Walker Owner: William Walker ID #: QBY-AV23-2000 County Project Number: Apr00-38 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a second story addition to existing dwelling and 154 square foot addition to the existing kitchen. The applicant requests an Area Variance for relief from floor area ratio requirements and to alter a nonconforming structure (deficient setbacks). Site Location: Pilot Knob Road, Kattskill Bay, seven tenths of a mile north from Ridge Road on left side. Tax Map No. 18-1-21.2 Staff Notes: This project was also referred for site plan review, agenda item Apr 00-37 A copy of the site plan and other relevant materials is included with that agenda item. This parcel is right on Lake George, and therefore the septic system and exceeding the Floor Area Ratio are of particular concern. Staff recommends discussion in conjunction with agenda item Apr 00-37. Local Actions to Date (if any): Public hearing is set for April 20, 2000 County Planning Board Recommendation: Approved with the following conditions: One, the septic system complies with current New York State Department of Health Standards and, Two, the trailer on site will not become a permanent fixture.” And on the copy I have got, there are no signatures. MR. STONE-Okay. Do you want to read this note in from Chris? MR. BROWN-What’s the date? MR. STONE-The 10 of April. th MR. BROWN-There’s another one that was supposed to be in the file from today. It’s not in there. It’s stuck in computer land some place. MR. STONE-And that talks about the subdivision or the boundaries? MR. BROWN-It addresses the property, the lot configuration. Originally, subsequent to the preparation of the notes, Mr. Armando submitted some additional information, some deeds that show that there were always two parcels there, and then the early 90’s, I think, there was a property line adjustment between the two, to reflect the current configuration. So there isn’t really a question anymore about the legality of the lots. There always were two lots. They’re just in a different configuration than the original. MR. STONE-Okay, and this note of April 10 from Chris has been superceded by one which is in th limbo somewhere, but you are willing to state for the record that there is no, there are two lots there? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Okay. Having said that, sir, who are you and what do you want to talk about? MR. ARMANDO-My name is Gabe Armando. My company is Consulting and Management, and I’m here as Construction Manager for the applicant. I’ll be happy to answer any questions. The first 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) thing that I would like to say, it was mentioned something about a bed and breakfast across the street. This dwelling has nothing to do with that. It’s a completely separate dwelling, as a single family residence. The second floor addition is on the same footprint as the original building. The 25, or 24 foot relief is because the building, the existing building is there now. In fact, the portion of the building that’s close to the lake is a deck. The building proper is back even further than that. When we looked at this addition, we took the least intrusive position here. This was the lowest portion of the house, where bringing this roof up would not exceed the roof on the, the height of the present building. It also conforms to the maximum height of 28 feet. We do not intend to exceed that. The only footprint that is changing was a small kitchen addition. The kitchen’s very small right now, and not efficient, and it’s kind of tucked in back of the trees and sits on solid rock right now. So really it’s not creating anymore runoff. MR. STONE-Just for the record, in Staff notes you said 1.48%, which is one way of looking at the overage and the floor area ratio. Actually, you’re allowed 22. It’s 23.48, which is one way of 1.48, but it also represents approximately 246 square feet, additional, over the amount allowed. MR. ARMANDO-246 square feet is correct. MR. STONE-Is additional. MR. ARMANDO-Right. MR. STONE-Over the allowed 22%. MR. ARMANDO-That’s correct. MR. STONE-This is how, I get concerned when statistics say one percent, it’s really, it’s one percent over 22%. So it’s a much larger number. Any questions of the applicant? MR. HIMES-One comment. As I understand it, looking at these drawings, the roof addition, as you explained very well, just brings what’s already there up a little higher. They mostly match the existing structure. On the side toward the lake where the kitchen is going to be added, isn’t there presently kind of a zig zag, and this is bringing that out to? MR. ARMANDO-That’s correct. It juts back in and this would come out to the existing limits. MR. HIMES-So you’d have a straight line across the back rather than? MR. ARMANDO-Well, not totally straight. I mean, it would bring that straight and then still come back in, jut back in. It only comes out a distance of, I believe, 14 feet. It does extend the portion where the second story is going to be out, but it does not go the full length of the house. MR. HIMES-Thank you. MR. MC NALLY-Just so I understand things right, there are two lots here. The larger lot has Mr. Walker’s home on it. MR. ARMANDO-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-And behind that lot, closer to Pilot Knob Road, he owns another parcel. Is that his house there? MR. ARMANDO-No. He only owns the one parcel. The other parcel belongs to his brother. MR. STONE-The house closest to Pilot Knob Road is Mr. Walker’s? MR. ARMANDO-No, the house farthest from Pilot Knob Road is Mr. Walker’s. The one closest is another Mr. Walker. That’s his brother Robert. MR. MC NALLY-His brother? MR. ARMANDO-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ARMANDO-See, the longer house closer to the lake is Mr. Walker’s. MR. STONE-Okay. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) MR. MC NALLY-And these two lots were adjusted, when, with respect to the boundary? MR. ARMANDO-About 1990. What happened, the father, who is now deceased, had purchased the parcel from the next door neighbor. It was a triangle, and the purpose of this revision was to create a narrow corridor, giving a deeded right-of-way down to an existing boathouse. The boathouse had been used for years with no really deeded right-of-way to it. So that was the only purpose of that narrow corridor. MR. MC NALLY-But that’s how they adjusted the boundary? MR. ARMANDO-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-So that’s what’s shown on the map that’s submitted to us? MR. ARMANDO-That’s correct. That corridor you see. MR. STONE-How wide is that, six feet? MR. ARMANDO-It’s six and a half feet. There’s a set of stairs there, concrete steps. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-And does Mr. William Walker own any other property adjacent to this lot? MR. ARMANDO-Not adjacent. He does across the road, across Pilot Knob Road he does, in Washington County. MR. MC NALLY-How much does he own across the road? MR. ARMANDO-How much? I’m not sure what the size of that parcel is. It’s a considerable. MR. STONE-Is any of it in Warren County, in Queensbury? MR. ARMANDO-None of it. It’s all in Washington County. MR. MC NALLY-When I looked across the road, there was this big house of new construction? MR. ARMANDO-That’s correct. MR. MC NALLY-Is that his house? MR. ARMANDO-Yes, it is. MR. MC NALLY-And who lives in the house on the lake? MR. ARMANDO-Well, actually, it’s been used as a summer home. Nobody permanently resides in that home. MR. MC NALLY-Who uses it as a summer residence? MR. ARMANDO-Well, Mr. Walker has, while this other house is being built. Now, the new house that you see across the road will become his primary residence. When this home is completed. MR. MC NALLY-How large a house is it across the road? How many bedrooms are over there? MR. ARMANDO-It’s a large house. It’s got six bedrooms in it. MR. STONE-You are aware, of course, that when you request a modification of a non-conforming building that, as the request states, the setback from the shore becomes an issue. I mean, we have to grant that relief. MR. ARMANDO-Right. MR. STONE-Regardless of whether it’s going to be any higher. If you do anything to it, I mean, that comes into play. I mean, that’s what the request says, but I just want to make sure we’re all on the same page. MR. ARMANDO-Right. Because the building is there now. We just want to take that line up. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) MR. STONE-But the building there now is non-conforming. MR. ARMANDO-I don’t fully understand what you mean by that building as being non-conforming. MR. STONE-It is too close to the lake. MR. ARMANDO-Okay, in that respect, I understand. MR. STONE-And if it was grandfathered, if nothing was done, then we have no say over it, but the fact that the applicant wants to make some changes in this property, we have to grant, you’re asking us to grant relief from the fact that it’s too close to the lake. MR. ARMANDO-I understand that. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ARMANDO-One other thing that I would like to say, that you brought up, was the septic system. Now I might state that there is no sewage discharge of any type of that property, or on the two adjoining properties, the one owned by his brother, and the one to the north owned by Mr. Walker’s sister. MR. STONE-Is that Regan? MR. ARMANDO-No, that’s Clark. MR. STONE-Betty Walker, I’m sorry. It says Betty Walker, yes, excuse me, okay. Where does the sewage go? MR. ARMANDO-Across the road into Washington County. There’s been a large system designed in there by Charlie Scudder. It’s been in operation now for about 10 years with no problems, and all the discharge from those three homes goes there. Nothing is discharged in Warren County. MR. STONE-Craig, is that legal, to discharge out of County? MR. ARMANDO-That was addressed when it happened. It should work for Warren County, I would say. MR. MC NALLY-When I was at the site, there is not very much topsoil on this lot. I don’t suppose you could have anything on the site itself, other than a holding tank. MR. ARMANDO-That’s correct. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. Don’t ask questions about that. MR. STONE-I just brought it up. MR. HIMES-Excuse me. Did you say that he’s going to live across the street? I understand that the object of the applicant is his home was to expand it for a growing family. So that’s where he’s going to live, but I thought I heard you say, well, no, he’s going to live in the big place across the street? MR. ARMANDO-Well, being a family home, I’m not sure exactly what he’s going to do. I can tell you that he is not going to rent rooms in it, okay. Other people in the family do use that during the summer. His wife’s family comes up. He has some children by a previous marriage that come up at times. The place is generally used by family. MR. STONE-His statement would better meet the requirements of a growing family. MR. ARMANDO-Well, his family is gone. Maybe that’s a little bit confusing. MR. MC NALLY-Again, I know it’s confusing from the application. If you’re looking at the house from the lake, on the left hand side, there’s a log home, the map you show says it’s owned by a Betty Walker. MR. ARMANDO-Well, it was, but that was, I believe, transferred to the sister, or the daughter, which is now Lois Clark. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. So a daughter owns the property to the left as you face it from the lake? MR. ARMANDO-That’s correct. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) MR. STONE-To the north. MR. ARMANDO-To the north. MR. STONE-Any other questions before I open the public hearing? No? Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of this application? Okay. Anybody wishing to speak opposed? Then come to the table. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED WALTER GOODWIN MR. GOODWIN-My name is Walter Goodwin. I own property just north of the Walker properties. There’s the property under consideration owned by William Walker, and there’s the property north of that, owned by his sister. The next property is owned by Michael Stevens, and then my property is adjacent to Stevens’, north of that. MR. STONE-Did you state where you live? MR. GOODWIN-My permanent residence is in Loudonville, Albany County. MR. STONE-Okay, and your house, the house you’re talking about, is in Fort Anne? MR. GOODWIN-No, it’s in Queensbury. The back end is in Fort Anne, but the assessment by Fort Anne is not on waterfront. I pay most of my taxes to Queensbury. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. GOODWIN-Like 90% of them. Okay. There’s a long history on this lot. It first came up in I guess about 1990. At that point, there was an attempt to create, to adjust the boundary between this front lot and the back lot, and create a long pan-handle from the back lot down to the lake. I waved a flag, other people waved flags. The Lake George Association wrote a steamy letter about it to the Planning Board. It seemed like it was a real direct assault on the regulations limiting, specifying waterfront width of lot. It was an attempt to give somebody an additional frontage with an insignificant dimension, and it was viewed as a dangerous precedent. At that time, the project was turned down, or shelved. Now my understanding is, and I’m not a lawyer so I can’t follow all this, but apparently, without receiving any Town approval, they went to the tax maps and re-drew the tax maps, which was legal enough, but it still didn’t answer the question of whether moving this boundary created a lot that was out of order, as far as the Park Commission’s zoning regulation, and I believe that’s what they’ve done. So at any rate, my concern here is that if you approve this relief for the building, is that, in effect, conferring approval on the re-drawing of the plot plans? MR. STONE-Well, that was the question that was raised by the Zoning Administrator, in a letter of April 10. According to our Staff, that has been resolved. These are both legal lots. That was a th question that I had. Six foot of frontage on the lake, it strikes me as strange, that’s all, but this is an approved lot, by every jurisdiction? MR. BROWN-Well, it was never approved by the Planning Board, if that’s your question. It was never presented to the Planning Board. There were always two lots, and this was a boundary line adjustment between the two lots. No new lots were created between them. MR. STONE-The adjustment was to create a pan-handle, or was one lot behind the other originally? MR. BROWN-If you look on the map, you’ll see there’s a light dashed line that goes, just to the south of the house near the road, and there’s a small triangular parcel. That was the original parcel configuration. MR. STONE-A small dashed line? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-I’m not sure. You mean this? MR. BROWN-Yes. That was the original parcel right there, this triangle. Just moved the line over there. MR. STONE-And stuck this in, but that never went to the lake. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) MR. BROWN-It never went to the lake. MR. STONE-But that was never approved by the Planning Board you’re saying? MR. BROWN-Right. It’s not a subdivision. They’re not creating a new lot. They just moved. MR. MC NALLY-They’re not creating a new lakefront lot. MR. BROWN-They’re not creating another lot. MR. MC NALLY-They did not create a new lot. MR. STONE-Okay. We’ll get to it. MR. GOODWIN-Yes, okay. Well, that’s the point there. If it’s legal, it’s a very smooth operation, but it does contradict the intent, certainly, of the zoning along the lake, and I think that if the Park Commission is duly apprised of this, they would have some real concerns. I had one other problem with the Walker property and any additions of any sort. Unfortunately, my neighbor, Michael Stevens and I, are downhill from the Walker properties. They have considerable roof area. They have black-topped their parking area. They have a lot of surface that generates runoff. This runoff all comes down and when the County re-did the road last year, they raised and sloped it such that whereas previously all this runoff ran across the road to the far side of the road from the lake where there is a drainage ditch down to a natural catch basin where there could be settlement and all, and it actually discharges out to the lake through the Smith property. When they did the road over, they raised the shoulder such that now the water can’t get over it, and it’s cutting a channel. Whenever we have a good rain, Mr. Stevens’ driveway gets washed out. It comes down and then turns toward the lake and it’s cutting a nice channel from the road downhill, distributing sand and gravel, and dumping it into the lake, and I’ve been talking to Warren County. Well, I’ve tried to get Mr. Grinty talk to other people about doing something on this. Unfortunately, he did the black-topping before the water reg’s were promulgated, and we can’t insist that he contain the runoff from his own property. We have asked Warren County to do something about it, but my concern is if he adds more roof space, and it tips our way, we’re going to get more runoff. It is a problem, whether it’s specifically Walker’s problem or not, it is a problem. So those are my two questions, one, approval of this exception, does it confer legitimacy on the change of the plot plan, and that’s an important one. The other is, what does what he’s doing do to the runoff, which is another, well, it’s a serious problem for Stevens and myself. Thank you. MR. STONE-You’re welcome. Anybody else wishing to speak opposed to this application? LOIS CLARK MRS. CLARK-My name’s Lois Clark, and I live at 1159 Pilot Knob Road, and I have the same concerns. I live right next door to William Walker, and when it rains, I have rivers of water coming from his driveway and from his roof. MR. STONE-Okay. You’re talking about the property in Washington County? MRS. CLARK-Yes. MR. STONE-The new house. MRS. CLARK-No. MR. STONE-You’re talking about. MR. MC NALLY-The house that’s under consideration tonight. MRS. CLARK-I live just next door. I’m his sister. I’m the Betty Walker there on your map. MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. CLARK-I’m losing a lot of topsoil from the water runoff, ever since he paved his driveway last year, but also from the roof, and I’m afraid that if he creates more roof. I think there’s like 100 feet of roof. MR. STONE-Are we in the middle of a family fight here? I’m asking the question for my own edification. MRS. CLARK-Well, he happens to be my brother, but I do have a problem. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) MR. STONE-Okay. That’s all I want to know, make sure I know the relationships. MRS. CLARK-If you want to come look at what the water’s done, come right on over. MR. STONE-You’re saying from the property that we’re talking about there’s a problem? MRS. CLARK-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. CLARK-And I have the same concern, if he puts more roof on, or extends that roof, there’s more construction there, that there’ll be more runoff and I’ll lose more topsoil on my land, on the side of the lake. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Who else is opposed? MIKE STEVENS MR. STEVENS-I’m Mike Stevens, and I own the property right next to the Betty Walker property that you would show on there. I’m just north of that. Just like these people say, the water problem is really bad. I have a two foot rut. It blows two inch stone right down to his property. It’s destroying his house. It blew out a cobblestone wall, $3,000, I had put in last year. I’m not implying that all this was created by this fellow, because it wasn’t. This was created, when that variance was approved back in like 90-ish. When that little house was put in, as far as I know on the same piece of property. I don’t know about all these property lines. This is amazing to me, and I’ve owned property there for 20 years. When that little guest house, or whatever it was, that had to have a variance, that I was for, and I addressed that problem with Bill Walker, who is now deceased, and I said, we’re getting a little bit of water now. We’re going to get a lot more by the time you’re done dynamiting and leveling and black-topping, and we did, and it’s been getting worse, and then when the black-top came, this past year or whatever, two years ago, it’s totally out of control. It’s destroying this man’s house, and we can’t keep up with it. Now I complained to the Town. We did this, that and the other thing, and their answer was, well, blacktop your property and send it down to the next people, and then, while you’re doing that, it does make a nice two foot ditch all the way down the lake, blacktop that, too. That’ll help it. So I’d have all blacktop on my property, which would really make it look beautiful. MR. STONE-You’re saying that the water is flowing north from his property through Mrs. Clark’s property, through your property, and to the next property? MR. STEVENS-Correct, and I’m concerned about this addition. The next thing would be the septic system. This house, and it is confusing, because you have to remember, there’s four buildings on this what we call the compound, both in Washington County and Warren County. The big monster house, we affectionately call it the Taj Mahal. That’s got like six bedrooms I’m told and maybe four bathrooms. They had a Wisconsin Mound put in, way before this. Bill Walker put it in, with no provisions for this big building being put in, and this is being tapped in to that system, which is less than 75 feet from my well, and it’s real close to the Betty Walker well, and I guarantee you that had I had time, I can prove that I’m getting some septic, because it can’t handle it all, and that’s in full, when everything is in full boar, there’s no way this is going to handle all these bedrooms, because it’s picking up all four compounds. That’s how that system was designed. Everything is getting shifted to Washington County. So we have the septic system problem. We have the water problem, and I would just like to comment on this deed deal. You can bet there’s something shady about it, because when I bought the property, I bought it from Waldo Ross, who was also deceased. At that time, that particular little piece that’s going to the lake was in total litigation, but Waldo Ross was quite old and didn’t want to fight it, but this had nothing to do with this property in Washington County. It had nothing to do with any other lot. This was the property directly next to me and my piece of property. This is how I understand it, and I could be wrong, but in my estimation of this problem, it never changed. How all this deed stuff happened, I have no idea. People can put little funny lines on paper. That doesn’t make it legal, but the real problem is what we’ve been putting up with water. Topsoil, she’s got a worse problem. It’s taking the blacktop right off her parking lot, in the Betty property. It’s brutal, and I’m not opposed to anybody re-doing a kitchen. That’s not the issue here. The issue for me is the water problem. From what I understand, some of this is not enforceable because of the Codes or whatever, but this was addressed for the variance for that little cottage or guest house, as we call it, and that was supposed to have been taken care of when that variance came through. So I feel it is enforceable. MR. STONE-I have a question of Staff. What variance? You list no variances. You say there was a site plan review in ’88, and then there was a, to create a two lot subdivision, which was tabled no action in ’92. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. STEVENS-There had to be a variance, excuse me, because there was a little log cabin that was some sort of, just a little tiny weenie thing, and there was, because it was right next to the road, and there was a variance to put that cottage in. MR. MC NALLY-It had to be a setback variance. MR. STEVENS-Certainly . I distinctly remember it because I either sent a letter or came here, or I think I did both, because I didn’t have a problem with that, if the water was taken care of, and it wasn’t, but there was definitely a variance on that piece of property. MR. STONE-So you’ve brought forth a good question. MR. BROWN-The site plan review deals with, there were two other buildings on that property. MR. STONE-Demolish two buildings and construct new camp. MR. BROWN-One was called maybe the dorm and one was a garage building, and those two were removed in favor of the current building. That was the 1988 site plan. MR. STEVENS-No. The garage building was attached to the Betty log home. This was a little log cabin, separate from everything. It is now the cottage, which would be next to the house in question. It would be the little house that would be right next to the Pilot Knob Road, not the log cabin. It would be the guest cottage. That was just a little, tiny weenie wrecked up log cabin that he got, you know, the variance got approved. MR. STONE-Are you talking on the lot that has the six foot frontage on the lake? MR. STEVENS-I don’t know. The guest cottage, the one that’s the guest cottage now. MR. ARMANDO-Well, that’s this one, now. There was an old building here that was a garage with a little apartment over it, and then there was a dumpy little building in here with living quarters and a bathroom and a kitchen. MR. STONE-Those are the ones that were permitted to be demolished in 1988. MR. STEVENS-Demolished, and that’s really when our water really got bad, and isn’t all the son’s fault. This was done before, and then it got about half again, when more black-topping came. Literally, it’s all blacktop, the whole thing now, and it didn’t used to be, and it’s just constantly getting worse, and I don’t care if another ounce of water comes. It’s going to take his lake and push it right in the lake. I mean, he’s just really taking the brunt of it, and I appeal to you people that this isn’t right for this man, for me to pull up, and I hardly even know him, and I see him with a shovel trying to shovel the stone and rocks and stuff, every time I pull in after we get a deluge of rain. It just isn’t fair, and I think it should definitely be taken care of before any more additions or any more building goes on. Thank you very much. MR. STONE-Thank you. INGA FRICKE MS. FRICKE-My name is Inga Fricke. I’m here from the law office of John Caffry, and I’m here on behalf of some of the neighbors of Mr. Walker, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Phillips, and also Joan Taylor and David Vrooman. I should, before I start my comments, note that I submitted a rather lengthy letter to the Board this morning, and I certainly hope that you each have a copy of it, and that you’ve reviewed it, and I would certainly be willing to waive a formal reading of that letter at this time. I just wanted to make a number of comments in addition to the substance of my letter, just based on what I’ve been hearing here so far during this hearing. First, concerning the separate ownership of the parcels, I’d just like to note for the record that my clients, the Phillips’, were the ones who actually sold the Walkers that small triangular parcel, originally, and I can tell you that they were slightly amazed this week when I informed them that the Walkers had adjusted that boundary line and were using that as a way to avoid the Subdivision Regulations, and I think it’s pretty clear, given the history of this parcel, the fact that in 1992 the Town was telling the Walkers that they needed subdivision approval, that they entered into this boundary line agreement specifically to avoid having to undergo that approval process. So I think under those circumstances, it would be advisable for this Board to take a sufficient amount of time to really review that, rather than making a hasty decision here tonight, to make sure that all the necessary approvals were received, and that this is a legitimate lot configuration. One more thing about the lot configuration, I think the fact that the applicant himself 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) moved these boundary lines adds to the fact that this is a hardship that is self-created. Concerning the bed and breakfast issue that was raised, I think it’s illogical to think that guests of a bed and breakfast across the street from a lake, are not going to enter that property that adjoins the lake, to use the dock and other facilities on the lakeshore. I think the applicant mentioned that the properties are now in separate ownership, but I do want to draw the Board’s attention to the Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions and Easements that was submitted by the applicant. All four of the parcels that you see on this map, you’ll notice are identified as Unit A, Unit B, Unit C, and Unit D is apparently across the street on the Fort Anne side. They’re all party to this Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions and Easements, and they share access between them. So to say that these are totally separate and distinct parcels, and access between them is completely restricted, as they would be with separate ownership, is disingenuous at best. The last point I’d just like to make is one that was already alluded to by one of the Board members. The stated purpose for the expansion is to accommodate a growing family. We’ve heard from the applicant’s representative that the family isn’t even going to live there. So, it’s clear that this application was not submitted, well, let’s just leave it at that. Okay. In terms of the requirements of the Town law, Section 269, I think it’s clear here that the hardship was completely created by the applicant himself. He’s got access to other properties. It’s obvious that the family is intending to use other properties and not this one. Alternatives certainly do exist. The negative effect on the neighborhood as represented by the other neighbors here is clear. The relief requested, we feel, is substantial, given the problems that have been raised here. We really don’t believe that the applicant has met any of the requirements under the Town law for the granting of an Area Variance. Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else opposed? JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I’m not necessarily opposed to the application, but I would like to comment on the subject of the boundary line adjustment. I have studied, at length, surveying techniques and surveying law. There is such a thing, in surveying parlons, as boundary line adjustment, and it is something that is allowed only, only if the two parties involved cannot establish a boundary line. If you can’t establish a boundary line, you are allowed to enter into a boundary line adjustment, and you just declare, mutually agree, and select a new boundary. We have come to use this term “lot line adjustment”, as was just mentioned, to avoid a subdivision requirement. I think it’s just something we’ve created here. I’ve run into it in other towns, and it’s just not legal. The term does not appear, lot line adjustment does not appear in the surveying text. Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else wanting to speak opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-Depending on what you want to read in. We’ve got the letter from Scudder regarding the. MR. STONE-No. I wouldn’t read any of that. That’s septic. That has nothing to do. Would you agree, Craig? MR. BROWN-It’s part of the application, isn’t it? MR. STONE-It’s part of the application. MR. BROWN-It’s referenced in the cover letter of the application. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MC NULTY-Then the only other letter is the one that Inga Fricke had referred to. MR. MC NALLY-They’ve waived the reading of it. MR. STONE-Yes. They’ve waived the reading of it. MR. MC NALLY-So it’s part of the record, I think. MR. STONE-Yes, it’ll be part of the record, but we don’t have to read it in. Any others? MR. MC NULTY-That’s all I find. MR. STONE-Then I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) MR. STONE-Do you wish to say anything? MR. ARMANDO-Yes. I think there’s several things here I need to address. The first thing is Mr. Stevens had mentioned the septic system of all four properties now being hooked onto this one septic system. That is totally incorrect. The new home with the six bedrooms has its own septic system, completely separate from the other three buildings. Now that was designed by Nace Engineering of Glens Falls. The letter you have from Charlie Scudder states that the system he designed, that now takes care of the three buildings on the lakeside, is more than adequate to handle the one more bedroom, okay. As far as the septic system being 75 feet from Mr. Stevens’ well, that is totally incorrect, because I measured those distances myself with the engineer. We’re well within the limits. As far as people from the B & B or the building across the street, going down to the lake and using this dock, that will not be permitted, and that can be a condition, that nobody from that building will be allowed on those docks. That’s a completely separate entity. As far as the drainage goes, the owner did re-surface the existing blacktop at the main home, the home that William Walker owns. When the small cottage was built, that was black-topped there later. Now that’s 10 years ago, and we haven’t heard any problems from anybody, apparently until Warren County came along and did something to the shoulder. Now Mr. Walker was very careful that he didn’t dump water on anybody’s property, and this kitchen addition on this, the proposed kitchen addition to the main building, will not in any way send water toward the road. That’s an impervious surface right now. It’s all rock, and whatever is there, wherever it’s going now, it will still go. We aren’t adding anymore roof on the second story. None of that water comes toward the water because the house is lower than the road. So I don’t see how that could be washing out anybody’s driveways. Again, the term “subdivision” came out. To my knowledge, a subdivision is when you take one parcel of property and divide it into two or more. This did not happen. This lot line revision, or whatever you want to call it, was to create this little corridor so there was a deeded right-of-way to an existing dock, which was already being used, only the access was over the other parcel. Now Mr. Walker, who is the applicant here, does not own this parcel in question, where this corridor has been created. He took ownership of this property in 1994, and what has happened before that, he had really nothing to do with. As far as alternatives to add to this existing dwelling, the only thing it would do is create more impervious area. We tried not to do that, and right now, we are under, just under, the total allowable permeable or non-permeable area. The allowable is 35%. We will be at 34.8%. MR. STONE-Since you bring that up, does that count all of the individual concrete inserts, insets into the ground, when you’re measuring impermeable soil? There’s an awful lot of them, a lot of walkway on these properties. Has that all been taken care of? MR. ARMANDO-On this particular property that we’re talking about, every bit of it was. These steps are not on this property. They’re on another property. MR. STONE-I know the steps are on the one side, but there are still a lot of stepping stones on these properties. MR. ARMANDO-Everything has been taken in to consideration. MR. STONE-Is outcropping rock considered impervious? MR. BROWN-Absolutely. MR. STONE-I thought so. Okay. MR. MC NALLY-When you calculate 35%, you’re saying that includes the bare rock and outcrops around that property? That just includes the building, you’re saying. MR. ARMANDO-That includes the building and the black-topped area. MR. STONE-The manmade MR. ARMANDO-The manmade. MR. STONE-But there’s a lot of it impervious. MR. MC NALLY-All right. I was just curious what you meant. That’s all. MR. ARMANDO-Now, I don’t know what the County did. I saw them down the road working there, and I have no idea why they did what they did, but apparently, that’s what’s causing the problem. There’s no water from the new road on the Fort Anne side coming across the road. I can’t, for the life of me, figure how any water from this property, Mr. Walker’s property, is getting out into the road. It all pitches the other way. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) MR. STONE-We’ve heard three people who say it kind of does. MR. ARMANDO-Well, I’m sorry but, water only goes downhill. MR. STONE-Anything else? MR. ARMANDO-No, I guess that’s it. MR. STONE-I have two alternatives that I want to consider, and I’ll say it for the Board. One, we can do our normal thing. We can go around the Board, and we can make a decision whether or not we ought to grant this variance, or what I would prefer to do is to get to the bottom of the facts, in terms of how this land was lot line changed or subdivided and the impervious soil, is this water, in fact, as three people have stated tonight, going north onto their property and washing it out? Plus, there are a number of other factors that I’m concerned about. I’m concerned, first of all, that the house is too close to the lake to begin with, and that comes into play in terms of granting any variance. I’m also concerned that there seem to be two docks on this one property. I don’t know how long these docks have been there. I don’t know when they were constructed, whether they’re in compliance or not. MR. ARMANDO-I don’t know, either. They’ve been there for years and years. I have no idea. MR. STONE-These are questions that I’ve got. For example, it appears that one dock is used by the people who only have a right-of-way to the water and not to the dock. So there’s a number of questions that I’ve got, and I would really like, in my mind, to table this, to get more information both from the applicant and from Staff, in terms of exactly where this thing stands. Because I know Mr. Brown said to us that it does not seem to be in question, the lot lines or the property, but since no variances were granted for any of these things, I’d like a review of the whole subject. How does the Board feel about that? MR. MC NALLY-That’s fine. MR. ARMANDO-We would have no problem tabling this for further information at all. MR. STONE-All right. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-2000 WILLIAM WALKER, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: Tabled for up to 62 days to get a clarification of all of the aspects talked about in the public hearing tonight, re: subdivision, water flow, number of docks, etc. Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-Thank you. MR. HIMES-Lew, did you include County involvement? So that if they might, the Highway Department or somebody, say something about that work that they’ve done? MR. STONE-I said anything that was in the discussion. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would think you’d want to look at where this new leach field is across the road from the new place, if it’s right next to the one that’s already been created. MR. STONE-Let’s make sure that we did talk about everything that’s in the, that was mentioned in the public hearing. AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-2000 TYPE II RR-3A CHRIS CARTE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 16 BOULDERWOOD DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A 3-CAR GARAGE (1,1000 SQ. FT.). RELIEF REQUESTED FROM GARAGE SIZE REQUIREMENTS. TAX MAP NO. 27-4-16 LOT SIZE: 4.52 ACRES SECTION 179-15, 179-7 CHRIS CARTE, PRESENT 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 24-2000, Chris Carte, Meeting Date: April 20, 2000 “Project Location: 16 Boulderwood Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a single family dwelling with an attached 1100 square foot garage and seeks relief from the maximum private garage size requirement. Relief Required: Applicant requests 200 square feet of relief from the 900 square foot maximum allowable square footage for a private garage, per Definitions; § 179-7 Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired home and garage in the preferred configuration. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include downsizing the garage to meet the size requirement. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 200 square feet of relief from the 900 square foot requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self- created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Given the size of the proposed residence on this 4.5 acre parcel, the proposed garage size does not appear to be out of character. Access to the garage is proposed from the back of the home, thereby, limiting the appearance of the garage. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-And County? I don’t think they had any. MR. MC NULTY-There isn’t any. I didn’t see any. MR. STONE-No, they didn’t have any. Okay. Mr. Carte. Just before you start, I just want to make sure I looked at the right piece of property. That’s the one where they’re taking stumps out? MR. CARTE-That’s correct. MR. STONE-How did that get numbered 16? Because I couldn’t, I would have called it 60 something. MR. CARTE-On the subdivision map that I have, it’s simply labeled Lot 16. MR. STONE-Lot 16. Okay. MR. CARTE-Yes. MR. STONE-But there are addresses on the street. That’s what confused me. So I did look at the right piece of property. Okay. Go ahead. MR. CARTE-I see. My name is Chris Carte. Hopefully my application is self-explanatory. I anticipated building a three-car garage. I guess it is considered a little larger than normal, but not, I would say that it’s in keeping with the size of the house, and will suit my needs. MR. STONE-Okay. Any questions of the applicant? I mean, you say you know 900 square foot is considered a three-car garage. MR. CARTE-Yes. I understand that. I did not, to be honest with you, at the time that I had my plans drawn up, I didn’t realize that there was a 900 square foot maximum in the Town of Queensbury for a garage. Sometimes it gets difficult to keep up with all the rules and regulations. MR. STONE-It’s been 900 for a long time. MR. CARTE-Well, being a layperson, I had no way of knowing that there even was a maximum. MR. STONE-Is this a house you designed yourself, or did you have an architect? MR. CARTE-No, I did it myself. MR. STONE-Okay. Any questions of the applicant? MR. HIMES-What would be the impact if you scaled it back to 900? MR. CARTE-Well, the impact would be that I probably would have to construct, at some time in the future, some sort of a shed or something to keep, I have a lot of stuff. Let’s put it that way, and I’d like to, I think it would be best for the neighborhood, and it is best for me, if it’s all kept under cover, and I’d rather not have to build another structure of some sort on the property, if I can help it. I’d 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) rather get it all taken care of right now up front. I have, I mean, if you need specifics of what it is that I’m going to be doing with this additional space, I have a tractor that I use for various yard maintenance activities. I have a truck with a plow on it. I also have two cars, one that I drive and one that my wife drives, lawn mowers, riding lawn mower, various and assundry things that I’d like to keep within the confines of the garage. MR. STONE-What is the truck with the plow used for? MR. CARTE-For plowing my driveway, and also for plowing my business’s parking lot. MR. STONE-So there’s partially a commercial application there. MR. CARTE-Well, I guess you could consider it that. I mean, I drive the truck in the winter time, use it to plow my driveway, and with the assistance of my brother who also has a plow, use it to plow our business parking lot. MR. STONE-Okay. Now this is a four and a half acre parcel. It’s going to stay four and a half acres? MR. CARTE-Yes. MR. STONE-Just the one building, one house on it. MR. CARTE-One house. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. CARTE-It’s the second to the largest parcel in the Grant Acres subdivision. There’s only larger, at 5.8 acres. MR. STONE-How high is this house going to be above Boulderwood? Where is it going to sit? I mean, there’s a considerable elevation there, right? MR. CARTE-Yes. Well, I mean, if we take the notations that the surveyor has made, it goes from. MR. STONE-It’s going to be about at least 10 feet, or more than that. MR. CARTE-Ninety-eight feet to one hundred and eight feet, around 10 feet. MR. STONE-Ten feet. Any other questions of the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor? Anybody opposed? Opposed to the application? Any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-Yes. We have one handwritten note, back on the notice. It’s from a Frederick Burnham, dated 4/15, he says, “I have no objections to the above request.” And he signed it, address at 56 Boulderwood Drive. MR. STONE-You don’t know what your address would be on Boulderwood? MR. CARTE-No, I don’t know what my future address would be, no. MR. STONE-I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE- Any other questions of the applicant? Okay. Then you start, Bob? MR. MC NALLY-Looking at the five factors, I don’t have a problem with this at all. The benefit to the applicant, he’s going to be able to build a three-car garage which, while upsized, is in scale and in keeping with the house he proposes. The feasible alternatives would be to keep him to a two-car garage, or 900 square feet, but that doesn’t make any sense, given the size of the lot, and given the fact that the house warrants the larger garage. I don’t find the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance. Two hundred square feet of relief from nine hundred square feet certainly is not moderate or substantial. There’ll be no effect whatsoever on the neighborhood. It’s going to be a centrally located house, on a large 4.5 acre lot, and the entrances to the three garages is to the rear of the house, and the driveway swings around, and therefore the effect on the neighborhood, on balance, is going to be zero. So I’m in favor of it. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I pretty much agree with Bob. I’m bothered a little bit about making a variance, or allowing a variance to the limit that’s been established, but considering the location, the general nature of the other houses in the area, as Bob says, the size of the lot, and the way this garage fits in with the design of the house, the applicant is not asking for some excessively high roof for part of the garage that we’ve seen before on some of these kinds of requests, and I will agree with the applicant. I’d sure rather see this size garage on the house than I would another outbuilding on that lot. So, I don’t have a problem with it. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would agree. It’s afterthoughts. We’ve seen lots of the examples scattered all through the Town, and I think it fits with the house with the design. Since the access is from the back of the parcel, it makes more sense to me. I’d go along with it. MR. STONE-Norman? MR. HIMES-Yes. I’m sympathetic to that, because of the size of the lot, and all, I do think in view of the comment that the garage was plotted out, so to speak, without knowledge of what the limitations were, whether it’s based upon storage need or what, there are provisions for accessory structures that would allow storage of things like lawnmowers and so on, and the zoning requirement is there, and there are other means, whether or not it’s preferable to increase the size of the garage because to do so, is more pleasant. The appearance, that could be said of other things that we’ve looked at, too. In many cases, there are both. Somebody eventually gets to the point which you may face, where time goes along and bigger lawnmower or something like that and you do need the storage shed. I think, okay, I’ll agree to the thing. MR. STONE-I have a couple of questions. You show a front door here, and the side with the back of the garage. MR. CARTE-Yes. MR. STONE-How do people get to this front door? You’re driving up in the driveway coming into behind the garage, is there going to be? MR. CARTE-A sidewalk. MR. STONE-A sidewalk from the? MR. CARTE-I didn’t bother to draw it in, perhaps I should have, from the. MR. STONE-Is this going to be a functional front door, is what I’m really getting at? MR. CARTE-Well, how often it gets used is hard to say, but I don’t know. MR. STONE-The other question is that you show windows in the back of this garage, and I’m only wondering, is your intent to make this look as part of the house, not an obvious garage sticking out there from the front, from Boulderwood? MR. CARTE-Absolutely. That’s primarily why I put the garage doors on the back side. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. CARTE-It would have been much easier access if the garage doors were on the front, but I don’t like the looks of garage doors. I would much rather disguise the garage, as being an integral part of the house. MR. STONE-Okay. Having asked those questions and gotten satisfactory answers, I basically agree with the rest of the people. I am not totally enthusiastic about granting relief on garages, because this is something we do see occasionally, and sometimes we see oversized garages that have been built without variances, and I applaud you for coming in and seeking the variance before you construct. MR. CARTE-Well, I can’t vouch for those construction projects that take place without a variance, however, if what you’re telling me is that you see numerous requests for a variance of this nature, perhaps the 900 square foot limit is the thing that needs to be looked at. I mean, the reasoning behind it, the way I understood it, was to discourage commercial use of the private residences. Well, Number One, there’s nothing saying that someone can’t commercially use a 900 square foot three car 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) garage. I mean, that number, I don’t know where it came from, but it seems kind of arbitrary, and, Number Two, in residential zones within the Town of Queensbury, commercial use is already not allowed. So to put this restraint on people who have no intention of using their property commercially, because the chance exists for someone to use it commercially, is an infringement on my rights, to be honest with you. MR. STONE-I wish you hadn’t brought that up, I really wish you hadn’t, only because that’s what zoning is about. Zoning is, “an infringement on people’s rights”, and there are arguments that go pro and con all over the place. I mean, I hear you. I know, I mean, I know something about you. Obviously, I try to say I don’t know applicants, but it’s the case we’re talking about, a responsible persons. Unfortunately, everybody who comes before us, or who does these things, is not necessarily responsible. That’s all, and so we have to be careful. This is not saying, and we appreciate the fact that you’re saying, hey, guys, I recognize I’m big. I want to do it. That’s what we’re here for. MR. MC NALLY-And you’re not the first person to raise the fact that 900 square feet might be undersized. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-It depends, on a lot of occasions, when you have a big house and a big lot, hey, you have to have more (lost words). MR. STONE-And it may very well be that the 900 square feet should be based upon square footage of the house, but that’s not where we are. MR. CARTE-I understand what you’re saying, but what I’m getting from Mr. Stone is that he has concerns about going over that 900 square feet, apparently without regard. MR. STONE-Well, I have concerns only in that, one of the things that we have to be careful of, here as a Board, is that we don’t create zoning. I mean, our job is to interpret the zoning and grant relief from it. If we begin to go in a certain direction, for example, if everybody comes in here and wants 1,000, 2,000 square foot garage, and we say yes, then we’ve changed zoning. That’s not our job to do that. We have to be careful. That’s all I’m saying. MR. CARTE-I understand. MR. STONE-You never did tell us the size of the house, but it’s obviously a big house. It’s on four and a half acres. It’s not an oversized garage. I’d go along with my fellow Board members that were right, but I just want the record to state that we have to be careful. We can’t create. MR. CARTE-I understand, but do you ever have an opportunity to say to, I don’t know who it would be, someone in the Zoning Department, maybe we should, someone should look at changing this square foot regulation. MR. STONE-Well, you’re talking to a man who sits on the zoning who’s working on it. It’s an interesting point, that maybe we should be looking at this. We haven’t addressed it, Craig, at all. It hasn’t come up at all. MR. BROWN-Not yet. MR. STONE-Not yet. MR. MC NALLY-Didn’t this subject come up, though? When did Chris comment to the Town Board about the number of applications and the possible need for a greater square footage? MR. CARTE-I would think tying it to the size of the house would be an appropriate measure, or the size of the lot or both. MR. STONE-Yes. That may be, and it’s in the record, and we’ll look into it. MR. CARTE-Okay. MR. STONE-Having said that, I need a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-2000 CHRIS CARTE, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) Lot 16 Boulderwood Drive. The applicant proposes the construction of a single family dwelling with an attached 1100 square foot garage and seeks relief from the maximum private garage size requirement. Specifically, the applicant requests 200 square feet of relief from the 900 square foot maximum allowable square footage for private garages as they’re defined under Section 179-7 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. I move the approval of this application for the following reasons. First, the applicant would be permitted to construct the desired home and garage in the preferred that he’s provided to us. Second, while the feasible alternatives may include downsizing the garage to meet the Town requirement, the relief requested is not substantial relative to the Ordinance. In my mind, 200 square feet is minimal relief. The effects on the neighborhood are going to be minimal. This is a house and a garage which is centrally located on a very large lot, in excess of four acres. The applicant has also designed the building to provide for rear access, such that some of the aesthetic concerns of having large garage doors facing the street are done away with. In large part, the proposed structure, which is a quite fine home, would be a benefit to the neighborhood, and while the difficulty may be self-created, on balance, I think the application should be approved. Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes MR. CARTE-Thank you, gentlemen. MR. MC NALLY-Thank you. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 25-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A ADECCO EMPLOYMENT OWNER: J.M. WELLER ASSOC. 345 BAY ROAD, NW CORNER AT BAY AND QUAKER ROAD (TRUSTCO BANK BUILDING) APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITION OF A 24 SQ. FT. SIGN TO THE EXISTING 64 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING TAX MAP NO. 62-1-8.1 LOT SIZE: 0.58 ACRES SECTION 140 THERESA BROWN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 25-2000, Adecco Employment, Meeting Date: April 20, 2000 “Project Location: 345 Bay Road, Truscto Bank Bldg Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 24 square foot addition to an existing 64 square foot freestanding sign. Relief Required: Applicant requests 24 square feet of relief from the 64 square foot maximum allowable square footage for a sign at a 25 foot setback from the property lines, per § 140-6B.(2)(a). 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 sign in desired location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include no construction, modification of the existing sign and wall signs. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 24 square feet of relief from the 64 square foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal adverse effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Site Plan 18- 98 5/21/98 Premier Car Rental withdrawn Sign Permit 91-1443 64 square foot TRUSTCO sign Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Apparently, the applicant has requested wall sign locations from the property owner and has been denied wall space. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted” MR. MC NULTY-And we have “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form April 5, 2000 Project Name: Adecco Employment Owner: J.M. Weller Assoc. ID #: QBY-SV- 25-2000 County Project Number: Apr00-27 Current Zoning: Highway Commercial One Acre Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes an addition of a 24 square foot sign to the existing 64 square foot freestanding sign and seeks relief from the Sign Ordinance. Site Location: 345 Bay Road, northwest corner of Bay and Quaker Road, Trustco Bank building Tax Map No.: 62-1-8.1 Staff Notes: The applicant is requesting a Sign Variance to add a 24 square foot sign to the existing 64 square foot freestanding sign. The applicant does not have a wall sign because the property owner does not wish to have wall signs affixed to the building. The application does not indicate whether the existing freestanding sign already identifies the applicant’s business or whether it is for the entire building. Staff is concerned about variances to the Sign Ordinance when those permitted as of right are not utilized. Staff recommends discussion. Local Actions to Date (if 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) any): Public hearing set for April 20, 2000 County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve with the condition that the proposed sign will not be lit in the future.” And it is not signed. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, for the record, I’m not sure if Mr. Secretary referenced the notes. The applicant’s agent is my wife. So the notes were prepared by the Zoning Administrator, so if you have any questions, I’ll try and answer them, but just for the record. MR. STONE-Okay, and you’re going to be quiet. MR. BROWN-I’ll try. MR. STONE-Okay. Mrs. Brown. MRS. BROWN-I am Theresa Brown. I’m the Branch Manager. MR. STONE-Okay. What do you want to tell us? Anything extra? MRS. BROWN-We sub lease from Truscto Bank. J.M. Weller owns the building, and originally he wanted us to put a sign on the building, and now they’ve decided they don’t want that. We were in the building previously, 10 years ago, when it was Echo Employment Agency. We moved out of there, and then a radio station, K-B100, was in there with the wall signs, or the window signs, the decals. Then they’ve had a realty sign in the windows for quite some time. So Trustco Bank business has dropped because of the realty sign. So they’ve decided that they think it would be beneficial to them for us to add on to their pylon sign, because then it would prove that they are also in the building. MR. STONE-Okay. I have a question about the sign. The current sign is eight by eight? MRS. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-So you’re talking three feet underneath, I mean, the square footage? MRS. BROWN-We’re just going to add right underneath. MR. STONE-Right underneath three feet high? MRS. BROWN-Right, yes. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s the only question. I obviously didn’t measure the other one, 64 square feet can be two by thirty-two, and I wasn’t sure. MRS. BROWN-No, it’s eight by eight. MR. STONE-It’s eight by eight, and you want to be three by eight. MRS. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. BROWN-It won’t be illuminated, either. MR. STONE-The other question that I would ask, the owner of the building is willing to take your money, but doesn’t want to tell anybody, for you how to make money. So people know where you are. MRS. BROWN-Correct, and also, I just found out that the building is being foreclosed on. I’ve been struggling on, Mr. Weller’s in Florida, and I never met the man, never talked to them man, just to try and get things through. MR. STONE-But your deal is with the Bank. MRS. BROWN-Right, because we sub lease from them. MR. STONE-They rent the whole building. MRS. BROWN-They rent the bottom floor. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) MR. STONE-But they own the lease to the whole building, and you’re, you have a sub lease from them. MRS. BROWN-We have a sub lease from them, but I think that, I could be wrong, but I think they only lease the bottom. The upstairs is Linda Weller, Mr. Weller’s wife. MR. STONE-To whom do you pay your rent? MRS. BROWN-Trustco. I don’t know if they own the whole building or lease the whole building, but we pay our rent to Trustco. MR. STONE-Well, I suspect that they must lease the whole building, if you do. Okay. Any questions? MR. MC NALLY-The Signworks materials show that, internally illuminated, high output fluorescent lamps and ballasts, electrical wiring, blah, blah, blah. MRS. BROWN-I just included both quotes. We’re going with. MR. MC NALLY-Non-illuminated ones? MRS. BROWN-Right, the Craft one in the back, and that is not illuminated. They’re taking and building on either side of the pole, and then going to build a box around it, to make it appear as part of the sign. MR. MC NALLY-How long have you been at the building? MRS. BROWN-We just moved in January 24. We were in Downtown Glens Falls, on the corner of th Bay and Washington in the Platt Smith building. MR. MC NALLY-Is your company a locally owned company? MRS. BROWN-Our company is the world’s largest employment company in service. They’re just not well known in this area. MR. MC NALLY-All right. MR. STONE-Any other questions? MR. HIMES-Yes. Are you happy with your lease? MRS. BROWN-Not any more. MR. HIMES-When does it expire? MRS. BROWN-Two years. MR. HIMES-Two years, and there is nothing in that paperwork regarding signage, in relation to your? MRS. BROWN-Well, I’ve been dealing with Henry Collins, who is the Trustco Bank lawyer. He’s in Schenectady. He has assisted in helping me get signatures from Mr. Weller, and they are totally in agreement to have us go underneath their pylon sign. MR. HIMES-I mean, in connection with the matter, I was looking towards the aspect that this wouldn’t bring Trustco to their feet cheering, but their sign could be made smaller. I’m not saying that as an ultimatum. If there was something that we, in the lease, that would provide that you would have signage in accordance with local, this that and the other, that you might have some recourse to say to them, that their sign has to shrink to make provision for you, and I don’t know. MRS. BROWN-I can look into that. It got handled mainly out of our corporate office, with the real estate, which is in California. I pretty much. MR. HIMES-So, as part of their review, they wouldn’t be looking for something like that? MRS. BROWN-Again, they might have, we have an entire Real Estate and Legal Department that handled that. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) MR. HIMES-The thing being, foreclosure and all that, I don’t know if, one of the questions about the lease is that if the variance was put through, and then you folks decided that you’d be better off elsewhere some day, and what happens with the signage then? Does it start over again, or does that variance continue on forever? It would be kind of interesting to see if you have any recourse. Would that be satisfactory to you, if you could have the space that you need, and I don’t know what percentage of the floor or the building that you rent, or how they would allocate. MRS. BROWN-We’re half. They’re on one half of the bottom floor, and we’re on the other one. MR. HIMES-Okay. So it would seem like you would be entitled to 50% of the, as long as Weller isn’t putting anything in. MRS. BROWN-Well, there’s a second floor. MR. HIMES-I don’t know how it would be allocated, since there can only be one sign, but given what’s before us now, you should be able to get half of that signage that would be allowed. On the other hand, there’s no, you don’t have any legal basis. There’s nothing in the lease to do anything about it. I think that, certainly in view of all the information we have, this isn’t anything that’s going to mean the end of the world to add to the sign, but, you know, I’ll just stop there and let the rest of the Staff ask some things. MR. STONE-A question of Staff, as concerns the Code. Sixty-four square feet is the maximum size allowed at any distance? MR. BROWN-At the 25 foot setback, yes. At any distance greater than 25 feet. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. BROWN-Right, not at 15 feet, but. MR. STONE-You can’t go back 100 feet and be twice that? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Sixty-four is the maximum freestanding sign that’s allowed in the Town of Queensbury. MR. BROWN-Without variance. MR. STONE-Without a variance. All right. Do you know, can you tell me how many signs exceed, freestanding signs exceed 64 square feet in the Town of Queensbury? Are there a lot? MR. MC NALLY-There’s a lot of pre-existing ones, the ones that we don’t often approve ones above the 64 feet. MR. BROWN-A recent one that comes to mind is Della. That’s 100 and something square feet. MR. STONE-Right, but way back. MR. BROWN-That was last year some time. MR. STONE-But that was further back. MR. BROWN-The setback was greater, yes. MR. STONE-This is at, is this at 25, or is this at, it’s at 25. We’re at 25. Now is 25 feet the pole or the furthest extension of the sign on top of a pole? I can’t tell from this drawing where, it says 25 feet on here, which looks to a round thing. It’s not necessarily the sign. MRS. BROWN-Right. I don’t know. I didn’t actually go out there myself. MR. STONE-I’m really talking more Code. It says 64 square feet at a maximum, at a setback of 25 feet. Is that setback measured to the closest point of the sign to the road, or to the pole on which it sits? MR. MC NALLY-It’s got to be the property line. MR. STONE-Well, to the property line, but where on the sign are we measuring to? 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) MR. MC NALLY-Good point. MR. STONE-I don’t know the answer to it. The more you read this book, the more questions you come up with. Anyway, as I understand it, you occupy half the first floor? MRS. BROWN-Correct. MR. STONE-And the Bank says by putting any signs up on the wall, they lose business? MRS. BROWN-No, Weller won’t let us put signs on the wall. MR. STONE-I thought you said the Bank said they lost business? MRS. BROWN-No. The Bank lost business when the realty sign was in our office, before we occupied it, the radio station left, so there was a realty sign in the window, to try and rent out that space. People thought that the Bank was out of there. So now, and Weller won’t let us put a sign on the actual building. So they’re saying that would be great for us to add our sign below theirs, to have both of them, and that would show that both companies. MR. STONE-I didn’t understand what you were saying. MRS. BROWN-I apologize. MR. STONE-You’re saying that the fact that it was for lease or for rent, people thought the Bank wasn’t there anymore. MRS. BROWN-Right. MR. STONE-That’s a very different thing than, I thought you meant because there was a sign in the window. MRS. BROWN-No. MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. BROWN-I apologize. MR. STONE-But the owner of the building says you can’t put a sign on his building, even though it’s legal to do in the Town of Queensbury. MRS. BROWN-Right. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? All right. I’ll open the public hearing. Is anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor? Anybody opposed to this application? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-I find no correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions of the applicant? So, as I understand this issue, what we’re confronted with here is you, as a business person, want to share, increase the sign of the freestanding sign, and the other tenant of the building is willing, and the owner of the building is willing for you to do this? MRS. BROWN-Correct. MR. STONE-Okay. The question before us is 64 feet versus 88 feet. MRS. BROWN-Correct. MR. STONE-Let’s talk about it. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I can understand the building owner’s design to keep all signs off the building. Looking at it today, it strikes me that it’s an attractive building the way it is, and I think a 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) sign on the building would make it look less attractive. At the same time, I don’t think, really, the Town should be asked to solve a business problem, which is what I think this basically is. The building owner is allowed a 64 square foot sign, freestanding sign. If he opts not to exercise his right to use wall signs, that’s the building owner’s choice, and it strikes me that the problem then it between the tenant’s and the building owner. At the same time, I can see that a sign as the one proposed would still be fairly attractive, but I guess I’m still inclined to put the burden back on the property owner, and I’m inclined to say, no, that it’s up to the property owner to go back to Trustco and if he wants to give the other, or if Trustco wants to give their sub leasee sign, shrink the Trustco sign. MR. STONE-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-My only problem with that would be that it’s kind of punishing Trustco for something that’s already been done. I think the sign’s been there for quite some time. I think across the road you’ve got the Applebee’s sign and Lowe’s. I don’t know, are those together, two on one? MR. BROWN-They’re on the same sign. MR. STONE-On the same sign. MR. UNDERWOOD-So I think with that the sign, it seems to me the addition would be quite small, compared to what’s there already. So, given the fact it’s not going to be lit up at night time, somebody’s only going to be looking for that place in the day time. MRS. BROWN-Right, we’re only open until five. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, that it would be minimal impact to add that sign. MR. STONE-Okay. Norman? MR. HIMES-The business complex, Craig, you know, where you can have more than one sign. What is the threshold on that? MR. BROWN-Threshold for more than one freestanding? MR. HIMES-Yes, that you can have more than one sign. It’s my recollection, I can’t find it right here at the moment. I’m thinking back to that thing on the other, on the Quaker Road that we banged around with in January. MR. BROWN-Yes, the Sports Page. MR. HIMES-Is there some threshold in the Ordinance or something you get, you could have, where if you’re on a corner, you can have a sign facing one way? Do you recall anything, or does anybody, any of you guys? MR. STONE-Well, you can have wall signs for each business in a shopping center. MR. HIMES-Freestanding signs. MR. STONE-You can have one. MR. MC NULTY-He’s thinking of the Sports Page that wanted the extra sign. MR. STONE-And we did grant an extra sign at the bottom. MR. MC NULTY-Norm was saying that they had two freestanding signs, one on each road. MR. HIMES-There were two, and it’s in here somewhere. MR. STONE-We had two in there. Yes, that slipped through the cracks, as I understand it. MR. BROWN-The business complex, if it has an access from two separate highways, would be allowed two separate signs. MR. STONE-Yes, that has access from two different highways. This does not because it’s not technically on the corner. MR. MC NULTY-It doesn’t have access from both. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) MR. STONE-It doesn’t have access from Quaker Road. MR. HIMES-That’s right, and there’s no access onto the other, the dwelling on the corner. MR. STONE-You can only get out at Bay. In fact, it’s a very difficult lot, to be very candid about it. MR. HIMES-Yes. That’s right. I was thinking there was, okay, two accesses. Isn’t there some way that Trustco could be part of the picture here? I mean, they lease to you, and your company agreed to just about any allowance for signage at all, in other words, almost prohibiting you from advertising. MRS. BROWN-Yes. We have a sign on the door. That’s all we have. MR. HIMES-Something that could be seen from the roadway, and you’ve got this lease for, your alternatives would be, in other words, if this wasn’t granted, your company would probably move. MRS. BROWN-Well, I think we would have to stay there for two years. MR. HIMES-It would be an expense, certainly, and all that, but that’s about the only alternative you have, right? MR. STONE-Well, you might be able to break the lease. If they don’t allow you to put a sign up showing your business, which you’re entitled to do. I mean, I’m not the lawyer. We’ve got a couple in the room, but it would seem to me that there’s some kind of course of action. You’re certainly entitled to have a sign to tell people where you are. MR. HIMES-There are temporary sign allowances, but they’re 30 day, there’s 60 days, depending on what part of the thing you look at, and it’s too bad that something couldn’t be done along that line until this can be hashed out. It just seems, I mean, you have to have some signage. We all, I think, are sympathetic with you there, but the aspect of, well, here’s Trustco sitting there, leasing to you and saying, you know, you’re a tenant behind the scenes. MRS. BROWN-Right, they left the burden on to me. MR. HIMES-I mean, you have to go out and wave people down out in the street or something to stay in business. So we certainly don’t want you, personally, the company to suffer for that. On the other hand, you have a Legal and a Real Estate Department and so forth with property saying, I’m just wondering if every avenue has been researched and (lost word) how satisfied are you with the lease, or what would your management might say, this is not a good development, and you might look for some reason to break the lease, use this as a reason to do so, or force Trustco to say, okay, we’ll put another sign up. Would that be too much to ask, or this might take so long, could we consider a temporary sign while things are being hashed out, or how do you feel about something like that? MRS. BROWN-I can try and get copies of the lease or agreements or whatever that were made between Trustco. I don’t have that, honestly. I can try and get that see what. MR. HIMES-And what your management might say. MRS. BROWN-Management wasn’t involved in the deciding factor of getting this, but again, they just, I think they assumed that, they didn’t understand what the limits were when they signed. Because our corporate office is in California. So I don’t think they knew what limits where here for the Sign Variance. MR. STONE-A lot of people aren’t aware that we have fairly stringent sign requirements in the Town of Queensbury. MRS. BROWN-Right. I mean, nobody from California every came out here to even look at. MR. HIMES-Well, could there be something? MR. STONE-Well, let’s see what Bob has to say, and see where we come out. MR. MC NALLY-First, I don’t like to speak my peace when someone’s spouse is in the room. MRS. BROWN-That’s okay. MR. MC NALLY-There’s got to be some kind of conflict of interest rule here, because I know, if my spouse were in the room, what would happen, but regardless of what I said, I can perfectly well 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) understand, looking at the five criteria, how Adecco can benefit from having signs, just like any other business. The more the merrier, because you want to get your image out and you want to get your name out. It’s very important for your business. So certainly that would weigh in favor of granting the application, looking at the first criteria. The effect that this variance would have on the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community is the second criteria, and to be perfectly honest with you, this is a commercial corridor, and I don’t think that the addition of a sign, per se, is going to hurt, but there is, I think in my mind, a need for trying to keep to a minimum the total signage area, and the obnoxiousness of those signs, whether it’s by illumination or neons or whatever. When Chuck and Norm were speaking earlier, I think they were really getting to the third criteria, which is feasible alternatives, and it’s kind of an interesting section, because I don’t think of this as a fight between J.M. Weller and Adecco. This is really something that should be worked out between the landlord, which is Trustco, and the tenant, or sub tenant, if you will, which is Adecco. We’ve got two large companies here, all right. Trustco’s a large Bank and organization in our community, and Adecco is a nationwide company, as you told us, and I’d be very surprised if they can’t work out something with this sign, and a feasible alternative would be somehow modifying the sign so that you can comply with the Town Ordinance, yet at the same time get your name up there, and I’m not sure that’s not feasible. Because, don’t get me wrong, but it looks as if the cost of half the sign is about $1,000. MRS. BROWN-Yes, I think it was $1,300. MR. MC NALLY-I don’t know, as between two large corporations, each of you obtaining $1,000 to have the sign modified would necessarily be an unfeasible type thing, particularly when the question is, do you impose upon the Town a requirement for a larger sign or not? The fourth criteria, is the amount of relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? You’re asking for 24 square feet, and the total sign is 64. That’s something less than, what, 33%, it’s about one-third. That’s kind of moderate, and the last criteria, will it have an adverse impact or effect on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, and this also goes to self-created. It is self-created, because you entered into a lease, your California guys did, without checking this out. MRS. BROWN-I didn’t. I’ve been the one fighting, but I didn’t do anything. MR. MC NALLY-They’re the ones that sent you here tonight, and said, take care of it. MRS. BROWN-I’ve only been in this job since September. MR. MC NALLY-I think in instances where a building is being sub leased, subdivided more and more frequently, these are issues that have to be addressed at the tenant, landlord level, and I can see a need for, we are having like gas stations with three or four businesses in them. They want four signs, and it becomes more frequent. I think it should be, if it could be gone back through Trustco, and discussed re-doing that sign within the Town criteria, it should be explored. MRS. BROWN-And if they tell me no, then what, do I come back? MR. STONE-We could table it. I sense you’re not going to get total approval, because you’ve got to have four votes, and there’s enough indecision here that we’re probably going to say, no, or we’re not going to give you approval. We’re not going to deny it. We’re just not going to give you approval maybe. I would suggest that we table it and that you do get your high powered California help to talk to their landlord, if you will, the Trustco boys, and see if you can put them both on the same sign, and maybe it doesn’t have to be 64 feet. Maybe, to get the proper dimensions, maybe it can be somewhere less than 24, but the Sign Ordinance is, we’ve tried very hard, as a Board, and previous Boards, to maintain the signage requirements in Town. We grant relief, but to me, 24%, I mean, 24 feet on top of 64 is a fair amount of relief for a sign, because this is a Town of business people, and nobody wants to have anybody else have an advantage for them, and we are dealing, and I would look at the business corridor the other way, because I would say that you’re more likely to make the business corridor worse if you grant relief for a sign, rather than make it not so noticeable, because everybody else is going to come up and say, hey, I want a bigger sign. You just granted a bigger sign. So I would, my own self, I would prefer if you would let us table it for two months and see what you can work out. MRS. BROWN-That sounds fine to me. MR. HIMES-In view of the fact of the time, and the impact on your business, would it be practical, from your standpoint, for us to consider a temporary sign for the 30 or 60 days to get them over the hump? MR. MC NALLY-They can actually go out and get one tomorrow morning. 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) MR. STONE-They can get a temporary sign permit to put something up, but they can’t put it on the pole. MR. HIMES-Would that be alright? MR. MC NALLY-We don’t have to grant permission for it. MR. STONE-It can’t be a permanent sign. A temporary sign is a temporary sign. So you couldn’t put it on the pylon. MR. MC NALLY-No, but they could have a sign that would indicate where they are. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. HIMES-Would that help? Because this may go a month. MR. STONE-You can work that out with Staff. MR. MC NALLY-You can have a temporary sign of up to 32 square feet for 60 days at a time, for a nominal fee. MR. STONE-Yes, $25. MR. MC NALLY-And the other thing is, we didn’t mention this, but on times where we have granted over-sized signs, there’s been some offsetting factor, like we’re going to set it back 60 feet from the road, 100 feet from the road. This is 25 feet from the road, and if you look at it, as you go by on Bay Road, it’s right there. I don’t think there’s any way they could move this, or would want to, but there might be other considerations that you would think about, that would offset. MR. STONE-If forced to think about them, as we’re, in a sense, forcing you to think about them. I mean, you have made a concession, as far as the County is concerned. The County says they don’t want to illuminate it. You’re saying you’re not going to illuminate it. That’s good. Of course, the County already told you to do that, but I would like to see if you can work something out, and if you need some relief, come back, but see what you can work out before. I think you have to make people aware that we have a particularly tough Sign Ordinance. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 25-2000 ADECCO EMPLOYMENT, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes: The applicant will enter into a discussion with their landlord to see if, One, a wall sign might be permitted, according to regulations, or, Two, that the freestanding sign be modified so that the relief required is minimized or eliminated. We will table this for 62 days. Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes MRS. BROWN-Thank you. USE VARIANCE NO. 30-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED RR-3A SBA, INC. & SOUTHWESTERN BELL CORP. OWNER: JAMES AND DIANE FOWLER 61 STATE ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF A 195 FT. TALL WIRELESS TELEPHONE TOWER ON AN 8.74 ACRE PARCEL IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL WIRELESS TELEPHONE SERVICE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 4/12/2000 TAX MAP NO. 8-1-51 LOT SIZE: 8.74 ACRES SECTION 179-15 JON LAPPER & SHANE NEWELL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MC NULTY-I have a letter, the letter is addressed to Mr. Stone, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals, “On behalf of SBA, Inc. and Southwestern Bell Corporation, I hereby submit an application for a use variance for the construction of a 195’ tall wireless telephone tower and related equipment to be located on an 8.74 acre parcel on the north side of Route 149 west of French Mountain Drive which is owned by James and Diane Fowler. Unlike the legal standards applicable to a use variance under §267-b(2) of the Town Law, the legal standards applicable to the grant of a use variance for the construction of a wireless telephone tower is governed by New York State case law and the Federal 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Court of Appeals decision in the seminal case, Matter of Cellular Tel. Co. v Rosenburg, 82 N.Y.2d 364(1993) established the current requirements for the approval of use variances with respect to telecommunications towers. A copy of that decision is hereby enclosed. In that case, the Court found that providers of cellular telephone service must be deemed “public utilities” and, therefore, applications for use variances must be considered under the more lenient standard applicable to public utilities. This holding allows telecommunications companies to construct facilities for the provision of services which are ordinarily prohibited pursuant to existing zoning laws. To obtain a use variance, the applicant must demonstrate that the site is necessary to provide a safe and adequate service. The particular site included in this application was chosen due to the relatively sparse population in this area of Town and the existence of mature approximately 85’ tall, trees which line Route 149. For this reason, the telecommunications tower should not be visible from motorists driving on Route 149 nor from residents in the immediate area. I have also enclosed a map showing the current deficiency in wireless telephone service in the Route 149 corridor as well as a map showing the improvement in service which will result from the proposed tower. Detailed evidence of the need for an additional telecommunications tower in this part of Town will be provided at the ZBA hearing. I have also enclosed a long environmental assessment form and ten copies of the proposed site plan for your consideration. Please place this matter on the agenda for one of your April meetings. I will discuss the relative case law with the Town attorney prior to the hearing. Very Truly Yours, Jonathan C. Lapper” MR. STONE-And the County? MR. MC NULTY-I don’t see any. MR. STONE-There should be. They approved it, but it should be there. MR. MC NULTY-It should be somewhere. I can’t find it. MR. BROWN-Do you have the listing? MR. STONE-I’ve got the list. MR. BROWN-You can just make reference that it was approved at the County. You don’t have to read all that. MR. STONE-The recommendation at the Warren County Planning Board, in relationship to QBY UV30-2000, SBA, Inc. & Southwestern Bell Corp. Approved. MR. BROWN-Recommendation to approve. MR. STONE-Recommended approval. Okay. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 30-2000, SBA, Inc. & Southwestern Bell Corp., Meeting Date: April 20, 2000 “Project Location: 61 State Route 149 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes installation of a 195-foot tall wireless telephone tower and seeks relief for the construction of a non-conforming use. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the allowable uses as outlined in the Rural Residential zone, § 179-15. Criteria for considering a Use Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Can the applicant realize a reasonable return, provided that lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence? This standard, when addressing public utilities, has been modified to consider safe and adequate service rather than a reasonable return; “…..a test of public necessity, rather than unnecessary hardship, where an entity requesting a use variance is a public utility.” Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. v Hoffman (43 NY2d 598). 2. Is the alleged hardship relating to the property in question unique, and does this hardship apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood? The hardship does not appear to be unique to this property. 3. Will the requested use variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the neighborhood? Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action as there are currently no structures or features of this configuration and size in the immediate area. 4. Is the alleged hardship self- created: The alleged hardship could be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: Based on the information submitted with the application, it is evident that “public utilities” are to be held to a slightly different test when considering a use variance for this type of use. Consideration may be given to alternate co-location sites (Warren County Municipal Center, private tower near the intersection of Rte. 149 and Moon Hill Road) and if approved, co-location of antennae on this facility in order to minimize the number of these towers. Are the antennae proposed for this tower 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) to be digital or analog, if digital, would analog service be an alternative means of delivery whereby the coverage radius is broader? SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted” MR. STONE-Mr. Lapper. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, and with me is Shane Newell from SBA, Inc. SBA, Inc. leases primarily to Cellular One and also to all of the other carriers in this area, and they have either constructed or managed 13,000 cellular towers across the County. I want to start off by just reading you quotes from the Rosenburg case and the Consolidated Edison case, which are the two main cases in New York State Court of Appeals cases that deal with siting cell towers. As I mentioned in the cover letter, this is different than any other Use Variance that this Board has ever looked at, just because this is considered a public utility, and under these cases, it meets different standards. New York Court of Appeals held that cellular telephone company is a public utility for purposes of a Use Variance application, and that a cell tower to facilitate the supply of cellular telephone service is a public utility building within the meaning of the Zoning Ordinance, and that’s out of the cellular telephone company versus Rosenburg, which was in my cover letter, and a copy of which I enclosed with the application. The Court found that a cellular telephone company met the characteristics of a public utility, which include, One, the essential nature of the services offered, Two, operation under a franchise subject to some measure of public regulation, and, Three, logistic problems, including the maintenance of constant levels of service without alternative means of delivery of the service, quoting from Rosenburg. As such, a cellular telephone company need not satisfy the typical Use Variance tests, relying on Consolidated Edison vs. Hoffman. Instead, the utility must show that the proposed construction or modification of the facility is a public necessity, in that it is required to render adequate service, and that there are compelling reasons, economic or otherwise, which make it more feasible to construct or modify the proposed facility than alternatives. The utility has the burden to prove public necessity on the record, which is the essential part of the test. This may be accomplished by the utility showing need for the proposed facility in order to provide adequate service to its customers, e.g. alleviate gaps in service coverage. In addition, the test may be further modified where the intrusion or burden on the community is minimal, the showing prior by the utility should be correspondingly reduced. Other cases have followed the Rosenburg case. With respect to zoning matters other than variances, it appears that municipalities may still regulate cellular telephone utilities, notwithstanding its public utility status, provided the regulations do not rise to the level of prohibition. The last part of that, assuming that we are successful before the Zoning Board in getting the Use Variance, we still have to comply with the Town’s pretty thorough Telecommunications Act that deals with mostly visual studies and comparing this site to other potential sites, and also requiring that the applicant agree in writing that they’re going to allow for co-location of all of the other cellular providers, in addition to Cellular One and the other providers in our area, on the same tower. So that once we have successfully established that this is necessary to cover a gap in service in this part of the Town, that there won’t be five or more other towers in this area, but that this tower would be used for those purposes, and that is something that the applicant is hereby agreeing to, but also would be required to as part of the Planning process. MR. STONE-You’re referring to 179-73.1, for the record. MR. LAPPER-Correct, for the record. So in order to meet that test, I want to start out with, I gave you copies of two maps in black and white, which are not as easy to read as what Shane will give you in color. Okay. Now I’d like to respond to the Staff Notes. I agree, in part, and I disagree in part. What I read you, and the cites from the case law, proving the need is the only standard. So that when the Staff Notes talk about whether or not a financial hardship, lack of reasonable return has to be proven, and the Staff Notes, their quote from Consolidated Edison vs. Hoffman, and state that that’s not the test. What the Staff Notes fail to point out is that two, three, and four, in terms of self- created, whether it’s unique to the property, those are parts of the same Town law 267 test which also do not apply in this case. What we have to prove is that there is a necessity for this facility in this part of Town. So I disagree with two, three, and four, but also I recognize that this is the first time that Staff has had to deal with the cell tower under this case law. MR. MC NALLY-Mr. Lapper, a point of law. As I understand it, isn’t there supposed to be compelling reasons as to why one alternative is chosen over another? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Is that our second part of the test, or is that the only factor you’re talking about, public necessity? MR. LAPPER-No. Public necessity first, and the we have to talk about alternatives as well, and that’s, in the last part, after the one through four, where the Staff goes on to talk about whether consideration was given to co-location sites, those alternatives, I will follow up and address that, 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) because we did approach both of those sites, and we have reasons why we think that this particular location is really the least impact. So you just got ahead of me. That is the second part of the test. MR. MC NALLY-I’m sorry. MR. LAPPER-No, not at all. This is not typical stuff. So I agree with the beginning and the end of the Staff comments, but not two, three, and four, respectfully. So, to start with, to prove the public necessity required to render adequate service, I have a letter from the Albany Engineering Department of Cellular One, which I will handout copies and then read, “This cell site is needed to cover the Northway in the area between exit 19 & 21, Rt. 9 between Wal-Mart plaza in Queensbury and Magic Forest in Lake George (including Great Escape Fun Park), Gurney Lane Recreational Park, Glen Lake, Paradise Lake, and Adirondack Community College. It consists of two sectors pointing in the direction of the Northway to the north and to the south in this area. This site will work in conjunction with a microcell being built to provide coverage in the Rt. 9/Quaker Rd. area east of Aviation Mall. The improved coverage provided by these sites will overcome local terrain and signal fade problems. Both of these sites will provide “hand-off” capability to the exit 18 cell site reducing call “drops” and improving hand-off performance in the area, as well as help to carry more traffic in the Glens Falls/Queensbury area. Sincerely, Michael Schwedatschenko” That is the written explanation of what the red and green maps show, and what the, on the red and green, the before and after, this is the first one, current Cell One coverage is what is existing right now, and proposed Cell One coverage is the one that’s mostly red. This also shows the location of all of the existing tower sites in the Town, including Prospect Mountain in Lake George, and Fort Anne as well, and what you can see is in the first one, the green area, the areas that were mentioned in the letter, which is the 149 corridor and the Route 9 corridor, are in green, which is insufficient, and after the tower, they would be in red. MR. STONE-Green is insufficient? MR. STONE-Green is bad, red is good. MR. STONE-Why does one say mobile and the other say in building and hand held? MR. NEWELL-Any place there’s a white area is where there’s no coverage at all. MR. STONE-I understand that. MR. NEWELL-And the mobile is for six watt phones that are hard mounted into cars and things like that, but most everything today is hand-held. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-And what is in-building? MR. LAPPER-Inside a building. MR. MC NALLY-Just wired phones. MR. LAPPER-No, when you’re actually using your phone in a building, so it has to have a stronger signal than if you’re outside. MR. STONE-Okay, but the red is the normal thing that we, too many people carry. MR. LAPPER-Right. Red means go, green means stop in this case. MR. STONE-Well, except that it doesn’t say that. It says mobile and in-house, but you’ve explained it. That’s fine. So mobile is the more powerful, built-in phone that. MR. NEWELL-And those are the six watt mega hertz phones that you have to have them hard mounted where the wattage has to be away from your head. You’re only allowed up to three watts, the hand-held, that you’re allowed to carry. MR. STONE-So these are the ones when people used to have mobile phones before they were mobile, not the kind that you carry around now. Okay. All right. MR. NEWELL-Essentially what it is, is there’s a shadow between Prospect Mountain and that next tower down on the Northway there, because you go over the hump of the hill. So you get, there’s a dark. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) MR. STONE-There’s also a big shadow to the east of French Mountain. I want to get personal prejudice in there. That’s where I go all the time, and I can’t get coverage, but you’re not going to help me. MR. UNDERWOOD-But by making the corner there, you’re at some point going to have to put a tower in over by Moon Hill anyway, I would assume, somewhere between Fort Anne and, to get Bay Road. MR. STONE-That is correct, but that’s being handled with a Fort Anne tower, and that’s in process. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. LAPPER-(Lost words) Kingsbury, all the municipalities converge right there. So that’s the Kingsbury, but it wouldn’t require any other towers in the Town of Queensbury. Obviously. MR. STONE-What do we have now? We have the one down at Exit 18. MR. LAPPER-Yes, there are two at Exit 18, one at either side of the Northway, and I guess I’d like to explain. The reason why we’re here for a Use Variance, because the way the telecommunication regulations in Queensbury work is that a cell tower is only permitted as a permitted use in the industrial zone, and the problem with that, and that makes sense, because in terms of visual impact, the industrial zones are not the most attractive zones, but the problem is the location of the industrial zones are all at Exit 18 or at the airport. There’s a few on the Quaker Road Dix Ave. area so that it leaves, what’s wrong with that law, in terms of the case law, is that that law doesn’t cover the northern part of Town, the 149 corridor, and that’s the only area where there is this deficiency in service. At the same time, what’s not great about siting cell towers in the industrial zone is that you don’t usually have a lot of trees. So when you’re looking at a tower driving on the Northway, you see the whole tower, top to bottom, 200 feet, etc., and what is appropriate about this site, which gets us into the next issue, the visual impact, is because you have the 85 foot tall trees, and because Shane was able to find a site that wasn’t adjacent to the highway, much of the tower isn’t going to be seen . At the same time, because the tower is mounted in the middle of the south side of French Mountain, it’s not on top like at Prospect Mountain. So when you look at the view of the mountain, you don’t see towers higher than the mountain. So, I mean, to the extent that this can be appropriately sited, we think that it is. In terms of the alternatives, communication was made to the County Attorney, Paul Dusek, to see if rights could be granted in the County’s tower at the municipal center, which would also service this area, and also the radio tower, which is the one that is referred to in the Staff Notes. I have copies of that. So we looked at alternatives of the radio tower that’s existing on French Mountain. MR. STONE-You raised a comment about the towers down at 18. How high are they? MR. NEWELL-They’re not as high. I’m not sure of the height. MR. STONE-I know that. That’s why I’m asking the question. Because I have just driven back and forth today, or not today, but yesterday and today, all the way down the Thruway to New York, and I’ll tell you, I’ve seen so many different kinds of towers, some very short, some very tall, and so I need to know. I mean, I see you’ve got some pictures in here of what you think, but it says 195 foot in. MR. NEWELL-Those are all based on need by the Propagation Report that’s produced by the RF Engineer. So some of them don’t have to be that tall. They’re certainly not going to build them. MR. LAPPER-I’m aware of a 500 foot tall tower on the Thruway near Duanesburg. I mean, so there are towers that are significantly larger than what we’re talking about, but in terms of what’s at Exit 18, Craig, would you have any idea? MR. BROWN-I could find out. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would assume it’s about the same height as the one the one at Moon Hill, over there. That’s got to be a. MR. STONE-It’s a private tower. MR. UNDERWOOD-A private one is about that height. MR. NEWELL-The one at Moon Hill I think is over 200 feet, because it’s lit. MR. LAPPER-Yes. I didn’t finish my explanation of alternatives. 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) MR. STONE-I’m sorry. Go ahead. MR. LAPPER-No problem. That is a radio tower, and Shane did approach them, and they were not interested in leasing it. They don’t have the requirement because it’s not a cell tower, but also the structure of that tower, if they did allow it, would have only allowed on cell provider. It just wasn’t the same structure of what’s proposed here. Then again, in terms of structure, this is a guide wire tower, rather than a freestanding tower, and the structure of a freestanding, to avoid the guide wires, is much more steel. So there’s less of an impact there, but both of the alternatives of the County facility, the County Attorney determined that the County couldn’t enter into a lease for more than three months. So that wasn’t something that the cell companies, that would be significant to the cell companies, significant enough a period of time, because they couldn’t have service. They couldn’t sell service, provide service, and then tell everyone, three months it’s going to be diminished. So, that was insufficient, and then the radio tower, they were not interested in leasing it. So both of those tall structures were looked into, and that’s why they were not feasible and this site was picked. MR. UNDERWOOD-Would the height be any different if it were further down along the Northway? It probably would be lower. MR. NEWELL-That’s right. There’s more towers down there, so the hand-off required wouldn’t be what it is here. We’re trying to get all the way to 18 as well as into picking up the sites up in Lake George. We need to hit that crest there between Exit 20 and 21, where all calls are dropped through there, even on hand-held, their hard mount phones there, they’re dropped. So anybody carrying on a conversation for more than five minutes from Exit 20 is going to run into that problem there. MR. STONE-Where, going north or going south. MR. NEWELL-Either direction. MR. UNDERWOOD-Both ways. MR. STONE-From 20? MR. NEWELL-From 20 to 21, if you’re coming either way, on those hills, even ones a little higher than the other, you still lose your calls there, even on a mobile phone there. That’s why you see those white dots just kind of in that area there. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is the potential there for like more of these towers, like you get a huge array, like on the top of Prospect, or is it just going to be a single one? MR. LAPPER-It’s a single one, and the applicant is committing that they will allow all of the five existing, and whatever future, they can have up to seven providers. MR. STONE-And they’re all compatible? You can be on the same tower? MR. NEWELL-Absolutely, yes. MR. LAPPER-And that is as a condition of any approval, here and also at the Planning Board. That goes as a condition. MR. STONE-So there is no, I mean, the reason you’re before us is because it’s not light industrial or heavy industrial, this particular area where you need to put this tower? MR. LAPPER-That’s right, but if that were the only standard, then it wouldn’t be a telecommunications issue, and so the Federal Government has said, has passed the telecommunications act, and then it’s been implemented in New York State, with the public utility cases that I’ve sited, and that’s how you get to a Use Variance, which is a totally different animal than the Use Variances that we’re always talking about. MR. STONE-Well, let me ask a question, having looked at these towers with obviously interest because of tonight. You have a 195 foot tower. Where’s the highest cell or the highest transmitter or receiver on that tower? MR. NEWELL-Well, first, we usually leave the first five feet or so available to any emergency telecommunications or any emergency services that may be the County or the Town requires. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. NEWELL-And then Cellular One has based this at 195 feet, that they’ll be 10 feet below, from the top there, at the least amount. 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) MR. STONE-Wait a minute. MR. NEWELL-So they could be within five feet of the top of the tower. MR. STONE-How high is the tower? MR. NEWELL-195. They could be at 190. MR. STONE-You said 190. So, you’re down at 185. MR. NEWELL-They could be within five feet of the top of the tower. MR. STONE-You said you would be 185, 190. You said 10, and then you said 195. I just want to be sure we’re, the top of the tower is 195. MR. NEWELL-We have to leave, we can leave the top five feet of the tower blank. MR. STONE-I don’t care about that, but the tower physically, regardless of where you position, would be 195? MR. NEWELL-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Okay, and then you go down the tower, and you take the best position, and you lease out the lower positions. MR. NEWELL-That’s correct. MR. LAPPER-The other issue with 195, as Shane mentioned, while we were talking about other issues, was whether there has to be a blinking light on it at night. For FAA, unless FAA tells you differently, 200 feet is the limit. So it’s hoped that at 195 it won’t need a light. The radio tower, which is higher than 200 feet, does have a blinking light that, if we didn’t have trees, we probably could see, you could see from my house, but hopefully this won’t need one, unless the FAA comes in and says for some reason why it does. MR. MC NALLY-But you don’t know whether it’s going to have to be lighted or not yet. MR. LAPPER-No. MR. MC NALLY-You’re just assuming that it won’t because you don’t believe, under these circumstances. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would assume that it would get lighted, because it’s right on that air corridor for planes going up to Lake George. Quite a few planes are flying low there. MR. LAPPER-That’s certainly possibly, because of Lake George. MR. STONE-If they’re going to hit the tower, they’re going to hit French Mountain. MR. LAPPER-That’s certainly possible, but that whole process is a lengthy application. So we don’t know how long. They’re hopeful that it doesn’t need it, and if it needs it, it’s Federal jurisdiction and so be it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any way to make it lower? MR. LAPPER-No. I asked Shane that. They’ve done a study. MR. UNDERWOOD-They run it at different heights. MR. NEWELL-That’s correct, and as soon as, basically as soon as light dots start showing up, they have to stop and try to figure out, they’re, of course, always sensitive to the height, the tower. So they’re trying to always keep it below whatever it can possibly be, and still leave enough room for the appropriate number of tenants. If we get in there and we make it so it works, but we only can allow three tenants, you’re going to be facing another application. MR. STONE-What kind of separation do you have to have on the tower? MR. NEWELL-Ten feet from each antenna. 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) MR. STONE-Ten from each. MR. LAPPER-And then, turning to the visual simulation, we tried to have this done so that you’d see it from the various perspectives in a commercial corridor north and south. This was done computer simulated. So it wasn’t done with a balloon test. MR. STONE-I’m looking at proposed view number two. That’s as high as it’s going to go? I’ve always thought, I don’t know, 195 was higher than that. MR. LAPPER-Well, you’re not seeing the bottom 85 feet because of the trees. MR. STONE-Well, I’m only concerned about what I’m seeing, yes. I would have thought that would have been higher. MR. MC NALLY-Is that the tower in proposed view two with the existing antennas on them? MR. NEWELL-That’s with five carriers on there. MR. MC NALLY-So whatever the mock up was in the computer simulation, it’s as built? MR. NEWELL-That’s correct, and they’re taken with GPS coordinates and ground elevation studies from Ergman and Anthony there. MR. MC NALLY-Is the tower itself painted or of a particular color? MR. NEWELL-No. MR. MC NALLY-This looks white here. MR. NEWELL-No. Those are the antenna panels, tend to show up white, and they also wanted to take it in it’s, you know, most amount of light application. MR. MC NALLY-So basically it would be the color of metal. MR. NEWELL-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Where on that property is this going to go? I mean, I drove in there, but I. MR. LAPPER-You have the site plan that I submitted? MR. STONE-Yes, I’ve got it, but I’m not sure I. MR. LAPPER-Right now there’s a driveway that goes to the house, and the driveway will continue up the hill, beyond where you could drive to now. MR. STONE-Through the junk yard area there? MR. NEWELL-That’s correct. MR. STONE-It’s nothing to do with you. I’ve already mentioned it to Craig. I think there’s a problem in there, but that’s not, nothing to do with you guys. MR. NEWELL-Well, we’re giving them every incentive that we can to aesthetically make things better there. MR. STONE-Okay. I hate to see old truck bodies just lying around, quite frankly. Any other questions of the applicant? Hearing none, I’ll open the public hearing if you’re done with your presentation? MR. NEWELL-Yes. MR. STONE-All right. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of the application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DENNIS RUSSELL 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) MR. RUSSELL-My name’s Dennis Russell. My parent’s own property directly in front of the tower on French Mountain Drive. We live at 35 French Mountain Drive. We have no problem with the tower. We’re good friends with Jim and Diane, and we basically have a feeling that if the tower doesn’t go there, sometime eventually something’s going to have to go there, whether it’s a housing development or something. Something’s going to go there, and we’d rather keep as much woods behind our house as possible, than have a bunch of houses back there, and we have a pretty good idea of where the tower’s going to be, and I’d say our house is directly in line with the tower. We’re not going to be able to see the tower from our house. So I don’t see how any of our neighbors are going to be able to see it. MR. STONE-Which is your property, out of curiosity? MR. RUSSELL-35 French Mountain Drive. MR. STONE-Louis and Colleen Russell? MR. RUSSELL-Yes. MR. STONE-You’re not going to see the tower from there? MR. RUSSELL-Through the woods. We might see it over the trees, but I mean looking directly out our back window. MR. NEWELL-Believe it or not, when you’re close to a tower, when the trees are that close to you, as their property is, you can’t see high up. MR. STONE-You don’t see it. Okay. Anything else? MR. RUSSELL-No, that’s it. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else in favor? Anybody opposed? DAVID KING MR. KING-My name’s David King. I’m the Vice President and General Manager of the Lake George RV Park Incorporated at 74 State Route 149. We own 110 acres on the south side of 149, directly across from the proposed site. We also own another 320 acres just at the end of French Mountain Drive. Actually, we own most of what you can see of the south side of French Mountain, as you drive up the Northway, up to the rock face, and half of, basically of the two big mounds, we own the left side mound as you’re facing north, and we have many concerns. Of course, we knew about this months ago, as we were also contacted by this company to have the location on our property, perhaps that was one of the original favored sites. We didn’t show much of an interest at that time. Basically, I didn’t respond to Shane’s on site information sessions. I was not on the site at the time he visited, and I never called him, because we’re opposed to this for many different reasons. Primarily, by the way, I am a Cellular One packer and cell phone user. I basically drive about 55 miles a day, at times, on my own property. We have three and a half miles of paved roads in the RV Park, and I use this constantly all day to communicate with my office and outside the Park. It is difficult, at times, to get exactly the kind of coverage that you want. However, I don’t drop phone calls very often, because I know, basically, where I’m getting good coverage and where I’m not, but that’s on the down note. I think when we run through the litmus test of the 1906 Telecommunications Law, we’re going to have to see if there are better sites. The corridor of 149 is a rural residential corridor. Our property being a recreational commercially zoned property is, we’re in the business of selling the natural aesthetics of the region. The approach to the Park from the Northway, one reason we purchased 300 acres on French Mountain years ago, back in 1954, prior to the Park being open, was that we wanted to preserve as much as possible the natural feel of the land, because we knew that in time there would be many developments that would cause maybe perhaps over development of the property surrounding that area. Being a campground, obviously, we have to keep up with the times as well, in terms of providing services to our guests but our telecommunications is provided through land lines, and we’ll be adding more and more land lines as the need for that exists. So as our guests come in and they don’t get the cell phone coverage that they want, they will go to increased land line alternatives, which is, I think, the case any time you’re traveling through a corridor, and your cell phone doesn’t work, and you have to make the call, you find a land line, and I think no matter how many towers are created across this nation, there’s always going to be zones where you just can’t use your phone, and it’s just not going to be possible to get the coverage you want. The idea that there’s few people in the area of this site, which is one of the reasons this site is being chosen, I think is missing the point. The Lake George RV Park has 1500 residents a day. We are in the top five populated, mostly populated tourism destination resorts in the Tri-County area. So basically there’s a lot of people that would be impacted by the aesthetics of a tower. Yes, there’s a lot of trees there now. Nature takes attrition on trees. Over time, through ice 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) storms and wind sheers, we see hundreds of trees go down on our property every year. Again, we have 110 acres. So we’re always removing trees as they become damaged from storms and nature’s natural attrition. So, perhaps in standing at the edge of 149 today, looking in the direction of the tower, you perhaps don’t see the bottom 85 feet. That’s today. That’s no guarantee for tomorrow. Again, we have to think of that when we’re making an exclusion to a three acre residential, rural corridor. Now, if I look at the property way up at the end of French Mountain Drive, that’s three acre rural residential. There could be homes there some day perhaps. It’s zoned for that. There’s no intent for that property to be used in that way, but it’s valuable to the corporation at this time because it has that possible use. The gentleman that spoke before me indicated he’d rather not have houses behind him. He’d rather have just a bunch of woods and the tower, and that’s certain is a prerogative as a resident that’s already there, but in terms of future residences being built on the property that I own, my corporation owns, that is at the end of that drive, and it is developable in the three acre rural residential zoning, I don’t believe it is a marketable quality to have a telecommunications tower that normally would be erected on a light or heavy commercial site, industrial site, in your back yard. I think also looking, we say we don’t see the bottom 85 foot of the tower. When you climb the Mountain, we have hiking trails to the top of French Mountain that are not only used by our Staff, but are used by recreation enthusiasts from all over the world that visit our Adirondack Region. We’re the southern most of the Adirondack Mountains, and our trails have always been opened willingly to anyone that wants to walk them. When you go up the trail and you look down toward 149, and there are several sites on that walking trail, the hiking trail, where you would want to take a break and look down, you cannot mistake seeing a 200 foot tower. Whether it’s lit or not, you’re going to see those white panels and the aluminum or metal that is used shimmering in the sunlight. So obviously I have a lot of aesthetic concerns. We are rated in the top 100 campgrounds in the United States, out of over 16,000 Parks. Basically, we’ve had that rating for 35 consecutive years. The companies that rate campgrounds actually look at what surrounds the campground, in addition to what the campground offers on its own site. You can actually lose points in your rating if you were in an area that is too developed or too urbanly developed. Again, we’re on a rural residential corridor. It’s zoned that way. We’ve been there for 35 years. We have a great reputation, worldwide, nationwide, as being one of the finest RV Parks, campgrounds in the Country. My opposition to this site is not to offer every guest that comes through the corridor better cell phone service. I think it needs to be had, but I think there’s perhaps better sites than the one that they’re actually looking at. They said the Municipal Center, that tower is not, you know, obviously, can’t be shared. Perhaps building a tower next to that, in that vicinity on County property, leasing property from the County, perhaps on the site of where they want to build the new tourism office. I don’t know, but there are other places on that commercial corridor where I think it might be more appropriate. So as we go through the process of reviewing this and the 1906, ‘96 Telecommunications Law and so forth, because this is an unusual situation. I think we’re going to constantly come back to, is this the best site? Now, again, we turned down the opportunity to have it in our own Park, and it is rather lucrative. You can make some money by having that on your property. So I think there’s actually, you’ll see there might be even a little competition here as to who gets the site, because you basically have a piece of vacant land, they come in and build a tower and they have to lease it from you, the land. So you have some income now coming from a piece of property that perhaps never saw it. So we have that pushing against us, too, is that it isn’t only a need expressed by the telecommunications people, like Cellular One, but it’s also, there’s some profit to be made there. So that’s obviously motivating this factor, and I think it’s really, really important, and I sat on committees here for the last 10 years looking at the Master Plan for this Town and looking at the 149 corridor and really what did the residents want, and every time I sat in this room or other rooms in this Town, talking about what did we view, down the line you know 30 years, 50 years from now, on that corridor. It’s pretty much been the consensus, from the residences and the businesses on 149 corridor, that it should remain rural, and I really think that no matter how many trees cover the light industrial developments on the back roads, eventually, that’ll only breed more variances and create a different direction than what I think the property owners and the Town’s fathers that originally zoned this property had in mind. So I guess I really have covered all the points I really wanted to make. The blinking light issue is a big one. We have 1500 guests sitting around campfires, in July and August. Again, it’s intrusive if you have to leave your campfire to take your dog for a walk, and you have to look at that blinking light. These people left New Jersey to get away from the red blinking light. They don’t need to see it when they’re on a vacation here in the Adirondack Mountains. So I think that basically is all I have to say. We are opposed to this particular site, and I think other alternative sites really need to be explored. Thank you. MR. STONE-Anybody else opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-I have one note of a telephone call, from I believe it’s a Gordy Peer, and he said he’s opposed to the tower due to re-sale of property near tower. MR. STONE-Okay. Anything else? MR. MC NULTY-Nothing else. 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) MR. STONE-I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-I have a couple of questions that have come to mind. There is a plan in the works for realignment, both vertically and horizontally, of 149. Can you tell me, and I should know but I don’t, are there any changes in that immediate area? MR. KING-No. MR. STONE-No? MR. KING-No. I mean, I’m very involved with the reconstruction project that will start in September, and for two years, but there is no, in that area, there is absolutely no change. MR. STONE-Those houses will stay there and trees will stay there? MR. KING-Absolutely, 100%. The only change in actually the contour of the road or the elevation of the road begins further down toward the French Mountain Playhouse, and it really becomes more defined as you approach Ledgeview Village. The hill OxBow Hill, that will come out, and that curve and that dip will come out, but really everything at that end of the corridor is primarily completely unchanged. MR. STONE-Okay. I mean, the vertical realignment, I love that expression. Take out the vertical curves. Let me just state for the record, and, Craig, tell me if I’m wrong, I mean, we have a very limited job here. Our job is to say this piece of property is, can we grant a Use Variance to put a tower up on this property? If we say yes, we say yes. If we say no, then it goes no further at the moment, but if we say yes, it’s still got to go to the Planning Board. The Planning Board is the one charged by local law in looking at all of these aspects, is it necessary, does it have to be that high, all of the myriad, about three or four pages in the local law, and I agree with you. It’s a fairly well written law. So all we have to decide is, is it important that this lot be allowed to be, get initial permission to be able to use this lot to put a tower on? Beyond that, that’s the Planning Board’s concern in terms of where we go. Do we have any other questions from the Zoning Board? MR. MC NALLY-Improving hand-off performance, I take it that means going from one cell region to the next? MR. NEWELL-That’s correct. MR. MC NALLY-And in the process of determining the necessity f or this, has the PFC or the FCC issued any certifications or declarations as far as the need in this particular area? MR. NEWELL-No. The need isn’t regulated by the FCC. MR. MC NALLY-They don’t do that. It would just be your private company’s decision, as to the necessity to cover service? MR. NEWELL-That’s correct. MR. STONE-So, in other words, you provide the service. If it’s, based upon what you provide, people can say, I don’t like your service because I get, and try to find somebody else who doesn’t drop out, if there is anybody who doesn’t drop out in that area, right? MR. NEWELL-That’s right. MR. STONE-This is, you’re promising to deliver the service you deliver. That’s all your contracting for at the moment. If this becomes unsatisfactory, and people say, I don’t want to do business with you, it’s a private issue between them and you. MR. NEWELL-Well, understand that I represent SBA and not SBC, which is Southwestern Bell. Let me just explain the slight difference there. SBA is a tower development company. We’re not in the wireless service business. So a lot of this proliferation of towers that you see are from carriers trying to get into areas to get their own towers built for themselves, basically, before towns become savvy to it, or before there’s a lot of other kinds of development. MR. LAPPER-Savvy to co-location. MR. NEWELL-Savvy to co-location. Because they’re required to allow it, but what happens, every time, is although they’ll state that they’re allowed to give co-location and will offer it, they’re offering 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) it to competitors of theirs. They’re asking competitors to pay them money, and that always develops into a conflict. So they want to put up their own application saying, well, you’ve given them a tower, but what you haven’t done is given us the opportunity to do the same thing. So, it kind of caused a lot of problems, and then tower development started kind of stretching out away from the coast and more populated areas, and now into Upstate New York. We’re like the only tower development company doing work up here. It gives towns a chance to go to a tower development company, where, that’s the only business we’re in is offering co-location. So we have rapport with all seven different carriers. MR. STONE-Having said that, would you comment, there is, certainly in the Adirondacks, I was recently at a meeting, and there’s a lot of conversation about disguising towers, putting them inside, putting them in other buildings that already exist. Would you care to comment on what’s going on in this area, disguising it as pine trees. MR. NEWELL-Yes. There has been some talk about that, and Saratoga County, I believe, is looking a great deal into that. An article recently in the Post Star talked about the extraordinary cost of doing that, and also the incredible limitations involved. MR. STONE-That was a column, wasn’t it? That was one man’s opinion. MR. NEWELL-I’m not sure. MR. STONE-I believe that was. MR. NEWELL-No. Those comments about the cost of the tower were comments that were recorded from people involved in Saratoga County. MR. STONE-Okay. I thought it was a columnist writing a column about it. MR. NEWELL-No. I don’t believe so. I can provide the article, though. The problem is with those trees that they can only provide for one cellular provider at a time. By the time you put the branches all in there to disguise it, first it looks like, basically a giant toilet brush sticking up, because you can only put branches down at the, up at the top, and it has to still stick out above the tree line in order to get any coverage, and only one carrier can go on it. So they’re going to end up with many applications, again, the same problem. So they’re not as popular as sometimes they look at it and say, what a great idea to hide them in a tree. MR. STONE-Yes. How about hiding them in an existing building? MR. LAPPER-In an urban setting or a setting where you have tall structures, that often makes a lot of sense. I know in Saratoga there are buildings that have cell towers on the top. Unfortunately the area in Queensbury that needs the service doesn’t qualify, because there’s nothing around. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-Do you have any studies showing what the light would look like if it’s lit up at night time? The pictures you’re showing us are during the day time. Is there such a thing as a night time visual simulation? MR. UNDERWOOD-All you’ve got to do is go to Glen Lake and you can look at the other one blinking down at the end of the Lake. I mean, I see it every night when I drive home. MR. STONE-There’s one on 149. It’s a private tower, and you’re saying that’s about 200 feet? MR. LAPPER-That’s taller than 200 feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s five feet higher than the one they’re proposing. MR. STONE-It is. Okay. That’s what I wasn’t sure, and that’s very visible from here. MR. NEWELL-At night time, yes. MR. STONE-At night time. MR. NEWELL-You can see that light blinking. MR. MC NALLY-We’ve had some concern expressed about the effect the tower might have on Lake George RV Park, and he mentioned that he actually was approached to put the tower on his property. Were a number of sites examined, and how many were looked at, and how large an area 48 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) does it cover? To cover this gap in coverage, where does a tower have to be placed in the range of area? MR. NEWELL-Again, the RF engineer uses a mapping program to site the tower ring, basically, and then they, a search ring is what they call it, and they’ll say, well, within this area, we’re going to be able to cover our objective. So I looked at the ring, and I had several properties. I had French Mountain Drive to work with, and I also had property that Mr. King owns. MR. MC NALLY-Do you have a copy of the ring? MR. UNDERWOOD-They’re trying to get coverage over the hill toward Lake George, and down toward Queensbury, from the high point. MR. MC NALLY-Is there any way of doing it in some other place, so that his business isn’t so severely impacted, or possibly so severely impacted? MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, the logical one would be to hit the Municipal Center, because there’s already one there, but, you know, whether it would give them the coverage over the other side, down toward Lake George, that’s what they’re missing, too. MR. MC NALLY-How do you know all this stuff? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m an Earth Science teacher. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-A Geology major. MR. MC NALLY-How far down 149 does the ring go? MR. UNDERWOOD-Not very far. MR. NEWELL-Our search ring? MR. MC NALLY-Yes. MR. NEWELL-I think it went down about as far as the existing FM radio tower on top of that hill there. MR. UNDERWOOD-So Moon Hill. MR. STONE-Okay. So when you get to the corner of Bay, the intersection of Bay and over onto Ridge and 149, there’s nothing. MR. NEWELL-Well, you get some hand off from a cell tower in Fort Anne. It’s basically in West Fort Anne off on the left side of 149. You can see it sticking out over the trees there. MR. UNDERWOOD-It looks to me like the area where it’s all green out there, that’s about like if you sited the tower over at the dump, the landfill then it would cover that whole area that’s green, and turn it red, if you put it there. MR. LAPPER-And where you’re going isn’t going to be too far from there, right? MR. STONE-That’s going down. MR. NEWELL-We’re further east than that site, but from that location, you wouldn’t probably be able to reach I-87, and that’s probably one of the most important things here, is to cover that hill. MR. MC NALLY-It seems as if you’re trying to make that corridor, up by 87, with continuous coverage. Is that fair to say? MR. NEWELL-That’s correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s too bad it’s got to be so high. MR. NEWELL-Without that height, though, we’re going to be facing more applications of wireless carriers saying, we don’t have a chance to get on there. 49 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) MR. STONE-I mean, basically it looks like to me it’s to the south. The Lake George tower exists today? MR. NEWELL-Yes, on top of Prospect Mountain. MR. STONE-You’ve got Prospect Mountain. You’ve also got a Lake George one. MR. NEWELL-Cellular One has some panels on top of the Ramada there. You’ll probably see them if you ever drive by there, there’s like these five foot white panels, a roof mounted tower, or applications. MR. STONE-At 21? MR. NEWELL-Yes, that’s right. MR. STONE-I haven’t seen those. MR. LAPPER-That’s good. MR. STONE-That is good. I agree. MR. UNDERWOOD-The other alternative would be to go over on West Mountain ridge, like somewhere over on, up above the Gurney Lane, up on that side. That would get you up on the height, so you wouldn’t have to build the thing so high. So that might be a consideration, because that would give you an array, looking to the east and that whole. MR. NEWELL-We spent considerable time at that area, but it’s outside the search ring from Cellular One. So it would be something that, a strategic location for us to try to think that other carriers might have interest in there, but Cell One is like the dominant wireless carrier in this area, but we looked into that area a lot because we thought the same thing, but, One, we couldn’t find anything that seemed to be workable. Access and that type of thing were all difficult, and the coverage objective just wasn’t reached there. MR. STONE-This is all analog? MR. NEWELL-No, this is digital. MR. STONE-It is digital. I meant, it’s not PCS. Nobody has that up here. MR. NEWELL-Well, yes, Sprint would be a PCS application. MR. STONE-But they’re not up here. MR. NEWELL-Sprint has some coverage, up to Lake George I think. MR. STONE-Somebody told me south of Glens Falls. When you get above Glens Falls we don’t have any. MR. NEWELL-I don’t know. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? MR. HIMES-I’d like to make a comment. Either my trifocals are playing tricks on me again, and maybe this is juvenile. When I look at the two exhibits, there’s a little bit of difference. From your standpoint there’s probably a lot, but you look at the coverage change, there’s still a lot of area that isn’t covered, a lot of white showing up. Some of is reduced, but it just kind of makes me think, I wonder if the benefits for the communications, the benefits of the somewhat improved communications outweigh what we’re losing, in connection with the visual impacts and so on by picking that site, and who those benefits accrue to, who are the people that are going to benefit from this? Drive thru’s, certainly recognizing that the public utility may be interest, but I’m concerned in that I’m really not sold on the aspect of this being a tremendous improvement, certainly an improvement. It’s just an observation that I’m making in connection with trying to weigh, you know, the for’s and the againsts. MR. STONE-Well, let’s start. It’s Jim’s turn again. Jim, why don’t you start. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would just voice the opinion that, you know, we need to investigate whether or not we can coerce the County into allowing them to do something on their tower, or whether, in 50 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) fact, this is set in stone that they have to have a three month lease. That seems that that tower isn’t nearly that high, I don’t believe, is it? MR. NEWELL-I think that’s about 120 feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-120 is it? MR. NEWELL-And let me just clarify that one point about the three month thing. Because I talked to the attorney a lot about this during this negotiation, and he said basically, we can give you a term of five years, and so if you heard that from him by any chance, the thing is he needed a three month escape clause. So that at any time for any reason they could be able to get out of that lease, and you’re talking about an investment of $100,000 in phone equipment, to be mounted at the base, at a base station, which infringes on the jail. There’s a lot of complications in here, but that’s the escape clause he said that it would require. MR. STONE-What if you built the tower on the County property, and replaced the one that’s there? MR. NEWELL-We talked about that, too, and there’s, you know, there’s all sorts of complications about County land, and the infringement on the jail there. I mean, some of that equipment, actually those wires run right through the housing of the jail. MR. UNDERWOOD-It would seem to me that you could site, somewhere on the property, run the wires through the ground over to the tower. It doesn’t matter. I mean, it’s no different than any other electrical (lost word). MR. NEWELL-There was a lot of opposition to that tower location from there from the Courthouse community and those people who felt that that was. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, given the fact that the tower is already there and it’s going to be 70 feet less in height, I mean, when I look at the two towers from Glen Lake, I can see both of them, and when I first noticed, when they first built the one at the Municipal Center, I said, there’s a new tower up there, but it didn’t have a light on it. It doesn’t stick up in the air, and it’s not nearly as stick out like a sore thumb like the other one that blinks all the time, and I would have to agree that if it were a possibility to site it at the County to do it. Queensbury does have some pull with the County, I would assume. MR. STONE-Let’s ask the basic question. Are you willing to limit this tower to such a height that the FAA will not require a light on it? MR. LAPPER-The main thrust is to make sure this is the only tower in the corridor, the only other tower in Queensbury. So to do something that would require somebody to build another tower wouldn’t be. MR. STONE-How many carriers do we currently have? MR. LAPPER-Seven. MR. STONE-We have seven. MR. NEWELL-Seven potential wireless carriers. There’s only five that work up in this area right now. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Two that are coming. MR. NEWELL-Some day there’ll be 15. MR. LAPPER-Getting back to what Jim was just saying, that’s a totally appropriate analysis of what we should be looking at, we’re required to look at alternatives, and we have to look at whether this is the best site, you know, generally speaking, and I guess the issue there, just in terms of the neighborhood, that if you put it next to Courthouse Estates, where there’s a whole bunch of residents, that may be considered more of an impact than something where it’s mostly or partially hidden in the trees, on the side of a mountain, but, I mean, those are legitimate areas for us all to talk about. MR. UNDERWOOD-Would it be built on the same tower there, or would you go with an extension on the tower? 51 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) MR. LAPPER-What you’re saying is that the County is not really interested. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m more concerned with tower height than anything else. MR. NEWELL-It would have to be a separate tower, because where the base of that tower is, in proximity to the building and the jail, we wouldn’t have enough room for the base stations. The base stations house the telephone equipment for each carrier. MR. STONE-Okay. So, Jim, you’re not 100% for this thing. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m still on the fence. MR. STONE-Okay. Norman? MR. HIMES-I’m a negative with the plan without pressing more on the alternatives. Certainly, again, benefits weighed against what we’re losing. MR. STONE-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I agree. I mean, I think the applicants have made a fairly decent showing of public necessity and the need for this kind of service to patch a hole, but whether there are any compelling reasons to site it here, at that particular height, whereas, there may be other alternatives available that would be less intrusive, and I don’t know if that’s been explored or demonstrated enough, but that’s something I think we should think about and look into. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I guess I kind of echo the other comments. I don’t think there’s any question but that we’re going to have to have one, two or three more towers to accomplish what needs to be accomplished, and I like the idea of what the applicant’s saying about, let’s not put a whole bunch of these up if we can do it with one. If we’ve got to make a few people unhappy or put one tower up that we can see, let’s do it that way, rather than have three or four, but at the same time, I would like to know that all the alternatives have been looked at and this indeed is the sum total of the best, as far as impact on the local area. I guess that’s where I’m at. I’d like to hear a little more about alternatives without necessarily seeing this Board trying to make the judgement of which is the best location, because I’m not sure we’re qualified to determine which is the best location, but I’d like to be able to go home, and when someone squawks about it say, hey, this was the best choice of any to be found. MR. UNDERWOOD-If you went further up on French Mountain, although I would hate to see it up there, I would assume you could just build one that’s on ground level and (lost words) pointing toward the coverage area that you wanted. That might be a consideration, too, and, you know, opposite to a 195 foot tall thing. MR. LAPPER-I think the Town regulations talk about not putting it on top of mountains, because it’s more visible. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, on the side or something. MR. STONE-How about where the Great Escape sign is? MR. LAPPER-I don’t know how high that is. MR. STONE-I don’t either. MR. MC NALLY-Is there some way of putting it without the lights, if it’s on the side of the mountain? What he was suggesting is that you put it at a height on the mountain, if you don’t need such a total tower, you could have the shorter tower, yet no light. MR. NEWELL-No. We still need so much space above the tree line, to house all the antenna. Nobody’s going to put their antenna that’s going to be below the tree lines. MR. MC NALLY-No, I don’t mean to say that. MR. UNDERWOOD-As you go up the mountain, you’re talking about trees that are only 30 feet high. This is going to be something that’s stick up 50 feet. MR. MC NALLY-If it sticks above the tree line, FAA’s going to require a light on it? 52 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) MR. STONE-No. MR. NEWELL-No, 200 feet. MR. STONE-Two hundred feet definitely gets a light. MR. UNDERWOOD-Unless it’s in a corridor where planes fly. MR. STONE-Yes, 200 feet gets a light. Anything less may. MR. MC NALLY-I have a sense that, basically, if they put it up 195 feet where they plan to do it, it’s going to need a light, period. I have that sense, even though you haven’t gone through the process. MR. UNDERWOOD-A lot of stuff flies through that gap there. MR. MC NALLY-So that would make it more likely. MR. MC NULTY-But that’s probably going to be part of the problem. There’s probably no absolute guarantee, no matter how high you put it, that FAA isn’t going to come in, at some stage and say, oops, it’s too close to the airplanes, you need a light. MR. MC NALLY-What’s the process of finding out? MR. LAPPER-How long does that take? I guess what we’re hearing is that we need to either or both, explore some alternatives, probably come back with the engineer that did the study, and talk about why they located it here, but also talk about other potential alternatives, and look into the issue of the light and see if we can nail that down. MR. STONE-I would also like to see a balloon, I really would. I’d like to see, I mean, I see your simulation, and that’s good. It gives us an idea, but I’d like to see something up there at 195 foot, lighted would be even better, if you could put something on the top of that so you could get an idea, a flashlight. MR. LAPPER-Yes, you know, the truth is that which Shane is saying to me, which is correct, is that this is really the latest simulation, because it uses the global positioning satellite, that it’s exactly there, and balloons blow in the wind. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-I’ll kind of take your word for it. MR. STONE-I’ll buy that. MR. LAPPER-The company that they’ve used as a consultant here, Ergman Anthony, out of Troy, they specialize in this. They do this all over the place. So I think we can probably bring an engineer from the company for the next hearing to answer your questions. MR. STONE-Could you show us one across the street, Mr. King’s property, that’s a little closer to the tower? You’ve got, these are at the corner, not that they’re that far away, but can you get right across the street, so that you can see against the French Mountain background, where the top of this thing is going to be? MR. NEWELL-Sure. MR. STONE-That would be helpful to me. Because the private tower that’s there now, I’ll drive home tonight up Bay Road, it’s very obvious when it’s lit. You can get actually all the way down Bay Road, you can see it from quite a distance. So I’d like to see it from a different angle, from the angle of 149. So, you’re willing, if we table it, you’ll come back to us with more information? MR. LAPPER-Yes. The only thing I want to point, I mean, I think that we’ve covered a lot of ground tonight, and you’ve given us some good direction as to what we need to respond to. I want to just mention a statistic that Shane’s made me aware of, that nationally, 100,000 911 calls are made a day from cellular phones, and that’s why these things are really considered utilities and necessities. MR. STONE-It’s on the record. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-And if you, and the red and the green is our story, in terms of why this is, the justification of the need. Okay. 53 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) MR. STONE-Okay. All right. Gentlemen, I’m going to move that we table this for more information, and for 62 days. MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE NO. 30-2000 SBA, INC. & SOUTHWESTERN BELL CORP., Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: For more information. The minimum information to be provided is an idea of whether or not the FAA would require a light on this tower, a representation of what this tower would look like from 149, from the Lake George RV Park perspective, for example, and any other information of an alternative size. The applicant has asked that it be on the agenda for the month of May. Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes MR. LAPPER-Thank you, and just before you go, I just want to mention that, as we were leaving, Joe Polonsky, he said that he’s going to retain an architect to look at what he can do to make the structure smaller and see what that looks like. So he’ll come back next month with some alternatives that’ll be less. MR. STONE-Use GPS. MR. LAPPER-A little balloon. Thank you. MR. HIMES-Thank you. MR. STONE-Do you have further business? JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. We’re on “Any further business that may come before the Board”. Mr. Salvador has asked to be heard. MR. SALVADOR-I’d just like to say a few comments about the Polonsky application. In fact, this application is a violation of the Ordinance. This deck was built, it’s in violation, and as I understand it, when you consider such things, you must consider that it doesn’t exist. It does not exist. In fact, this applicant should be made to mitigate this violation and remove the deck and then come in and get the necessary variance. Now, this goes on frequently in the Town. We ran into this in our neighborhood some 10 years ago, where an applicant, an operator, was in violation of a Special Use Permit for some 15 years, in violation, constantly brought to the attention of the Staff. Staff doing nothing to enforce the terms of the Special Use Permit. Finally, the conclusion was made, well, if he can apply for a variance, then it’s all legal, and that’s what we succumb to. We went through this variance process. It took over a year with tabling and all this sort of stuff. Real charades, and no effort to mitigate the problem. That’s what happened in our neighborhood. Polonsky is the same case. Now, this Board, and I can’t remember which of you gentlemen were sitting at that time, heard a variance application for a neighbor of ours, Myron Rappaport, where he wanted to somehow, had something to do with the remodeling of his living room, and he was going to put a veranda off the living room, three feet wide. The veranda was three feet wide, and he needed one foot of relief. His architect presented the application. He needed one foot of relief and was denied. Now justice, gentlemen. With regard to the zoning district boundary issue I brought to your attention and which you made a ruling on, I have not seen any evidence to date that Chris Round has done anything about initiating this activity whereby the proper zoning district boundaries are going to be delineated. I have been told that the Town Surveyor, at the present time, is redoing the zoning maps, but that he has been given a specific charge to include this, I do not know, and Chris has been away from the office for a few days. So in recent days, I haven’t been able to determine, but as we sit here, I don’t know that that assignment has been given to the Town Surveyor. To this end, I have opened up discussions with the County, because in fact the County tax maps are also in error, and I have scheduled next week a meeting with the County Attorney and the Director of the Real Property Tax Services mapping department to initiate that. It’s the same subject. It’s the same data. So, to let you know there. So I would hope, before your meeting next week. You have one tomorrow night. There’s no hope that anything will be done between now and then, but I would hope, before your 54 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/20/00) meeting next week, that there’s some effort put forth to get this work moving. It may cost money. It may cost money to determine it. I don’t know how they’re going to do it, but it may cost money. MR. STONE-Mr. Salvador, you’re aware of authorization and appropriation in various legislative bodies. You can authorize money being, and then there’s many a slip before the appropriation. Well, we’re in the same boat. We authorized that, we made a statement that boundary lines, that’s as far as we can go. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. I’m just reporting that I haven’t been given any satisfaction that this issue is being expeditiously taken care of. If an appropriation is necessary, then Staff belongs at Town Board to. MR. STONE-Well, that was just an analogy. MR. SALVADOR-It’s a good one. If they have to go to the legislative body and get an appropriation or get scheduled, or let people know there’s a problem. The second thing is with regard to Mr. Parillo’s violation. Nothing has been done there, and I’ve been assured by Chris Round that some time in the near future he’s going to take action. Meanwhile, the violation exists. Meanwhile, I’m certain Mr. Parillo’s probably rented those docks for the coming season. Now renting the docks for the coming season is synonymous with an occupancy permit. It’s an occupancy permit if he does that, and that’s a violation without a building permit. So the longer this festers and the longer we delay, the more painful it’s going to be for somebody when the day of reckoning comes. Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you. We’ve got minutes. Let’s get some out of the way. What do we have. We’ve got February 16. Who was here February 16, three. No, we can’t do that. There were only thth two of you here. By the way, there is a correction on the February 16 minutes. I’ll make it, on th page, we’ll get to approve it, but before I forget it, on page, wait a minute, no, I’m sorry, I’m on the wrong one. Forget that one. I’ll come up with the other one eventually. March 15, can we approve th that? We have myself, Bob and Chuck. We need four, right? Forget it. March 22’s probably the nd same way, isn’t it? Three. The meeting’s adjourned until tomorrow night. MR. UNDERWOOD-You know, they’re talking about that tower, but I still think you could do something on the side of the hill that would give you your coverage, so you wouldn’t have to stick 195 feet up. MR. MC NULTY-No, but they would still have to clear trees, though, if they did that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but then it’s only sticking 20 feet above the trees. MR. STONE-If you want to have an informal discussion, we’ll close the meeting and we’ll talk. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 55