Loading...
2001-12-13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/13/01) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2001 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES ABBATE NORMAN HIMES ALLAN BRYANT PAUL HAYES ROY URRICO, ALTERNATE JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT ROBERT MC NALLY CHARLES MC NULTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CHRIS ROUND CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI AREA VARIANCE NO. 96-2001 TYPE II BARBARA H. JONES PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: RICHARD E. JONES ASSOCIATES PROPERTY LOCATION: 339 AVIATION ROAD ZONE: NC-10 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW, SEPARATE ACCESS DRIVE AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCESS DRIVES. CROSS REF. SPR 53-2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 78-1-8.8 NEW TAX MAP NO. 301.08-1-32 LOT SIZE: 0.78 ACRES SECTION 179-23, 179-66 JON LAPPER & RICHARD JONES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 96-2001, Barbara H. Jones, Meeting Date: December 13, 2001 “Project Location: 339 Aviation Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a new, separate access drive. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the requirements of the Off Street Parking and Loading Regulations, § 179-66(B4). Specifically, the applicant seeks 65 feet of relief in order to construct a new curb cut 85 feet from the existing curb cut, and 140 feet of relief needed for the new curb cut 10 feet from the curb cut of the neighboring property (Stewart’s). Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to develop the site as desired. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives seem to be limited due to the existing lot width of 139.9 feet. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 65 feet and 140 feet of relief from the 150-foot requirement may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate to substantial 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.): SPR 53-2001: to be reviewed December 20, 2001. Staff comments: Moderate to substantial impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Being the applicant proposes a one-way ingress for the new curb cut and a one-way egress for the existing curb cut, 65 feet of relief may not seem to be very substantial. However, it appears the proposed ingress is zero feet from the Stewart’s Shop existing curb cut. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Okay. Gentlemen? MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper and Dick Jones, on behalf of Barbara Jones. You’re probably all familiar with this property as Dick Jones’ Architectural office, and what he’s proposing, what they’re planning, is to put a bank in the location where the architectural office is now, put his office behind that bank, and then have a medical clinic in the back behind Stewarts. Contrary to the Staff Notes, with all due respect, we all due respect, we think that this is the smartest plan, in terms of access, because it’s one way in and one way out. The only variance that we need is just that, because of the separation between the driveways. Beyond that it’s all just site plan issues, and Stewarts, because it was developed before the access management issues were part of the Code. Stewarts is built, the driveway is right up to the property line, which is typical of a lot of older developments, but because this is an existing lot, a narrow lot, and in fact has an existing two way driveway, certainly this can be developed. Every lot has the right to have a curb cut. It could be developed with a two way driveway in and out. Because this is a bank with a drive through, we can’t 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/13/01) put the lot, we can’t put the driveway on the side of the lot where it is now, which is the west side of the lot, because you’d have to, in order to pull up on the correct side of the bank with the window of the driver’s side of the car next to the teller’s window, you’d have to come in and make a u-turn and come out, which wouldn’t work and would be dangerous. So in order to facilitate a bank, the ingress has to be on the side by Stewarts, and that said, if the concern is the separation distance between these two driveways, in and out, if you’re coming in on that side, and the other alternative would be to come out on the same side, and we would argue that it’s safer to have one way traffic here so that there won’t be conflicts. You come in on the right side next to Stewarts and you come out on the left side, after either going through the bank drive through or not, and Dick has designed the site so there’s plenty of room. There’s no conflict on the site, and it should work very well as one way. So even though there’s a general rule about 150 foot separation between driveways, on the site it’s not possible because the site is not wide enough, and in terms of Stewarts, Stewarts just happens to already be all the way at their western boundary with their driveway, but in addition to that, after meeting with Planning Staff and the correspondence from the Town engineers, Dick has provided for access management, provided an easement for connection to the Stewarts parcel in the back, which hopefully Stewarts now or sometime when they do some site plan changes, would hook up to, and that might mean that if they came back, their curb cuts, which are very wide, might, at that point, be reduced, but the Jones are sort of disadvantaged here because their neighbors have had the right to build all the way to their boundary, but if you, ignoring all that, just in terms of what is the safest way for this site to work, to have the, knowing that this is a bank, to have the ingress on the right side, and one way in, one way out on the left side, seems to us to be the safest and the best way, and just in terms of that rule about the 150 feet, I think that’s more appropriate when you’re looking for two curb cuts which are both two way curb cuts, rather than here where it’s a one way curb cut, and the Ordinance doesn’t distinguish, but I think that it’s a much better argument in our case. We’re not looking for in and out on both sides. At this point, I’d like to ask Dick to just walk you through the site plan and show you the elevations. Part of the benefit to the neighborhood is that the building, architecturally, is going to be much improved from what we have now, as well as the site. MR. JONES-What I’ll do is just basically give you an orientation on the site. The bottom of the sheet is Aviation Road, Manor Drive to the top of the sheet. Stewarts sits here to the right hand side, Maille’s garage is to the left hand side. The existing drive on the property currently exists on the west side. The existing building, Space A, is our existing professional office where I have my architectural practice. What we’re proposing to do is put the addition on the back side, a portion of which will be utilized for the bank, and the rear portion for our professional offices. With the ingress point on the east side of the property, that allows us to have one way traffic in. The drive up tellers will be on the west side of the existing building. This allows us to have a bypass lane, plus, additionally, a lane for stack up along the building plus the remote kiosk for the second teller. Basically, the building itself right now is a single story building. Our intent is to continue the single story aspect of the building. This is basically the Aviation Road elevation of the proposed building. Right now we currently have exposed concrete block on the sides of the building. It would be our intent to continue the pitched gabled roofs on the building, this being the existing portion of the building. From this point back is the addition to the building. We’d be basically integrating siding, horizontal siding, above a, like a water table around the base of the building. We’d be doing vertical siding at that point. We’d have architectural grade shingles. This is the drive-thru canopy on the west side. We’re doing pronounced entrances. This would be a common entrance either to the bank on the front side or the professional office on the back side, and a secondary entrance into the back side of the building. Basically, what we want to try and do, in doing the two buildings together, this, down on the bottom side, is the proposed elevations for the clinic, which would be on the back side toward the Manor Drive property. We’re trying to do it in a campus type setting where we basically unify the architecture of the site, and the signage on the site as well. We’d be incorporating architectural type lighting throughout the parking areas, to basically tie the entire site together, and we feel it would be a very positive contribution to the neighborhood in that area, because it is kind of a transition zone between the residential to the back side and the commercial development in the neighborhood commercial area along Aviation. I’d be happy to answer any questions at this point. MR. STONE-Talk to me about Building C, as it’s called in the application, the medical clinic. Is that going to be accessed from Aviation or from Mannis? MR. JONES-If you look at the site plan, we have the ability for one way access in at this point, and the access point on Manor Drive in the back is two way. So they can enter or exit on Manor Drive. MR. LAPPER-But they can’t exit onto Aviation Road. MR. STONE-Why? Is it going to be marked you can only go north when crossing that? That’s not a property line. I understand you’re joining the properties. MR. JONES-Right. Technically they could turn and come back at this point, but once they hit this intersection, they have to go west, in the parking lot, to come around the building. MR. STONE-I understand, but they could come out onto Aviation. MR. JONES-Well, this is actually two way right here. So they could turnaround and come back out onto Aviation, yes. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/13/01) MR. STONE-Now, are those lots currently combined? Are they one piece of property? MR. JONES-They are single owner, but they are listed separately, I believe, in Warren County. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-So we would have an access easement (lost words). MR. STONE-I understand that. Questions, gentlemen? MR. HIMES-This probably won’t bring you to your feet cheering. How about if you enter the lot from Aviation Road and exit on Manor Road, as far as the bank is concerned? MR. LAPPER-In order to have it work with the drive-thru, what you’d be doing would be, you’d have to drive in front of the building. You’d have to be able to circle the building. So you’d have to have pavement in the front of the building, right up near Aviation Road. This is an existing building, what’s in front as well, in terms of the setback. So you’d be taking out the green space along Aviation Road. You’d have pavement all around the building, and then it would be a question of whether the bank would think that that was so cumbersome that they wouldn’t want to enter into the lease because you’d have to go so far from the bank to get out. We feel that for the health clinic, because you’re in the back by Manor, the customers aren’t going to have a problem exiting that way, but the bank customers wouldn’t like the idea of having to drive all the way through the site to exit when they’re so close to Aviation. MR. HIMES-Thank you. MR. URRICO-What kind of traffic do you anticipate, in terms of the, you’ve got a lot of parking spaces, but what kind of traffic do you anticipate? MR. JONES-We basically anticipate roughly 15 to 18, as an average vehicle trips for the bank an hour. Okay. That would be based upon the drive up and the walk-in trade for the bank. Our professional office, we currently have nine employees, most of which come in the morning. They may leave at lunchtime and come back. So you may have an average of one or two vehicle trips an hour, if you want to spread it out over the eight hour day. The clinic, basically they anticipate roughly 10 to 12 patients per hour, with the number of exam rooms that we currently have in the facility. MR. URRICO-So there’s a potential for a bottleneck where the traffic comes into that one way circular part, around the Building A and B, as traffic, because I think it would be in the people’s nature to come out on Aviation Road. So they’re going to come out from Building C to that one way wraparound. MR. JONES-Around the back side of Building? MR. URRICO-Right. MR. JONES-That’s why we decided to make the access onto Manor Drive two ways, so that we could have people either coming in or exiting on that drive. MR. STONE-Yes, but why do you feel that this medical clinic, which has nothing to do with being a bank or an architectural firm, why can’t it be on its own piece of property, on Manor Drive, with in and out there? MR. LAPPER-The simple issue there is that it’s right behind the Stewarts so there’s a visibility issue with that part of the site, because it’s really behind the Stewarts. So they need to have a sign and an access onto Aviation to make that a really tenantable site for a medical clinic. With that said, they’re a destination, so they don’t have to be right on Aviation. People just have to be able to get there. MR. STONE-That’s right, it is a destination. If you’re going to a doctor’s office you eventually know where you’re going. It would seem to me. MR. LAPPER-In terms of getting to Manor, also, just to get in you have to come up Farr and come around. So it’s not convenient to get there, but once you get there, you can see Manor to leave. So it’s probably easier to expect the people would leave by Manor than to come by Manor. MR. ABBATE-I have a question, Counselor. What do you think the rationale in the Ordinance was behind the statement, “There shall be a minimum of one access point, egress/ingress, from parking areas for industrial and commercial uses”? What is the rationale behind that? MR. LAPPER-That there should be a minimum? 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/13/01) MR. ABBATE-Yes, “There shall be a minimum of one access point, egress/ingress, from parking areas”, you refer to it in your documentation. MR. STONE-179-66(B4). MR. ABBATE-Yes. It’s the relief required. You requested the Off-street Parking and Loading. That shouldn’t come as a surprise. MR. LAPPER-I just want to see the exact language. These are the design criteria. The physical barrier separating ingress and egress of the access point is when you have a curb in between the two, so you don’t have a conflict between the cars. That’s if you have a two way. Here the separation acts as that distance. So in terms of that issue of separation. MR. ABBATE-Does it have anything to do with safety? MR. LAPPER-Absolutely. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-And that’s why I think that one way is safer. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. STONE-Any other questions? I mean, I’ll tell you right now, I’m concerned that this back thing is accessed through Aviation Road. I really am. I think it’s a very busy lot. I’ll tell you that. MR. LAPPER-The issue here is whether or not, we can certainly have ingress/egress and one curb cut on the left side of the site. MR. STONE-Correct. MR. LAPPER-Without a variance. MR. STONE-I understand that. MR. LAPPER-And what we’re trying to do by splitting it up we think is safer because you go in one side and out the other side, and it’s one way traffic around this building. So in the other alternative, you’re going to have people that are going to have to turn around to come out. Sometimes you pull into a space and do a U, but this way it works better. MR. STONE-But on the other hand, if you want to tie these two properties together, you could come in from Manor Drive to go to the bank. MR. LAPPER-But you’re really looking at the rear property, which is sort of a separate issue, because whatever the Planning Board decides to do with whether that’s one way or two way to get to the building in the back, we’re talking about how the bank functions. That’s really why we’re here with the two curb cuts, two smaller curb cuts rather than one wider curb cut. MR. STONE-No, I understand the jurisdictional thing, but as you know, Mr. Lapper, until we get down to making a motion, we don’t restrict ourselves. MR. LAPPER-Absolutely. MR. STONE-Because we do like to think that we can look at this whole thing and raise some valid questions, and I’m just concerned that the traffic is going to use, and if we were to allow you two curb cuts, which is what you’re looking for, the amount of traffic going into the property is going to be affected by the medical clinic. MR. LAPPER-I disagree with that, only because if there’s one curb cut that’s two ways, it’s going to be the same amount of traffic, but there you’re going to have people making lefts in and lefts out, in conflict. Whereas with us the left turns are separated by the width of the building. MR. STONE-It’s a valid point you raise. MR. ABBATE-I have another concern. The request for two curb cuts may set precedence for other applications. Would you not agree? MR. LAPPER-Well, the only thing unique here with the two curb cuts is that the lot is 139.9 feet for frontage. So we have a pre-existing lot that is not wide enough to allow for the 150 feet, and that’s different, 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/13/01) in terms of precedent, if you have a narrow lot, that’s the issue, and certainly this is enough room to do an ingress and egress on the same curb cut, but this is just a better plan, especially because it’s a bank. It’s better to have one way traffic around a bank where you have drive thru, and that’s really the balancing test as we see it here. MR. ABBATE-So your proposal is the best proposal? MR. LAPPER-Yes. Dick has thought about this long and hard as an architect and designer. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. MR. STONE-Let me just ask Staff a question. Bruce, what if we were to say, just raise the question of one curb cut, but on the eastern side, two way, so that it’s right next to the Stewarts. Is that going to trigger anything? I’m not proposing it as a solution yet, but if we moved it over and we have two way on the east side, next to Stewarts? MR. FRANK-I don’t think that’s going to solve the applicant’s problem with the bank and the stacking of vehicles. MR. STONE-Well, you can go in, you come around and instead of coming straight out, you cross in front of the bank, and come out onto Aviation. MR. LAPPER-That would mean paving the green area in the front, which is just another consideration. MR. STONE-Or putting green area back where you propose the curb cut. MR. ROUND-I think we agree with the applicant that the separation of the ingress and egress is a safer action than two full curb cuts. You didn’t ask the question, has the applicant explored a shared driveway with Stewarts. MR. ABBATE-That’s a good question. MR. LAPPER-The problem with Stewarts is that their traffic count is just so high for that kind of a stop and pick up, get gas and pick up the newspaper and coffee and leave, and that’s really the issue, in terms of a bank, that we’re getting involved in their traffic, and that’s not a good thing. MR. URRICO-But that exists over at Bay Road and Cronin Road. MR. LAPPER-Right, right over here. MR. URRICO-They share both driveways, both curb cuts. It seems to work. MR. LAPPER-That site was designed for that, though. MR. JONES-What you’re dealing with with Stewarts, we’ve been by Stewarts since they were originally built. They do not have enough parking for what goes on there, and they added the parking in the back side basically which is occupied most of the time by staff, but they have the large gasoline delivery trucks that come in and they have to park right in the middle of the parking lot, in the middle of the day, to do deliveries of gas. They have large vehicles coming in all the time, and they do not have enough parking. They have minimal width to be able to even, where we are proposing a connection is actually on the back side, which is beyond the end of their parking so that we could not impact, if in the future that happened on either parking. They, right now, have a little turnaround in the back side. It would be a continuation of that with a connection through into the drive that comes behind what is called Space B on our site. MR. HAYES-Does that mean, in English, that Stewarts said no way? MR. JONES-Well, no. I just don’t think it’s a viable option to bring all of our traffic through their site when they’ve already got a parking and vehicle access problem of their own. MR. HAYES-Well, I don’t see why they’d do it. MR. LAPPER-The way the Town’s developed, and we’re all familiar, when the Northway went in, we’ve got all the residences on the west side of Town. There’s very little, there’s a Mobil station and a Stewarts. There’s very little gas, with an awful lot of residences, and we’re just, frankly, concerned about getting involved with that. It’s just a very busy place, and these uses are quieter than that use, just in terms of traffic. We’d rather not intermingle. MR. ROUND-Is Stewarts the sole tenant in that building or is there someone else? 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/13/01) MR. LAPPER-No. There’s a hair salon. MR. JONES-And they have their conferencing center. MR. ROUND-But there’s not a bank in that facility? MR. JONES-No. MR. ABBATE-Question to Staff, please. In the notes, Staff notes submitted, nowhere was it addressed of a possible safety problem. Is there a safety problem? Is the Town concerned about a safety problem, because if they’re not, then I’ll get off the subject. MR. ROUND-Aviation Road is a busy road, as everybody knows, and that’s why it’s an attractive location to have a business. Access management is about safety. I think a separate ingress and egress is an improvement from a safety standpoint. I think if you looked at siting a two way movement on the east side of the site, you have two driveways close proximity to one another, with a lot of confusion going on. When you eliminate one of those movements, so you only have in, you’re eliminating half of that confusion. So it’s an improvement. I think some of what you’re talking about are site plan issues. There’s a lot going on on this site. I don’t know that you’re going to get all, I mean, it’s packed pretty full. MR. LAPPER-We don’t know if our site plan, after the Planning Board, is going to look exactly as what we’re presenting. MR. ROUND-Right. So I can share your concerns about, is there going to be confusion in the rear of the building, and I think it’s, this is a pretty decent layout, as far as the front of the building, as far as access to the building and trying to facilitate a drive thru, but I’m sure there’s some other things you could do, but they start to get into some more site plan issues. MR. STONE-Okay. Talk to me, there is a very similar property on Quaker Road, called Fleet Bank. Not identical, but there is a bank with one curb cut, with a drive-in window on the west side and cars go around the back and they come out in front of the bank, just the way you could do here. There is a building in the back, on Glenwood. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. STONE-With a driveway through. They’ve got bumps in there so that you can’t go speeding through. Again, I know this is planning. They could say we want three foot bumps in there, too, but it works there. It seems to work there. Now there is no office, I agree. MR. LAPPER-Yes. The big difference there is that the building is located in the rear of the site, so there’s room to then come back around and come to the same ingress and egress, but as Chris mentioned, in terms of safety, when you’ve got people making left ins ad left outs, having one way, especially on Aviation where it’s pretty congested, the one way in and the one way out, if I’m trying to make a left out and someone’s trying to make a left in, and I’m seeing what’s going on, this way it’s a lot simpler because the ins are on one side and the outs are on the other side, and even if you’re making lefts, you’ve got room for stacking. MR. STONE-Okay. You are, as part of this project, tearing down that frame house? MR. JONES-Yes, that’s correct. MR. STONE-Okay, and you are going to add to a relatively small building in the back? MR. JONES-Yes. MR. STONE-So there’s always the possibility of starting anew. I’m not suggesting that you do it. MR. LAPPER-Well, if you look at the site, in the back there’s really barely room for the two parking and the drive aisle, because you’re talking if we move the building back . MR. STONE-Yes. MR. LAPPER-And I don’t think that Dick is maxed out. I mean, this site does not look overdeveloped. It fits. He meets all the criteria. We’re not looking for any other Area Variances, but if you move the building back, you’d have to eliminate a row of parking. It just would get tight back there. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions before I open the public hearing? MR. HIMES-Just one. There’s an existing building, that’s that dwelling that’s there, that’s going to be torn down, to my understanding,. What do you have planned to do with that space? 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/13/01) MR. JONES-That actually, if you flip to the first site plan, you’ll see the existing one story structure. Basically the one story concrete block office building in the front is what we’re calling Space A. MR. STONE-Right, yes. MR. JONES-Space B is going to be an addition to the back side of that. So you can see that basically where that house is right now is developed into parking lot drive and green space. MR. HIMES-So you’re not planning, at some point, on putting another structure? MR. JONES-We basically sat down with the Planning Department and went through what we could do on the site. Originally we were hoping that we could do two distinct and separate buildings. We actually were looking at what we’re calling Space B as a separate building toward the back side of the site, so that we were actually driving between them, but we can only do one principal building on that site because of the zone, so that’s when we decided to combine the two into a single building and then do the drive around. MR. ABBATE-Is your request also, I see on setback requirements that the front requires 40 feet, and you’re proposing 39 foot 9 inches. MR. JONES-That’s existing. MR. ABBATE-That’s existing. MR. JONES-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. The same with the 40 plus 25, the 40 foot in height, 25 foot proposed? MR. JONES-Yes. Forty, I think, is allowable, and it’s currently twenty-five. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. MR. STONE-Any other questions, gentlemen? Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to the application? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. UNDERWOOD-None. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions, gentlemen? Okay. Let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Mr. Hayes. MR. HAYES-Well, I think there are several issues that are at play here, and I’m reluctant to pass the buck onto the Planning Board, in this particular case, but the concerns that struck me immediately after viewing the plans really deal more with Planning Board review. I think I would agree with Mr. Round that I think there’s a lot of development going on on this site as it stands now, and that’s certainly something to consider, but really our charge is with the Area Variance and it’s just a question of what is greater. I mean, is this going to cause a detriment to the neighborhood that exceeds the benefit to the applicant, and I’m not sure, looking at this plan, that since the two driveways are divided, in this particular case, that there is really a large negative impact on the neighborhood in this particular case. Some quality development of this site, to me, would be a benefit, and as I look at the plans that were depicted architecturally, I think that there is a small case to be made by the fact that this is an updating and an improving of this particular parcel from its current view right now, and that’s not saying anything about the building. It’s fine now. I drive by it every day, and it’s nothing that sticks out to me, but the new development could be. I guess, comparing feasible alternatives, I guess, in this case I think they’re limited based on the fact that this lot is very narrow, and that any egress point, particularly a singular one located to the east, would probably cause more conflict with the Stewarts exit than before. I agree with Counselor’s argument that, to some degree, the Jones’ are suffering from the fact that the Stewarts egress and ingress are right out to the property line, which places a burden on them that they had nothing to do with creating. I also believe, from my own business background, that it would be very difficult to negotiate a deal with Stewarts, because I personally think it would be against their own interest to grant you a traffic through what they consider a convenience oriented parking, and I would not be in favor of that if it was my business. I guess the only thing that I’m troubled with, and I want to listen from the rest of the Board members, is the fact that the relief certainly is substantial. There’s no way to deny that. There’s no way to not feel that it is, but I think having the thought in my mind that the Planning Board is going to deal with the overall development of this parcel in the future, strictly dealing with the application of the relief 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/13/01) being requested, versus the detriment to the neighborhood, I would say I was very slightly in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Mr. Underwood. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I’m sitting on the fence on this one, too. I think that the, you know, your present access point is fine, and I think that what you’re trying to do with the in and out makes more sense for what your plans are for the site there. It certainly is not going to work for the bank to go into some rigmarole where you’ve got to turn your car around and do a 360 back in there, and I think that we also have to consider, if we kept a single access point, if we changed over to the east side, over towards Stewarts there that, you know, if you had the outflow traffic coming across the front of the property, you’re going to lose your green space, and I’m certain and some point in time we’re going to see sidewalks come all the way down from the school, you know, back in that direction or a bike trail or whatever it happens to be, and it makes more sense to keep that green space out there. So, balancing it on what I see, I think I would vote in favor of what you propose. MR. STONE-Mr. Urrico. MR. URRICO-I’m sitting on the fence on this. I guess I can see a lot of advantages to sharing egress and ingress with Stewarts, both from their business standpoint and your access standpoint, but those deals don’t come easily, and, based on the balancing test that we’re faced with, I agree with Jamie on this one. I think I come out on the side of the applicant, but barely. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. STONE-Go. MR. HIMES-All right. Thank you. This is an interesting kind of a situation, it seems to me, that certainly recognizing, as others have said, that the applicant is in a difficult position here, given the lot. The choice of what to do with the lot kind of adds, perhaps, that you could say there’s a bit of self creation here, but I look at that as being minor. You’ve got the church down here and you’ve got the Stewarts and I think the Adonis Hair place are together, and as you’ve said, a great amount of traffic in and out of there. I visited that place when I went out to look at your site. Cars parked, I bet there were 25 cars parked along in there, and in and out, adding, there were three cars waiting to get out, I was just trying to get out of Stewarts. Next to you, on the other side, you have Maille’s, which is one continuous curb cut, I think, from one end of the lot to the other. I don’t know how long Maille’s is going to continue to be what it presently is, and his old Laundromat behind him which connects onto Manor Road. So we’re going to have something going there, and then of course Sokol’s and Getty gas station across the way, and even though I don’t think at the present time there’s an enormous amount of traffic, compared to some other streets in Town, on Aviation Road, I think the time is coming where there’ll be more. So this is going to get to be, I think, a difficult situation, and I wish that there was some way that we could say, well, let’s take a look at this whole thing, Maille’s and the rest and so on, with Planning Board and what have you and say, what ought we, how ought we to come down on this here, without doing tremendous damage to the applicant, however, at this moment, if I’m required to say yes or no, I’m thinking I have to feel sympathy with the applicant. I still, in spite of that fact that I know you don’t like the idea to come in, ingress, go out on Manor Drive, would certainly provide some relief to what may be needed at some future date, and I do recognize, competitively speaking, the bank may not particularly like that, going all the way down there and coming around. On the other hand, to some extent it might be in out, you know, even though you have to negotiate, it seems you have land available to make a, to get through there. So I think would feel forced to say that I would vote in favor of the application, reluctantly so, because we here as oftentimes are put in a difficult situation of looking at what’s there now, what’s on the verge of a mess, mainly, not criticizing Stewarts, but because of their popularity and so forth, and now maybe we’re going to make it just a little bit worse because we feel that the applicant is getting squeezed, unfairly. Now that makes me feel in a bit of a bind, and I feel I have to come down on the side of the applicant, because, as Staff mentioned, what is being planned is probably about the best alternative to just saying absolutely no and sending you back to start from scratch again. So I would vote in favor of the application. Thank you. MR. STONE-Mr. Abbate? MR. ABBATE-I guess the key word is standard of fairness, the criteria of which there are five. I could go down them, but everything has been really said about it. There can be no denial that the quality of the construction will certainly have a positive impact on the neighborhood. Staff was not concerned with the two cuts. If they’re not concerned with it, I’m not going to be concerned with it. I think there will be a positive improvement. I think that any suggestion, Jamie pointed out that two businesses share a common driveway, and inevitably results in civil litigation. On balance, although I have some reservation, I would support the application. MR. STONE-Mr. Bryant. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/13/01) MR. BRYANT-I want to reiterate a few of the things that the other Board members said. First, I just want to comment that I’m very disappointed. Generally when Mr. Jones comes before the Board, he’s got all kinds of green on his drawings, and this time there’s no green. I know where the green is. I’m familiar with the area. MR. LAPPER-With the Planning Board we’re definitely going to have green. MR. BRYANT-As far as the shared access, that’s really an impossible solution. Because you have parking at Stewarts that would be in that area, and you have your own parking, and many a times when I go into that Stewarts, there is no parking, and people would be parking in your lot as a result of it. So I think that’s an impossible alternative. I think Mr. Abbate mentioned earlier on setting a precedence, and Mr. Himes mentioned Maille’s, the perpetual curb cut, that the same thing occurs at Sokol’s, at Getty, the Stewarts, there’s probably 20 feet between those two curb cuts and I’m sure that the spacing in the Evergreen Plaza is not adequate, and you can go on down the line. I mean, that’s commonplace in that area. So with that in mind, and all the other things that the Board members said, I would be in favor of this application. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. BRYANT-Next time come back with green. MR. STONE-The one thing I just want to put in the record, and you don’t really have to comment, but this is more for the Planning Board, two, three years ago, in this room, over a period of four, five, six, seven, eight months, there was much discussion about Indian Ridge, and it’s impact on traffic. We haven’t mentioned it. It’s going to go in. There are going to be at least a number of houses in the area which are going to impact on Farr Lane and all of that stuff. I’m just saying this for the record, so that the Planning Board who may not remember, hopefully they’ll remember about Indian Ridge. Let me just very quickly go down the five criteria that we’re supposed to talk about, which some of the people have talked about. Obviously, Number One, the benefit to the applicant, is very clear. The applicant would be permitted to build a nice piece of property. The feasible alternatives are limited, as Staff pointed out, in the fact that it’s a substandard lot, and obviously there is no way to meet the requirement, even if you were going to put two curb cuts in of any size. The relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance, but I think applicant and the agents of the applicant have done a very good job of making it evident why this is a very practical solution. The fact that they are willing to do the entry and exit in separate driveways with the proper marking so that people will, in fact, do that, I hope that the Planning Board will think about the pass through traffic, if you will, from Aviation to the medical clinic, but that’s up to them. The effects on the community, I think what they’re going to get, one is a very attractive property, a very attractive building. I think they may end up with a little more traffic, but, unfortunately, that’s what’s happening today. There is more traffic. There’s no way we could stop the traffic, even if we said you could put any curb cuts in in this particular case, and the difficulty being self created, it is to an extent, the fact that you want to do something makes it self created, but it’s because it’s a substandard lot, because your neighbor is very close to you on the east side, and all of the things that we’ve mentioned. Therefore, I think the decision, the balance comes down on the side of the applicant, and I would call for a motion to approve this application. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 96-2001 BARBARA H. JONES, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: 339 Aviation Road. The applicant proposes construction of a new, separate access drive. The relief required, the applicant requests relief from the requirements of the Off-Street Parking and Loading regulations, 179- 66B(4). Specifically, the applicant seeks 65 feet of relief in order to construct a new curb cut 85 feet from the existing curb cut, and 140 feet of relief needed for the new curb cut 10 feet from the curb cut of the neighboring property, which is Stewarts. The benefit to the applicant would be he or she would be permitted to develop the site as desired. Feasible alternatives appear to be limited due to the existing lot width of 139.9 feet. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Yes, it is. However, this is mitigated by the effort to improve safety by having one-way access in and one-way access out on each end of the lot. Effects on the neighborhood or community are expected to be, are not negative, and from an appearance standpoint, are probably going to be a benefit, beneficial. I recommend we approve the variance as applied for. Duly adopted this 13 day of December, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty MR. LAPPER-Thank you all very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 94-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC. PROPERTY OWNER: V.S.H. REALTY, INC. PROPERTY LOCATION: 110 MAIN STREET CORNER OF MAIN AND RYAN STREETS ZONE: CR-15 APPLICANT PROPOSES 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/13/01) DEMOLITION OF EXISTING CONVENIENCE STORE AND 2 RETAIL STORES AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,816 SQ. FT. CONVENIENCE STORE, A 3,840 SQ. FT. GASOLINE CANOPY STRUCTURE AS WELL AS A SEPARATE 2,000 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS THE MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCE BETWEEN THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED DRIVES. CROSS REF. SPR 49-2001 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 11/14/2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 134.-6-31 NEW TAX MAP NO. 309.14-1-80 LOT SIZE: 1.87 ACRES SECTION 179-24, 179-28 179-66 MARTIN AUFFREDOU, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STONE-This application was on the agenda last month, and was tabled. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want me to read that? MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 94-2001 CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC., Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 110 Main Street, corner of Main and Ryan Streets. Tabled until the first meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals in December, which is December 13. th Duly adopted this 28 day of November, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. McNulty” MR. STONE-Okay. Gentlemen. MR. AUFFREDOU-Good evening. My name is Martin Auffredou. Sitting next to me is Bill Goebel from Bohler Engineering. We also have some representatives from Cumberland Farms in the audience with us this evening as well. The last time we were here, we had a lengthy discussion with the Zoning Board about this project, and it was our understanding, based upon that discussion and a straw vote or poll vote that was taken that the Board members had very little trouble, if any, with the setback variances that were being sought, and there was clearly support expressed for the project. Where we spent a lot of time, we spent a lot of time on those issues, don’t get me wrong, but we spent quite a bit of time on the separation distances for the curb cuts, and there was discussion by Staff and discussion by Cumberland Farms and its representatives and also a lot of discussion by the Board members as well. I think some of the Board members expressed a desire to have the matter tabled so that they could think about the application some more, in that regard. We are asking to maintain the two curb cuts that we have, admittedly in slightly different locations, on Main Street, but the project currently does have two curb cuts. We’d like to maintain two curb cuts, and for the reason that we expressed at the last meeting, we think that it’s essentially critical to this project, and this project would likely not survive without those. That was our position then. That is our position this evening, as well. We continue to look for those two curb cuts on Main Street. We can go through the presentation we made last time, which was a thorough presentation. There was a lot of discussion with the Board. We’d be happy to talk to you about the project again, the ins and outs, the details, if you feel that’s necessary. Otherwise, we are prepared to simply discuss with you once again what we believe is the sole remaining issue for this project, and that happens to be the curb cuts. MR. STONE-I, for one, have read the transcript of the meeting. So I feel that I am familiar with the arguments that were made on both sides. I do understand that this is an unusual application, in that the Community Development office feels very strongly on this particular issue, whereas normally they do their job, they don’t necessarily come out for or against. They present the facts, and I know in this particular case, because of the impending new Zoning Ordinance, which is currently in the hands of our Town Board for review and hopefully approval, and the fact that this particular new Zoning Ordinance deals very directly and very strongly with our new Main Street, and what we hope it will be in the future when this widening project gets underway. So there is a great deal of interest in what we do here. We all know that Main Street leaves something to be desired, and I’ll defend it from a Glens Falls standpoint, as an entrance to Glens Falls. They argued that. I think it’s also important as far as Queensbury is concerned. It’s a very important street. So there is a great deal of interest. Now, does, I’m trying to think who wasn’t here. MR. AUFFREDOU-I believe everybody was here, with the exception of you, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-But me of this particular group. Okay. I know there were only six in attendance. Okay. So, if the Board is happy, I would call for a very quick review, just so that we’re all listening to exactly what you say. I would also ask Staff to make any comments that they might wish to make, and then we’ll proceed. I mean, the public hearing was closed. I certainly can open it again if there is anybody who wishes to speak, but if you could just take five, if you will. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/13/01) MR. AUFFREDOU-Sure. I’ll let Bill do the layout details for you, but as you look at this project, the clear benefit is the improvement of that site, and I think by anyone’s standards, the buildings that we’re proposing are extraordinary buildings for this zone. We believe that this project will serve, should serve as a catalyst for other sites in this area to develop. We think we’ll be the envy of many of the establishments that are there. There is nothing else that I can see, as I drive by there, and I drive by there typically every day, that right now even comes close to what this is going to look like. This is a clear benefit to the Town. This is something I think, that the Town needs, and I’m speaking not just as an advocate here for Cumberland Farms, but I’m also a resident and taxpayer in Queensbury as well. This is good for Queensbury, and this has to go into the mix. We understand and appreciate Staff’s concerns and what they’re trying to accomplish, but we think you ought to look at what’s there now. You have a Zoning Ordinance that’s out there for debate and public hearing, and you want to accomplish certain things in this region, in this district. We’re helping you do that, by bringing this architecture in, by bringing these structures in. We’re helping you accomplish a lot of what I think the Town seeks to accomplish in that proposed Zoning Ordinance, but we need some help from you, and what we need at this point are the setback variances, and I think we’ve made a clear and convincing case why those are needed, and I think most of you agree with us, at least that was the sentiment from last meeting, if not all of you. Where we still have some debate, it seems to me, or some unresolved issues, is with respect to the curb cuts, but if you look at the benefit to the applicant, and that’s the standard, the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the character or community of the neighborhood, there are two curb cuts there now, on Main Street. The benefit to us is we get to develop this project in a commercially reasonable way that we feel is necessary. There is no detriment to the Town that I can identify. I’ve thought and thought about this. I just don’t see it. There’s already two curb cuts there, and Staff will tell you that, well, you’re redesigning this project. You’re redesigning the site, and you ought to go down to one curb cut on Main Street because we have as a goal, Town wide, to sort of eliminate or reduce curb cuts. Understand and appreciate that, but if you look at this project in its entirety, the benefit to the Town is clear. There is no detriment to the Town that can be identified. We’ve got two curb cuts there now, and from a developer’s standpoint, if you look at this from the corporate world perspective, let’s say you’re sitting in an office in Boston, and you’re hearing from your engineer and you’re hearing from your Counsel, and they’re reporting to you what’s going on at these Zoning Board meetings, and they’re saying, we designed and managed and operated hundreds of these in the Northeast. We even go as far south as Florida. This is the way this property is going to work, the way we’ve designed it. We’re not going to do this, if we don’t believe it’s going to work, and with one curb cut on Main Street, it’s not going to work. So, they’re saying, we’re not going to make this investment if we know it’s not going to work. We want to make this investment. We want to be a good corporate neighbor. We love Queensbury. It’s a great site for us, but you’ve got to work with us. That’s the corporate position, and that’s what we’re here tonight relaying to you. Those are our instructions, and with that, I turn it over to Bill and ask him to do a run through on the site layout. MR. HIMES-Mr. Chairman, a question before you get started. MR. STONE-Sure. MR. HIMES-Thank you for your review, and in connection with the two curb cuts, it seems that my recollection was that the U-Haul people next to you, the only thing between your lot and theirs are some of those cement things that you put down for like parking spots, pretty clear, almost from front to back. MR. AUFFREDOU-I think that’s correct. MR. HIMES-That there would be a shared access, two way, maybe, I don’t recall that Staff had suggested two accesses there, and then another one or two way access on your property would be, was one of the things that we kind of threw around a little bit, but I don’t know that any effort has been made to do anything with U- Haul on that. MR. AUFFREDOU-If I may, there hasn’t been any effort made, and I remember that discussion last time, and I think it was Mr. Hayes who pointed out that that may not really be a realistic way of going about things. That puts U-Haul in a position and puts everyone in that position where they’re at an advantage. We’re at an unfair disadvantage. They hold the cards in that respect, and if you look at U-Haul, at what they currently do there, and how they park their trucks up front and park them right up to our property line, and park them right up along the front of the road, we doubt very much that there would be any desire on their part to cooperate with us, and we just don’t think it’s really a feasible alternative for us at this point in time. MR. HIMES-There isn’t anything that we can do to encourage them to cooperate? MR. ROUND-Yes. Deny the variance and they’ll look for a second location. MR. HIMES-I don’t mean these people. I don’t mean them. I mean U-Haul. MR. ROUND-To encourage U-Haul? MR. HIMES-Certainly when we come around to the signs I’ve got more to say on that. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/13/01) MR. ROUND-You only have it when they’re in front of you for a permit, for a site plan review, etc., that you can do that. When they construct a highway improvement, there’s a possibility there, if, during the highway construction process, the County is the permitting authority for curb cuts, they could close each of these folks’ curb cuts, and just limit Cumberland Farms to a single location and limit U-Haul to a single location. That would provide motivation for a shared curb cut. MR. HIMES-Thank you. MR. STONE-Chris, while you’ve got the floor for a second, if the plan, as proposed, goes through right now, for Main Street, not for this, is there going to be any extension to the south side of Main Street? Any widening? MR. ROUND-It’s understood that probably there’s going to be very narrow strip takings, possibly two feet, three feet, on the order of that, but there’s no plan out there yet defining that. That’s just kind of conversation that’s occurred. MR. STONE-So that telephone pole would probably go? MR. ROUND-Yes. You’re probably looking at, all utilities are going to be relocated. MR. STONE-Underground, yes. MR. BRYANT-Let me ask a question relating to the last meeting. We had the discussion, toward the end, about the possibility of having egress through Ryan. Did you go back to corporate world with that proposal? I mean, how do they feel about it? MR. GOEBEL-Again, the position was, I think the discussion was going through Ryan, and closing up one of the curb cuts, and making that the secondary point to get back out of this site. Again, they felt, based on their experience, in doing over 1,000 gas stations, that it’s not a very visible driveway. It’s going to create some confusion for their customers, and again feel that the driveways proposed are the best alternative for both the site and the surrounding area, as far as the roadway networks go, keeping that residential road, Ryan, which is a residential road, separated from the business uses also. MR. STONE-Then you would close that off? MR. GOEBEL-We are closing our, under the current proposal we are closing that. MR. STONE-I see it on the plan. I just wanted to make sure, okay. MR. BRYANT-I’m not understanding the confusion aspect, because I’m assuming if this, if you did open up that Ryan as a method of egress, that your other curb cut would be the furthest, at the bottom of the page there, and that would be your method in, and then they would go to the gas pump or to the building, I mean, they would be facing that way. Where would the confusion be? I don’t understand. MR. GOEBEL-It basically looks like an alley. It’s a small driveway right next to a building. You can’t see, if you’re at the dispensers that are closest to Main Street, they can’t necessarily see that driveway to see that it goes all the way through to Ryan. In some cases when you have corner lots like this and there’s no building on the corner, you might have a driveway over there where, when you’re sitting at the dispensers you can clearly see it. It’s right there in front of you. In this case it’s not what you’re expected or used to seeing when you go to a gas station. People are creatures of habit. I’ve designed and worked on thousands of gas stations, and this is the design and configuration that you’re historically, typically used to. MR. STONE-Can you just go through the site very quickly? MR. GOEBEL-Sure. MR. STONE-I think you started to do that and we interrupted you. MR. GOEBEL-This is just a rendered version of the plan that’s in your set, Main Street on the left side of the sheet here. What we’re proposing is a 3800 square foot convenience store. This is the Cumberland Farms store on the eastern side of the property, a canopy with eight fueling positions for eight dispensers, four sets of two, that are parallel to Main Street, and a 2,000 square foot Subway, located in this deeper portion of the property here. The property is unique in that it’s limited in depth. It’s only about 140 feet deep in this main core piece here. For that reason we wind up with a design that is effectively for vehicles to come into the driveways, either a right in or a left in to the driveways, and just pull right into the fueling positions, and then continue through the fueling positions and exit out the drive, the next driveway, depending on which way they’re facing and where they’ve come in from the property. The discussion’s been a lot about eliminating the driveways, going down to one driveway, why can we not survive with just one driveway, if we were to just 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/13/01) not put anything to Ryan Street and eliminate one driveway, the confusion of vehicles having to re-circulate, continue to re-circulate through the property and creates a lot of conflicting patterns on site, and conflicting patterns on site are going to translate into conflicting patterns on the roadway. If there’s an accident or a problem, the one driveway here, because there’s too much activity and too many people trying to drive in circles to get into the site and back out of the site, that’s going to be difficult for people trying to turn into the property, too. People might be stopping, making quick stops when they’re pulling into the site, if they see confusion occurring on the site already. For us it’s important that if they’re going to invest somewhere between $1.5 and 2 million in a site, close to $2 million in a site, that it’s convenient for the customers, that they’re not at a competitive disadvantage to other facilities in the area. Every other gas station in the surrounding area has very similar design configurations, as far as dispensers that are parallel to the right of way and two curb cuts on all of them, that they’ve got a site that works for them and will work for their customers, is safe to the surrounding traffic patterns, again, it gives people the opportunity to come into the site at two different points, so they can make decisions on that. If they see traffic at one driveway here, they can make an entrance into this driveway here. It gives people clear opportunity of choices of leaving the site. They’re not forced to try and figure out, when you look at things in a plan view it seems very easy, and I’ve worked on large retail developments, small retail developments, on the plan, they look great, they look simple, but when you actually try and drive a site or maneuver through it, if you’ve been in mall parking lots and things like that sometimes, the plan view looks great. It seems simple when you’re on the ground looking at it, though, trying to go through the site, it’s not as clear, not as clean. So for us, it’s important that it’s a very convenient and safe site for people to move in and out of and through the property so that there’s not a lot of confusion. You don’t want them, while they’re trying to drive the site, navigate the site and keep an eye on what’s going on around with other cars trying to also figure out where the driveways are at and how to get in or out of the site. So that’s really what’s driven the layout configuration of that. MR. BRYANT-With the two curb cuts on Main Street, they’re both in and out. Doesn’t that create even more confusion? You’ve got cars, foreign cars with the fill tank on the passenger’s side, and domestic cars with the tank on the driver’s side, and cars facing each other because they came in from two different sides. Doesn’t that make it more confusing? MR. GOEBEL-Not necessarily. Actually these dispensers, typically you’re not going to find that every single dispenser will be filled. What you usually find is that they’re staggered in where they’re filling up. If they see a position where a car might be facing them, if they pulled in forward towards it, they may go up to the next fueling position. That’s why the number of dispensers and providing the opportunity for people to have enough dispensers so they’ve got a choice of where to go. MR. STONE-And you have 16 filling sites, right? MR. GOEBEL-There’s 16 fueling positions, correct. MR. STONE-And your other stations in Town have, well at least the one on, I don’t know what you guys agreed to last week, but Miller Hill has four. Sixteen seems, on the face of it, like an awful lot. MR. GOEBEL-It seems like an awful lot. It may appear that way, but it’s really, it’s not that many. It’s more about providing enough fueling positions so you don’t get queuing of cars and a lot of cars backing up on site. You don’t lose customers because there’s the appearance that there’s not enough dispensers and it’s going to be a busy site and you’re going to have to wait to get to a fueling position. MR. AUFFREDOU-Last time we were here, and Mr. Knopftl, who’s here tonight from Cumberland Farms, talked about what the philosophy of Cumberland Farms is and what their primary focus is, and I believe what he’s indicated to me is that distinguished from say Stewarts, our primary focus is on gasoline sales. We do have a store. We have a convenience store where you can go in and get coffee or something like that, but gasoline sales is our primary focus. You can also get gasoline at Stewarts, and that is a big part of their business, for sure, but they have a lot of things inside, a lot of food items, a lot of prepared food items that we don’t offer in our stores and we won’t be offering in this store either. So if it could be distinguished from a Stewarts store, the idea, Mr. Chairman, is that in order to make this type of investment with the buildings that we’re doing, and I think you’re familiar with the drawings and the architecture that’s being proposed, in order to make this type of investment, there’s got to be the primary focus on the gas sales, quite simply, that’s where our bread and butter is, as I understand it. MR. ABBATE-I guess I’ve got a request from the Chairman. I went over all of the information in great detail, and I reduced my thoughts to writing, and the reason I reduced them to writing is because I wanted to choose my words carefully, and normally I would discuss this. MR. STONE-Well, why don’t we wait until, if it’s all right with you, Chuck. I said Staff could. MR. ABBATE-Yes, of course. MR. STONE-You want to make a position? 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/13/01) MR. ABBATE-I have a position here, and the reason I’m asking to state it first is because I feel that these folks should have an opportunity either reply or rebuke or address, and hopefully you’ll still love me in the morning. MR. STONE-Well, they can always do that, but let’s, if these gentlemen are done, I would like to give Staff, because I know the problem that Staff has. MR. ABBATE-No problem. MR. STONE-Do you guys want to? MR. ROUND-Sure. I mean, we’ve, we made some of the same cases at last month’s meeting. MR. STONE-Yes, you did. MR. ROUND-We tried to emphasize that not just the Town but the County is making a significant investment in this area. This is Exit 18. This is the prime entrance to the City of Glens Falls. There’s a project on our TIP, our Transportation Improvement Plan, to invest $3.5 million in highway funds to improve the highway system, and that’s going to be the addition of the center turn lane. One of the reasons we’re doing that is because there’s capacity problem, and because of conflicts. They said there’s really not a major capacity problem on Corinth Road, but the reason traffic is delayed is because of turning vehicles. So we’re putting in a center turn lane, and people argued, well, there’s a capacity problem, we want five lanes, we want two lanes in either direction and a center turn lane. They said, we really can’t justify that. What you have is a problem with conflicts on the highway, too many turning vehicles. Turning vehicles slow the traffic down. That three million dollar investment, that’s something that’s going to happen only once every 20 years. So you’re talking long term. This is something that doesn’t come around every day. The Town’s also going to be making an investment in the corridor. We’re looking at $400,000 in water line improvements, $600 or $800 in sewer line improvements. We’re looking at, underground utilities is estimated at $1.4 million right today. We’ve hired an engineer and we’ve spent, we’ve got probably an $80,000 bill to plan this all out, to make sure it all happens according to plan. The Town’s just adopted a new Zoning Ordinance, and it has improved access management principles in it, and I think we have a copy for you tonight, and the access management principal that we’re talking about is separation of driveways and the frequency of driveways, and so the relief requested tonight is from the 150 foot separation. Our new Ordinance proposes a 330 foot separation. So you can see we’re going the opposite direction that the application is asking for. It is a principal arterial, and what that means in a highway classification scheme is that this road is designed to move vehicles between an interchange, you know, our national highway system, our Interstate I-87, and get them into the central urban area, into the City of Glens Falls, and so that’s how we’re trying to plan these highway improvements. I mentioned, we’re really trying to do a lot of things on the corridor. We see the highway improvements and the sewer improvements as an opportunity to reinvent the corridor, really to make it a very, very attractive area, and we’re promoting mixed use development, retail commercial use mixed with residential use, but we still see that there is a need for convenience type, gasoline type uses near the interchange, because you’ve got to satisfy the traveling public, and so we see that there’s a necessity for this type of land use. We’ve worked with the applicant and we’re happy with some of the improvements that they propose, and we’ll have more discussions, hopefully, during the site plan review process, to get even additional improvements out of here, and I think Mr. Goebel mentioned last month that they were happy to deal with the laundry list of items that we presented to them, that aren’t yet on the plan. So we’re excited about that. The new Zoning Ordinance, the new Main Street plan, access management principles, are all long term planning investments and when we’ve granted a variance to a standard, that sets a precedent, and when you set precedents, it’s going to be very difficult, boards have a very difficult time distinguishing the differences between particular applications, because if you’re going to rely on memory from when this application is two years old, well, why was that different, it’s the responsibility of Staff to try to paint some differences in that, so we think there are alternatives that we’ve presented you with some correspondence. You got the C.T. Male correspondence that said, hey, just in quick first glance it says, hey, we recommend that you eliminate a curb cut to Main Street. Barton & Loguidice letter spoke specifically to access management and the recommendation that you have a single curb cut. We presented a copy of the Saratoga Associates, who’s also working on the plan, showed a potential layout with a single curb cut, and the applicant had seen this. We sat down with this and we gave you a copy of that. We think there’s alternatives to the variance requested. You could do two single movements, as you saw the application just prior to this one. You could go to single location, as we propose. The next step below that would be two single movements, below that probably would be an access, main access and a shared access, and all the time encouraging access to Ryan Street, because that’s what you really want to do. You don’t want to throw those conflicts out onto your main corridor. You want to put them on to your side street where the traffic is lower and there’s a lower incidence of conflicts. So those are the kinds of things that we talked about last month. We think the site can work without it. I think in B & L’s correspondence they indicated the U.S. DOT said, we don’t see a significant economic impact when we do limit curb cuts, that the traveling public does find it when you do provide adequate signage and adequate site layout, that people will find the facility, and it won’t be a detriment to the site, and if there are site issues, as far as traffic moving on site, you shouldn’t put a curb cut in to handle a site deficiency, and that you should look at redesigning the site, not redesigning the curb cuts to allow access to the highway. Those are the issues that we talked about last month, and it’s difficult. It’s a 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/13/01) dollars and sense issue to the applicant, as they mentioned, they’re looking at investing elsewhere. We encourage the investment here in the corridor, but we’re not willing to, as you see in the past, I think Mr. Stone mentioned, we don’t really get involved strongly. We try and give you opinions. We state what the laws are, what the regulations are and what the alternatives are, but we don’t want to set a bad precedent on the corridor. We really want this to be a the model for the development, and the number of driveway locations, that’s part of that model for the future development. Thanks. MR. STONE-Thank you. We closed the public hearing and we left it closed. Is there anybody here wanting to speak? I mean, I can open the public hearing, but I would like not to. Okay. Hearing none, there’s no new correspondence, is there? Take a look, but go ahead. MR. AUFFREDOU-Two quick points. Mr. Round mentioned the County. The County Planning Board unanimously recommended approval of this project, and again, we have a fundamental difference in how we present, and how I present, how Bill presents the project and how Mr. Round presents the project. Mr. Round indicates that we are, the solution shouldn’t be giving us another curb cut. From the owner and operator’s perspective, we already have two curb cuts, and Hess down the street has two curb cuts, and Citgo has two curb cuts, and Mobil has two curb cuts. Two curb cuts is the standard. This is gasoline alley. I don’t now what you hope to achieve with the Main Street corridor. I wish you all the best, I really do, and as a resident, I support it, but this is gasoline alley, and this area services commuters and Northway travelers, primarily, and it also services some of the neighborhood residential homes, but this is a commercial gasoline district in its purest, that’s what it is, and from the applicant’s perspective, what Staff is recommending is that, make an investment, and you take away a curb cut. That’s how the corporate views this. MR. STONE-Let me just ask a question, non-prejudicial question. If Cumberland Farms walked away from this project, what would be the loss to the community, in terms of the availability of gasoline? Any? MR. AUFFREDOU-I don’t know. I mean, gasoline is still there. There’s certainly a lot of gasoline stations in the area. It seems to me the loss to the community is you lose these beautiful buildings, and you’re left with that eyesore. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, why don’t we start with you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. STONE-Let’s discuss it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. I spent a lot of time on this, gentlemen, and I take no particular position, yours or Mr. Round’s, but I have some very serious perceptual problems. If you will indulge me, when it comes time to discuss it, I will keep my mouth shut so that I could use that time, then to utilize now. This is my perception. I have re-read each of the documents submitted, in the original application, and have read the letter from Mr. Round, of December, Male Associates of November, and Mr. Straut, on behalf of Cumberland Farms. As a matter of fact, I read each of these documents several times, and discovered, from my perspective, a general theme. Mr. Round states, “The application of access management principles for this project will protect and improve the transportation systems serving the community.” “…the relief is substantial (88 ft. requested vs. 150 ft. required separation). This request is also likely to establish precedent on the corridor. We also discussed at length the impact on the community from the perspective of safety regarding number of conflict points.” C.T. Male Associates raises 22 specific issues. The letters, the applicant’s letter of December 10, 2001 states “…the Town of Queensbury has a unique opportunity to utilize its administrative and ministerial influence and authority to guide this development in a way which benefits the community, property owner, and user.” The letter goes on to state, “The Cumberland Farms site presents an opportunity to affirm the principles and techniques of effective access management. While it is important that the design be arrived at cooperatively, meeting the needs of the developer, it is also imperative that the precedent of conformance to standards be established. This is especially important in this instance because it is an early test of the Main Street Redevelopment strategy and design principles.” It goes on to state, “If the Town is to be successful in working together with Warren County in the incorporation of access controls into the design of the Corinth Road Reconstruction project and to establish its credibility in implementing the Main Street Plan, sound access management must be consistently applied.” It is my perception that the applicant uses such words as “credibility, sound management, meeting the needs of the developer”, as a distinctive way of communicating a position that ignores what is, in the long run, the best interest of the people. The letters from Mr. Round and C.T. Male Associates, again, from my perspective, addresses those issues which impact safety, improvement, and protection of the community. The communication from the applicant dated November 20, 2001 addresses issues of advantages, benefits, and profit impacting Cumberland Farms. It goes on to support their position by putting into play the words “credibility, sound management, meeting the needs of the developer if the Town is to be successful”, as an authoritative indication to be obeyed or else. I do believe that every applicant has a right to aggressively pursue their application to their advantage. However, in this instance, the applicant has placed itself, by design, in a position of all or nothing. At the last meeting I good-humoredly stated that 99% of the pie is better than no pie at all. The applicant has placed itself, by choice, in an unalterable position of suggesting 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/13/01) that the entire application must be approved without exception, and I am very concerned and upset. Thank you. MR. STONE-Was that a no? MR. ABBATE-That’s a no. MR. STONE-Okay. Why don’t we keep going in that vein. Allan, what do you feel? MR. BRYANT-Well, Mr. Chairman, my opinion hasn’t changed much from the last meeting. As far as the setback issues, I think that’s consistent with the Main Street plan. I disagree with the applicant when he talks about confusion and so forth and so on, and I believe that the best logical method of ingress and egress is one cut on Main Street and one on Ryan Street, and I know the applicant disagrees with me, but that’s the only way that I would approve this application. So, if the application is all or nothing, again, I agree with the setbacks, but I disagree with the curb cut issue. MR. STONE-Okay. Jamie? MR. HAYES-I guess I’m pretty much in agreement. I think that the long and short of it is, as Chuck has described, the two curb cuts with double activity is the long ball, in this case, and I don’t think the long ball is going to be obtained. I think that some plan, whether it’s Ryan Street or a single activity at each exit, would be certainly okay with me. I think that the application as I see it, the recycling of this property has a tremendous value, and I think that point as been made and accepted, and in my opinion, I think it can’t be emphasized enough, but I think in this particular case, based on what the Town, the County, the overall things that we’re trying to do at Exit 18 there, I think that there’s an alternative here that still presents Cumberland Farms with the opportunity to get a reasonable to get a reasonable return on their investment. Outside of that, I think that the setback relief is fine. I have no problem with that. I think it also, I also agree that it actually will be complimentary toward the plans that are developed there and such, and so I guess my sense here is that it’s just a little too much relief to go with two curb cuts with two sets of ingress and egress activity, and I think the overall effect on the community could be negative based on the conflicts caused with traffic. So, everything else I’m okay with. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. The rear setbacks and the building setbacks I have no problem with at all, but I’m still torn. I still think that keeping the Ryan Street access makes sense, and I think that you’re either looking at an in and an out or the Ryan Street access, and I think that, you know, we have to support the efforts that we’re trying to accomplish here on Main Street. If we, it may not be exactly what you want to do, but at the same time, I think that you have to keep in mind that, you know, we’re trying to do something unique here. Maybe it’s something unique that no one’s ever done before, but maybe we’ll start a trend, you know, if indeed it does come to fruition and it works properly. So, I would not be in favor of the two double ins and outs. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m going to go right down the test. The benefit to the applicant, I agree, the applicant would be permitted to construct the desired buildings, gas island canopy and the additional curb cut, while increasing their gasoline service and maintaining other uses. When it comes to number two, there are feasible alternatives. As far as the setbacks, I don’t see a problem, but there are feasible alternatives to the two curb cuts, both egress and ingress on Main Street, either have a singular, as Jamie stated, or one entrance and exit on Main Street and one on Ryan Street. I feel that the relief is substantial, not the setback relief but the curb cut relief is substantial. As far as the effects on the neighborhood or community, this is, you spoke to precedent, that both Hess station and the Mobile station have already established a precedent. Well, that’s exactly what we’re trying to fight here, setting another standard at a time when it’s critical that this Town make an improvement there. So I think this would have a detriment to the community. I think the effects would be more than substantial by having the additional curb cut there, and as far as this difficulty being self- created, I definitely feel this is self-created. I think, in my mind, my estimation, the applicant has presented a singular, corporate philosophy for 1,000 gas stations situated in 1,000 different neighborhoods. The corporate office should recognize that customers, and the community surrounding these stores, represent, they view them as individual stores. They’re not 1,000 stores. They’re one store in one community in one neighborhood, and you can’t just wave a magic wand and make them all fit in every location. You have to fit them into the neighborhood, and this is what the situation is here. So I would be against it. MR. STONE-Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I’d just like to say, in terms of the reliefs besides the curb cuts, I do not have a problem with them, as long as there is adequate room, after allowing those reliefs, for the highway expansion and the five foot sidewalk and the five foot buffer area or whatever it is between a sidewalk and the road. So much for that. In terms of the other matter, the one we’ve been talking about most of this evening, I don’t 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/13/01) find fault with the applicant’s position in terms of the business parameters which, although may be supportable, they seem to, and I think what Roy was saying here, it’s a proven way, use it like a boiler plate, here’s the way we see it, and here’s the way it’s got to be from your standpoint, and I can’t say that that’s bad, from a business standpoint. However, we do have, the Town has a big job it is facing, over the long term, in connection with what it’s going to try to accomplish, in this Main Street corridor area, and it will be accomplished over time. So, really, it would be a little bit at a time, and we can’t give anything up. Anything that’s as important as this, which involves, certainly, you’ve got a nice looking building a lot of things will meet much of what the Town likes to see, but in terms of the safety, the traffic flow and other things upon which much of the rest of it depends, our primary importance, I think, and, incrementally, here’s one we’re going to try to accomplish what the Town has in mind. I, therefore, would not be in favor of approving this application. Thank you. MR. STONE-Before I go into anything, I want to say, I want to congratulate everybody involved in this particular application. I think the applicant has done a very good job of presenting their point of view. I think the Staff of Community Development Department has done a very good job of stating the position of the Town as they perceive it, and they work very closely with the zoning code development, and I particularly want to congratulate my fellow Board members. As I recall, it was asked of the Board, when this was tabled, to please go back and think about it. I think everyone has to agree, they have thought about it. They’ve done a tremendous job. At least two gentlemen chose to write their thoughts down, and I congratulate them for that, because I think it really shows that they have, in a sense, done their homework. As for me I certainly don’t disagree that with my fellow Board members, particularly in terms of the curb cuts. I think part of the problem that the applicant is presenting is due, in part, to the large number of filling stations, filling whatever you call them. I think 16 is a very large number. It places a great difficulty on the traffic movement within this piece of property, and I think a great deal of the comments that have been made by the applicant, in terms of people stacking up, it’s devoutly to be wished that you had so much business that you’re going to be stacked up, but I, personally, think 16 is an excessive number, and I think that’s contributing, would contribute mightily to the conflicts that we’re trying to avoid on the road. The other thing that I want to say, and I’ll echo a couple of my fellow Board members, someone has to be first. It’s unfortunate for the applicant that they’re the first one that has really come to our attention, visa vie the new zoning code that we hope to adopt in the very near future. I think Staff has given a true feeling, a true understanding of why the number of curb cuts is an important issue when it comes to Main Street. Points of conflict, these are what the engineer’s tell us. Certainly, this is very important certainly to me, in listening to this thing, and I think Mr. Urrico did a very good job in going down the five points that we must consider for an Area Variance, and while I think everyone can agree that the setbacks are an issue, are something that we could grant, there is a unanimity among the Board that we will not grant two curb cuts. So I can call for a motion to deny the whole thing, or you can tell us what you want to do. MR. AUFFREDOU-Well, it seems to me that the applicant has a few options here, take a motion which would end up in a denial. That seems to be the way the cards are folding. MR. STONE-Well, I would, since there were seven votes against it, I would call for a motion to deny. There’s a difference between (lost words). MR. AUFFREDOU-We could withdraw the application. MR. STONE-You can do that. MR. AUFFREDOU-We could table the application. It also seems to me we could do that as well. I want to make sure, because if the decision is to withdraw the application, I want to make sure that my client understands where you all are coming from, and everybody did a very nice job articulating their particular positions, but I guess I have one question, and I don’t mean to go through everybody again, but if you were to say, on Main Street, forget about Ryan Street, but on Main Street, one way in and one way out, two curb cuts, is there support for that, generally? Because if there isn’t support for that, then I don’t really have anything to bring back to my client. I know there was some discussion about that, that they perhaps could support that, etc., etc., but if there isn’t support for that, we don’t have anything to bring back. MR. STONE-Okay. To help you, I can poll the Board. You’re saying you would like two curb cuts, one in, one out? MR. AUFFREDOU-Right. I’m saying that, is the Board willing to entertain that. MR. STONE-I understand what you’re saying. MR. AUFFREDOU-In that case, I’ll bring it back to them. MR. STONE-I understand that. So would we be willing to see some plan that incorporated two curb cuts, one in and one out? MR. AUFFREDOU-Right. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/13/01) MR. STONE-Okay. Let me just go down the line. We’ll start at the end. Roy? MR. URRICO-I would entertain it. I don’t know what my feelings would be about it, but I would entertain it. MR. STONE-Okay. Norm? MR. HIMES-I would entertain it. However, I would say that I think there still is the alternative of the Ryan Street, and it would take a lot to get me off that. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Well, the applicant, in my opinion, has every right to submit it, but I am strong and firm in my position that Ryan Street is the solution. MR. STONE-Al? MR. BRYANT-I agree with Mr. Abbate. I would go along with one on Main Street and one on Ryan Street, an in and an out. I think that’s the best solution. I wouldn’t go for two on Main Street. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HAYES-That’s the consensus. MR. STONE-I think that’s the consensus. MR. AUFFREDOU-One on Main and one on Ryan? MR. STONE-Ryan, and maybe they can be two ways. What do you want to do? Do you want to withdraw the application? MR. AUFFREDOU-We’ll table it. If we want to withdraw it, we’ll just do that in writing. Is that okay? MR. STONE-Well, I’ll table it. I mean, I’ll do a motion to table. MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes. MR. STONE-And I will table it. Well, listen to the motion that I will make. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 94-2001 CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC., Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 110 Main Street. For up to 62 days, so that the applicant can consider a revised plan in which there is one curb cut on Main and one curb cut on Ryan. Duly adopted this 13 day of December, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty MR. BRYANT-Before you get to the next motion, could I ask a question? MR. STONE-Go ahead. MR. BRYANT-Why didn’t you, isn’t it possible to change, I know that we’ve already done this, but why didn’t you accept the setbacks and at least go back to your client and say, these are the setbacks, but they’re only going to go with one curb cut, and reapply for that second portion? MR. AUFFREDOU-I don’t think the client is interested in that, to be honest with you MR. ABBATE-Yes, but, see, that goes back to what I said, an unalterable position. MR. BRYANT-It’s better to go back with something in hand. MR. AUFFREDOU-We can still come back. We’ve tabled it. We can still come back. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/13/01) MR. ABBATE-Yes, you’re welcome. MR. AUFFREDOU-And we can come back and ask you for this. MR. STONE-Did you withdraw last month, the sign application? MR. AUFFREDOU-No, we didn’t withdraw. We tabled. We could come back within 62 days and say, give us the setback variances with one curb cut. We could certainly. MR. STONE-You heard what we said. MR. AUFFREDOU-We could certainly do that. I don’t think it’ll happen, but we could do that. If it happens, if they make a decision to come back, I’ll be here advocating for that. I don’t think it’ll happen, but you raise a good point. MR. STONE-Okay. Then I will make another motion to re-table Sign Variance No. 95-2001. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 95-2001 CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC., Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: 110 Main Street. For up to 62 days, so that the applicant can perfect Area Variance No. 94-2001. Duly adopted this 13 day of December, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty AREA VARIANCE NO. 97-2001 TYPE II COLLEEN AND BRUCE HALSE PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: JOE ROULIER ZONE: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: 27 BRAYTON LANE, ASSEMBLY POINT APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 204 SQ. FT. SECOND STORY ADDITION TO INCLUDE ROOF LINE CHANGE. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL ZONE AS WELL AS RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF. BOARD OF HEALTH: RES. NO. 55-2001 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 12/12/2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 6-3-12 NEW TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-66 LOT SIZE: 0.10 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79 JOE ROULIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 97-2001, Colleen and Bruce Halse, Meeting Date: December 13, 2001 “Project Location: 27 Brayton Lane, Assembly Point Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 204 sq. ft. second story addition to include roofline changes. Relief Required: Applicant requests 30.75 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum setback to shoreline requirement, 10 feet of relief from the 20-foot side setback requirement, and proposes a 30.2% FAR (Floor Area Ratio), as well as relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure per the WR-1A requirements § 179-16, § 179-79. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: The applicant would be permitted to increase the size of an existing summer home by 204 sq. ft. 2. Feasible alternatives: Alternatives appear to be limited due to the existing small lot size. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 30.75 feet from the required 50-foot minimum shoreline setback and 10 feet from the required 20-foot minimum side setback may be interpreted as moderate. 8.2% of relief above the 22% of the allowed FAR may also be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: 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.): SPR 55-2001: December review dependent on this application. Board of Health: Res. No. 55-2001, increase of holding tank capacity. AV 71-1991: denied 9/18/91; shoreline/side setback relief and expansion of a nonconforming structure for garage addition. AV 1374: approved 7/15/88; demolish existing dwelling and construct a single-family dwelling. Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action being the changes to the roofline will make the structure stand out more from the road and lake views compared to the existing structure. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Mr. Roulier. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/13/01) MR. ROULIER-Good evening. Joe Roulier from Assembly Point. We have a relatively small parcel of property with a relatively small two story home currently on it. What we’re proposing to do is take a portion of the second story, which is already a bedroom, and to alter the roofline so that there’s a greater utilization of the basic footprint to the second story, and by that I mean that it’s a gable end roofline right now. We have shallow closets that come down under the roofline, and by making the roofline go in that particular area, which is 17 feet long, in a perpendicular fashion to the current gable end roofline, we’re able to then pick up the additional footage that’s now down underneath the lower portion of the roof rafters. We are not increasing it, and this is, there are certain, living areas are generally considered above 36 inches to 42 inches. All we’re proposing to do is to let us, by making the modification to the roof, utilize the area that’s currently established in the footprint on the second floor, but below the 36 inch mark, and by making the roofline go perpendicular to the existing roofline, changing the walls, reconfiguring the inside, we’re able to utilize that space. With the exception of increasing the roofline to accommodate this proposed addition, we are not changing or altering the existing size of the structure. I know I have to deal with the floor area ratio, and I would just like to give you a little bit of background. I’m sure you’ve been over it numerous times by now. The essence of the floor area ratio, when it was developed, and I was a member of the Board at that time, was so that when people came in and purchased small pieces of property, we all of a sudden did not have 4,000 45 square foot homes on 45 feet of Lake George. What happened in those scenarios, and there’s one that I can use as an example over on Cleverdale, which was a 45 foot parcel of land. The people then built a three story home on that, which literally, I can’t use the word, fell over, on the adjoining property, but basically so narrowed up the property that the neighbors on either side of them were extremely constricted because of that. Because of that type of construction, the floor area ratio was developed. When you have a situation where you’re not going to impact the neighbors, the scenario that I presented to you over on Cleverdale had significant impact to neighbors both on the south side of the property as well as on the north side of the property. Even though we’re dealing with a small parcel of land right here, the floor area ratio, even though we exceed it right now, will have no significant effect on the properties, either to the rear or to the left or to the right of it. I think it’s something that I think you have to look at the essence of why the floor area ratio was developed, but then I think you have to also look, in certain scenarios, at why it is not applicable, and in this particular situation, where you are not offending a neighbor, you’re not blocking the view of a neighbor, then I think the floor area ratio does not come into play, and that’s what I’m asking you to do. I’m not only asking for the setback requirements, but I’m also asking you to approve the increase in the utilized square footage of this particular piece of property. In Staff notes, if you look at the Staff notes it said that there would be possibly a moderate effect on the neighborhood might be anticipated. I would present to this Board that, in my particular opinion, there’s no effect on the neighborhood, for this reason, not one tree will be cut down on that particular piece of property. There are adjoining pieces of property, I’m not sure if you all went up to the site over the course of the last couple of days, but as you go further on into Brayton Lane, you can see where there was a property approximately 300 feet where they literally cut down hundreds of trees. In this particular case, not one tree will be eliminated. Let me just continue on down here. The runoff, the square footage of the roof will be approximately the same square footage. It won’t be identical to what we have right now because we’re changing the roofline design, but the actual square footage of the roof will be increased nominally. The water runoff from that roof will have no effect on any of the adjoining properties. I don’t see how that could affect the neighborhood. The Queensbury Town Board has already increased the holding tank capacity. So we don’t have a sewage problem whereas we’re pumping sewage into leach fields. It’s all contained, will be removed. The Town Board at the time knew the proposal that is currently in front of you, and yet the unanimously approved for the increase in the capacity of the holding tanks. There will be no offensive outdoor lighting. Essentially, the way you see the property is how we’re proposing to maintain it. If you have any questions about it, I would certainly be more than happy to answer them at this point. MR. STONE-Let me just ask, so you’re saying even though the lot is substandard from permeable area, it’s not going to change? Right now it’s substandard in terms of the percent impermeable. MR. ROULIER-Right. That is absolutely correct. MR. STONE-By 45%, instead of the 65 it’s supposed to be. MR. ROULIER-Right. The permeability of the property will not be changed or altered. The only thing that is being altered is the roofline, which will be increased because of the 90 degree turn to the gable, but in terms of the overall volume of water, it would be identical. MR. STONE-Okay, but what I’m saying, you’re reducing, what would be the effect on the percent impermeable soil of land on the property? Is the roof going to be slightly bigger. MR. ROULIER-Zero. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s all I wanted. The other question, the holding tank, this is equipped with all bells and whistles, to shut the water off? 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/13/01) MR. ROULIER-It will be. The system that I have agreed to with the Town Board will have the celanoid valve on the incoming water line. It will have the appropriate floats and shutoffs within the holding tanks itself. So that if there is, for example, an overflow in one tank, the entire system is then shut down. Yes. MR. STONE-If anybody else has a question, go. MR. HIMES-Thank you. I wonder if you can go over where the construction is going to be and clarify, are these drawings that you submitted, are they the after or the before? MR. ROULIER-They are the proposed. MR. HIMES-The proposed. All right. You had said that the area, the upstairs, there’s one bedroom there now? MR. ROULIER-There’s a bedroom/loft area. That’s correct. MR. HIMES-A bedroom loft area, one use up there? MR. ROULIER-No. There is a separate bedroom up there right now, and over on the, which would be the east side of the house, there is a loft area. The loft area will continue the way it is. The bedroom area is the only portion of the house that I’m proposing the modification to. MR. HIMES-Okay. So you’re just adding to that, adding space to that bedroom? MR. ROULIER-That’s correct. MR. HIMES-There’s only one bedroom upstairs? MR. ROULIER-That’s correct. MR. HIMES-And are you going to do anything with the loft? MR. ROULIER-No. The loft will remain as it is. MR. STONE-And when you say “loft”, what do you mean? What is it used for? MR. ROULIER-It’s used, actually, Mr. Stone, you go up to the second floor, it’s a very, very shallow little area that goes out under this small, elliptical window right here. It has just steep sides. They have a couple of chairs there. That’s all it’s used for. It’s not a bedroom area. MR. STONE-Okay. I was made aware yesterday, at a meeting I was at, the definition of a bedroom, which I had not heard before. A bedroom is a room of a certain size, and they didn’t know what the size was, that has a window and a door. So this is, changed things to me a little bit, because, just because it isn’t used as a bedroom, a room can be considered a bedroom, if it meets those criteria, and I’m not sure what the size is, and it’s not that big, to be the area. MR. ROULIER-This is not a bedroom. As a matter of fact, the portion of the house that’s on the south side of the house, all right, is completely open to the roofline as it exists inside the house. It’s a completely open area, and this little loft area that we’re referring to right now has a small little balcony that’s adjacent to the stairs, all right, and, you know, I could come in front of you with a proposal and say, well, we want to take off the entire roof and do a total second floor. We’re not looking for that. We’re looking for what I consider is a reasonable request. The people feel as though they want to keep the aesthetics of the house. It’s a small little house. They realize that, but on the other hand, they don’t really want to do anymore to the house than they have to. MR. STONE-Let me just ask you a question, before somebody else does. Just address, if you will, you have, but specifically talk about, we have been, as a Board, particularly zealous about the Waterfront Residential zoning. Yes, we’ve granted some variances, but we’re limited in the ones that we grant, and yet in this particular case, and I know some of the arguments you can make, but I wish you would, the fact that this house is approximately 20 feet from the lake. It’s 10 feet closer to the side line than it should be, and it’s got a floor area ratio about 33% larger, and I’m using my way of statistics, 33% larger than it’s supposed to be. It’s supposed to be 22. It’s 30. That’s eight over twenty-two comes out to be about thirty-three percent. I mean, we can play statistics all day long, but would you comment on, here are three variances which are very large, visa vie, you have commented on the floor area ratio, but we have to live, as a Board, with somebody who comes in to us, and we talked earlier about precedents, well, you granted these guys 33% relief. Help us. Help me. MR. ROULIER-I would be happy to. First of all, we all agree that it’s a limited size lot. The house was built, according to the Staff notes, in 1988. At that time, this would be the scenario that I would have expected had 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/13/01) happened. The side line setbacks at that time were 10 feet. The side line setbacks have now been changed to 20 feet, depending on the size of the property, and the other thing that I think may have happened, I know this happened around that time, is that if you had left an existing wall of a house, for example, the Building Department did allow you to then build from that wall back. I thought about that question because of the proximity of it to the lake. At the time, the setback requirement, I think, would have been 75 feet. MR. STONE-It was, yes. MR. ROULIER-Okay, which would have put this house a lot further back on the road. MR. STONE-Would have put you on the road and then back in the swamp. MR. ROULIER-And then traveling some also. So the only reasonable conclusion that I can come to is that the Building Department allowed the builder at the time to build where the existing footprint was of the house, and I’ll tell you, I live down the road, you know that, and there used to be, prior to this house being built there, there was a small little yellow cabin with green shutters, I remember it well. I don’t know if you did. MR. STONE-I don’t remember it, no. MR. ROULIER-It was back some time ago. Because they had a faibone. They had a mahogany faibone, okay, and where this house was built, I would have to say, is almost in the identical location of where that little cottage was way back then, and that’s the only reason that I can give you regarding the setbacks. I think the lateral setbacks, because we do have 10 feet on one side, is only because it was an existing setback at that time. Maybe the other consideration for building it that close to the water was because there is an inordinately high water table. You’re seeing it at the low level right now. Okay, and there is no other alternative. When the little yellow cottage was there, I’ll tell you something, there were no holding tanks. MR. STONE-Let me ask you a question. You did assure the Town Board that this is a seasonal cottage? There’s no heat in there? MR. ROULIER-No. I had a lengthy conversation with Mr. Turner. He asked me all about this. I told him that there is heat in the house, that they do have holding tanks, and I said I was fully aware of what the new philosophy is within the Town of Queensbury regarding holding tanks. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ROULIER-But because the holding tanks, when this house was built in 1988, this was the only allowable system at that time. They went ahead and of course used it as a year round home. MR. STONE-Okay. I mean, it is a DOH requirement, State DOH that you can’t use holding tanks for year round homes. MR. ROULIER-That’s right, but I understand, but I think that, isn’t there a footnote on that that also says that, if there’s no feasible alternatives, and in this particular case, there would be no feasible alternatives. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, this stemmed, the Town was made aware when another residence on Assembly Point put in a large series of holding tanks, that shall be nameless. MR. ROULIER-We both know who that is. Yes, but I brought this up at the Town Board meeting that night. I have a hard time dealing with people that are argumentative against holding tanks. I, personally, think that they’re very good, only because it makes more sense to me, who works around the lake, seeing all of the sewage being taken right out, visa vie the overland pipe, you could call it, down to the sewage treatment plant, then making systems that ultimately put sewage back into the lake. You can design great systems, but the fact of the matter is that we’re all in a fish bowl, and sooner or later that sewage will seep into Lake George. MR. STONE-Every septic system is designed to fail eventually, unless you maintain it. Absolutely. I agree wit you on holding tanks, but that’s a totally other issue. MR. ROULIER-Can I just finish, while I’m on that, and I can’t understand, I think it’s the responsibility of the Town Board to override John Salvador, who goes down and fights them all the time, because we are dealing with a highly sensitive environmental area. You can take the State law and you can apply it 99% of the time, but if we have circumstances up around the lake where we have to take that one percent and say, look it, this is the State law. It’s not applicable. We want to take the sewage out of here. Let’s do it, and that’s all I’ll say. MR. STONE-Yes. Any further questions, gentlemen? Then I will open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor? Anybody opposed? Any correspondence? 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/13/01) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Two letters. One from, “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form December 12, 2001 Project Name: Halse, Colleen and Bruce Owner: Colleen and Bruce Halse ID Number: QBY-AV-97-2001 County Project#: Dec01-15 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to construct 204 sq. ft. second story addition. Applicant seeks relief from the requirements of the Waterfront Residential Zone as well as relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure. Site Location: 25 Brayton Lane, Assembly Point. Tax Map Number(s): not provided Local actions to date (if any): A public hearing has been scheduled for December 13, 2001. County Planning Board Recommendation: No Action Due to lack of a quorum of the Board, No Action was taken.” Signed Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 12/11/01. MR. STONE-They didn’t take action? MR. UNDERWOOD-They didn’t have a quorum. MR. STONE-Can we take action? MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. STONE-You’ve checked that out? I haven’t. MR. HAYES-No, we did before on one other application. MR. STONE-Did we? I don’t recall that we had that. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, it’s as if you didn’t deal with it. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-The second letter is from the LGA, the Lake George Association, dated December 13, 2001, “To the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals RE: AV 97-2001, Halse Dear Board Members: The Lake George Association, Inc. (LGA) has had the opportunity to review the application materials for the above-mentioned project. This letter outlines the LGA’s concerns about the project. Please consider these items when making your decision on this application: 1. The lot where the project is proposed is substandard under the Town of Queensbury’s current zoning. This lot is in the WR-1A zone and that zone requires a lot area of 1 acre. This lot is 0.10 acres. 2. The applicant does not meet the permeability requirements currently; the applicant has 46 percent permeability. Therefore, if the variance is granted please require stormwater controls to be installed and implemented to compensate for the deficiency in permeable surface on the lot. 3. To what extent is the applicant asking for relief from § 179-79? Specifically, the LGA is concerned about how much expansion has taken place since the first enlargement or rebuilding after the current Zoning Code. What was the original size of the structure at the commencement of the current Zoning Code? How much of a percentage increase in floor area will exist with the proposed addition? Thank you for consideration of our comments in the interest of the protection of the water quality of Lake George. Sincerely, Heather K. Shoudy Brechko Land Use Management Coordinator” MR. STONE-Anything else? MR. UNDERWOOD-No, that’s it. MR. STONE-Then I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Do you wish to respond to anything that you heard? MR. ROULIER-No. I would reserve that right after I hear the discussion of the Board. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions of Board members? Well, let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Roy. MR. URRICO-The way I understand it, you’re not moving any closer to the shoreline than currently exists. MR. ROULIER-That’s correct. MR. URRICO-And you’re not moving any closer to the side setback than currently exists. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/13/01) MR. ROULIER-That’s correct. MR. URRICO-I think, based on the criteria, I would be in favor of it. I don’t see much of a difference in the effect on the neighborhood, as well as the setbacks that are currently in place. I know the floor area ratio is a bit of a jump, but I think it’s a well designed plan and I think it fits in. MR. STONE-Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. It’s certainly, when you look at the figures and all the requirements, all the variances that are required, it seems just almost shocking, the size of the lot and so forth, that I think, as you explained the construction that’s going to be done in just enabling what’s being used now as a bedroom is simply going to be slightly expanded in a dimension that I guess is going to allow better closet space and things like that, at least that’s what I understood you to say. MR. ROULIER-Right. It’ll allow a better utilization of the area, in terms of square footage. MR. HIMES-Yes. So I, in spite of the fact that I didn’t think I’d ever find myself saying yes to something with so many variances required, I do feel I would support this application. Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Yes, I too, when I initially read the application, I said no way, you know, but we have to be reasonable in our judgments, and fair, and you have ensured us that the loft upstairs does not have a door or a window. MR. ROULIER-It has a window looking out over the lake. MR. ABBATE-Does it have a door? MR. ROULIER-No, no door. MR. ABBATE-So that’s open on the right hand side. Why isn’t a window depicted in here if there is a window over the lake? MR. ROULIER-It’s on the sheet right here. MR. ABBATE-Okay, but it’s not on this one. MR. ROULIER-That’s the addition area. I only depicted the area to the right, where your thumb is, which is the addition. MR. ABBATE-Okay. So the loft upstairs does have a window but no door. MR. ROULIER-That’s correct. MR. ABBATE-Okay. So it doesn’t meet the new specifications for bedrooms. I’m assuming that’s correct. MR. ROULIER-That’s absolutely correct. MR. ABBATE-And I think it’s a well designed plan, and you have gone to the Town Board, and I understand now you have 3,500 gallons of capacity on the septic. MR. ROULIER-Predicated upon this approval, yes. MR. ABBATE-Right, predicated upon this approval. A well designed plan, I don’t see any adverse effects. It is a summer residence. MR. ROULIER-No, it is a year round residence used principally in the summer. MR. STONE-That was the question I asked. MR. ABBATE-Wait a second now. This is a year round residence. MR. ROULIER-No, I want to clarify that. MR. ABBATE-Go ahead, please. MR. ROULIER-The residence is in Cohoes, but the structure is year round. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/13/01) MR. ABBATE-It’s a year round structure that can be used as a year round residence. MR. ROULIER-Yes. MR. STONE-Yes. Definitionally it is a year round home because it is heated, and that’s what the Town Board, in their judgment, that’s why I made sure, they raised this question, you say Mr. Turner raised this question. MR. ROULIER-I had the conversation with Mr. Turner prior to that, because he brought that up, and it was then brought up by the entire Board. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ROULIER-But because of the holding tank, go back to the time it was built, 1988, because I do believe that there is a notation saying that if you have extraordinary circumstances for sewage disposal, and this certainly comes under that because of such a high water table, I mean, it’s a swamp area right in the back, then holding tanks are permitted. MR. STONE-Okay. If somebody wants to sue the Town Board, they can sue the Town Board, for not following the law, but that’s their problem, the Board of Health. I shouldn’t say the Town Board. The Board of Health. Okay. Go ahead. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Anyway, based on the testimony today and the documents presented, I have no problems supporting the application. MR. ROULIER-Thank you. MR. STONE-Allan? MR. BRYANT-I agree with some of the things that were said relating to the setback. You’re not going to change the setback in any way, but I disagree with the whole floor area ratio calculation. I think the building is maxed out. As a Board, consistently, we have denied variances that exceed floor area ratio, and I don’t understand what makes this property any different. I think at this point we’ve got to say enough is enough. So from my standpoint, I don’t have any problem with the setback, but quite honestly, the building can’t be expanded. So I would be opposed to the application. MR. STONE-Okay. Jamie? MR. HAYES-I think, in this particular case, I think this is a very modest proposal. I don’t, I agree with the applicant’s agent that I don’t see any real neighborhood impact, looking to the left or right, behind it, as far as the lake views. I think there’s almost an ingenuitive approach to the roofline architecture here that’s allowing the applicant to grab some usable square footage that I don’t think is impacting the neighborhood in a negative sense. So the benefit to the applicant is understandable, grabbing that square footage, with no expense to the community, I think that that’s a benefit to the applicant. As far as the floor area ratio, I accept the applicant’s representation. That is my understanding of the intention behind that Ordinance is well. Obviously, there’s some consideration of permeability, but in essence, the rationale behind it, the adoption of that Ordinance was for the purchase of very small pieces of property and putting massive homes on it. This is not going to be a massive home. This is not a massive addition. It’s a very modest one in my opinion, and I think the difficulty is self-created, in that they want this additional square footage, but I think it’s also attributable to the size of the lot, this pre-existing legal lot, which we have to deal with these because they are legal. They are existing, and on balance, I think I have no problem with this application really. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would agree with Jamie, too. I think that, you know, the agent has presented it in a reasonable manner, so it basically dispels the fact that this is going to be some massive increase in floor area up on this building. I think that the current hobbit-like conditions in the upstairs are going to be improved by having a little more head room and some usable space up there, but at the same time, I think the fact that they’re going to increase the number of holding tanks, you know, shows that they have a real concern for the lake and what goes on there, and the inconvenience of having to pump those tanks outweighs the small increase in area here. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. ROULIER-Thank you. MR. STONE-One question, before I, just to help me. If we measure the floor area on the floor. Forget the 36 knee walls and all that stuff, is it changing? MR. ROULIER-If you were to take the square footage on the, if you were to measure, if you took the roof off and you measured that, the rafters to that floor, it would not change. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/13/01) MR. STONE-Okay. What you’re picking up is usable floor area. MR. ROULIER-Yes. MR. HAYES-Air space. MR. STONE-Air space. MR. ROULIER-Yes, that’s exactly it. We have little closets that go down like this, okay, and what we’re doing, by making the alteration to the roof by putting, by changing it 90 degrees to the gable, then we come up with our walls. We’re utilizing that exact footprint that’s already been established on the second floor. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, I ask that question because it helps me. I share Mr. Bryant’s concern, floor area ratio, if you look at just the number, 30% is a very large number, but what we’re really saying in this case, and it makes this thing palatable to me, is that you haven’t changed the square footage of the floor that’s down. You’ve just raised it so that it becomes usable, visa vie the definition of usable floor space, but we haven’t gone out. So, on that basis, and looking at all of the five points, I have to admit I came in here that the applicant was lucky to have what they have, and enjoy, but I think I can, on the basis of your explanation, I can vote for it, and having said that, I need a motion to approve. MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, before a motion is made, what I want to bring up is something that I just remembered, after speaking with Heather from the Lake George Association tonight on the following, she brought it to my attention she thought the applicant made a mistake, and because it concerns the relief that you’re granting, the floor area ratio, she made a comment that the applicant made a mistake with the lot area size. They claim 5100 square feet. It’s advertised as a tenth of an acre. It may not be significant, but for the record, because you’re granting this relief, that comes to a difference of 744 square feet, but for the record, the applicant didn’t bring anything up. I just looked at the tax map and roughly I figured that it’s got to be at least 5100 square feet, myself. MR. STONE-Does anybody have that number, because that’s important. MR. ROULIER-I want to just clarify one thing, all right, Mr. Stone? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. ROULIER-I had verified the numbers that I had used with the tax map, and I also went back and measured the property myself. So the number that I came up with, 5100, I would feel as though is a reasonably close, it’s a little difficult to come up with the exact number, because of the irregularity in the shoreline. It’s curved out, but it is, in my opinion, and I would testify to that, believe me, a very, very accurate number. MR. FRANK-I’m concurrent with you, but again, because Heather from the Lake George Association brought that up, she thought there was a mistake, and I don’t believe that’s a problem. MR. STONE-Okay. Is the 30 based on 51? MR. FRANK-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Okay. So we’re not changing the number, but it is based on the 51. MR. FRANK-That’s correct. Just in case she adds something afterwards, after this is approved, saying why wasn’t that brought up, for the record, I did bring it up. MR. STONE-Okay. Good. MR. HAYES-He’s the applicant, so it’s on him, I mean, to rely on his own amount of relief there. MR. ABBATE-Right, 5100 based on 30, is what we’re voting on. MR. FRANK-Her public record states that it’s a .1 acre lot, and so that’s what, for the record. MR. STONE-Good point. MR. ABBATE-Good point. MR. STONE-Thank you. All right. I need a motion to approve. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/13/01) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 97-2001 COLLEEN AND BRUCE HALSE, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 27 Brayton Lane, Assembly Point. The applicant proposes construction of a 204 square foot second story addition, including roofline changes. Specifically, the applicant requests 30.75 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum setback to shoreline requirement, 10 feet of relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement, and proposes a 30.2 floor area ratio, as well as relief for expansion of a nonconforming structure, per the WR-1A requirements of Section 179-16 and Section 179-79. Benefit to the applicant, the applicant will be permitted to construct this second story addition as they so desire to increase the square footage of the home and usable space in that second story. Feasible alternatives, I believe that feasible alternatives are limited in this particular case, based on the pre-existing size of the lot in question. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Certainly 30.75 feet of relief from the 50 foot required minimum shoreline setback is substantial. Additionally, the 8.2 feet of relief from the 22% allowable floor area ratio, I also would consider that moderate to substantial, but the 10 foot of dimensional relief on the side I believe, as the applicant’s agent has pointed out, was permissible at the time that this building was constructed. So I find that to be minimal in this particular case. There’s no neighbor that’s immediately tight to the property on that side anyway. So, altogether, I think the relief is certainly moderate, and should be noted such. I don’t believe there’ll be any negative impact on the neighborhood as a result of this addition. The sight line, behind the property or to the left or right, I don’t believe are effected really in any meaningful way, and is the difficulty self-created? It’s self-created in the sense that they have a desire to have this additional square footage, but I believe it is also attributable to the pre-existing nature of this lot and the size of the lot. So, on balance, I think the test falls in favor of the applicant. It’s my understanding, even though I guess we’re not going to have positive proof, but this building is pre-existing at this location, and we’re under the assumption that it was allowed, legally, to be constructed back in 1988 by the Town, and presumably by another Board, for a reason, and I guess we’re presuming that reason is that there was a home there at that site, that proximity to the lake then. So, I guess we’re making some presumptions here, but we have to give some deference to whatever Board permitted it in 1988. So I guess that would be why, in essence, we’re not going any closer to the lake with this proposed application, and the other Board members have pointed out that that makes it less troubling to them because we’re not encroaching on the lake anymore than was already legally allowed in a prior application. Duly adopted this 13 day of December, 2001, by the following vote: th MR. STONE-I think we have to be careful, when we say something is substantial, and we have gotten to the point of saying, okay, in spite of that, we ought to get that in the motion, and that’s for future reference. MR. HAYES-Sure. MR. STONE-I just want to be sure that we can’t be found wanting, if you will. AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Bryant ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty MR. STONE-There you go. MR. ROULIER-Thank you very much. Could I just take 30 more seconds? I would like to respond to Mr. Bryant. MR. STONE-You may. MR. ROULIER-Okay. Mr. Bryant. MR. BRYANT-Do I get a chance to respond? MR. STONE-Sure. MR ROULIER-I consider, and I live up at the lake, the floor area ratio, when we did that, was a significant undertaking and we hassled and wrestled with the numbers for months and months on that, okay. I explained to you earlier why it was developed, the essence of why it was developed, but I think fundamentally, you have to look at each case. I think, what the floor area ratio gives this Board is one more opportunity to take a look at the development that goes on around Lake George and put the breaks on and say, hey, look it, some of these places are too big. You’re ruining it for the neighborhood, and I think that’s what the floor area ratio does. Instead of getting all these humungous castles up there, lining the shoreline, it gives you the opportunity to review it and to say, no, this is not what I want. On an individual basis, though, and I’ll just refer back to this, it’s so small, and will have no effect on the neighborhood, that it shouldn’t be a major issue. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/13/01) MR. STONE-Okay. Allan, do you have a response? MR. BRYANT-Yes, I do have a response. I understand what you’re saying, and I agree with you 100%, but the reality is that at one point when they chopped that lot up and they made that a lot, it was never intended for that size house, for that type of uses. It was intended for a cottage, to use occasionally on the weekends, in the summer, and not for somebody to live in it, and now you’re coming back and saying, well, we want to build this house or we’ve already got this house, and we built it in 1988, and now we want to alter, we want to make it bigger, we want to make it nicer. Whether it effects the neighbors or not, we come to a point where we’ve got to say, we’ve already gone over it. You’ve already got your variance. We’re not going any further. MR. STONE-Okay. End of rebuttal. MR. ROULIER-Okay. Thank you very, very much. MR. BRYANT-Thank you. MR. STONE-And I apologize to my fellow Board member for putting him on the spot. MR. BRYANT-I don’t mind. MR. STONE-Okay. AREA VARIANCE NO. 99-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED PAUL CHAMBERS D/B/A THE FIREPLACE COMPANY PROPERTY OWNER: PSC LLC PROPERTY LOCATION: 845 STATE ROUTE 9 ZONE: PC-1A APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW, SEPARATE ACCESS DRIVE AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCESS DRIVES. CROSS REF. SPR 10-99 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 12/12/2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 72-6-27.2 NEW TAX MAP NO. 302.05-1- 90 LOT SIZE: 0.24 ACRES SECTION 179-23, 179-66 PAUL CHAMBERS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 99-2001, Paul Chambers d/b/a The Fireplace Company, Meeting Date: December 13, 2001 “Project Location: 845 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to eliminate a portion of a shared access drive, and construct a new access drive. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the requirements of the Off Street Parking and Loading Regulations, § 179- 66(B4). Specifically, the applicant seeks 108 feet of relief in order to construct a new curb cut 42 feet from the neighboring parcel’s existing curb cut (which will be reduced by approximately 11.5 feet back to the applicant’s north property line). Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to have a non-shared access drive from State Route 9. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include widening the existing shared access drive. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 108 feet of relief from the 150-foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate to substantial effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. Construction of a curb cut 42 feet from an existing curb cut on State Route 9 may present an adverse impact on the neighborhood or community. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SPR 10-99: resolved 4/20/99 SPR 10-99M: resolved 1/16/01 SPR 10-99M: to be reviewed December 20, 2001 Staff comments: Moderate to substantial impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Creating a new access drive 42 feet from the neighboring access drive on State Route 9 may warrant careful consideration. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan recommends access control for this section of State Route 9 due to the heavy volume of traffic. The new zoning ordinance includes an access management section establishing greater minimum separation distances for commercial drives. However, the applicant has stated his reason for eliminating his portion of the shared access drive and creating his own access drive is due to a conflict with his neighbor. Additionally, traffic generated by the applicant’s business may not be considered very substantial. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted” MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form December 12, 2001 Project Name: Chambers, Paul; The Fireplace Co. Owner: Paul Chambers, the Fireplace Co. ID Number: QBY-AV-99-2001 County Project #: Dec01-13 Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a new, separate access drive and seeks relief from the minimum separation distance requirements of the off-street parking and loading requirements. Site Locations: 845 State Route 9. Tax Map Number(s): 72-27-2 Local actions to date (if any): A public hearing has been scheduled for December 13, 2001. County Planning Board Recommendation: No Action due to lack of a quorum of the Board, No Action was taken.” Signed Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 12/11/01. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/13/01) MR. STONE-Go ahead, sir MR. CHAMBERS-Good evening. For the record, as I’ve heard the attorneys prior to me state, I’m Paul Chambers. I’m the owner of the Fireplace Company. I operate a hearth retail store at 845 State Route 9. if I may, a little bit of history on that parcel from what I could acquire. The Alpenhaus Motel, it was placed there, the home was moved from Lake George when they were building the Northway. The gentleman had the home moved there and then added the motel to it. He also built the side building which I currently own, and used it as a bakery. He was a pastry chef. They basically sold the property to, I believe, Mr. and Mrs. Bodenwiser, which then subdivided the property and sold the building I’m into to someone else and concurrently separated the properties. After that had happened, having two distinct pieces of property, they redid Route 9. In doing so, they deemed that, the large opening that’s to the southern end of the Alpenhaus property and my northern boundary, was deemed sufficient for both businesses. I purchased the piece of property from the previous owner, who was Charlie Wood, with the knowledge that I had a nine foot, from the end of the curb to the pin is nine feet. My understanding from the neighbors that it was always a shared entrance. Before I entered into the contract I spoke with Mr. Bodenwiser’s son, not a problem. Everything was hunky dory. Just don’t park a lot of people over on our side. They had a real estate agent in there who, on monthly meetings, would fill their parking lot. I agreed, we went on, and I now own the property. Since we opened up, we’ve had traffic going in and out, nowhere near what the real estate agent had. We have four, maybe five cars at the most in the parking lot at once. The way the parking lot is designed, they’re forced to stay on that side, the northern side of my building. Now, the blacktop is all one. Nobody knows the distinction between my property and his property. So at times customers do pull onto his side of the line. Repeatedly he’s come in my store, while the customers have been there discussing sales with me, and asked them to move their cars. It’s gotten to the point where now he plows all of his snow from his main building all the way down, and last year we have photographs of the pile of snow that was there was in excess of eight feet tall, right along the property line. Of course when that melts, it comes downhill, and I’m downhill. It comes across and fills my basement, puts water across my pavement which then obviously freezes. We’ve had people fall. I’ve tried to discuss it with him, tried to, I even offered to take the snow away, have somebody come in with a loader, whatever, and take it away. It’s my property, I’ll do as I see fit. It comes down to it where I don’t think I’m going to be able to have an understanding with him, as Mr. Abbate mentioned, it usually comes down to civil litigation, and I don’t want it to go that route. I’ve been in discussions with the Community Development about changing the site around, more than once. A couple of issues came up with cutting that blacktop. I was advised by a couple of construction companies that when I do cut it, I can’t just fill back up against it and create grass because it’s going to undermine what’s there now, and it’ll collapse and I’ll be in a legal bind with them again because it’s right to the property line. With all that being said, I went to New York State. I explained to them that I’m basically landlocked by something out of my control, which was the curb cut that they deemed necessary or sufficient for this property. They agreed, and there’s a letter in my packet, to this conceptual approval of this curb cut. I’ve tried to do everything that I can with 78 feet of road frontage to make it work for both of us, so I won’t infringe on his rights on his property, and allow my customers ingress and egress without having to be badgered by my neighbor. I’m also offering to put more green space into the whole project. I’d like to put green space all along across the north side of my building and around the back. My attempt is to put in a fenced area where I can display some of my products, gas barbecue grills, outdoor fireplaces, things of that nature, in a protected location where I don’t have to worry about them driving off. I am looking for what I would consider substantial relief. I understand that, 42 is tight. There is an empty lot next to it. What’s going to happen there is anybody’s guess. The nearest curb cut from where mine will be is Mr. B’s, which is in excess of 200 feet. Now I understand very well that some time Mr. Wood may develop the parcel between Mr. B’s and my property. At this point, he’s just happy collecting the rent on the billboards. At one time, the Planning Board asked me to plant more trees, and three of the trees they wanted were in front of his billboards. He made me sign an agreement that’s in the deed that I cannot plant anything that could potentially grow up and block the billboard on my side. So I’m limited to what I can do and what I can’t do, and in an attempt to, I guess, come to a meeting of the minds, this is as close as I can get. I guess I could entertain questions. I’ve got the currently approved unit and then what we’re proposing as the new one. MR. BRYANT-The size of the driveway that you share with the motel, or that other building, I’m trying to understand where your property line actually is. MR. CHAMBERS-My property line is the point of the curb to the north. My property line is nine feet north of that. MR. BRYANT-So nine feet in the middle of the driveway? MR. CHAMBERS-Correct, and it goes from that point to the rear of my property, and there’s a short section of fence that’s still left there. There’s still fence marks or poles that originally came all the way down, within probably 75 feet of the road, as a barrier, at one time, and then when Mr. Wood bought it, and was trying to lease it, I believe he made an arrangement to have that fence taken down. MR. STONE-So, if you were to get this new curb cut, you would put in barrier right to the middle of, not to the middle, but you know what I mean. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/13/01) MR. CHAMBERS-Yes. My proposal is to re-round that curve, to match the other side, continue that curve down the northern part of my property. MR. STONE-You would, you’d go down on the asphalt? MR. CHAMBERS-It’s the point where now I can put in a concrete wall, if you will, excuse me, eight, ten inches tall. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. CHAMBERS-All the way down. The biggest problem I’ve got is water. This whole property drains on me. Now I know it wasn’t a problem back when. It was all one piece. Now it comes down all the way from the motel office, right down along the front. MR. STONE-Have you gone to the Town? He’s responsible for the stormwater. MR. CHAMBERS-Yes. This has come up in a couple of different discussions, and what I’m trying to do is mediate with what I can do, and not try to request him to do something. I know that’s not going to happen. The caveat to this whole thing is this motel is being sold. It’s currently sold. There’s a contract on it, and it’s supposed to be closing before Christmas. The owner I have not met. Currently I am kind of in limbo. I don’t know what I’m going to have next door. I am trying to segment myself from that. MR. STONE-So you don’t know whether it’s going to stay as a motel. MR. CHAMBERS-I do not. MR. STONE-And whether or not this person would be more amenable to sharing a driveway? MR. CHAMBERS-That is correct. I have a substantial belief. MR. STONE-When do you think you’ll know? MR. CHAMBERS-Wanting to know and knowing are two different things. I honestly feel that I’m being denied by not having that curb cut. With that being said, the parcel is landlocked, and that’s the premise of my argument, is that the nine foot that the New York State DOT allowed me is not sufficient for my parcel. MR. STONE-But has he physically, or in any way stopped your customers from coming through that shared driveway onto your property? MR. CHAMBERS-No, he has not, not to my knowledge. MR. STONE-Okay. So his only action to date is saying if you park in front of one of my units, move it? MR. CHAMBERS-Move it, yes. MR. STONE-But he hasn’t said, don’t come across my property. MR. CHAMBERS-No, I don’t think he can. If legal matters got into it, it’s been used for more than seven years, I would be granted an easement by that, because it has not been interrupted. If push came to shove and I wanted to go to court over it, I probably would request New York State to take the property by eminent domain and then give us each shared uses from this point forward. If I did that, I’m sure it would have upset his contract for his sale, and then I would end up being in a legal battle over that. So I’ve kind of crossed as many bridges as I can, trying to mediate this, coming down to this curb cut. I realize that, and I didn’t mean to cut you off, but I realize that another curb cut on Route 9 is not what everybody’s looking for, but if the road is changed, as the different rumors have been flying out between Noble’s and Mr. B’s and everything that’s going on, I think, in the long run, my benefit would be to be self-sufficient. MR. STONE-Bruce, question, stormwater. I mean, I’m correct in assuming that each property owner is responsibility for his or her stormwater? Is that correct? MR. FRANK-That’s correct, to contain it on site. MR. STONE-What about a situation, as Mr. Chambers describes? MR. FRANK-Well, Craig and I actually went out to the site and took a good look at it. The road, State Route 9, slopes from west to east. No water from the road, on State Route 9, goes into the drainage basin on the west side of the road. The only water that goes in there is off of his neighbor’s property, if it does at all. Like he said, it slopes more towards the south, towards the Fireplace store. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/13/01) MR. STONE-Can he get relief from the Town? Can the Town do something? MR. FRANK-Technically, they’re supposed to contain their stormwater on their site, but where it’s going to is, well, Mr. Chambers would know better than me, either into that long catch basin that’s on the west side of State Route 9 or to his property. MR. CHAMBERS-It goes across my property. Not to cut you off, but it goes across the cement curb at the forefront of my property. It comes down, it goes across. It hits that curb it runs across my property and then down into the catch basin which is in front of the fire (lost words). MR. FRANK-Maybe closest to the road because it slopes toward the catch basin, but it does generally slope to the south. MR. STONE-If you put this curb in, would you divert that water out onto Route 9? MR. CHAMBERS-My plans are, with the curb, is to divert it into the catch basin that’s at the base of the driveway, okay, which is what it was designed for, I believe. The pitch of the road goes away from it, but his swale comes to there. All I want to do is put a dam, if you will, right along the property and let it go into that curb, or into that storm basin. MR. FRANK-The catch basin runs for the whole length of that curb cut. MR. HAYES-So it’s going to sheath down to there, and then. MR. CHAMBERS-I’m hoping, yes. MR. ABBATE-Yes, Mr. Chambers, have you, this is like an aside question. Have you requested enforcement from the Zoning Board? MR. CHAMBERS-I have not. MR. ABBATE-Is there a reason that you have not? MR. CHAMBERS-Legal more than anything. I’ve got another store in Lake George, which took us a great battle to become operational. Honestly, this particular project kind of got put on the back burner. I felt I could mediate it between negotiations with the family and myself. That’s not going to be possible. As far as asking for the Town to step in, I guess I don’t have a response to that. I honestly didn’t know that I could do that, for one. I understood that he was responsible for his own watershed, but I thought I had to enforce that myself, being a civil issue. MR. ABBATE-I’m certainly not telling you what to do, but you may want to consider requesting enforcement in support of your own position. That’s just merely a suggestion, that’s all. MR. CHAMBERS-Okay. Thank you. This is new to me. I know fireplaces. I don’t know applications and things. MR. STONE-Well, it’s relatively simple, as I stated it to Bruce. You are responsible, as you are, for the stormwater that you generate going into the empty lot, for example, or down to Mr. B’s. You would be as responsible for that as the motel is, and since they’re on a heck of a slant, that should have been built into something, actually. The thing that I’m intrigued by, and I’m not saying where we’re all going to come out, but I’m intrigued by the fact that there seems to be a window of opportunity. I mean, obviously you heard us tonight. Curb cuts seem to be something that we’re concerned about because we’re hearing a lot about them, and I see a window of opportunity with this new owner. Now I don’t have any idea when they’re going to close, obviously, neither do you. You’d like to hope that this guy, woman, whoever, may be someone, hey, I have no problem with this, and they look at the property, I mean, if they’re going to keep it as a motel or whatever they’re going to do. MR. CHAMBERS-If I may, he stopped in the store, with the son of the owner. MR. STONE-He’s already been poisoned? MR. CHAMBERS-I’m afraid so. I’m only taking that as an assumption. I also got a phone call from the son of the owner this evening. I expected him to be here. He discussed it with me and wanted to know when I was going to start, and to let me know that the blacktop down in the corner of the driveway that we share is quite brittle and was making me aware of the fact that I would be responsible if any heavy machinery damaged it, and I went, maybe you should go to the Board and present your case, because I’m going to be working from my side of the property. MR. STONE-Of course. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/13/01) MR. CHAMBERS-To my knowledge, he’s not with us. MR. STONE-I don’t think so. Okay. Any other questions of Mr. Chambers? MR. BRYANT-Basically, I do have one question. MR. STONE-Go ahead, sure. MR. BRYANT-So you’re going to cut, somewhere in the center of the driveway, the nine feet, you’re going to break up all that asphalt. You’re going to plant grass, and your new curb cut is going to be to the left of your building? MR. CHAMBERS-That’s correct. MR. BRYANT-How much driveway does it leave the owner of the other place? How big is that driveway? MR. CHAMBERS-It’s a 55 foot opening. MR. BRYANT-So he has plenty of room, then. MR. CHAMBERS-I would say so, yes. I mean, they’re requiring me to 24 feet, and he’s going to have 45, if I did my math right, 44. MR. BRYANT-Okay, so you’re going to build a curb. Are you going to have any kind of fencing there? MR. CHAMBERS-There will be fencing, and I don’t know if it showed up on the copies, but about a third down the side, the north side of my building, I’m planning on putting a stockade fence, and that’s where blacktop is currently. I’m going to grass that area. I’m going to put this fenced in area there, and it’s only going to be accessible through the store, and that will be like a back yard, if you will, where there’ll be barbecue grills and umbrellas and tables and chairs and things of that nature. MR. ABBATE-And you also mentioned you would re-round the curb to match the other side? MR. CHAMBERS-That’s what I’m planning. MR. ABBATE-If we had all these things in our stipulations you would have no problem with it? MR. CHAMBERS-No, I don’t. MR. ABBATE-The planting of the grass, the rounding of the curb. MR. CHAMBERS-The planting, I want the grass, I want the permeability. I know that we want to get rid of the sea of blacktop as I think somebody referred to it at one time. I think it will add not only to my building, but it’ll add to my selling structure, because I can use it for retail space, if you will, during the spring and the summer. So, I’ve been in limbo over the project, and the Community Development. They’ve been working with me on some way of getting it. I put the parking lot on the southern side. Come to find out if I took up the blacktop where I would be liable, so I didn’t do that. So they came and asked me what we were going to do. I don’t want to take up the new parking lot. So we’re doing the three balls in the air routine until I finally got a letter from New York State about their feelings on it. I think the key word to them was landlocked. MR. STONE-Do you have a copy of that letter with you? MR. CHAMBERS-Yes, I do. MR. STONE-I’d like to read it into the record, just to. MR. BRYANT-From a marketing perspective, if we read the letter, Mr. Chairman, you’re going to use this as a display area, but you’re going to have a fence there, and there’s another parking lot. Anybody driving on Route 9 is not going to know that that’s a display area. MR. CHAMBERS-I think from a marketing standpoint. MR. BRYANT-It’ll be for the people that are already going to come in, basically. MR. CHAMBERS-Yes, and for me to stop in and see our new back yard or something to that point. I don’t plan on using the fence for signage, if that’s the direction you were going, but I have a proposed sign in here also, that from getting involved in this, I understand I need another application for. I have no signage on my building. I’m kind of waiting, that’s going to be my next. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/13/01) MR. BRYANT-You’ve got a nice little trailer out there with a sign. MR. CHAMBERS-Not anymore. They asked me to move it. It was suggested that it was to be moved. MR. BRYANT-It was there today. MR. CHAMBERS-It was there because we were unloading product into the store. MR. FRANK-Who suggested that you move it? MR. CHAMBERS-Craig. He thought it was too close to the road, in our conversation on the phone. So I moved it. MR. FRANK-It wasn’t brought to my attention. MR. CHAMBERS-And I’m not trying to back a bus over anybody, but in our conversation, I said, he made me aware that I had an infringement. I had two signs for one sign permit. I took one sign down. The new store opened in Lake George. I took the other sign down. So it’s of my own recourse. I tried to letter the windows in the store, but I want a freestanding sign as do, similar to all the other ones on the corridor. I’d like a lighted sign of some sort that is in that grassy area that I’m planning on putting in. MR. FRANK-The signage on the trailer is not a violation, for the record. MR. BRYANT-Yes, I know. MR. STONE-It’s not? MR. FRANK-No. MR. BRYANT-But that’s how you know where the place is. MR. STONE-Okay. I’ll tell you what I’m going to do. I want to get this letter into the record, and I’ll put it in the public hearing. So let me open the public hearing, and make my normal request. Anybody wishing to speak in favor? Anybody opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHARLES MC NULTY MR. MC NULTY-I think I’d like to make a comment. MR. STONE-Please, come forward. MR. MC NULTY-I’m Chuck McNulty. I’m a resident of the Town of Queensbury. I’ve been quiet all night, so I’ve got to say something. Just a couple of points. When I visited the site, it struck me that the current drive is wider than it needs to be, going to the point of whether it’s going to be adequate or not. It strikes me that probably if that were going to be a new drive that we were permitting, it might be narrower than it currently is anyway. So I don’t see that as a problem. The other point that I really wanted to just make a comment on is the suggestion of the Town enforcement on the water runoff. It might work, but as a practical thing, Town enforcement of something like that can take years. I know there’s one in our neighborhood that’s been going on. It’s a different type of issue, but I think it’s been going on something like three years. It’s still in Town Court. The Town actually took it to court, and the court just isn’t acting on it. So this can be an ongoing thing that doesn’t solve anything for the gentleman, and I think, looking at the practical point of view, even if the new owners were willing to do something, I think you’re still looking at something like the curb the applicant is proposing as being probably the only practical way of handling the water runoff. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. MR. STONE-I’ll make a comment after that, but why don’t you read this letter in as part of the public record. MR. UNDERWOOD-This is from the State of New York Department of Transportation, 84 Holland Ave., Albany, NY, dated September 6, 2001. Mr. Paul Chambers, the Fireplace Company, 845 State Route 9, Queensbury, NY 12804, RE: The proposed driveway revision, Route 9, Town of Queensbury “Dear Mr. Chambers: We conceptually approve the revised driveway location as shown on the sketch submitted with 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/13/01) your July 26, 2001 letter. Enclosed is a copy of the Department’s standard layout for minor commercial entrances which should be used in the preparation of your final plan. Also enclosed are three copies of the highway work permit applications for your use. Your final plans and completed highway work permit applications should be submitted to Mr. Frank Komoroske of the Warren County Residency. If you have any questions on this, please call Mark Kennedy at 474-6377. Sincerely, William E. Logan, Regional Traffic Engineer” MR. STONE-Thank you. Anything else in the file? Let me close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-I have two comments I want to make. I want to ask you, the drawing you submitted with your letter to DOT is this drawing? MR. CHAMBERS-Yes, it is. MR. STONE-Okay. You’re stating that for the record? MR. CHAMBERS-Yes, I am. MR. STONE-Okay. The other thing that I would wonder about, and this is, again, from what Mr. McNulty was saying, it would seem to me that if the Town were to take some action now, you might have some leverage because of this sale. If the new owner knows that the Town is considering taking some action, it might give you leverage, but. MR. CHAMBERS-Leverage for me to use the curb cut currently, is that what you’re saying? MR. STONE-Yes. Well, no, to get the stormwater taken care of. MR. CHAMBERS-Okay. MR. STONE-Really, that’s the one I’m talking about. Because that troubles me, quite frankly, more than this additional curb cut. I think that’s, because I know the lay of that land, and it’s obvious that it’s going to sheet down right on your property. MR. CHAMBERS-It does, constantly. MR. STONE-And if you’re going to fix it at your expense, that’s nice, but you ought to fix it at his expense, I would think. MR. CHAMBERS-He could split the difference with me. MR. STONE-At least. MR. CHAMBERS-Going with leverage to use the curb cut that’s currently there and getting some kind of an agreement, what I’m finding is, customers, I think somebody previous to me said customers are a creature of habit. With the parking lot on the northern, or the southern end, they won’t cross in front of the building and go and park on that side. They’d park simply right there, and by me force feeding them to that side I think is another part of my rationale. MR. ABBATE-Let me be the devil’s advocate for just a second. MR. STONE-Go. MR. ABBATE-The Chairman’s point is well taken, except there’s a possibility that if you attempted to enforce the drainage, even though you have a legal right to, you may just very well aggravate the situation, and I think you probably would want to avoid that, with the new owner. Just a thought. MR. CHAMBERS-Well, or with the old owners, too. MR. ABBATE-And the old owners, too, with any owners, right, exactly. It’s getting late. MR. STONE-Okay. Anything else? Let’s start with Norm. MR. HIMES-Thank you. I’m sympathetic to everything that you’ve said, and yet here we are looking at the Town with making such a great effort to reduce these curb cuts. I’m in a quandary as to, you know, I recognize your problem, but I also see, well, we’ve got this, never minding the water runoff and so on, for us it’s just the curb cut thing, of saying you’ve got some difficulty with a neighbor, which seems to be the primary reason for requesting the variance, and so I feel, sadly, that I’m very sympathetic with your excellent 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/13/01) explanation of the fact, that this is not something that should be alleviated by an Area Variance on your property. Again, something, it would even be difficult, for example, but I might feel a little differently if the request was being made because of some serious business implication that you’re unable to operate or what not, or it’s severely impacted because of not having your own curb cut. Certainly this guy running over and telling people to move their cars and all is. MR. CHAMBERS-Is a detriment to business. MR. HIMES-Is embarrassing, and it impacts your business, but they’re parked on his property. So I have to, you know, as nasty as he might be, I have to respect that. So, technically, certainly emotionally I’d like to say yes, but unfortunately, I just don’t think that I can here. I’m groping thinking maybe there’s some other kind of a solution here. I don’t know, but I really think that in this case I’d have to come down as saying no, I can’t see how I can vote in favor of this, as a resolution to the type of problem that’s been presented to us. Thank you. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Yes, thank you. I’m going to take an opposite position. I hope that Mr. Himes still loves me in the morning. I view this as a unique set of circumstances. I believe that we should make every effort to support businesses such as you own, Mr. Chambers, who present a positive aspect of Queensbury. You have been acting in good faith. You have been willing to make some modifications, re-rounding the curb and putting in plants and what have you, and I sympathize with you. People are people, and there are going to be disagreements. There are going to be some folks you simply can’t rationalize with, and I don’t believe that we should give preference, and that’s what we’ve been doing, to folks who don’t wish to cooperate, for one reason or another, which would have a disadvantage to a successful business, and I think, under these unusual circumstances, I would be willing to concede that this application is unique, and I would be prepared to support the application. Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. Al? MR. BRYANT-Let me tell you the mindset that I came to this meeting with tonight, after visiting your site. We’ve got this little memo, and it doesn’t pertain to your site. It actually pertains to the Cumberland Farms issue that you heard, and they’re basically talking about access management, okay, and one of the things that they spell out are ways to reduce or techniques to reduce conflict areas, and two of them that I thought in my mind that directly apply to your situation, one is to regulate minimum spacing of driveways, and another is to consolidate access points for adjacent parcels, which is what you have. Then, of course, I sat here and I listened to you make your presentation, and you started to talk about the stormwater, and I have total empathy for you because the Town, in their infinite wisdom, put a storm drain in front of my neighbor’s driveway, but of course all the water runs down the street into my driveway before it gets to the storm drain and that storm drain always is empty and my driveway is always full. So I know exactly what you’re talking about when stormwater is directed onto your property, and the conflict, of course, with your neighbor. So I have total empathy for you, and, frankly, I came to the meeting with a mindset to vote against this application, and from what I’ve heard, I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Jamie? MR. HAYES-The curb cut, as Allan has importantly pointed out, that we’re under a direction from this Town staff to cut curb cuts, but where and when we can do that is an important aspect of improving traffic in the Town, but this, in my mind, this particular curb cut issue and lack of practicality therein, this little nine foot shoot, I mean, to think that customers aren’t going to back up out of this, your neighbor’s property or whatever, I think it kind of goes against human nature in general, because they can and they will. So, I think that the lack of practicality in this application, or with a curb cut situation was actually generated in an ill- advised subdivision, the way that that thing was divided off, you know, as a separate parcel, only granting nine feet, and the way the water sheets, and basically a layman could look at that property and determine that that’s how the result of, with all that pavement. I mean, you don’t have to be an engineer. I think your explanation thereof makes all the sense in the world to me. I mean, the State came in and did a nice job on Route 9. They re-curbed it, re-surfaced it. It actually looks like a nice road, and you took the time to write them and get their approval to slightly modify the work that they did, albeit creating another curb cut, but slightly modifying what they propose, and their engineer has given you approval to do that. To me, this is an applicant that has gone the extra mile to get the opinions, the approvals necessary. I think that there’s a chance for a resolution of a problem that exists from a stormwater application and from a neighbor application, which shouldn’t be a big part of our consideration, but in this case it seems like it is. I think that you’re also proposing to reduce what is a huge curb cut in your neighbor’s thing there, at least down to nine feet or whatever. So we also have on the table increased green space, a reduction in a long curb cut there, and unnecessarily long curb cut. I think, on balance, I think that this represents a unique circumstance, and that these were, at one time, one parcel. They’re now two, but the way they were subdivided lacks practicality and functionality, in the sense that creating a curb cut, we’re not creating a curb cut just to create a curb cut. We’re creating a curb cut that was probably going to be a necessity based on the subdivision that was 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/13/01) approved some time ago. So I think, on balance, I would be in favor of the application, and I don’t see any real negative impact on the neighborhood from that particular site. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I would be in favor, too. I think it’ll resolve your difficulties with your neighbor to a great degree, and also at the same time get rid of your drainage problem, and I don’t know if there’s time to do it before winter, before he piles up the snow. MR. CHAMBERS-He’s already done it, and it’s just recently washed away. It hasn’t been warm enough for an ice issue, but we went through a lot of ice melt last year. MR. UNDERWOOD-At the same time, too, I think that you have to look at the amount of traffic that’s going to be generated by your business and I think it’s not like it’s hundreds of cars pulling in and out of that newly created curb cut each day. It’s going to be minimal. MR. STONE-Mr. Chambers hopes so. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, well. MR. ABBATE-You don’t have 16 pumps there, do you? MR. CHAMBERS-No, I do not. There’s no self-service. MR. UNDERWOOD-So I would be in favor of it. MR. CHAMBERS-Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I think the reasoning behind trying to limit the number of curb cuts is because of conflicts that may exist on the road, and we all hope that you generate the kind of traffic that Mickey D’s and Pizza Hut and True Value do, but reality of the situation is probably not, and so that conflict is eliminated, and that, to me, is the main issue here. So I would be in favor of it, but I would also like to say that, from a community standpoint, again, the concept of shared driveways is a great idea. We’ve had three cases tonight where it’s been presented. In fact this one actually has a shared driveway, and they’re going to separate driveways in order to alleviate a bad situation, and Cumberland Farms and the Stewarts tank situation also came up, and I think the Town has to look into a way to put some bite into this concept, because, as it stands now, there’s always going to be an excuse not to have a shared driveway, and until they alleviate that situation or make it, put some incentives in there for people to share these driveways, it’s not going to happen. MR. STONE-Thank you. I, too, came in tonight like Mr. Bryant, with a thought that I couldn’t see any good reason, but then when you present all the particulars of the human intransigence that obviously your neighbor has, obviously it puts a new light on it. I also think that what we’re doing is trading a new curb cut, a smaller curb cut, which I’m not sure you said, 24 feet? MR. CHAMBERS-Twenty-four is the minimum that they require for two way traffic. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, we’ll probably stipulate that when we get there. With an over-wide cut, which certainly has the potential for, I would think, accidents. I mean, you’ve got people coming in from wide, coming in narrow, I mean, as you come into this thing. I think the other thing that makes me happier with this is that this is not Main Street. Main Street issue was the curb cuts, but it also had to do with the style that we’re trying to adopt on Main Street. We had Route 9. Yes, we want to make it better, but we don’t have quite the ambitious plans, as far as the Town is concerned, for Route 9. I think it’s a good compromise. First of all, the curb cut that is the motel is a kind of time limited curb cut. People don’t come in at noon, unless, they may if they’re coming back and forth, but a motel normally people come in at night, and they leave in the morning. So I don’t think you’re going to get a tremendous amount of traffic during the day. Hopefully you are going to get a lot of traffic during the day. I am troubled, as many of my Board members are, by the fact that you are so adversely impacted, both by your neighbor’s behavior, but more importantly by the stormwater which is coming on to your property and causing you physical damage. I guess part of me says I can’t wait to see this fence in place and this dam that you have, I might go out and look at it and watch what happens, when he does it, but having said that, I think it’s a reasonable project, and I think it, as was stated by a couple of people, it’s unique. MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/13/01) Duly adopted this 13 day of December, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 99-2001 PAUL CHAMBERS, THE FIREPLACE COMPANY, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 845 State Route 9. The applicant proposes to eliminate a portion of a shared access drive and construct a new access drive. Specifically, the applicant requests relief from the requirements of the Off-Street Parking and Loading regulations Section 179-66B(4). The applicant seeks 108 feet of relief in order to construct a new curb cut 42 feet from the neighboring parcel’s existing curb cut, which will be reduced by approximately 11.5 feet back from the applicant’s northern property line. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to have his own driveway, not sharing an access drive with his neighbor on State Route 9. Feasible alternatives, I believe feasible alternatives are limited, based on the fact that the property is landlocked, in this particular circumstance, and the unusual nature of the water sheathing, which is creating an additional problem for the applicant. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I believe that it is moderate to substantial, 108 feet of the requirement of 150 feet is certainly considerable. Effects on the neighborhood or community, I don’t believe that there will be significant impacts, negative impacts, on the neighborhood or community in this particular point. The applicant has promised and depicted in his drawings, which we will make a matter of record, that he will reconstruct the curb cut and his new curb cut, the existing curb cut and his new curb cut to be in aesthetic orientation and similarity with the existing curb cuts that are on Route 9, they will blend and match. Is the difficulty self-created? I don’t believe that it is. I think that this difficulty was created with a subdivision with a travel and access plan that lacked practicality in its application, and to some extent was doomed for, ultimately, a need for a separate access point. So, on balance of the factors, I think they fall in favor of the applicant and I would move for its approval. I would like to add that the approval is contingent on the applicant meeting the Town requirement of a 24 foot access point, and also that the result of his construction of the new curbs will be in compliance with the depiction and drawings that he has submitted to New York State and to the Town. Duly adopted this 13 day of December, 2001, by the following: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Himes ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty MR. STONE-There you go. MR. CHAMBERS-Thank you, gentlemen. MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 37