Loading...
2001-06-20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 20, 2001 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY PAUL HAYES CHARLES ABBATE ALLAN BRYANT NORMAN HIMES JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT ROBERT MC NALLY CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-2001 TYPE II JOAN AND MIKE DONNELLY PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. ZONE: 10 WATERS EDGE DRIVE, CLEVERDALE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN 884 SQ. FT. GARAGE AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS. ALSO, THE APPLICANT REQUIRES RELIEF FROM THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 6-1994 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 5/9/01 OLD TAX MAP NO. 16-1-13, NEW TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-30 LOT SIZE: 0.37 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-60, 179-67 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. STONE-Why don’t you read the tabling motion, and then read the new Staff Notes. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. MR. STONE-If Mr. Lapper wants to add more, he can certainly do that. MR. MC NULTY-All right. “Motion to Table Area Variance No. 31-2001 Joan and Mike Donnelly, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: 10 Waters Edge Drive. For 62 days, to allow the applicant to present modifications to their variance request. Duly adopted this 23 day of May, 2001, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 31-2001, Joan and Mike Donnelly, Meeting Date: June 20, 2001 “Project Location: 10 Waters Edge Drive, Cleverdale Description of Proposed Project: Applicant originally proposed construction of an 884 sf detached garage and sought setback relief as well as height relief. At the direction of this Board, the applicant has altered the size of the proposed garage and offered alternate locations as well. Relief Required: Each of the three alternatives submitted by the applicant requests relief from various combinations of the shoreline setback requirement, sideline setback, the 16 foot maximum height requirement and the 10 foot minimum separation distance requirement of § 179-67, Accessory Structures and Uses and the Shoreline and Wetland Regulations, § 179-60. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired garage in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) relocation to a more compliant location. 3. Is the relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The cumulative requests for relief may be interpreted as moderate to significant, relative to the ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Neighborhood opposition has been noted. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? A portion of the difficulty may be attributed to location of the exiting house as it appears as though any addition to the house or construction close to the house would require relief. However, there appears to be area available for more compliant construction. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 107-1993 withdrawn by applicant, similar request, more relief AV 6-1994 res. 2/16/94 same as current proposal BP 94- 036 issued 3/25/94 several renewals, current stop work order Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. There still appears to be area available for more compliant construction. Previous approval granted 45 feet of relief from the then 75 foot shoreline setback requirement. The 20 foot height referenced in these notes was scaled from the applicant’s drawings. The application references a 17 foot tall proposed structure. Staff considers the proposed construction to be a detached garage as there is no interior connection between the house and garage. The attached staff sketch depicts a 24 x 24 garage at 50 feet from the shore and 20 feet from the property line….requiring no relief. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Was there County on this one? Did they go back to the County? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. BROWN-They did not go back to the County. MR. STONE-I didn’t think so. MR. LAPPER-I would like to just quickly recap for the sake of Mr. Bryant who was not here at the last meeting, and any members of the public who weren’t here. The Donnelly’s received an Area Variance to construct the garage in 1994. Their home is very close to the lake. It preceded zoning. Then they established last time that they have very little storage, which makes it difficult, and for a year round home, not having a garage is certainly a detriment on the lake. They were granted their variance by the Zoning Board in 1994. They renewed it subsequently, they got a building permit. They never built because Mr. Donnelly was, unfortunately, diagnosed with cancer, but he recovered, and when they went to construct this year, the neighbors challenged it on the basis that the Town Code says that the building inspector can only renew a building permit for two years. While that is, in fact, what the Town Code says, the policy of the building inspector has been, not specifically with respect to this application, they were not singled out, but in general the building inspector had been renewing building permits for many residents of the Town, just that he wasn’t aware of that provision in the Code. They sued the Town to get an injunction, and the judge would not rule on it because the Donnelly’s were not named in that action, which we took a little bit, we were a little bit taken aback, just because they weren’t named. So we didn’t know about it initially, but regardless, that was a good result, that the judge said that he wasn’t going to rule on their request, until we were joined, and instead of making this a matter before the court, we decided, alternatively, to come before this Board and re-request the variance that was granted in 1994. We were here at the last meeting. The neighbors were here at the last meeting, and the Board made it clear that the application that we had submitted asked for more relief than the Board was willing to grant, but we also said that it wasn’t necessary to grant that much relief, and that we would be submitting a new application with a smaller garage, and that’s what we’ve done. What I submitted was three different alternatives, based upon what I heard the Board members talk about last time, and keeping in mind that the neighbors who are complaining, who are the neighbors to the south, have four garages on their property, and this property has no garages, and their buildings are built immediately, or a foot from the property line, the neighbor’s that is, and their issues involve views, the views, the view of the lake across the Donnelly’s property, even though the neighbors have a lovely view across their own property. So with that in mind, it’s rather small, but what’s on the map, and you have larger versions, but the red box is what was approved previously, the garage immediately adjacent to the corner of the house. The next alternative is to set that back eight feet, which makes it closer to the lake and increases that request, which the Chairman certainly voiced that that was not something he could support, but the reason why we proposed that was that if the issue with the neighbors was the view, that would merge the garage and the house together, and that would reduce the impact on their view, and we wanted that as an alternative for the Board to consider. The next alternative is to put that, put it on the other side of the house, sort of cattycorner to the house, so that it would still be accessible with their drive area. This would be more than 50 feet from the lake, but it would only be 13 feet from the side yard setback on the other side. That is an option which is available. The site is limited because they have a raised mound septic system in the center, which is located to reduce impacts on the lake, as far from the lake as possible, and it’s unlikely that they could get permission to change the location of the septic system. So we’re keeping that as something that is a given, in trying to design or suggest alternatives, leaving that alone. The last location that we’ve proposed is close to the property line of the neighbors, that it’s more than 50 feet from the lake, and it’s very similar to what Craig Brown suggested. I didn’t mention that we reduced the request from 28 by 34 to 26 by 28. So although the agenda says 884 square feet, we’re actually now proposing 728 square 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) feet. The location that Craig has presented in his Staff Notes is very similar to what we have along that southern neighbor’s property line. The difference is that because of the mound system, it’s still going to be very important, if that’s the location that this Board chose to grant, to have vehicular access to the home for shopping, for furniture, you know, if you put the garage in a location that it prevents access to the home, it’s really impractical, and so where Craig proposed it, it’s too close to the mound system. So there wouldn’t be room to drive around it, and instead we’ve moved it close to the property line. So instead of giving a variance from the lake, for this location, you’d be giving a variance on the side setback, but that is probably justifiable, based upon the fact that the neighbors have a whole slew of buildings, I think the house and two garages, or a garage and a storage building, that are virtually at the property line, and those are our three alternatives. Mike did bring the map to the neighbor and discussed it with him over the weekend, and the neighbor had no comment. I don’t know if they’re here tonight. He said that he would get back to Mike, and as of now, we haven’t heard what their preferred alternative is, but in any case, that’s a decision for this Board, and the Donnelly’s are here to answer any questions. MR. STONE-You had me confused, Mr. Lapper. You had two on one sheet. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-I looked at but I didn’t see it. MR. LAPPER-That was intentional to confuse you. MR. STONE-I think you did a very good job. So you’re willing, the applicant is willing to come down to 728 feet, and you don’t like the totally compliant one because there’s no way around it, is what you’re saying? MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BRYANT-I’m confused. The application that was approved in 1994 was for how many square feet? MR. HAYES-This one right here was the one that was approved. MR. STONE-884 square feet. MR. ABBATE-884 I think it was, wasn’t it? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. BRYANT-And now you’re going down to 728? MR. LAPPER-Correct. MR. STONE-In an effort to address our concerns, therefore to reduce the closeness to the lake, primarily MR. ABBATE-Now, your 728 square foot, what would be the distance to the lake? MR. LAPPER-Which location? MR. ABBATE-Well, the furthest location. Which map site is that? Close to the property line is it? I just need a figure on that, please. Do you happen to have that, Craig, instead of me putting him through all that? MR. STONE-What are you asking? MR. ABBATE-I was just wondering what. MR. STONE-From the lake? MR. ABBATE-From the lake, yes. MR. BRYANT-It’s 20 feet. MR. ABBATE-Twenty feet, is it? 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) MR. STONE-No, not from the lake. You’re talking about the furthest back one? MR. ABBATE-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s got to be 80 feet. MR. STONE-Craig? MR. BROWN-From the shoreline setback? MR. STONE-From the shoreline setback, yes. MR. LAPPER-Seventy-five feet. MR. ABBATE-Okay, 75 feet. Thank you very much. MR. BRYANT-And that garage, the furthest garage, the alternate proposition, that’s about 75 feet from the house, right? MR. LAPPER-No, it’s 75 feet from the lake, so it’s. MR. BRYANT-It’s about 50 feet to the house? MR. LAPPER-It’s 45 feet to the end of the house, because that’s the variance that was, I’m sorry, it’s 35 to the end of the house. So it’s about 35, 40 feet from the house. MR. STONE-And how close to the property line? MR. LAPPER-What we are proposing is three feet, because that just maintains the room for the car to drive around in. MR. HAYES-How far is the other people’s place from the property line? MR. LAPPER-About a foot, two feet. The house next door is right on the property line. MR. STONE-Are the trees on the property line? MR. LAPPER-There’s a fence on the property line. MR. STONE-Fence or trees? MIKE DONNELLY MR. DONNELLY-Trees. MR. STONE-Trees. I thought it was trees. MR. LAPPER-It’s the building itself that’s right on the property line, not a fence, excuse me. Yes, there are some trees. MR. STONE-The trees are on the applicant’s property? I could ask you if you’d come to the table, so we can hear you. State your name, just for the record. MR. LAPPER-Which trees, which are you referring to? MR. STONE-The trees. Who owns the trees? JOAN DONNELLY MRS. DONNELLY-I’m Joan Donnelly, and there is a row of arborvitae that are right on our property line. There are some tall pine trees, I think there’s three of them, three or four of them, and I think they are on our property. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-If you see at the top of that map, the trees are right along the property line on the Donnelly’s property. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) MR. STONE-Those are the trees, but the arborvitae are right on the line? Okay. So they would be easily maintained by you, if we were to consider that alternative. Any other questions? MR. BRYANT-In the original proposition, that entryway goes into the existing house? MR. LAPPER-The original proposition, it did not. It was just basically immediately adjacent to it, but not attached, and that’s the red drawing. MR. BRYANT-And now this new proposition, the downsized garage is attached? MR. HAYES-That’s one alternative. MR. LAPPER-One alternative, it’s attached. MR. HAYES-This was the original plan, just corner to corner there. MR. STONE-Point to point, corner to corner. It would be an outside wall. MRS. DONNELLY-And then there’s another one that overlaps the house, also. MR. STONE-Right, and the one overlaps, which is closer to the lake, but would have direct access from the garage into the house without going outside? MR. LAPPER-That’s right. MR. ABBATE-What is your, the relief that you’re requesting, the one that is 75 foot? MR. LAPPER-The side setback would then need relief instead of lake setback. MR. ABBATE-The side setback? MR. LAPPER-Yes. From the 20 foot side setback requirement, we would request 17 feet of relief, but that would be the only. MR. ABBATE-From 20 to 17. MR. LAPPER-From 20 to 3. MR. HAYES-Right, and there would be no separation relief there. That’s far enough away from that. Is that 10 foot? MR. BROWN-Ten foot’s the minimum, from another structure. MR. MC NULTY-And there’s no height relief on that? MR. LAPPER-There was some confusion about how it was scaled, but we did not, I think what happened last time was that the Zoning Board had asked for the height to be, they granted that height variance because they wanted it to be more dramatic looking with the steeper roof line, and what we said last time was that if this Board wants it to comply, they’ll build a less steep roof line. MR. STONE-You’re saying the ’94 Zoning Board? MR. LAPPER-Yes. Rather than last week’s Zoning Board, or last month’s. MRS. DONNELLY-They wanted the garage to match the house. MR. STONE-What is the width of this lot, Craig? Is it at where you want the setback that we determined the width? Because obviously this lot goes from a point of zero width to a. MRS. DONNELLY-Our frontage is 150 feet. MR. STONE-On the front, on the lake. So it’s going from 100 to 150, from zero to 150, literally. MR. BROWN-Yes, typically we’ll measure it at the point of construction or the point of development. MR. STONE-Okay, and that’s going to be more than 60 feet. I want to make sure the 20 feet is the number we’re seeking relief from, because it is graduated. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. LAPPER-It’s important to keep in mind that, unlike many lake variances, that they’re not asking for Floor Area Ratio relief. So they’re certainly not building too much for the lot under the Town Code. It’s just an unusually shaped lot. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, if I could, with the further proposal, as you call it, three feet from the line, I would just caution you. If you get too far away from the original proposal, I don’t know if that’s keeping with the intent of the original application. You may just want to have it a new application and re-advertise for this three feet of relief. Side setback relief wasn’t requested the first time around. Now with this modification, or the spirit of compromise I think may be getting a little far from the original application, if you’re considering the three foot side setback. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-I would respond to that by saying that this is an alternative that the Board would be doing. We originally applied for one thing, and if the Board is saying, instead of granting what was requested, we want to do something else, that I don’t think it would have to get re-advertised, but I understand what Craig’s saying. MR. STONE-Well, I could argue with that, in the sense that side setback, when you’re getting up very close to a property line, I would think that the public might want to know that, because everybody can’t come to this meeting, obviously, since they didn’t think we were necessarily going to, since it wasn’t advertised as seeking. I hear what he’s saying. We can discuss that if we get there. MR. LAPPER-I guess the only issue for the Donnelly’s is that they have a hole in the ground. Because they started the project, so they would like to remedy that. MR. STONE-I understand. MR. LAPPER-But, obviously, if the Board feels that it should be re-advertised, we’re not going to object. MR. ABBATE-Let me ask this. The 728 square foot is firm. Correct? Because you gave us three proposals. I’m just trying to narrow it down. MR. LAPPER-And that’s the same on every one. MR. ABBATE-Now let’s get to the relief required. What is your specific proposal for one of these three that you would prefer? MR. LAPPER-Well, we don’t really, we’re not proposing one that’s preferred. We’re saying that the Board, we’re proposing alternatives. MR. ABBATE-I’m not sure that’s a good idea. I think the proposal should come from you, not us. MR. HAYES-We kind of asked him to show us something different than last time. MR. ABBATE-Well, yes, this is true, but certainly of the three, you have a preference. MR. LAPPER-I think the Donnelly’s would prefer the one attached to the house because it’s convenient to have the entranceway into the garage, but we also don’t expect that’s the one that certainly the Chairman is in favor of. MR. HAYES-I have one question. Are you going to speak, I mean the immediate neighbor. Are you going to speak tonight? Because before we even decide what proposal, we ought to. MR. ABBATE-Good idea. MR. STONE-No, we’ll get there. MR. HAYES-Because obviously they’re the most immediately impacted. MR. STONE-We’ll get there. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. HIMES-A question for Craig, Staff, if I can, recognizing the alternatives presented, there were some comments made about the proposal that was included in the Staff Notes not being appropriate 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) for the septic or the driveway and all. I just wanted, is that reasonable? Do you think that there is room to drive around it? MR. BROWN-The reason I chose this is, Number One, it meets the shoreline setback. Number Two, it met the side line setback, and if you look at the little triangle that encroaches on the driveway, it’s about the same little triangle that encroaches on the driveway from the original proposal. I think a widening of a couple of feet of the driveway may or may not be suitable. I don’t know how accurately the septic system’s on here. Certainly if Mr. Lapper or the applicant has field measurements that they want to offer, that may shed some light on it, but it seemed to be consistent with their original proposal, as far as how much driveway was to be effected. MR. HIMES-It’s slightly smaller I guess, but I mean if that weren’t a factor, then that could be built with no variance. MR. BROWN-This 24 by 24 proposal could be built with no variance. MR. HIMES-I just wanted to clarify that. MR. LAPPER-I’d like to respond to that. I know that Craig meant well by proposing it that way, but his role is to come up with something that doesn’t require a variance, and we’re saying that there is a burden on the applicant, in terms of the Area Variance standards, the detriment to the applicant, because of driving around that mound system, and this is not a topographic map. It doesn’t show, but that is a very steep embankment because of building that as a mound system. So it really, it’s not something that you could just cut into, because that’s where the effluent is, and we’re not trying to back it up to the neighbor’s property for any reason, other than to say, hey, it seems to be what you guys said last time, and it allows them to drive around, and certainly we would agree to the location that, you know, if it’s three feet that we have scaled on there and it turns out to be four feet or five feet, as long as the car can drive around it, you can plow it in the winter to get to the house, you know, that’s all. MR. STONE-But it is also possible to take Staff’s recommendation and encroach on the side setback a little bit, to pull it to the south, not as much as you’re talking in your proposal. I mean, right now it’s 20 feet from the property line, which is, it could be 15. It could be five feet, for example. MR. LAPPER-Let me just explain. We tried to move it as far away from the lake as possible, because the driveway is on a diagonal. So if we moved it closer to where it was, there’s plenty of room. If we move it closer to the lake, there’s plenty of room to drive around in. I picked that location because it was as close to the road as possible, and that’s where you have the conflict with the driveway. MR. STONE-No, I’m suggesting, though, that if you moved or even expanded to the south, into the 20 foot setback, I mean, looking for like let’s say five feet of relief, just throw a number out, rather than 17 feet of relief, and that would either expand the garage and leave this thing as Staff has made, or pull the whole thing down to the south, as an alternative. It’s another alternative. That’s all. MR. HAYES-Just picking that square up and move it. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. LAPPER-That’s acceptable, but you understand, also, that that would, it would move it back a little closer to the lake than where we drew it. MR. STONE-No. MR. LAPPER-It would still be beyond 50 feet, but in order to make that driveway, in order to be able to use the driveway, and plow the driveway, it would be farther, it would be closer to the lake than where it’s presented there, but still beyond, it wouldn’t need a variance. It would still be beyond 50 feet. Let me show you. MR. STONE-Fifty feet is all that we have to maintain. MR. HAYES-He’s got it at 50 feet. MR. LAPPER-We’re at about 75 feet here, but here’s where we’ve got the conflict with the driveway and the mound system. So if we were to move it closer to the lake, we’ll have more room to drive around it. If you want us to move it off the property line, we’ve got to also move it a little closer to the lake. MR. HAYES-Jon, he’s talking about taking this and kicking it up that five feet. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) MR. STONE-That’s Craig’s idea. MR. BROWN-You’ve got two different sized structures. They’re talking about a 26 by. MR. STONE-I understand with the smaller structure. MR. HAYES-So then you’re not going to be impeding the driveway here. Say the square comes up to here, the driveway’s going to be there. MR. LAPPER-Yes, and we’re looking for 26 feet across the front, which is only two feet more. MR. HAYES-Which is, right, like seven feet of relief then. MR. STONE-Yes. I mean, that’s a possibility. MR. LAPPER-I think that there is room for further compromise, but I think that it also. MR. STONE-That’s what we’re saying, I think there is. MR. LAPPER-But it’s probably not going to be 15 feet from the property line. It’s probably going to be more like 10 feet from the property line. MR. STONE-Okay. We haven’t heard from the neighbor, but I mean 10 is better than three, if that’s what we’re talking about. Any other questions? Let’s listen to the public, because we know the neighbor wants to make a presentation. So I will open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the application, in one of its myriad forms at the moment. Anybody wishing to speak in favor? Anybody opposed? Please come forward. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN TRISHA END MRS. END-Hi. I’m Trisha End. MR. STONE-Let me just ask you, before you start. Have you seen all these proposals? MRS. END-I wanted to clarify that. I was not here this weekend, but Mike did come over to the house and talk to my husband who was there for the weekend, and my husband did come back with alternatives for them, did not put it in writing. We did not feel it was our place to put anything in writing, but they did have a conversation. So I wanted to clarify that. MR. STONE-But you have seen the alternatives? MRS. END-Mike came over with one alternative, and that was the one to move it eight feet closer. He didn’t give us any other ideas. My husband gave him two ideas, and that was, Number One, to move it back like you had suggested originally, and move it right to the lot line by the arborvitae. Excuse me for being so nervous. This is a terrible strain on our relationship with our neighbors, and I’m having a problem with it, too, like they are. The way our house goes, I’m not sure what the footage is, but we are right on the lot line, and that’s the way it was built, and I don’t want to either be penalized for having bought the property with all the garages on it that we have. That’s the way the property came. So we didn’t add any of the storage space like he’s referring to. If you go back to the end of where our house is, which I’m not sure what the footage is from the lakefront, we would be happy to let them build right on the lot line there, and build whatever, the 24 by 24 foot. I don’t know what would fit. I haven’t walked over there to measure it. That would be fine. If they come closer to the lot line, and closer to the lake, then it’s going to be hugging the windows of the house. We are opposed to the new alternative of putting it closer to the lake. That’s simply 20 feet from the lakefront, and I don’t think that’s right. I think that makes the lot more nonconforming. Their house is a beautiful house on the water. We do not want to deny the Donnelly’s a garage. That was never the intent. It’s just that we plan on being in this house for 50 years, and our kids years after that, and to have a structure 26 by 28, that close to the lake frontage, I think takes away the aesthetic value, also our view. We’re honest about that, too. As far as their problem with moving the house back, and along the lot line, not being able to drive around it, I can understand that issue. It is nice to be able to have an attached garage, but I feel if you have a nonconforming lot, I think you have to deal with it a little bit more and deal with the neighbors. It really has never been an open discussion. We’ve called a few times, a couple of weeks ago, and never got anywhere, and Mike came over this weekend, and that was the discussion he had with my husband. So there were alternatives offered. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) MR. STONE-So, I heard you say that if they were to build it back far enough, and I don’t want to put words in your mouth, you wouldn’t object if it were very close to the line? MRS. END-Right. They could put it right on the line. MR. STONE-If we would agree, that you wouldn’t have a problem. Okay, and the question I want to ask, does anybody have, on any of these surveys, where the End’s house is? I mean, I would really like that. I mean, it’s not on any of the surveys that we have in front of us. A least an approximation of where it is. MR. HAYES-Maybe she could spot the corner of her house by those trees. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. HAYES-I mean, do you know where the corner of your house is, Mrs. End? MRS. END-To the arborvitae trees? MR. STONE-No, the big trees. MR. HAYES-There’s three pines they have listed there. MRS. END-That’s about halfway down our house. So you have to go whatever the distance is again. I don’t have that in front of me. MR. HAYES-So your house is closer to the lake than those trees? MRS. END-All right. Where’s the Donnelly’s house? MR. HAYES-That’s their house there. That’s the proposed garage. MRS. END-Okay, and here are the three trees? MR. HAYES-Yes. MRS. END-Yes. Our house goes back to. MR. HAYES-I guess we’re more concerned about where is the front of your house, as far as. MRS. END-It’s like over here. MR. HAYES-That’s the front? MRS. END-Somewhere in there. MR. HAYES-This is the front? MRS. END-Right. We call it the back, but I guess you refer to it as the front. MR. STONE-We do have it on the GIS that you gave us. So, Jaime, we do have it here on the GIS map. MR. BRYANT-Can I ask you a question? MRS. END-Sure. MR. BRYANT-In 1994, when they applied for this variance, were you in your house? MRS. END-The variance was applied for when the house was under contract. Jean Cohen owned the house, and when the house was under contract it was applied for. We never saw any of the details at that time. The Donnelly’s bought it. We knew that they had the rights to build a garage. We never discussed it. We became very good friends, and seven years later they started to build, and we just had assumed that the garage had probably died out because no permit would be extended for that long. So we had never brought up the issue with them. MR. BRYANT-Thank you. MRS. END-The other alternative that they had suggested, which was on the other side of the house, we’re not opposed to either, if they want to move it to the other side of the house there and build it. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) They said it would be 50 feet away from the lake. I didn’t measure that, but that’s fine also, and that way they could still drive down their driveway and access the garage. I don’t know if you heard me, Mr. Stone. I just said the second alternative that they had, which was to put it over on the other lot line, which was 50 feet away, they could still access their house, or they could still access it by car on the current driveway and use that. We’re not opposed to that either. That would be our second. MR. STONE-You’re talking about the one that’s kitty-corner? MRS. END-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-One of the issues you raised, I think last time, though, was where they were proposing to build it would block some of your view. Looking at the map, it strikes me that if they put it kitty-corner, it’s still going to block the same view. MRS. END-It will, but it’ll be like 70 feet away from us. We won’t be, when we’re sitting on our patio looking at the lake, it won’t be a 28 foot wall right next to us. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. MR. STONE-Okay. We thank you for your comments. Any other questions for Mrs. End? Okay. Anybody else wishing to speak against or for? Any further correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No further correspondence. MR. STONE-Okay. Then I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE- Do you wish to respond Mr. Lapper? MR. LAPPER-Yes. After listening to the neighbor, and to avoid the issue about getting around the driveway, the Donnelly’s would propose now to take what the Chairman characterized as the kitty- corner location on the other side of the house, because it just doesn’t create access problems. It’s 13 feet from the other neighbor’s property line, and the other neighbor doesn’t have the house right there, at that location. The house is not right against the property line. MR. STONE-Okay, but the only problem we’re getting into with that is that we do have a neighbor setback, and we have not advertised it, and the more we listen, I listen, I think Mr. Brown is correct in saying, and I know you guys want to get rid of this hole and build this thing, but if we’re going to be within the setback requirement for the neighbor, then they have a right to know that we’re doing this, I think. MR. LAPPER-There’s no time to advertise for your next meeting, I presume that’s next week? MR. STONE-No. MR. BROWN-No. I think the advertising goes in today for next week. MR. STONE-Yes, so it would have to be July. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Well, it’s nice to hear that we’re sort of coming to a consensus on what’s the minimum variance. MR. STONE-I definitely think we’re coming to a consensus, but you’re asking, this kitty-corner one is 13 feet from the line. That’s seven feet of relief, and the neighbor, even though I understand this neighbor has been in favor of a garage on the property, at least from what I gather through scuttlebutt. MR. LAPPER-I think we submitted a letter last time. MR. STONE-You did. Yes, you did, but I think they need to know, and I think the public needs to know. So I would propose that we table it again, or we don’t have to table it again, since we’ve still got 62 days. We just have to table it to re-advertise. MR. MC NULTY-Could we accomplish the same thing by just contacting the other neighbor or the other couple of neighbors in the area, or do we really need to re-advertise? 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) MR. BROWN-The reason I’m looking confused, one of the reasons, it’s a significant change from the original proposal, and I don’t know, I’d have to think about, is it something that may be re- referable to the County? It’s a new location. It’s not requiring shoreline relief, but now it’s requiring side line setback relief. It’s a different request. The course may be to deny this one and a file a new application. I don’t know. That’s just my 10 seconds. MR. LAPPER-The County approved it, or said No County Impact, in its original location, which was closer to the lake than what we’re now proposing. They usually wouldn’t get into side setback as a County issue. MR. BRYANT-I’d like to hear what the Board members have to say, because it may not be necessary to go through this. MR. ABBATE-May I say something? MR. STONE-Sure. MR. ABBATE-Help me out, Counsel, please. This was previously approved. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Then what is the purpose of coming back to us if it was previously approved? MR. LAPPER-Because the building permit was issued expired before they started to do the work. MR. ABBATE-Expired? Okay. MR. LAPPER-Yes. We think that we could challenge that, but we don’t want to challenge that. We don’t want to be in court. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. MR. STONE-Let’s, if you want to talk about it, let’s talk about it. MR. LAPPER-It didn’t expire. It was, the Building Inspector kept renewing it, but there’s a challenge as to whether it was, he had the right to continue to renew it. That’s what happened. MR. ABBATE-See, because my feeling was once it was approved initially, it seems to me that we’re expending an awful lot of energy and what have you going through this. MR. LAPPER-Certainly that’s what the Donnelly’s thought, but, you know, here we are. MR. ABBATE-Well, what does Staff think? MR. BROWN-I think it’s a good idea to get the variance again. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. BROWN-You have to act on a variance within a year. They did that. The building permit expired, and that’s why we’re here. MR. LAPPER-I think that’s a very diplomatic way for Craig, and I appreciate it. MR. STONE-Well, let me ask you a question, Mr. Lapper. We’re going to discuss it, but I don’t want to discuss every option. I’d like you to give me a preferred option, and then we can decide where we stand on it, and whether or not we really need to re-advertise. MR. LAPPER-The option, on the north side, the kitty-corner location which we heard the neighbor say was acceptable to them. MR. STONE-Well, we have another neighbor, but that’s okay. So we’re talking. MR. HAYES-I have one question for Craig. On the original application, there was relief from the lake, which was dimensional relief. I mean, if we advertise for dimensional relief, is that sufficient notice to somebody that there’s dimensional relief sought, constructively? MR. BROWN-It may be, but a lot of times that I’ve seen, you’ve got lakefront property, very sensitive issues, I mean, anytime you have a lakefront property. If a neighbor came in, we’ll say the neighbor to the north in this application, came in, saw the garage constructed on the south side of 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) the house, said, it doesn’t effect me, didn’t make a comment. Apparently there’s a letter some place, but now if we’ve got another proposal with the garage on the north side of the property, near their property line, they may have a different feeling, and I’m not familiar with the letter that was submitted. They may not, may be comfortable with it and they may not have any opposition. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but primarily, though, the original application was for 800 and something square feet, and now the applicant came back and downsized it by 150 square feet. I mean, that’s the proposal we should be talking about. Is that correct? MR. STONE-Well, that’s what I asked. That’s what we’re talking about. MR. ABBATE-The 728 square feet, yes. MR. STONE-The 728 on the diagonal, 13 feet from the north property line. That’s what the applicant has asked us to consider. MR. BRYANT-In lieu of the proposed garage attached to the house? Is that what you’re saying? MR. HAYES-Touching the house, not attached. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. STONE-Touching. There’s a difference. I mean, it was just, it was this way. MR. HAYES-And it required the 10 foot setback, which they got last time, too. MR. STONE-Let’s start down at the end. Let’s talk about the kitty-corner one that is how many feet from the house? MR. BROWN-I scaled it to be four feet from the house. MR. STONE-So it’s four feet. So that would be some relief we’d still have to grant, too. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. So we’ve got four feet of relief from the 10 feet separation. MR. LAPPER-Six feet of relief. MR. STONE-I’m sorry, six feet of relief. Excuse me. Six feet of relief, thank you, and seven feet relief from the side setback, and it’s 50 feet, no? It’s still within. MR. LAPPER-It’s more than 50 feet from the lake. The lake changes. MR. BROWN-And are we looking for any height relief? MR. HAYES-They said, no. MR. LAPPER-No height relief. MR. STONE-Well, the height relief, you still want. MR. LAPPER-No height relief. MR. STONE-No height relief. MRS. END-What is the size of the garage, though? MR. LAPPER-26 by 28. MR. STONE-26 by 28. That’s considerably smaller. MR. HAYES-Than what was already approved. MR. ABBATE-Right. MR. STONE-It’s taking over 100 square feet off of it. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) MR. UNDERWOOD-My only problem with it would be the neighbors on the other side, you know, whether they would consider that to be a dramatic change, and I think that that, you know, it has to underscore our decision tonight, because maybe we can do a thing where we approve both that one and the one that was way back, or some facsimile of that, because then, given the fact that, you know, if the neighbor to the north there does decide that he doesn’t have a problem with it, they would be allowed to build in their first alternative that they’d prefer, but at the same time, I don’t know if we should really be comfortable with that, you know, not having any comment from that neighbor. MR. STONE-Well, I’m not. I think we’d have to re-advertise. So you think we should re-advertise, then? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think at the least, if we do it, we should consider the one that was way back, the 75 foot setback one over on the original side, at the same time. Maybe we can approve both, and it’s an either or. MR. STONE-Well, we can advertise both, but they both require side setbacks. Norman? MR. HIMES-Thank you. Yes, am I right in the understanding that the so called kitty-corner one is still going to require relief from the 10 foot separation? MR. STONE-Right. MR. HIMES-I thought so. In any event, I am more sympathetic with the position being furthest from the lake, and up close to the neighbors to the south line. That one I feel pretty good about, in connection with compromises, so to speak. The other one here is a little busier. It requires two reliefs rather than one. So, that’s my feeling. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. My feeling is that Mr. and Mrs. Donnelly certainly deserve relief. They certainly deserve to have a garage. I will support, with no problem at all, the 50 feet from the lake, the six foot relief, and the seven foot relief side setback. They certainly have acted in a, in good faith. We’re putting these folks through an awful lot, and it’s my position that we should act as rapidly as we can to approve this. Thank you. MR. STONE-So you have no problem with the re-advertising? MR. ABBATE-None whatsoever. MR. STONE-Okay. Allan? MR. BRYANT-I agree somewhat with what Chuck just said. The Donnelly’s have already applied, in 1994. They were approved. This Board, in the last two years that I’ve been on the Board, has heard a number of cases where the variance has lapsed for one reason or another, and generally, because it was approved, it passes again the second time. The problem is that there are members on the Board that will save the lake at any cost, okay, and I agree with that philosophy. However, in this case, I believe that the Donnelly’s have already been granted a variance, and that they’ve come back with an alternate proposal to downsize the size of the garage, by 150 square feet and that that original proposal that’s been downsized should have been approved because the variance already really existed, and we shouldn’t get into the discussion with two or three or four different alternatives, and moving the garage and paving this, and paving that, it’s already been approved, and I don’t think that we’re in place to unravel everything that’s come before, and this is not a brand new case. A similar Board heard this six years ago. So it should be done with, and my view is if the Donnelly’s want to build a garage that’s almost attached to the house, it’s already been approved, in my view, I would approve it. If they want to build the garage on the other side, a downsized garage, I would approve that too, but I think that we should put this to rest tonight, one way or another. MR. STONE-Okay. Jamie? MR. HAYES-Well, I essentially agree with Allan, and in this particular case, as discussed before, I think that this was approved, the garage was approved before, and it was approved at 884 square feet, and the test, you know, I’m assuming that the test at that time was run through sufficiently by a Board charged with that test, and that what has changed here is not the aspects of the test, but the neighbor. That’s changed the viewpoint, in that light, certainly compromise and the effect on the neighborhood has to be considered and compromises determined and made when possible, but I don’t think it’s fair, as has already been discussed, to expect the Donnelly’s to have to wander too much from that idea. The fact that they even have a hole in the ground on top of this, and the fact that we’re expecting them to go month after month and not have resolution of this, I have a problem 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) with that. I think it’s overly harsh. On the other side, we still want to make a decision that lasts and is holding, and we have Staff here to tell us that if we need to advertise dimensional relief to have this be a just finding, if you will, then I support that, because I still want to have a decision that is supportable and makes sense in the end, and Craig has got a lot of training in this, and if he says we need to re-advertise, then I think we need to re-advertise. So, as far as the garage itself, I’m okay with basically any one of the three proposals, myself, largely because of the historical precedent here of trying to honor what the other Boards have done, but I guess from the Chairman perspective, or from Staff perspective, if there’s a determination that we need to advertise, re-advertise to have a just finding, I will definitely support that because. MR. STONE-Before I get to Chuck, I’ve heard at least two of you, apparently express a willingness to support the smaller garage, but to but at the corner. I mean, that’s what I think you said, Allan, didn’t you? MR. BRYANT-That’s exactly what I said. MR. STONE-And, Jamie, I don’t know if you. MR. HAYES-I think that if they’re willing to downsize the garage to that perspective, I would support it. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Let’s see, several thoughts. I hear what some of the members are saying about previous Board’s approving the proposal. However, on the other hand, it strikes me that that original approval was not last year or the year before. It was several years ago, and I think our perspective on what effects the lake has changed over the last several years. We can see the increasing pressure of development on the lake, and for that reason, I’ve got no qualms about disagreeing with what the previous Board approved, and I think I would have a problem with the proposal where it’s next to the corner of their house, partly because it does effect the neighbors and they’ve objected. I could probably support either of the detached locations, either the one up tight to the boundary line, next to the Ends, or the one that is diagonal on the other side of the lot. I will agree with Staff. I think that either of those two are significantly enough different from what originally was proposed that probably we either need to re-advertise or at least make sure that we notify all the neighbors, and I suspect the way the Ordinance is written, it probably means re- advertising, to comply to make sure that the decision we make would match and comply, but some lots probably are just not suitable for a garage period, and it’s too bad, and this might be one of those, but on the other hand, I think balancing the benefit to the applicant, we have to consider as much as we can to find a way of letting them have a garage, and I could support either the diagonal one or the one next to the lot line, providing we re-advertise. MR. STONE-I think Mr. McNulty has basically expressed where I’m coming from. I could not support the original proposal downsized, and I do applaud and appreciate the applicant’s willingness to consider a couple of alternatives, and I think there are two viable alternatives, but I do feel, from both a personal standpoint and from a Chairman standpoint, that they’re different, that we do have to re-advertise, because we are asking for considerable setback, side setback relief, whether it’s seven feet or seventeen feet, it’s a fair amount, and therefore what I would propose that we do, we have to deny it. We’ve got to table, I’m only thinking to get a new application. Can we table it for a new application and for re-advertising? MR. BROWN-Yes. I’m not sure you need a new application. I think just re-advertising would be fine. MR. ABBATE-I’d be comfortable with tabling. I would be totally against denial. MR. STONE-I really didn’t mean to deny. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-My letter said, here’s our proposal and it’s changed. So I think that the original application plus the letter covers it. MR. STONE-Okay. I have no problem with that at all. So, do I hear agreement to table? I’ll move to table it. Let’s see where we stand. MR. LAPPER-Could we ask if you do table it that it be on the first meeting in July? MR. STONE-Absolutely. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-2001 JOAN AND MIKE DONNELLY, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: So that the applicants can prepare an amended application to reflect the need for side setback relief, dimensional relief, and that this application be re-advertised, neighbors re-notified or notified of the changes, and that this appear on the first meeting in July. This motion is referring to the plan showing either the kitty corner one or the one furthest back from the lake, three feet from the line, both at 728 square feet, and no height relief necessary. Duly adopted this 20 day of June, 2001, by the following vote: th MR. BROWN-Not to ask what your vote or decision would be next time, but do you have a preference on which one? MR. HAYES-That’s a good question. MR. STONE-A good point. MR. BROWN-The end one or the diagonal one, so that we don’t have to go through this again with them. Let them pick the one. MR. ABBATE-I’ve got a proposal on that one, if you would agree. I would like to submit this to the Board. I would certainly be favorable to the 50 feet from the lake, the six foot relief and the seven foot relief side setback. MR. HAYES-Why don’t we just take a quick poll on the kitty-corner or the one up next to the property line. MR. STONE-The point is I don’t think necessarily we have an either or, as far as the Board is concerned. I didn’t hear either or, as we went through the list. MR. MC NULTY-It strikes me, to help the applicant, if we can consider both those, or re-advertise them both, because we might find the other neighbor who originally said he had no problem with it is going to come back and say I do have a problem. MR. HAYES-I guess if you advertise dimensional relief, they’re going to be notified, on notice. MR. STONE-Yes, and I would ask the applicant that you write the two proposals and we can take them up again. MR. LAPPER-The only question I had is I didn’t see the newspaper advertisement, but in the advertisement for tonight it just says seeks relief from setback and height requirements. so I’m wondering if it’s going to be any different when it’s advertised, if it doesn’t say lake setback versus side setback, just in terms of the notice. MR. BROWN-I think the notice would probably be very similar to the notice that was previously published, but what we’d have for our files would be new maps that would be available to anybody who would get this new notification. They’d be able to come in and look at the new proposals. MR. LAPPER-Okay. I understand. MR. STONE-They’ll be on notice that, in fact, there is a change proposed. Does anybody have any objection to suggesting either one of them? MR. ABBATE-Not at all. MR. UNDERWOOD-No. I would think you could streamline the process by showing that map to your neighbor. MR. LAPPER-They’re very, very close friends, and it’s not going to be a problem. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, and I would think that if there was no objection, then your first choice would be the kitty-corner plan, given the fact that if there were opposition, then you’d have to go back to the property line, and just keep it that way. MR. STONE-As I say, you put them in order, the two applications. I mean, I gather we’re all in agreement that the kitty-corner one or the one furthest back from the lake, three feet from the line. MR. ABBATE-It sounds fine. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) MR. STONE-Both at 728 square feet, and no height relief necessary. MR. LAPPER-Right. AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNally MR. STONE-I’m truly sorry we have to put you off for a month, but I think the setback thing is something that people deserve to see. MR. LAPPER-We’ll get it done next time. Thank you all very much. MR. ABBATE-At least you go away with a sense of relief. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-Yes. I believe you’ll get a garage. I think that’s where we’re coming to. AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2001 TYPE II KATHARINE SEELYE PROPERTY OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-3A, CEA, AP A LOCATION: 14 CROOKED TREE DRIVE, DUNHAM’S BAY, LG APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 276 SQ. FT. DECK. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 5/9/01, 6/13/01 OLD TAX MAP NO. 3-1-12/NEW TAX MAP NO. 239.15-1-10 LOT SIZE: 0.36 PER SURVEY MAP SECTION 179-16, 179- 79, 179-60 KATHARINE SEELYE, PRESENT MR. MC NULTY-The same thing here, we want to read the tabling motion? MR. STONE-The tabling motion and we’ve got a new County thing. MR. MC NULTY-Yes, we’ve got a new County. Okay. “Motion to Table Area Variance No. 29- 2001 Katharine Seelye, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: 14 Crooked Tree Drive. Due to a no action vote regarding the deck. The applicant will go back to the County to determine how they would vote on the deck only, so that we would need how many votes we’d need for approval. Duly adopted this 16 day of May, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No 29-2001, Katharine Seelye, Meeting Date: June 20, 2001 “Project Location: 14 Crooked Tree Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant originally proposed construction of a 276 sf deck and a 128 sf addition. At the direction of this Board, the applicant has removed the 128 sf addition from consideration and resubmitted the application for a Warren County referral. Relief Required: Applicant requests 47 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired deck in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include construction of the deck in a more compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 47 feet of relief from the 75 foot requirement may be interpreted as substantial, relative to the Ordinance. 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? A portion of the difficulty may be attributed to the existing location of the structure, however, there appears to be area available for more compliant construction. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Building Permit 89-780 issued 10/3/89 foundation repair/replacement Building Permit 93-623 issued 10/15/93 dock Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed construction appears to be a modest request, however there appears to be an area available for more compliant construction. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-And we do have a new “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form June 13, 2001 Project Name: Seelye, Katharine Owner: Katharine Seelye ID 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) Number: QBY-AV-29A-2001 County Project#: June01-33 Current Zoning: WR-3A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes a 276 sq. ft. deck. Relief is requested for shoreline setback requirements. Site Location: 14 Crooked Tree Lane, Dunham’s Bay, Lake George. Tax Map Number(s): 3-1-12 Staff Notes: The Board reviewed this project at its May 2001 meeting and recommended denial without prejudice due to lack of information about the age, capacity, and maintenance history of the septic system. The applicant’s representative, Dan Wallace, indicated the location of the septic system as being underneath the northeastern corner of the building, approximately 35 feet from the lakeshore, but was unable to provide information on its age, capacity, or maintenance history. A subsequent conversation between the applicant and staff of the Warren County Planning Department revealed that the septic system is likely at least 80 years old. Staff urged Ms. Seelye to have the septic system inspected. It does not appear that the applicant has addressed the issue of the septic system, but is resubmitting the project eliminating the proposed addition to the house and proposing only the 276 sq. ft. deck. Regardless, the applicant proposes to expand the use and footprint of an existing nonconforming structure that significantly encroaches upon the required lakeshore setback and is likely to have a failed septic system 35’ or less from the lake. Further, the site plan included with the first application (no updated site plan was submitted) does not measure the setback of either the existing structure or the deck from the lakeshore. Finally, the resolution of the Town Planning Board to table the application reveals that the parcel also does not meet acreage requirements of the zoning ordinance. The zoning requires a 3 acre lot; this lot is 0.36 acres. Staff has concerns about the water quality and aesthetic impacts of expanding the use and footprint of a structure that is already well out of compliance with the zoning ordinance. Staff recommends discussion. County Planning Board Recommendation: Deny due to concern about expanding the footprint and use of an existing non-conforming structure with a septic system believed to be inadequate.” Signed, Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 6/15/01. MR. STONE-Before we hear from the applicant, Craig, can you comment on the County decision? MR. BROWN-I wasn’t present at the meeting, but the Town Code requires anytime in a Waterfront Residential zone you upgrade or expand the floor area of the house, interior living space of the house, you have to address the septic system. Decks don’t count. Exterior, uncovered deck is not an expansion of living space, and does not trigger septic compliance. So that applicant’s deck only application doesn’t require septic compliance. MR. ABBATE-That answered the question. Okay. Thanks. We were discussing that. We weren’t sure. MR. STONE-Okay. Ms. Seelye, introduce yourself, and anything you want to add, subtract or multiple. MS. SEELYE-I just want, I’m Kit Seelye. I wanted to say that, as you know, I bought a house next door to this house, this house has been in my family for years, and it was very close, I was thinking this during the previous discussion, you could reach out and touch this house from my house, and once I bought it, what I wanted a quiet, shaded area that wouldn’t interfere with anybody, wouldn’t be a problem, and so I took that house down, that house it was a full sized house, four bedrooms. It was very close to the lake. They had a deck in front of the house that was maybe 10 feet from the lake. I took that down so that I could have a quiet, empty, woodsy area, and I feel that this deck proposal is extremely modest. It will be invisible from every side. You won’t be able to see it from the lake. You won’t see it from either neighbor side, and you won’t be able to see it from the back. Your sense that there might be a more compliant location, if you’ve actually been to the site, you would see that there’s no other side that the deck could go on, and to address the concerns that you raised when I was here last month, I’ve agreed that the deck would just be flush with the front of the house, possibly shaved off the corners, if that helped, have agreed to never cover the deck. It’s an open, very simple, modest amount of space that I think will just provide a nice, quiet area that isn’t visible from all sides, and I’ve agreed not to, have no intention of cutting the trees or the foliage in front of, between the lake and where the deck would go. So, my feeling is that this is extremely modest, and that’s basically it. MR. STONE-Any questions of Ms. Seelye? You said the deck will be no closer to the lake than the house is currently? MS. SEELYE-Than the house. MR. STONE-However, whether you have to take part of the corner off, you’ve agreed to that? MS. SEELYE-Right. MR. STONE-So, obviously it would be 28 feet from the lake at its closest, since I’m looking at 47 feet of relief. Twenty-seven from forty-five is twenty-eight, I think. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) MR. HAYES-Have you investigated the septic system at all? Obviously, it’s kind of tripping things up. MS. SEELYE-Yes. MR. HAYES-And the result? MS. SEELYE-If Dave Hatin were here, he could tell you, I’ve met with him at the house. I’ve talked with a number of people. It’s an extremely difficult property to deal with, and I know you’ve seen it, but it’s small, it’s steep, and I am, I have talked to three or four different septic people, and am hoping that there might be a way it, with this new, kind of microbial system, that’s being experimented with elsewhere in the State, that maybe that will be a solution, but I’m in the process of trying to figure out how I can get a much better system in there. Because of questions about the septic system, I dropped plans that would have triggered, as I understand, the Code would have triggered upgrading the system now. So the deck, as I understand it, has absolutely nothing to do with the septic system, according to your Code. MR. ABBATE-Am I correct on that? MR. HAYES-As far as the Code, but we’ve dealt with arguments in the past that have to do with increasing the amount of area that people can use in a place still effects the amount of use that happens at this camp, which effects the septic system or the character of the neighborhood. We just went through a huge Docksider. MR. ABBATE-But at this point, Craig, am I correct, that we don’t address the septic system, in view of the fact t hat we’re speaking strictly of a deck? Is this correct? MR. BROWN-The Ordinance does not require a septic system to be upgraded for only a deck. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I just wanted to make sure that was clear. MR. STONE-I mean, I know that Ms. Seelye has talked to at least a couple of people about so called advance treatment systems. Unfortunately, even though they would work on this property, probably, and give pure water coming out than a standard soil system, the Town Code, at this point in time, does not allow any relief, in terms of distances, whether it’s from wells or from property lines or so on, and this is something that I personally have been involved in, outside of this Board, and it’s something that is hopefully going to come, because there are systems that would lend itself, but she could go to the Town Board, to the Board of Health. I’m sorry, I don’t want to, looking for a septic variance, if a modern system, a more modern system were proposed. MR. BROWN-Sure. MR. STONE-I mean, they could grant relief from the setback. We cannot do it. It’s not in our purview, and as you said, Chuck, it’s not on the table. MR. ABBATE-Right. MR. STONE-Any other questions? All right. I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of permitting construction of a 276 square foot deck? Anybody opposed? Opposed? Is there any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions? MR. BRYANT-Just one question. I just want to clarify, the deck, when you cut off the corner of the deck, it’s still 28 feet from the shore? MS. SEELYE-No. I think it’s a little bit farther because the shoreline actually protrudes. MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I think we determined last time that the deck just extended parallel to the front of the house. It actually goes further away from the lake, it extends out because of the way the shoreline bends. So she doesn’t need to cut anything off the deck to keep the 28 foot. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) MR. STONE-Nothing on the new construction would be closer to the lake than the closest point of the house now. Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I feel positively about the application. I did last time, as long as it didn’t approach the lake anymore than the front of the house. It’s a modest proposal, close to the ground, and would provide some tranquility from, you do have a deck on the other side of the house, or a porch of some kind, but it’s quite close to your neighbors there. So I can understand your wanting to have two, and I don’t think this has a serious impact to any of our normal criteria. So I tend to support the application. Thank you. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Yes. I feel somewhat like Norm. I think this is a modest request. My position is that you’ve certainly worked in the spirit of cooperation from the original application, and I think we, as Board members, have to be fair and realistic, and I think this is, as I stated, a modest application, and I would have no problem supporting this. MR. STONE-Allan? MR. BRYANT-I agree with what’s been said before, and I’d be in favor of the proposal. MR. STONE-Jamie? MR. HAYES-I have the same difficulties that I had before, and I certainly respect the applicant for trying to compromise, but, you know, we’ve had discussions about lake properties. This is .36 acres. I just think that the camp or the house is already extremely close to the lake. Some structures benefit from grandfathering to the point where they should not be expanded on. I look at this application, it’s still going to be relatively 28 feet from the lake. We’re expanding into a Critical Environmental Area, with a house that is already in a Critical Environmental Area substantially, has a questioned septic system. If this was another application, you know, historically, any time we’ve talked about expanding nonconforming structures dramatically into the Critical Environmental Area, particularly when the septic system might be in question, we’ve denied them rapidly, you know, quickly. I just don’t understand, I could be missing it, but I don’t understand what the difference is here, particularly when the relief is huge. It’s 60 or 70% relief into the Critical Environmental Area. So I guess, you know, my reservations are the same as they were before. In this particular case. I don’t know why moving closer to the lake, when you’re already close to the lake, and you already have a screened in patio, is something that we should be encouraging people to do, or setting a precedent that we think it’s a good idea. That’s it. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I can understand some of the concerns that have been expressed, and I can understand the County’s concern about expanding a nonconforming use, but I’m inclined to look at this from the other direction. I don’t think the applicant is asking to put a deck somewhere. She’s asking to be able to a little bit better utilize a specific area. She could put a set of steps down from the house now and use that area, if it were grassed over, and she’s just simply asking to have a level area, which actually may help the environment, because there would be less chance for erosion if people were walking on a wood floor rather than on the ground. I don’t think it’s really an expansion of a house, in practical terms at least. The controlling use on septic systems in the Town, very practically, has always been the number of bedrooms in the house, not the number of bathrooms or the number of sinks, but the number of bedrooms, because that determines the basic load of people, and certainly this modest deck is not going to increase the number of people sleeping at the house. So, it strikes me that it’s not really intrusive. It’s going to be sufficiently low to the ground, but I don’t think it’s going to be very visible from the lake, especially considering the vegetation around it. So, as last time, I have no problem with it. I’d be in favor. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I would be in favor of the application as she’s proposed it also. I think that the minor size of the deck that’s been proposed and I don’t really think it’s going to increase the usage of the house any more than it’s been used in the past. I think at the same time that the County Board’s consideration of the fact that the septic system needs to be upgraded needs to be considered, and I assume that you probably intend to do something about that. Having been at a Lake’s Conference last week, these new aeration units that are a perfect application on this site, is where it should be used, and maybe this is one that we can, you know, you can work with Dave Hatin on it, get it as a demonstration proposal, because I think this is probably what’s going to happen to all these places up around the lake, and they’re the way to go. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) MR. STONE-I concur with the majority of the Board. I certainly have been outspoken when it comes to the lake, as I was reminded this evening by the Counsel for the previous applicant. He didn’t notice that he zinged me, and it was perfectly fine, and I do understand Mr. Hayes’ concerns, but I know that, under certain circumstances, we have granted relief as much on the lake, in the area that Ms. Seelye’s property is. I don’t think that’s necessarily a good reason for granting it, but we have. I just think this application does not have an adverse influence on the lake. I think it’s a simple deck that is no closer to the lake, and actually probably may be a foot closer because of the, whatever the technical term is for the way the shoreline goes, and another (lost word), and I also am very much aware, through conversations with the applicant, that she is most concerned about the septic system, and would really love to find a way to get an acceptable system on the house, one, to protect the lake, and protect the environment, but also to be able to put on this room that she previously had asked for. So I think we will see, I don’t think we can condition the approval on that, but I certainly think it’s on the record that you are interested in doing just that. So, having said that, I would call for a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2001 KATHARINE SEELYE, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes: 14 Crooked Tree Drive. The applicant proposes construction of a 276 square foot deck. The applicant requests 47 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum shoreline setback requirements of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to construct a 276 square foot deck at 47 feet of relief. Feasible alternatives. I think there are extremely limited feasible alternatives, not necessarily to benefit the lake or the applicant. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? 47 square feet of relief from the 75 foot requirement may be, by some, interpreted as substantial relief relative to the Ordinance. However, the location of the existing structure and the size of the lot raises questions to this issue. Effects on the neighborhood or community? I have not heard any negative opposition from neighbors. Is this difficulty self- created? A portion may be self-created. However, the size of the lot contributes much to this self- created difficulty. Based upon that, I move that we approve the application. Duly adopted this 20 day of June, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Hayes ABSENT: Mr. McNally MR. STONE-There you go. MS. SEELYE-Thank you very much. MR. STONE-It took a while. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2001 TYPE II ALICE CASTLE, LE AND DOREEN GREEN PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: SHARON VENN, ACE HOMES ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 469 BIG BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING MOBILE HOME AND SEEKS SETBACK AND BUFFER ZONE RELIEF. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 6/13/01 OLD TAX MAP NO. 136-1-18 NEW TAX MAP NO. 309.13-2-17 LOT SIZE: 0.34 ACRES SECTION: 179-26, 179-72 SHARON VENN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DOREEN GREEN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 35-2001, Alice Castle, LE and Doreen Green, Meeting Date: June 20, 2001 “Project Location: 469 Big Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes replacement of an existing mobile home and seeks setback relief. Relief Required: Applicant requests 20 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum side setback requirement of the LI-1A zone, § 179-26. Relief from the Buffer zone requirement is not necessary. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to upgrade the dwelling on the property as desired. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include reorientation of the home to meet the setback requirements. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 20 feet of relief from the 30 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial relative to the Ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed home is an upgraded, modern manufactured home to replace an older home on the site. Reorientation of the home, 90 degrees from the proposed location would not require a variance. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-All right. Before we start, let me ask Staff, in the agenda it says buffer zone. In your notes, it says it’s not necessary. That’s on for further investigation? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Good. Thank you. Introduce yourself. MS. VENN-My name is Sharon Venn. I’m acting as agent for Doreen Green. I’m also the builder of the double wide home to be placed on the property. I’ve been out to the property with the excavator who’s Dan Drellos, and basically the proposal that we’ve drawn up is what we’re looking to do. By placing the home parallel to the road, it’s certainly going to look more residential. Right now, there is an old 12 by 66 mobile home there now that’s placed on the property, and we’d certainly like to move that out, and place the new home in a similar location, as far as the side yard. That’s why we’re asking for that 10 foot side yard there. We meet the setback. We have Town water on the lot, and we are putting in a new septic system. MR. STONE-What about the garage? MS. VENN-We’d like to leave the existing garage, if possible. MR. STONE-Upgrade it? MS. VENN-Again, Doreen, you can speak on that. MS. GREEN-Doreen Green, owner of the property. My plans are to leave the garage there, and fix it up. MR. STONE-That’s the word I wanted to hear, fix it up. Okay. We’ll talk about that later. Okay. So this is a new home, brand new? MS. GREEN-Yes, brand new. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? I’ve asked my question, about the garage. Any questions? Then I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any questions? MR. BRYANT-A couple of other questions, actually. As I understand it, you basically don’t want the house the long way. You want it so that it faces the street. Down the street, I think it’s 480 or 480 something, that’s a house that’s the long way. That doesn’t look bad, and the second thing. That was a statement, really. The second thing is, and it’s really a rhetorical question, as I look at your property, and the driveway to Curtis Lumber, if your house is the way you want it to be, people are going to come out their driveway and be looking right into your living room. I mean, basically, that’s the way the construction is. I mean, because I turned around in that driveway. If you put your house the long way, the way you suggest, that driveway is almost directly into your front door. MS. GREEN-Curtis Lumber closes at five p.m. on the weekdays, and I believe three o’clock. MR. BRYANT-The garage, that’s going to stay there? MS. GREEN-Yes. MR. BRYANT-Okay. Those are my questions, and comments. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) MR. HAYES-You actually own the property, or do you lease it? MS. GREEN-I own it. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. STONE-Any other questions? Well, let’s talk about it then. Chuck Abbate? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. This is a reasonable request. Both ladies, in their attempt to put a double, is indeed, although I’m not sure I like the word “upgrade”, but certainly increases the area, in terms of visibility and etc. I think I like the word “appreciate”. It appreciates the area even more. It’s a reasonable request. You have indicated that you’re well aware of the fact that what you propose, of course, might be subjected to vehicular traffic, but you indicated that they close at five o’clock, so it doesn’t make any difference to you. So you’re aware of that. So I don’t have any problems with that, and based upon your application and your statements, I would support it. MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Bryant? MR. BRYANT-Thank you. I agree with what Chuck says to a certain degree. I disagree that, from an aesthetic standpoint, that you need to turn the house the other way. I, personally, think from an aesthetic standpoint, if it were my house, I’d like to have it the way it is now, in that long, you know what I’m talking about, but I would reluctantly vote in favor of the application as it is. MR. STONE-Jamie? MR. HAYES-Well, in one other file that we had in this particular circumstance, I voted against a trailer placement on Big Bay Road, largely because I believe it’s a neighborhood that’s in transition to Light Industrial, and that that’s what it’s zoned and that’s what we should attempt to continue to have it be. One question for Staff. Why isn’t this a Use Variance, because of the grandfathered use of the property, essentially? MR. BROWN-Basically, the next step in the process is to apply to the Town Board for a replacement of a mobile home on a lot. They can issue a revocable permit to do that, but they need the side setback relief first. MR. HAYES-Okay. I think that, based on my knowledge, which is extensive, because I’m just down the road there, is that on that corner, there’s a Stewart’s going in, I understand on the corner of Big Bay and Corinth Road. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. HAYES-Basically the whole neighborhood is. MR. STONE-In the east corner? MR. HAYES-Yes. That was an older home there which was demolished, and I think in this particular case that this is a Light Industrial zone. I think that we should encourage, or Queensbury has a very limited amount of Light Industrial property, and that we should encourage that to remain as it is. So, based on that fact, I would lean against this application. I think that, as far as the effect on the neighborhood or the community, I think that placing mobile homes in an area that’s clearly under development into a commercial or warehouse type row is against the character of the neighborhood. So I would be against it. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, Jamie brings up some valid points. I think, nevertheless, obviously the historical use of this property has been residential, and I’m inclined to agree with the applicant. I think perhaps it would look better positioned the way they’re proposing. Also looking at it, if they’re allowed to position the home the way they’re proposing, the front of the home is going to be further back from the road than what the front of the, or the end of the existing mobile home is. So I think that’s going to improve the appearance on the lot, too. Given the circumstances, I’m inclined to approve. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I would agree, too, with Chuck. I think that whatever the inevitability, whether it does become a light industrial site at some point in the future, at the present time, it is residential housing there, and I think you have to consider the fact that you do own this lot, and you do have a right to improve your property, and I think that the way out have the house laid out makes 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) a lot of sense because it gives you a nice private big back yard. Whereas if you put the house the other way it would negate that, and have everybody looking from one end to the other. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Mr. Himes? MR. HIMES-Thank you. Yes. I’m sympathetic in connection with the comments relating to the residential use. The property I think on one side is vacant, and properties, other than that, I think are some form of residences, I believe. However, I’m also very sympathetic to what Jamie expressed. However, the application is for a variance, and I feel that, really, placement of the trailer perpendicular, it’s a matter of taste I guess, perhaps. In any event, I don’t feel that that would be an undue hardship, and from my understanding would be if that were done, and barring any activity with the Town Board and the rest, there wouldn’t even need to be a variance. So, in connection with, is this difficulty self-created, in some respects it is. I would tend to, for the reasons I’ve said, not to vote yes on this application. MR. STONE-Okay. The way that lot is right now, and the way the neighborhood is right now, irrespective, if you will, of the fact that it’s light industrial, which is not an issue before this Board, I think as Staff made it clear, that is a decision for the Town Board, and you will have to go to the Town Board to get a permit to do this, and I think the only question before us is whether or not you should be given setback relief to put this building on the property the way you like. I applaud Mrs. Green for making an investment in this piece of property, because I think this area is slowly coming around. It’s been an area that one could question, would anybody want to live there, quite frankly, but you’re willing to do it. You’re willing to make the investment, and, obviously, the light industrial nature, and I agree with Mr. Hayes and Mr. Himes, that we do need light industrial property, but the thing is it is, in a sense, not now light industrial. It’s always available for someone to come and buy it from you to put something in there that falls into the Light Industrial category, and in the meantime, I think it’s improving the lot. I think being across the front of the lot, I think you said it, Ms. Venn, and that it makes it look more residential. Right now it looks like, obviously, it’s very overgrown, but it looks like a trailer. It looks like somebody parked it there, and obviously right now it looks like they just walked away from it. So I’m encouraged by your willingness to do this, and I certainly would support this application. Having said that, I need a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2001 ALICE CASTLE, LE AND DOREEN GREEN, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 469 Big Bay Road. The applicant’s proposing replacement of an existing mobile home and seeks setback relief. Specifically, the applicant requests 20 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum side setback requirement of the LI-1A zone, Section 179-26. In considering this variance, we considered benefit to the applicant, which is the applicant will be permitted to upgrade the dwelling on the property and locate the replacement home as she desires. Feasible alternatives would include re- orientation of the home 90 degrees, and allow it to meet setback requirements. Considering whether the relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance, 20 feet of relief from the 30 foot requirement can be interpreted as being moderate, relative to the Ordinance. Effects on the neighborhood or community, probably minimal effects on the neighborhood can be anticipated as a result of this action, and I would suggest that any detrimental effects of allowing the variance to allow the home to be closer than the required distance from the side lot line, are going to be countered by the improvement in appearance from fixing up the lot and replacing the existing home that’s on the lot with new construction. Is the difficulty self-created? Certainly the difficulty can be interpreted as being self-created since there are options to orient the home so that a variance is not required, but, on the whole, I believe that orienting the home parallel to the road will enhance the overall appearance of the neighborhood and will serve the applicant the best as well. So, for those reasons, I move approval of this variance. With a condition that the applicant agrees to improve the appearance of the existing garage and take steps to make it compatible in appearance with the proposed new home. Further condition is that the equivalent of an as built survey be submitted, a survey after location of the property. Duly adopted this 20 day of June, 2001, by the following vote: th MR. STONE-One question of the applicant. You indicated a desire to fix up the garage. May we put a contingency in there that you would make the garage more compatible with the appearance, fix it up, is what I’m getting at? MS. GREEN-I will improve it. Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. Are you willing to put that in, please? MR. MC NULTY-Certainly. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) MR. BROWN-I had a question, did you want a final survey? Because typically for a mobile home placement it doesn’t require a final survey. MR. STONE-It doesn’t. Okay. MR. BROWN-But for the dimensional relief, you may want to. MR. STONE-Okay. Yes, put that in. Thank you. I didn’t think about it. Is this built on the property or brought in? MS. GREEN-It’s brought in, but we will have a surveyor involved before even the concrete is poured. MR. STONE-Okay. Good. MS. VENN-And also, too, just as far as the garage goes, you’re not asking her to re-side the garage, but maybe paint it to coordinate with? MR. STONE-No. I was concerned by that language. Just to re-paint more than anything else. MS. VENN-Okay, and is that something that would hold up a Certificate of Occupancy? MR. HAYES-If we make it a condition, it’s got to. MR. BROWN-If it’s a condition of the variance, all the conditions need to be met before that Certificate could be issued. That’s correct. MR. STONE-It’s all right? Okay. AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Himes ABSENT: Mr. McNally MR. STONE-There you go. MS. VENN-Thank you very much. MS. GREEN-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-2001 TYPE II DAVID PRATT PROPERTY OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, APA, CEA LOCATION: HANNAFORD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS FOR FRONTAGE ON A TOWN ROAD. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 6/13/01 OLD TAX MAP NO. 19-1-57.22 NEW TAX MAP NO. 227.18-1-47 LOT SIZE: 0.68 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-70 DAVID PRATT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 36-2001, David Pratt, Meeting Date: June 20, 2001 “Project Location: Hannaford Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a single family residence and seeks relief from the minimum road frontage requirements. Relief Required: Applicant requests 40 feet of relief from the 40 foot minimum road frontage requirement of § 179-70; Frontage on Public Streets. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired home in the preferred configuration. 2. Feasible alternatives: Alternatives may include improving and extending Hannaford Road for dedication to and acceptance by the Town. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 40 feet of relief from the 40 foot requirement may be interpreted as substantial, relative to the Ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? A portion of the difficulty may be attributed to the pre-existing condition of both the lot in question and Hannaford Road. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. An inquiry with the Highway Department Superintendent revealed that the public road known as Hannaford Road does 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) not extend to the applicant’s property. Does the applicant have a deeded right of way to this parcel from the end of Hannaford Road? Ownership? SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Mr. Pratt? MR. PRATT-Hi. I’m David Pratt. MR. STONE-Have you anything you want to add to this application? Talk about this road? Staff is asking do you have an easement, a right of way, ownership? MR. PRATT-I believe I have ownership, the way I interpret it, and I’ve talked it over with my neighbor across the road, Mr. Koenig, and he comes to the same conclusion, and would be very interested, both of us, in getting the road dedicated to the Town. We both, I intend to have a year round residence there. Mr. Koenig has summertime but would like to be able to get in in the wintertime, and the way the Town plows the road, they stop right at the end of the pavement, which puts a big wall of snow there. Mr. Koenig is not able to get in, and if the Town were to plow it that way, and I had a private plowing service, there might be a wall of snow that a typical pick up truck plowing, I would not be able to get through. MR. STONE-Craig, any comments you’d like to make on the private road? Because I know there are lots of homes on private roads, particularly in the lake area. Are they all grandfathered type thing? MR. BROWN-Well, that’s a general question for all the whole lake, I guess, but yes. That’s a common occurrence. A lot of times you have private driveways and private right of ways that access multiple lots on the lake that don’t, none of them have frontage on a Town road. It happens a lot. Just so you know, Mr. Pratt brought a survey in tonight, and I guess somebody asked the question, do you have ownership or a right of way or an easement. The survey doesn’t show ownership as everyone would think ownership, you actually have frontage on the Town road. The survey shows basically a rectangular lot, and we could pass it around if you want, with Hannaford Road labeled as status unknown. So the surveyor didn’t want to take a position on the ownership of the right of way. MR. STONE-Where is Mr. Pratt’s property line shown on there? MR. HAYES-It’s past where the road ends. MR. STONE-I know it’s past where the road ends. I meant in terms of going across this dirt area. MR. HAYES-Craig, if they want to dedicate that road to the Town, then they’ve got to bring it up to the specifications, right? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. HAYES-Have you investigated that at all, I mean, as far as cost and stuff like that? MR. PRATT-I haven’t investigated the cost, but I realize that that’s what I’d have to do. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. PRATT-Now, I would have a question on that. Would the person across the street from me, other than Mr. Koenig, have to agree to that also? MR. HAYES-That’s a good question. It’s a legal question, I’m sure. You don’t have your deed by any chance? MR. PRATT-No. MR. MC NULTY-On the other hand, New York State can’t prohibit somebody with a landlocked piece of land from getting to his land. He’s got a vested right in State law to get to his property. MR. PRATT-Mr. Koenig is in the same situation as I am. MR. STONE-It may be on his property, though, because we don’t have a survey for his property. He may come up, butt up against yours. I mean, that’s what we don’t know from this. MR. MC NULTY-He, of course, is directly across, and in the same situation, except Koenig, I suspect, has frontage on Pilot Knob Road. MR. STONE-Yes, but it’s not accessible. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) MR. MC NULTY-No, but nevertheless, technically, it meets the requirement. MR. STONE-You’re right. That’s true, but Hannaford Road, technically, does not meet Town Code for a Town road. MR. BROWN-No. I think it’s considered a road by use. MR. STONE-Yes, it’s a road by use, right. So why can’t this gravel part be a road by use? MR. BROWN-Well, it can, if the Highway Department chooses to accept it. MR. STONE-They obviously haven’t. MR. BROWN-They have created an inventory that says we own .70 miles of the road, and it happens to stop where the end of the pavement stops, and that’s where they end their maintenance. If they wanted to accept anymore, it would be a Town Board action to accept some more. They could have a long road by use. It wouldn’t have to be up to Town standards, but the Town Board would have to do that, that legislative action. MR. BRYANT-Just out of curiosity, a question for Staff. The key issue here, though, would be the ownership of that piece of land, the road. Because if Mr. Pratt did own that road, well then he would meet some of the requirements because part of his property would be on Hannaford Road. Okay. So I think before we can make a judgement, I think we should find out who owns that road. MR. BROWN-I would guess by the survey that was dated in May of this year, that doesn’t show him owning that area that may connect to Hannaford Road, that he’s not going to own it. He’s probably, at the minimum, got an easement or a right of way to travel over it to get to his property. MR. HAYES-At the maximum you mean? MR. BROWN-At the maximum. MR. STONE-This the survey. The road is not on the property. That was dated June 6. th MR. BROWN-Okay. I thought there was a May date. MR. HIMES-How did it get deeded to where it is? How did the property get deeded to the point that it is, except by somebody who does own it? MR. STONE-I mean, was this, is this a legal subdivision? MR. BROWN-Yes. It’s a parcel that’s been in existence for a long time. MR. PRATT-I purchased the property in 1987. MR. BROWN-It’s a pre-existing parcel. MR. STONE-But it was a lot? MR. PRATT-I believe it was the last lot in the area that was subdivided before the Park Agency put a halt to anymore subdivision in there. MR. STONE-There’s nobody down the road past you? MR. PRATT-There’s some camps down there, but there are other lots, yes, but behind where subdivision has taken place, to the east. MR. STONE-So you haven’t considered buying some property from Mr. Tompkins here and coming through Mr. Schultz’s Constitution Road? MR. PRATT-No, I hadn’t thought of that. I’d have a stream crossing involved there. I don’t think that would go well. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HIMES-But we do have a situation where there are, there is more land on the east side of that road, as you drive down. All the camps on the west side probably do front on Pilot Knob. So there probably are other lots there waiting for the same situation to come up that we’re facing here, 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) whether or we can do something about reconciling possible future problems while we’re at it here, I don’t know, but I’d be curious, in terms of when the property was acquired, someone had to deed it to you. Someone had to deed it to where it is, in other words, had ownership rights to some point, whether that includes that road, and they only deeded you up to it, the right of way, so to speak, where does the right of way originate. I suppose the deed or deeds would reflect the history of it. In that way we could find out something. MR. STONE-There’s another question, too. As you say, right now, they plow to the paved road. If we give you permission to build the house, they’re still going to plow to the end of the paved road, unless something else happens. So, are we putting cart before horse by granting a variance? I have no negative or positive on the whole thing. MR. BROWN-That’s a good question. MR. STONE-Are we going to force the Town to take it by granting him a variance, and can we do that? MR. HAYES-No, because we’re not guaranteeing him the legal status to travel over that road if we give him this variance. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. HAYES-What we’re really doing is saying, I think, if you have a legal problem which Norm is correctly addressing, in my instance, that it’ll be a private legal problem with the guy that deeded the property or didn’t deed their property properly, and that it won’t be a matter, necessarily, for us to adjudicate. It would be a matter for you to adjudicate with your lawyers, with him. MR. PRATT-I understand. MR. STONE-I hear you, but I personally would not like to confound it, and get in the middle of it, because if we’re saying to Mr. Pratt, and I really am just throwing ideas out, guys. I don’t know where I stand, but if we say, all right, go ahead and build your house, in a sense, is there any other step to build a house? MR. BROWN-He’ll have to, through the building permit process, there’s a driveway access permit that’s issued by the Highway Department, and I think at that point this may come to light where they may be moving to the next step of extending their road by use, at least to Mr. Pratt’s driveway. MR. STONE-Yes. I asked the question, are we putting cart before horse? Should he apply for a building permit? MR. ABBATE-Let me ask Mr. Pratt a question. MR. BROWN-He has applied for a building permit. MR. STONE-He has? MR. ABBATE-Your attorney handled the closing of this property? MR. PRATT-Yes. MR. ABBATE-He did a title search and survey? MR. PRATT-Yes. MR. ABBATE-And what did the title search and survey indicate? The answers have to be in that. MR. PRATT-Yes. I don’t have that in front of me. MR. ABBATE-You really should. MR. MC NULTY-That’s just going to address whether that particular piece of property he bought had a continuous title. It’s not going to say anything about access to it. MR. PRATT-No. It addressed access to the lakefront rights, a right of way to lakefront rights. MR. HAYES-Craig is right, though. If we grant this variance, you can apply for a building permit, and in that building permit process, they’re going to have to get a direction whether they’re going to accept his curb cut, if you will. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) MR. BROWN-Or accept a snowplow entrance through the snow bank to get to his property, yes. MR. MC NULTY-What they’re going to probably look at, though, is his curb cut, in effect, is going to be where they stop plowing. They’re not going to look at his access from his house to the private road. They’re going to look at the connection from Hannaford Road to the private road that extends off the end, and the real impact I think they’re going to look at is just, okay, we can no longer just plow to the end of the road and just lift the plow. We’re going to have to plow to the end of the road and swing or right or left so we don’t leave a snow bank there. MR. HAYES-If you look at this in reverse, if we say no, then he can’t apply for a building permit because he doesn’t have 40 feet. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. MC NULTY-Right. MR. HAYES-Which means we’d be effectively condemning this property, at least at this point. MR. STONE-Let’s say we do deny it. Let’s talk decisions. MR. ABBATE-I like Jamie’s point there. If we say no, we are, in effect, condemning private property. That’s a very serious. MR. MC NULTY-And we’re back to about his neighbor across the road may technically meet the requirement of having 40 foot of frontage on a public road. As far as practical access, he’s in the same situation Mr. Pratt is. He’s not going to access his own property from Pilot Knob Road. MR. HAYES-Or park there, legally. MR. MC NULTY-Or park there. MR. STONE-I’m not proposing we deny. I mean, I hear what you’re saying, but if we did deny, obviously, Mr. Pratt still wants to build. What would be the next step? I mean, is it a circular, now he goes back for a building permit and you say he’s got to come back here? MR. HAYES-No. He’s have to file an Article whatever to challenge our ruling. MR. HIMES-Lew, why wouldn’t we ask the Town Counsel for some advice in this connection? MR. STONE-Well, that’s another thought, yes. MR. HIMES-Because it could be said why would we grant the variance when it’s so obvious that there is no road there? I mean, I wonder if we could be criticized for doing something where it could be said that we shouldn’t have. MR. HAYES-Did the Town approve this subdivision at some point? MR. BROWN-Did they? No, they weren’t required to. There was no approval process at the time the lot was created that said, hey, you need a subdivision approval. So it’s a valid, pre-existing, albeit nonconforming lot. It’s a real lot. MR. STONE-But according to our zoning code, non-buildable, without a variance. MR. BROWN-Because of the access, yes. MR. STONE-Yes. We’ve talked many times about some lots aren’t buildable, but this really isn’t one. MR. BROWN-Well, I think we could draw a parallel to some of the lots over on, whatever name you want to call it, Boathouse Road or Brayton Lane or whatever it is over near Takundewide. A lot of those roads. MR. STONE-Are private roads. MR. BROWN-A lot of the access to those lots is through a private right of way, which extends from the Town Road, and I think you’ve granted relief to construct new buildings on lots with zero frontage on a Town road, because they have access over a private right of way. If Mr. Pratt can demonstrate he’s got access over a private right of way, I think it’s okay. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) MR. STONE-But we don’t know this is a private right of way. We have demonstrated access permission to use. That’s the question. MR. BROWN-That’s the only thing different than in those other references. MR. STONE-Yes. I mean, the only thing that we have from an official piece of paper is a survey that shows he owns the lot, and we know from observation and from the Highway Superintendent, and from Mr. Pratt’s own admission, that the plows don’t go there. So the Town has never accepted the dirt portion of Hannaford. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, maybe it would be in the best interest of all parties concerned, your interests and our interests, if we tabled this thing and sought legal advice on this. MR. BRYANT-And an actual right of way of that, because Norm made a valid point earlier on when he said that there are other lots beyond Mr. Pratt’s lot, we’re going to set a precedent here. We’re going to say that, yes, you can use this road and it doesn’t really make any difference, and the reality is that we’ve seen today, two years from now the next lot over has the same problem Mr. Pratt has, and we’ve got new Board members, and you know what happens. That all of a sudden negates what this Board does, so I think Mr. Abbate has a point. I think that we should probably table it for legal advice, and also to bring the actual title search for that right of way or whatever it is on that road, and we can make a reasonable judgement on that basis. MR. UNDERWOOD-As a suggestion, from a practical standpoint, over at my property on Glen Lake, there’s a right of way that comes across my property, and there’s another one that comes across the frontage of all the camps there, and I think what was worked out on those was it was built into those deeds that the people past that point would have, you know, passage over those properties. So, in other words, the people to the north of you there would, you know, those lots that are still empty would, at some point, and most of those were done with a simple one dollar fee, you know, agreement with the neighbors, and I think that’s maybe something that needs to be investigated, too. MR. PRATT-There are other houses, other lots, or lots with houses to the north. They’re all summer camps. The plowing issue hasn’t arisen because they haven’t tried to get in. MR. STONE-Nobody closes off that road one day a year? MR. PRATT-No. MR. STONE-We don’t even know if it’s a private road. MR. HAYES-Just the mechanics of it. We’re setting up bad mechanics, really. MR. BROWN-It’s reasonable, based on what Mr. McNulty said about real estate law not allowing you to limit access to a piece of property. I think if you proceed hypothetically and say, some place in this deed there’s a right of way or easement to get to this piece of property, and if you’re comfortable granting them relief, because he doesn’t front on a Town road, contingent upon him demonstrating that right of way, I think you’re covered. Here’s the variance. Show me your deed that says you have a right of way, and then it’s a valid variance. Rather than tabling. If you can condition that approval, he can show us, bring a deed in and say, here’s my right of way, then he meets your condition, if you’re comfortable doing that. MR. PRATT-That would be a big help to me, because I’ve got people ready to rumble on this. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to this application? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions? All right. Let’s talk about the possibility of approving this with the contingency that the applicant has to demonstrate a valid right of way, easement or something. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) MR. HAYES-Legal access. MR. STONE-Legal access, that’s a good word. Let’s start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-I can’t imagine the deed would ever have gone through without some kind of access to the property. I mean, it just seems illogical, but I would be in favor of it as you’ve proposed. MR. STONE-Norm? MR. HIMES-I’m sympathetic to the idea, however, I still feel that, you know, there are going to be other problems coming down the road here. That’s a very narrow little roadway. If the Town were going to get involved with it, I don’t know what they’d want to do with it to make it up to standards. I still feel very uncomfortable proceeding with this without some legal direction to confirm, perhaps, what we have said. Maybe this could be given in short order, so as to not inconvenience. MR. STONE-But what we’re kind of talking about puts the onus on the applicant. He cannot build until he can demonstrate that he can get there, legally. All we’re granting is that we’re pretending, in a sense, that he has shown us this before we put the contingency on, and therefore we’re saying go ahead, we think it’s okay, but that’s what we’re trying to do. Chuck, go ahead. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I would be in a position to support the application, with the contingency that Mr. Pratt must demonstrate, in physical form, legal access to this property. MR. STONE-Allan? MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I think this is the first time I have actually agreed with Norm. I don’t really want to make a decision on this until I, you know, I understand the intent, but I don’t want to make a decision on this until I see the facts, and even with the contingency that Mr. Pratt come, after the fact, and prove access or whatever, right of way, I don’t want to make a decision in that regard. So I’m going to be against the proposal. MR. STONE-Okay. Jamie? MR. HAYES-Well, I think everything that’s been said so far is certainly valid. Certainly Norm and Allan’s reservations about maybe making a problem worse is understandable, but I think in this particular circumstance, with the contingency that’s involved with the possible motion, I think we’re setting up the mechanics for this thing to get resolved, both legally, amongst his own lawyers, and with the Town, we could get a result here. I’m sure that when he applies for his building permit that he’s going to have to demonstrate to the Town’s satisfaction, one way or the other, that there’s going to be a legitimate cut there. So I think sometimes mechanically we’ve got to set things up so we can get resolution and get an issue resolved, and I think this is a pre-existing lot which makes it a legal lot. Irregardless of the problems that may be associated with it, it is a legal building lot, pre-existing. So I think, with the contingency in the motion, I think we’ll set in motion something that will resolve this both privately and publicly, and I’m comfortable with that. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I’ve got no problem approving this, with or without the contingency. As I mentioned, I can’t cite the specific reference, but I know there is a piece of State law that says you cannot prevent somebody from getting to their property if their property is landlocked. You must provide them with reasonable access over your property, if you’re in the way. So I think it’s going to be relatively simple for the applicant’s attorney to come up with some reference to show that he has got legal access, whether it’s the right of way or not, to the property. Also considering that there’s, as Staff pointed out, a bunch of roads on the lake that are like this. You can almost go for miles on little windy, single lane roads and access places next to the lake that are worth $500,000 to a million dollars, little windy roads that I think you’d be hard-pressed to get fire trucks down. So there is precedence. That doesn’t mean we necessarily should continue that, but in this particular instance, especially considering there’s a brand new house right across the road from this place that is using the same road for access, I have no problem at all approving the request. MR. STONE-I concur with the majority of the Board. I do, however, think that we need to put into any motion, any contingencies that we’re talking about, in terms of legal proof that you can, in fact, get to this on this dirt road. The recognition, if you will, that the applicant recognizes that the Town has not yet, has not accepted this, and does not maintain it in any way, and in fact negatively blocks it in the winter. That should, I think, be in the motion, the recognition that we know that, but I certainly think that we can get Mr. Hayes to draft a very good motion that would put all these things in there. So, having said that, Jamie, I’m putting you on the spot. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) MR. HAYES-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-2001 DAVID PRATT, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Hannaford Road. The applicant proposes construction of a single-family residence and seeks relief from the minimum road frontage requirements. Specifically, the applicant requests 40 feet of relief of the 40 foot minimum road frontage requirement of Section 179-70, dealing with frontage on public streets. The benefit to the applicant, the benefit to the applicant would be that he could build a house on this lot. Without this variance he could not. Feasible alternatives. I believe that feasible alternatives are limited, based on the fact that this is a pre-existing, nonconforming lot with no access on a Town road. There’s not that many alternatives, outside of determining your legal access and whether the Town is going to accept this as a road front. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Certainly 40 feet of relief out of a 40 foot requirement is substantial, in my mind, but as Staff has pointed out in the past, that we have approved this type of relief in the past, based on private agreements for access through other parcels that don’t have frontage on public roads. Effects on the neighborhood or community? I don’t think that there really will be any. This is another house on the end of a street that has other new houses on it that we’ve had to deal with relief on before and it is a pre-existing lot, so I think if anything a new construction might be a benefit. Is the difficulty self-created? I don’t think that it is, as I’ve already addressed. It’s a pre-existing lot and there seems to be some questions about Hannaford Road that you nor I nor Staff is sure about. So I don’t think it was self-created. Based on that fact, I think the test falls in favor of the applicant, but I move for its approval with two contingencies. The first contingency is the applicant demonstrates, to the satisfaction of Town Staff, that there is, in fact, some form of legal access to this parcel, that’s demonstratable, but that there is in fact legal access, one way or the other, and that they submit documentary evidence to the Town. The other contingency or more or less statement that was requested by the Chairman is that this motion in no way is sanctioning the fact that the Town has to accept that road in the future, or that we are promoting that idea, only that you are going to determine your own access and that the rest of the Town can make its determinations through the building permit process. So those two contingencies are included in my motion, and I move for its approval. Duly adopted 20 day of June, 2001, by the following: th MR. ABBATE-Can I make one request or modification? To include, I’m just being nitty gritty here in my background, that you submit documentary evidence to the Town. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Please. MR. STONE-One question. Do these variances still go to APA for 30 days before they’re approved. That used to be the situation. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-So they have a right of refusal, if you will, up to 30 days. MR. BROWN-Historically, we get no response. MR. STONE-Okay, but we do send them? MR. BROWN-Yes, absolutely. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-They basically look at the process, rather than the conclusion that we come to. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. STONE-But it used to be one more step. All right. AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Himes ABSENT: Mr. McNally 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) MR. STONE-You’ve got all the contingencies. Go ahead, and may the good Lord be with you in trying to figure this thing out. MR. PRATT-Just, who would I bring the documentary evidence to? MR. ABBATE-Give everything to Staff. MR. PRATT-Okay. Great. Thank you. MR. STONE-The Code Enforcement Officer. AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-2001 TYPE II GLEN S. & JEAN C. GUYETTE PROPERTY OWNER: SAME ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: 463 LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AN ABOVE-GROUND SWIMMING POOL AND REPLACE WITH AN IN-GROUND POOL AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 24-1991, SCARSELLETTA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/13/01 OLD TAX MAP NO. 125-1-21 NEW TAX MAP NO. 308.11-1-28 LOT SIZE: 0.60 ACRES SECTION 179-67, 179-19 GLEN & JEAN GUYETTE, PRESENT MR. STONE-Let the record show that the above ground is gone. Guyette? MR. GUYETTE-Yes, Glen Guyette. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 37-2001, Glen S. & Jean C. Guyette, Meeting Date: June 20, 2001 Project Location: 463 Luzerne Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes removal of above ground pool and construction of an in-ground pool and seeks setback relief. Relief Required: Applicant requests 12 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum rear setback requirement of the Accessory Structures and Uses regulations; § 179-67. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired accessory structure in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Relocation of the pool to an alternate location would also require some form of relief. Acquisition of additional lands may be feasible. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 12 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial, relative to the Ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal 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, however, given the current configuration of the structure on this site, any similar proposed pool would require some form of relief. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 24-1994 res. 5/25/94 12 feet of rear setback relief. Staff comment: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed 16 x 32 in ground pool is to replace the 15 x 30 above ground pool referenced in AV 24-1994. No neighborhood opposition was noted in the previous application. No neighborhood opposition has been noted for the current application. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Mr. Guyette, is there anything you want to add, identify yourself. MR. GUYETTE-Yes. Glen Guyette. I spoke to Craig and I said originally we had eight feet variance, that was when we first bought the home, and he suggested 12, but actually what we need is really the eight feet for that. We only lack on the back side, my neighbor is here tonight to talk anyway, but we needed was just the eight feet like we originally had when we first bought the home. MR. BROWN-An eight foot setback to the property line? MR. GUYETTE-Yes. MR. BROWN-That’s what you’re asking for. MR. GUYETTE-Okay. MR. BROWN-That’s what’s on the table. MR. STONE-It says 12 feet of relief. That means it’s going to be eight feet from the line. MR. GUYETTE-Okay. I misunderstood. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) MR. STONE-Speaking about the line, are the picnic tables on your property? MR. GUYETTE-No. He told us we could set them there. MR. STONE-Okay. That is not your property? MR. GUYETTE-No. MR. STONE-And that’s why you need so much relief. MR. GUYETTE-Right. MR. STONE-When was the shed built? MR. GUYETTE-I don’t know. We used to live on Van Dusen Road before we, or Sanders Road, and our son-in-law removed it in sections, and when we bought the house, we set it up there, to put our stuff away, five years ago. MR. STONE-Okay, and how big is it? MR. GUYETTE-Ten by fourteen, or ten by fifteen, ten by fifteen. I’ve got papers back there. MR. STONE-Okay. My concern is that your shed has to be 100 feet or less. Is that correct, Mr. Brown? MR. BROWN-Or it would require a building permit. MR. STONE-Or require a building permit. Yes, I’m sorry. Okay. Any other questions of the Guyettes? Okay. I’ll open the public hearing, then. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor of? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ALAN KENNEDY MR. KENNEDY-My name is Alan Kennedy, and I live at 455 Luzerne Road. MR. STONE-Okay. What do you want to tell us? MR. KENNEDY-I own the property that’s behind this house. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. KENNEDY-And he’s a good neighbor, and it’s perfectly all right with me if he wants to put a pool there. MR. STONE-Okay. Are you willing to sell him some land? MR. GUYETTE-I don’t want to buy it. MR. KENNEDY-I bought that land as a buffer zone and a place for children to play. It’s an empty lot. I never plan on building anything on it. That’s my little getaway. MR. BRYANT-You also own the lot with the great big “L” shaped driveway on the corner? MR. KENNEDY-Right. MR. BRYANT-That’s a great driveway. I hope you don’t mind that I drove through it today. MR. KENNEDY-And that blue house behind, that’d my other son. I own that lot, too. MR. ABBATE-So you’re a land baron there, then. MR. KENNEDY-No, not really, but I’ve got no objections at all. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, we appreciate that. Anybody else wishing to speak in favor? Anybody wishing to speak opposed? Any correspondence? 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. STONE-Then I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions? Any other thoughts or requests of the Guyettes? MR. ABBATE-No, not really. I have a personal preference. I think in-ground pools improve the sites. I would prefer an in-ground pool rather than an above ground pool. So I’m kind of a little prejudice there. I think it improves the site. I don’t have any problems with that. MR. STONE-I do have one question of Mr. Kennedy. I know you say you’re going to leave it forever wild, if you will, for the kids to play, but unfortunately we all are temporal on this earth. Do you have any contingency for keeping it that way when you depart? MR. KENNEDY-It’s landlocked by my other property. MR. STONE-It is? Okay. MR. KENNEDY-So there’s no way that anybody is ever going to get it. MR. STONE-Except for this man will get access to it here. Okay. Thank you. Any other thoughts? All right. Jamie, why don’t you talk about it. MR. HAYES-I wish that they were all this easy. I mean, it’s a pool in his backyard, and he’s replacing an out of ground pool with an in-ground pool, which, as has already been brought, up is certainly an aesthetic improvement and this is significantly away from the road, and the immediately effected neighbor approves of it. Personally, at great risk, I’d say to me it’s as easy as it gets. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-I basically have to agree with Jamie. It’s replacing something that was already there. It’s, in my view an improvement compared to what was there. It certainly looks like it’s not going to impact the adjacent neighbor now, or any time in the foreseeable future. So I have no problem with approving this. MR. UNDERWOOD-Jim? Yes. I would be in favor of this application, too. It’s simply replacing the one that was there before and it’s going to be an improvement over what was there. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I approve of the application for the reasons given already by my fellow Board members. Thank you. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-And I agree with Jamie. This is an easy application, and I certainly would go along with approving it. MR. STONE-And I’m not going to change the tenor of the Board. MR. BRYANT-Do I get to say something, Mr. Chairman? MR. STONE-I’m sorry. MR. BRYANT-I was going to say something. I think we ought to look at this application very carefully. After all, the above ground pool was approved by the 1994 Board who approved the Donnelly garage. So, I don’t know. I’m very leery about this. Actually, I applaud the Board in 1994 who approved the original pool, and I would be totally in favor of your in-ground pool. MR. STONE-I’m sorry, and I apologize very much. MR. BRYANT-That’s quite all right. MR. STONE-I agree. This is, I mean, you have a nice piece of property. Nobody is ever going to know whether you have an in-ground pool or an above ground pool from the road or anywhere else, and as Mr. Bryant correctly states, you did get permission to build an above ground pool. This is 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) going to be essentially in the same place. I suspect you’re going to use the same posts and everything else that? MR. GUYETTE-No. The posts are going to go. MR. STONE-I have to admit, when I walked on the property I said, has this always looked like this, and then I recognized what you had done, that you had taken out the pool by now and put those posts off to the side. I think this is certainly, one of the reasons that we give variances is that this is a good application. It’s certainly going to benefit you. It is certainly not a detriment to the community in any way. Certainly, as Mr. Kennedy says, he has absolutely no problem. He’s already letting you use his land for some of the things that you have on your property, and, having said that, I need a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-2001 GLEN S. & JEAN C. GUYETT, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 463 Luzerne Road. Applicant proposes the removal of an above ground pool and construction of an in-ground pool and seeks setback relief. Applicant requests 12 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum rear setback requirement of the Accessory Structures and Uses Section 179-67. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant will be permitted to construct the desired accessory structure in the preferred location for the pool. Feasible alternatives, there really are none without the variance as applied for. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? It is moderate to substantial. Effects on the neighborhood or community. From what we have heard today, the effects are all going to be positive and good. Therefore, I move that we approve the application as submitted. Duly adopted this 20 day of June, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNally MR. STONE-There you go. Build your pool. MR. GUYETTE-Thank you. MR. BROWN-After you get your pool permit. MR. STONE-Yes, please come get a building permit. AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-2001 TYPE II OMNI HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY OWNER: RICHARD SCHERMERHORN AGENT: L. SIPPERLY & ASSOCIATES ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: LOT 15, BAYBROOK PROFESSIONAL PARK APPLICANT PROPOSES DEVELOPMENT OF A 13.63 ACRE PARCEL FOR 80 SENIOR CITIZEN INDEPENDENT LIVING APARTMENTS AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 24-2001 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 6/13/01 OLD TAX MAP NO. 60-2-4 NEW TAX MAP NO. 296.12-1-24 LOT SIZE: 13.63 ACRES SECTION 179-18, 179-66 MR. STONE-Do we have correspondence from Omni Housing? MR. BROWN-I have not received any correspondence from Omni, but it’s my understanding they are requesting a tabling until next month. MR. STONE-But have they requested tabling? MR. BROWN-A telephone conversation. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s enough. MR. BROWN-But no formal, unless it’s in the file. I haven’t seen it this afternoon. MR. BRYANT-Why did they want to table? MR. BROWN-It was inadvertently not referred to the County, something that should have been referred to the County for a recommendation. Plus the subdivision has not been filed. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) MR. STONE-Okay. Just for the record, we’re discussing Area Variance No. 38-2001, Omni Housing Development. According to Staff, the applicant has requested that this be tabled due to the fact that it was not referred to the County. MR. BRYANT-According to this it went to the County. Is that the same thing? MR. BROWN-It was the site plan probably, SPR, but there’s a variance. This is the variance. The variance did not get referred to the County. Does it say SPR? MR. BRYANT-Yes, it says SPR. MR. BROWN-Yes, that’s the site plan. MR. STONE-Because this particular variance application was not referred to the County, and Staff feels it should have been. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-2001 OMNI HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: Tabled for up to 62 days, until such time as we receive timely County action. Duly adopted this 20 day of June, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNally MR. STONE-Okay. Next on the agenda. AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2001 TYPE II GETTY PETROLEUM PROPERTY OWNER: GETTY PETROLEUM MARKETING, INC. AGENT: RONALD J. FORTUNE ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: CORNER OF RT. 149 AND 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FACILITY WITH CANOPIES AND SEEKS TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY, BUFFER ZONE, SETBACK RELIEF. ALSO, THE APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: SV 40-2001, SP 23-2001 WARREN C O. PLANNING: 6/13/01 OLD TAX MAP NO. 27-3-7.22 NEW TAX MAP NO. 266.03-1-78 LOT SIZE: 2.78 ACRES SECTION: 179-23, 179-28, 179-66, 179-72 CONRAD R. DECKER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 39-2001, Getty Petroleum, Meeting Date: June 20, 2001 “Project Location: Corner of Rt. 149 and 9L Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of an existing filling station facility and the reconstruction of a new service with an accessory gasoline island and canopy. Relief Required: Applicant requests approximately 25 feet of relief on the southern (Route 149) side of the site from the 75 foot minimum front yard setback requirement of the Route 149 Travel Corridor Overlay Zone for the proposed gas island canopy structure. Additionally, the applicant seeks relief for encroachments into the required 50 foot buffer along the northerly bounds of the property per § 179-72, Buffer zones (lights and landscaping). Further, the applicant seeks relief from the Off Street parking and loading regulations; § 179-66. The applicant requests relief for the access drives to the property to be 45 feet wide. § 179-66, B. (4) limits the drive lanes to a maximum width of 40 feet. 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 resulting in greater convenience and safety to their customer. 2. Feasible alternatives: The proposed development could be relocated elsewhere on this rather large parcel eliminating the need for the area variance. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? 25 feet of from the Travel Corridor Overlay may be considered moderate to substantial given the fact that the proposed canopy and convenience store could be located elsewhere on the site. The buffer zone relief could also be interpreted as moderate as buffer zones are to remain natural and undisturbed. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action, due to the fact that the proposed project represents an intensification of use resulting from increased services, site amenities, 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) and an increase in the overall site lighting. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created in that there appears to be ample area for compliant construction. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SPR 27-99 gas station/convenience store – pending AV 30-99 res. 6/23/99 gas station/convenience store SV 48-99 res. 6/23/99 freestanding sign and number of signs Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action due to the impacts to the site and surrounding properties noted above as well as the fact that this area of the Town was specifically noted in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan as an area where in which the rural residential character should be maintained and protected. If the Board sees fit to approve this application, it would be appropriate for the Board to issue a condition of approval recommending to the Planning Board that the proposed new convenience store, and gas island canopies be designed in such a way so as to include more appropriate styles of architecture and materials. This would satisfy the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-And we do have a “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form June 13, 2001 Project Name: Getty Petroleum Owner: Getty Petroleum Marketing, Inc. ID Number: QBY-AV-39-2001 County Project#: Jun01-23 Current Zoning: HC-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes demolition and reconstruction of facility with canopies and changes in curb cuts and seeks setback and permeability relief. Site Location: Corner of Route 149 and 9L. Tax Map Number(s): 27-3-7.22 Staff Notes: This project has also been referred for County review of several sign variances and a site plan (Agenda #’s 21 & 22). The Board should consider this variance request first. A project description provided by the town indicates that relief from the permeability requirement is required, but the site development data sheet (attached) controverts this, indicating that 30% permeability is required in this district and 56% permeability is proposed. It appears that the proposed action would infringe upon the front yard setback required from Route 149 (75’ required, 50’ proposed). The applicant may also need a variance from the travel corridor restrictions, though this is unclear (50’/75’ required, 50’ proposed). Due to concerns about the impact of the deficient setback to traffic on State Route 149 and its intersection with Route 9L, Staff recommends discussion. Local actions to date (if any): A public hearing has been scheduled for June 20, 2001. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve The recommendation of approve is given for the setback variance from 149. The Board did not address the issue of permeability relief because County Staff, upon reviewing the site development data sheet, did not believe this permeability relief was necessary (30% required, 56% proposed).” Signed Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 6/15/01. MR. STONE-You’re on, sir. Identify yourself and tell us what you want us to know. MR. DECKER-Okay. My name is Conrad R. Decker, 33 Park Plaza, Lee, Massachusetts, and I’m representing Getty Petroleum. This is the Getty location at the corner of 9L and Route 149. The property is zoned HC-1A. Getty Petroleum had filed an identical application and plans package for this particular site, roughly two years ago. What you have before you now is what was filed two years ago. Getty Petroleum got through most of the permitting process back then, through County Planning, through the Zoning Board of Appeals. They were in the middle of their Planning Board review for site plan approval, and at that time they got involve in a merger discussion with another oil company. All the capital improvement projects were suspended at that time. So even though certain variances were granted, and certain site plan approvals had been initiated, the procedure wasn’t completed and Getty suspended all action on that. So basically the plans you have before you now are identical to those that were filed two years ago. The first application is for the dimensional variance for the canopy. That is for a four column canopy that’s 28 foot by 46 foot, and dimension, it’s a steel canopy to be erected over new gasoline pump islands that would create a 50 foot front setback as shown on the plans that you have in front of you. Zoning does require a 50 foot setback in this zone. However, there’s a 75 foot setback in the Route 149 Travel Corridor Overlay which is required. Because of the proposed site layout, including the building locations, the pump island locations, the zoning setbacks, curb cut placements, buffers and the travel patterns, the proposed encroachment appeared to be the least intrusive, the way we’ve got it laid out now. This application is identical to Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals decision AV 30-1999, that was granted on June 23, 1999, just a little under two years ago, for exactly the same site. Again, if you’re familiar with the site, the property maintains about 500 feet of frontage on Route 149. It has about 250 feet of frontage over on Route 9L. The facility will be basically demolished, totally demolished. The existing pump islands, the existing diesel islands, the existing Snack Mart, dumpsters, the little sheds, everything on the site will be demolished. The applicant proposes to build a new 2,000 square foot convenience store, as shown on the plan. They’re proposing to install three new gasoline pump islands with three dispensers on it. There’d be a 28 foot by 46 foot canopy over the new pump islands, which is, the canopy is what is the subject of this application. There’d be new diesel islands placed over to the east of the new building location. That will also have an 18 foot by 50 foot canopy overhead, but that does meet the setbacks requirements. The applicant further proposes to close the two driveways on 9L, and install one new driveway further north from the intersection, further away from the intersection from where the other two driveways are. The applicant proposes to close the two driveways on Route 149 and again install one new driveway that’s further east, away from the intersection, again, as shown on the plan. The pump island location for the gasoline islands 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) will be no closer to the Route 149 than what’s there today. So basically the existing pump island, the setback will be no closer to the road than what’s there today, and then a resulting canopy will go overhead. Again, the canopy is set back at 50 feet, which does meet the zoning requirements in the zone. It does not meet the 75 foot requirement for the Route 149 Overlay. Essentially, we feel that the canopy is for the needs of our customers when pumping his or her gasoline, which is very typical of the gas stations in Queensbury. A hardship would exist if the canopy had to be placed at the mandated 75 foot setback because it would place the canopy well into the new proposed building location, and it would diminish the buffer, the travel lanes and traffic patterns that we’ve established on this particular layout. The intent of the Ordinance is not being jeopardized as this commercial use is already allowed, and the canopies are generally considered a customary accessory structure to the gasoline use. The structure will be supported by four steel columns, have no walls. (lost words) the façade of the canopy, the overhang of the canopy, will be at the 50 foot dimension. This is the Route 149 Travel Corridor, and our use and our use as proposed are all travel related uses. We feel that the public health, safety and welfare is not being compromised, as this pre-engineered structure is being designed specifically for the application. It’s at a height of 14 and a half feet, meaning from the grade to the underside of the canopy is 14 and a half feet. There are no walls. So you can see right through it, that there will be no obstruction to visibility for vehicular or pedestrian traffic. We feel that the reconstruction of this facility will be a significant improvement. If you’re familiar with the site, it’s very tired. Really, nothing’s been done in it for years. The architecture of the building, which you have in your plan package, shows a significant improvement to the buildings. The architecture with the brick, the gabled roofs. We feel that the improvements here will be significant and a pretty good addition to that corner. Did you want to just deal with the Area Variance? MR. STONE-Yes. We’ll do the Sign Variance next. MR. DECKER-Second. As far as the parking, I think we’re showing 23 car parking, which is a lot of parking for a 2,000 square foot store. We are also trying to minimize the amount of paving that we put on that location. I think the other plans will show all the travel flows for this truck traffic that will be coming in, wrapping around, counterclockwise around the building. We’ve had discussions with the State DOT regarding the driveways. I believe we’ve had discussions with Staff on the layout. Again, this layout that you have before you is identical to the one that was being discussed two years ago. The variance that’s being sought tonight is identical to the variance that was sought two years ago and approved under the AV 30-1999 that was granted, again, just under two years ago, and it’s for those reasons we would ask for your consideration of this request. MR. STONE-I have several questions, and I just want to state again, this is identical to, I know you said it about three times, but this is identical to what we, because I was involved, a number of us were involved, not like ’94. Some of us were involved then. Okay, and the other thing is, with all the work going on the other end of 149, Craig, there are no plans to use the Travel Corridor Overlay on this section of 149, the Travel Corridor width? As part of the reconstruction that’s going on on the other end? MR. BROWN-I’m not familiar with the plans for the realignment. I don’t know. MR. STONE-I mean, you say you talked to DOT. MR. DECKER-Just for the record, the plans that you have before you now make accommodations for the State DOT shoulder widening. So the plans you have in front of you have made accommodations for that already. MR. STONE-Okay. I mean, I see proposed shoulder in here. MR. DECKER-And the State likes this anyway. Anytime you can reduce the number of points of access to a highway, in our case four points to the highway reduced down to two. If you can displace them away from the corner as much as you can, like we have, again, we’ve got 500 feet of frontage here, and it’s a significant displacement away from the corner. So, obviously they’re pleased with that. MR. UNDERWOOD-I had a question for Craig. When Community Development, this year they presented those new plans for the 149 corridor where they’re different. Weren’t there different standards for the buildings that were going to be proposed over there? I mean, it was similar to Main Street, that they were going to try and have some kind of an Adirondack architecture or something. I recall something of that when you presented those plans, or maybe planning would pick up on that anyway. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. That’s a site plan. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) MR. STONE-That’s what Craig is suggesting in his Staff comments, which the applicant will have to address. We’re being asked to address where the canopy’s going to go, essentially, in terms of its encroachment into prohibited areas. MR. UNDERWOOD-The 75 feet. MR. DECKER-This is by way of information, too. Ron Fortune, one of the gentlemen in our office, is more intimate with this location than I am. He’s at another hearing in another part of the State tonight. He was having most of the discussions with the Town, two years ago. The architecture that we’re proposing with the red brick and the gabled roofs, I know there’s considerable discussions back then, again, we didn’t finalize the site plan approval process with the Planning Board back then, but we did get far enough that we were proposing a white brick, and I guess they wanted a red brick proposed. So our plan is to reflect what was the line of discussion, again, two years ago. So the plans we are proposing is a red brick building. MR. STONE-We can see fit to use your suggested language, if we get to that point, by referring you to the Planning Board. MR. BRYANT-Somebody refresh my memory. The Stewart’s across the street has one canopy and two islands there in that one canopy? MR. STONE-No, they have a double island, but it’s one set of pumps. MR. BRYANT-It’s a double long island. MR. HAYES-Right. I think that’s what it is. MR. DECKER-It is one pump island, two dispensers, and a canopy overhead. MR. MC NULTY-Staff Notes refer to buffer zone relief. I don’t remember, what’s the story with the buffer zone? MR. BROWN-There’s a 50 foot buffer required between the northerly property and this property, as the zone line is there as well. From the site plan, it appears to be new parking lot lighting and landscaping in that area, and as you know, buffers are supposed to be undisturbed, natural vegetation. So the relief would be for the three landscaping and any landscaping that’s going to change. MR. STONE-You’re talking on the northern boundary? MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-If I may, let me raise this issue. I don’t know who can answer it or not, but Mr. Decker indicated that these are the identical plans that were submitted, and you’ve already stated that, and the Chairman has asked you to state it, but in paragraph four of Staff Notes, it states there that the proposed project represents an intensification of use resulting from increased services, site amenities, and an increase in the overall site lighting. Now is this in addition to what was initially submitted? MR. STONE-Compared to what it is now. MR. ABBATE-Compared to what it is now. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. MR. DECKER-Just by way of information there, too, because I know this came up at the County when we were with them, when they looked at the diesel island area, for instance, they looked at the plan, and they saw what looked to be four dispensers on the diesel island, and their thoughts were, four dispensers means you could fuel four diesel vehicles at the same time, and it’s a misnomer in this particular case. What we have in this case is we have four dispensers, but two of them for truck islands are what we call two master dispensers, and then we have two satellite, or slaved dispensers. If you’re dealing with a truck that comes in and goes to the pump island, right now we have two diesel dispensers at the facility right now. That implies you can fuel two diesel vehicles at the same time, but if you get a truck in there, it’s got two tanks, one on either side of the truck, you basically pull up to the dispenser. You dispense your diesel fuel into one tank, and then when you’re done with that tank, you take the hose and the dispenser and you through it over the truck, because it’s a longer hose, and you fill the other tank. Okay. What we’re doing in this case is the master dispenser will feed the one side of the truck. The slave or satellite dispenser is on the other side of the truck with another hose. It’s tied into the same master dispenser. It’s tied into the same card reader, and 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) basically you’d fill both sides of the tank at the same time, under one account, with shorter hoses. So I just wanted to make that clear. This isn’t a situation where you’re intensifying the number of vehicles that can be dispensed at the diesel island. There were two vehicles that could be fueled at one time before. MR. ABBATE-This is a method’s change basically. MR. STONE-Let me ask you a question about something you just said. Fill them both at the same time, can diesel ones have automatic valves on them? Because we can’t for automobiles in New York State. MR. DECKER-Right. Theoretically, you could fuel both at the same time, but you wouldn’t. The whole idea with this is you can keep one hose on one side, once you’re done on that. MR. STONE-I heard you, but I don’t think you can walk away, in New York State. MR. ABBATE-You’re not filling both tanks simultaneously. MR. DECKER-Right, but you’re dealing with shorter hoses. MR. STONE-It’s a good system. I understand what you’re saying. MR. DECKER-It is. It works out pretty good, but just to be clear, you’re still only fueling two vehicles at one time. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. MR. DECKER-Again, as far as the gas is concerned, right now there are four gasoline dispensers at the site. This will have three dispensers at this site, and then the canopy is going overhead. MR. STONE-Single hose dispensers or triple hose dispensers? MR. DECKER-I believe what they’ll use is they’ll be single hose but multi-product. MR. STONE-Yes, multi-product. MR. DECKER-Right. MR. STONE-Any other questions before I open the public hearing? MR. HIMES-I’m just curious. How about the traffic in and out? It probably would be safer with the two access, egress points now, being as big as it is, and the service area being so small, the traffic can just kind of go around there without worrying about anything. You can see everything and whether it comes from Ridge and exits on Ridge, or goes the other way. With this, much more elaborate, how is the flow in and out? MR. DECKER-Basically, right now, again, this plan was in evolution two years ago. Getty, at the time, was really supporting the idea of the one driveway on 149. They wanted two driveways on 9L, primarily so you could put, the diesel traffic would take the northerly most drive, wrap around the building clockwise, come into the diesel islands, and then egress down on 149. Then we wanted a separate curb cut closer to the corner, which basically would service the gasoline islands. DOT really wasn’t that keen on the idea. I believe Staff, again, I wasn’t the one working on this at the time, but looking through the notes it appears that Staff really didn’t want that other driveway on 9L. They wanted everything to be further away from the corner, like we’re showing here now. So, basically, car traffic and diesel traffic will now come in off of 9L. The truck traffic can then wrap around the building and go to the diesel islands, like that, then exit out onto 149. They wanted signs placed that they don’t want truck traffic to come in off of 149 and go counterclockwise. They want the truck traffic to go clockwise. Likewise, when the cars come in off of 9L, you’ll see there’s a little access way between the building and 9L. The cars will have to basically come in and make a 180 degree turn, come in to the gas islands. So, again, as the plan evolved, we, again, agreed with the single driveway, northerly, displaced away from the drive lane. So you do have cars and diesel traffic coming in off of 9L. On the 149 side, basically cars are just coming ingress and egress, and just have the egress for the truck traffic only. MR. HIMES-So trucks coming from the east are going to turn right onto 9L, and come in that way, and then when they want to get out to continue going west, they’ll take the access on the east and back on 149 and go through the light again. MR. DECKER-Back onto 149 and head out. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) MR. STONE-You’ve got to go through the light two different directions? MR. DECKER-Correct, and then I believe, if you look at the plan here, there’s truck use signs at the driveways. That’s what was discussed, again, last time. MR. STONE-I see that. MR. DECKER-I think they had like two meetings with the Planning Board before they stopped. So, again, a lot of this stuff was really worked out way back then. MR. HIMES-Thank you. MR. STONE-Any other questions? Let me open the public hearing. We can dispense with that quickly. Anybody wishing to speak in favor? Anybody wishing to speak opposed? Any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-We do have one piece of correspondence. It’s a note from Ben and Sharon Aronson, 1516 Ridge Road. “As a residential property owner very close to proposed improvements to Getty Station I hope the Town will recognize that this is the entrance to the most beautiful area of Queensbury. This corner has long been neglected and has had a cluttered look for quite some time. Any improvement will certainly be welcomed. I suggest that the property have some sort of Adirondack architecture. I would like to see a landscaped buffer on the north property line to separate the commercial and shield the residential areas. I would object to a 24 hour operation (the original variance did limit this). I would hope that some kind of device be installed to stop the gas fumes that permeate the area when offloading fuel from tankers. I hope that the lighting will not be garish and is focused downward in an aesthetic manner. I insist that all present rules regarding signs, size of building pursuant to lot size, green areas that are stipulated in the present Town ordinances be strictly adhered to. If this lot is too small for these rules to be followed, adjustments must be made to comply. I am looking forward to an improved corner that blends with the beauty of the Harrisena Area. Ben & Sharon Aronson 1516 Ridge Road Queensbury, NY 12804” MR. STONE-Any other correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No other correspondence. MR. STONE-Then I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Do you wish to comment on anything about the letter? MR. DECKER-Just, the property is 2.78 acres. It’s two and three quarter acres, a huge piece of property. We really didn’t want to develop the entire piece. So basically everything’s being relegated to the corner. We are, by virtue of our landscape plan, trying to enhance the buffer over on that one side, and, again, I guess most of these issues will be raised with the Planning Board as we get that far. MR. STONE-Yes, but, Craig, I’m looking at the motion, when we approved it the last time. I don’t see anything about that northern buffer. MR. BROWN-It may have not been picked up on the last time. MR. STONE-Because I don’t see it, and if anyone that read this thing sees it there, I’d appreciate bringing it to my attention. Exactly what’s going to happen up on the north side? That’s one of the concerns that this letter addresses. MR. DECKER-There is a septic system being proposed along that northerly buffer. So, basically, the septic system would go in and then the buffers would have to be installed thereafter. Right now the septic system is being proposed along that north side. MR. STONE-Okay, but the developed area would encroach on the 50 feet, according to your interpretation. MR. DECKER-As far as the paving? MR. BROWN-It sounds like the developed area would encroach more than what’s shown on these plans, because the septic system is not shown on here. 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) MR. DECKER-There is a set of plans, Sheet S-5. MR. ABBATE-Do we have that? MR. BROWN-It wasn’t included with this submission. MR. MC NULTY-There is a sketch for a septic field on the front sheet. MR. STONE-Septic field, see Drawing S-5, yes. MR. MC NULTY-But it looks like, if that’s accurate on the front sheet, it extends well into the buffer area. MR. DECKER-But that would be a subsurface septic system. MR. MC NULTY-Yes, but the idea of a buffer area is it’s supposed to be left natural and undisturbed, and you’re certainly going to disturb it if you install a septic system there, and you’re not going to be able to plant trees over the top of the drainage area. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. MC NULTY-So it means you’re clearing a chunk of the buffer. I don’t recall what’s there now, whether it’s trees or brush or tall grass. MR. DECKER-Part of it is open, and part of it is tree. You can see where the existing tree line is. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. DECKER-The actual front part. MR. STONE-Yes, but by zoning rule, it is a buffer zone. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. STONE-Whether it’s trees or not, whatever is there is supposed to be there, stay there. MR. MC NULTY-Undisturbed. MR. ABBATE-Can I ask? I want to be sure that this is clear in my own mind, Mr. Decker. You indicated that you’re going to have a septic system in that buffer zone? MR. DECKER-Right. MR. ABBATE-And again, let me go back to Staff Notes again. Buffer zones are to remain natural and undisturbed. How could you possibly put anything in a buffer zone without disturbing it. MR. DECKER-That’s correct. I guess that’s why Staff required that we come in for a variance from that, I believe. MR. ABBATE-My perspective, I don’t see how you can intrude on that buffer zone, if it’s to remain natural and undisturbed, and someone correct me if I’m wrong. MR. MC NULTY-It can’t unless we allow it. MR. STONE-Unless we allow it. MR. MC NULTY-Unless we give him a variance for it. MR. ABBATE-And that’s what he’s asking. MR. STONE-That’s part of the application. MR. MC NULTY-You’ve got the septic field in there, and they are showing three lights, also. MR. ABBATE-Three lights. MR. MC NULTY-That will be in there. 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) MR. DECKER-Light fixtures, along that perimeter. MR. ABBATE-So then in the buffer zone would be the septic as well as three lights? MR. MC NULTY-It appears, according to this plan. MR. ABBATE-According to the plan. So that would then, in effect, disrupt. Okay. I’m not saying it’s negative or positive. I’m just trying to get this straight in my own mind. Because the letter from that couple addressed that issue. MR. DECKER-In some jurisdictions, when you build these things, sometimes the reference of a buffer zone means, you shall not build within the buffer, 50 foot in this case. Our developed area here, the edge of paving is at the 50 foot limit. That’s why that 50 foot was actually being preserved. So, the 50 foot would then in essence be a green area, or a landscaped area, with separation between us an the property next door. If that could be enhanced with landscaping or fences again, subject to, again, where the septic field goes in. Obviously, you don’t want. MR. ABBATE-Okay. While we’re focusing in here, let me address several other things. The couple was also concerned about gas fumes and the 24 hour operation. Could you address that please? MR. DECKER-Right now the hours of operation at the site, I believe, is 5:30 in morning until I think it’s 11 and 12, maybe 12 on the weekends. MR. ABBATE-So it’s not a 24 hour operation? MR. DECKER-It’s not 24 hours right now. I think they were proposing to go 24. MR. ABBATE-It is a proposal to go to 24? MR. DECKER-They were proposing to go to 24. MR. ABBATE-And the gas fumes? MR. DECKER-Again, it’s an older station. I’m not sure if they’ve got Stage One or Two, I doubt they’ve got Stage Two Vapor Recovery there. MR. ABBATE-Because I have to, you know, if I were living next to the property, I would be just as concerned as the folks who wrote that letter. MR. STONE-Craig, can you measure out the buffer zone on the map there? MR. BROWN-Yes, 35 feet. MR. STONE-It’s not the curb, is it? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. DECKER-It is 50 feet from the property line to the curb line. MR. STONE-It is 50 feet from the curb line? Okay. MR. DECKER-To the property line. MR. BROWN-And the septic system, as sketched, encroaches 35 feet into the buffer zone. MR. STONE-Right. Well, let me just read, “A buffer zone is an unpaved, natural area, without buildings, designed to reduce the possibility of adverse impact on land or water quality and/or conflict of land use between two or more areas. No parking or storage of vehicles of any kind or objects associated with the use of the property is permitted. When not inhabited with natural woody plants (i.e., trees and shrubs) sufficient to visually screen adjoining uses or zones, such buffer area shall be planted, re-graded and/or fenced.” So re-graded might indicate that you can do something under the ground, and then do something over the septic system. I don’t know whether that’s encroachment or not. I mean, that’s our definition. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. STONE-It doesn’t necessarily say, natural and undisturbed. 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) MR. BROWN-No, but I think in the beginning of the definition it says any facilities associated with the use of the property aren’t allowed in the buffer zone, and I think light fixtures and septic system are facilities associated with. MR. STONE-Light fixtures I agree with. MR. BROWN-Yes. I think, is a septic system in a buffer zone an encroachment? Yes. Is it a minimal encroachment? Yes. MR. STONE-Okay, but the light fixtures are. MR. ABBATE-A substantial encroachment. MR. STONE-A substantial encroachment. I mean, a septic field technically is, but it’s going to be mitigated. MR. ABBATE-Cosmetically covered, so to speak. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. ABBATE-But lighting certainly cannot be. MR. MC NULTY-And depending on whether there’s any vegetation there that’s going to be cut down. MR. ABBATE-Yes, sure, Chuck. MR. STONE-Well, it’s going to be landscaping. Did you indicate that the buffer is going to be landscaped? MR. DECKER-Parts of it are going to be landscaped, and the rest of it would be grassed. MR. MC NULTY-Any part that’s going to be septic/drainage field is going to be grass. MR. STONE-Grass, yes. MR. MC NULTY-Which if it’s currently grass doesn’t change it, but if it’s currently six foot high bushes, then it will change it. MR. STONE-There’s a, the property physically, you’re familiar with it. How far does it go toward the north? Because, I mean, it’s pretty scraggly to the north, from what I can recall. It’s not very attractive in any way, shape or form, and I don’t even know what’s there. I have to admit, I didn’t look that closely. Does anybody have a? MR. HIMES-What, out Ridge Road? MR. ABBATE-Up north, the northern portion. MR. STONE-There’s a little hill there. MR. HIMES-There are, there is some grass, and then there’s a narrow kind of shrub tree line there. You’ll often see cars parked there, whether it’s park and drive groups or what, and then there’s an old fence line, and a driveway that runs from Ridge Road all the way down to Manley’s, and there’s some development going on in to the left there. The driveway also branches off to the residence, the first residence to the north, which is probably the author of that letter. That’s probably who that is. So you’ve got their land, a little bit of gravelly grass stuff. MR. HAYES-A transition area. MR. HIMES-Yes. Then there’s some shrubs and saplings and some tree growth along the fence line. MR. HAYES-You don’t intend to cut down those trees or shrubs or anything like that. MR. HIMES-And you get more and more trees and shrubs as you proceed to the east. MR. DECKER-Along the property line? MR. HAYES-Yes. 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) MR. DECKER-Only enough to get the septic system in. The only disturbance would be the area where the septic system would be going in. The other tree line will not be touched at all. MR. HAYES-Would you be agreeable to having the screening be at least as significant as it is now, ultimately? MR. DECKER-I think if there’s any trees along where the septic system would be going in, we couldn’t replace trees in those areas, because of the septic system. MR. STONE-Yes, because of the septic system. MR. DECKER-But I mean there’s really no reason why a fence couldn’t go along there. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t see any reason why we couldn’t request some sort of a berm, you know, with trees planted on it, just to create a, you know, an essential demarcation zone between those properties to the north. That would be something easy to do. MR. DECKER-I’d have to check with our septic people to see how much of a separation I’d need from a tree to the leaching field. I mean, right now the edge of the leaching field is 15 feet from the property line. So if they don’t have any problem with putting some sort of a tree line along there. MR. STONE-Well, it’ll be grass, and you’re not going to park there. That was very specific. MR. DECKER-That’s what I mean, sometimes the buffer is a green area, a separation, as long as you’re not building on or paving on, parking near. MR. STONE-Well, what about the lights that we’re concerned about, those three lights? I’m trying to figure out where the base is. Is the base the northerly rectangle or square, or the southerly? MR. DECKER-No, the base is the northerly rectangle. MR. STONE-Okay. So it encroaches in six or seven feet? MR. DECKER-Yes. MR. STONE-Well, that’s an encroachment into the buffer. MR. DECKER-So I guess what you could almost do, these three. Three here, we’d have one there, I suppose we could put one here, and possibly one here. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, that would help us in terms of the buffer zone, if you could take them out. MR. DECKER-I suppose if you had to you could put a wall pack on the building. You want to make sure it’s illuminated. MR. STONE-Yes, well, the Planning Board are the light experts in the Town. We let them figure out whether they should be 20 feet, 22 and a half feet. (Discussion on lighting ensued) MR. STONE-If we’re going to grant encroachment in the buffer zone by a septic system, or septic field, then we can ask them to move those. MR. ABBATE-I agree, and you’re willing to do that? MR. DECKER-To relocate the lights? MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. DECKER-Yes. I’m okay with it. I’m just not sure what the Planning Board is going to say. MR. STONE-All right. Let’s, since we’re doing this individually, let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Chuck. Do you want to talk about it first? MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I do have some problems with it. The buffer zone is one. I think if the lights were moved out of the buffer zone, if there were some sort of contingency that, assuming that the installation of the septic field tends to open up that buffer area, then I would like to see some kind of contingency requiring the berm that we talked about with trees planted on top, swung up 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) around the top of that, so that we effectively restore the buffer area. I think one thing, several areas in this Town, buffer areas, have come up as being a problem, and a lot of times it’s looking for visual screening, which might include preventing light from your lights shining through onto residential property. Sound, which is difficult to screen, but nevertheless that, but basically insulating residential areas from the commercial as much as possible, and the total 100 feet of buffer isn’t going to adequately do it. You’ve got 50, there’s another 50 that belongs on the residential side that’s the same way, should be left undisturbed, but I could go with the intrusion into the buffer for the septic system, with those provisos, the lights come out and some additional work be done around the septic field to replace whatever screening we lose because of the necessity of digging up for the septic. MR. DECKER-Just in the form of like a landscape mound? MR. MC NULTY-Something like, I’m thinking in terms of maybe a landscape mound with trees planted on top, that would give you additional height, that would give, what you’re losing 50 feet of trees because your septic system’s cutting into it, you gain by putting some dirt there. MR. DECKER-If the trees, and again, I’m not a septic guy here, but if the trees are a problem, that close to a leaching field. MR. MC NULTY-You would have to be up away from the leaching field some, because you don’t want trees growing roots into the field. MR. DECKER-Right. Maybe some sort of a lighter vegetation that has some height to it. I can’t guarantee you I’ll put a three inch diameter maple tree in that area, because gradually that’s going to be a big maple tree. MR. MC NULTY-As long as something is done with idea of not leaving the septic system as a clear area that cuts straight through the buffer zone without something to replace. MR. DECKER-Some other form of mitigation. MR. MC NULTY-Some other form of mitigation. Vegetation and mound or whatever. MR. UNDERWOOD-The septic field can be two lines instead of three lines. It can be longer lines, too. I mean, you can modify it that way. MR. MC NULTY-Right, that’s another possibility is to keep the lines closer to the edge, and not, but that’ll have to be left for the final determination of what’s required by Health Department and everything. MR. STONE-Looking at this thing, it looks as if the septic field, I’m diverging here, is under the pavement. I mean, this is going to be paved, right? MR. UNDERWOOD-No, that says existing concrete pad, I think is what that is. MR. STONE-No, I’m talking, where that shed thing is, it’s got septic field around there, and it comes down into what I assume is the paved area. MR. DECKER-No. Do you have Sheet S-5 there? MR. STONE-No, I don’t have S-5. I’ve got S-10, or S-1. I don’t think we got it. Okay. So it’s not even like this. MR. MC NULTY-This is more substantial intrusion into the buffer zone, basically, it wipes out the buffer zone, and that I’d have a problem with, and we’re going back to less than 12 feet from the line. (Discussion on buffer zone ensued) MR. STONE-The concern that we’ve got is that you’re showing a natural tree line, and you’re certainly going to disturb that greatly, and that, apparently, is unacceptable to a lot of Board members. MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. STONE-So while I suspect we can grant, and I don’t know, obviously, until we talk about it. We started to, but we can probably grant this relief. The buffer zone seems to be a serious problem. MR. MC NULTY-I think the buffer is going to be a serious problem. 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) MR. HIMES-Especially when there is room. MR. STONE-Yes. Well, let’s continue. Jim, you’re next. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think the intent of the new rules that were put in place for up on that corridor were supposed to reflect an Adirondack type architecture, as they proposed, and I think that, you know, now you have this kind of real minimalist gas station up there that, you know, is kind of like stone age compared to what should be there, but I think now you’re trying to actually put a little bit too much there over what is reasonable. I mean, you have Stewart’s on the other side, which is, you know, a standard Stewart’s store, but it’s quite a bit smaller than this one. I don’t know if it needs to be that busy a place. I mean, everybody wants more business, but there’s a law of return. MR. STONE-Okay. Again, the comment we’re talking about is the canopy setback. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, and I think the canopy on the east side there, the diesel one specifically is the one that I have a problem with. MR. STONE-And that’s not our call. Did you look at the minutes from last time? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. STONE-And I think Craig has got some good language in there, in terms of recognizing the desire of the new zoning plan, which is coming along? MR. BROWN-As we speak. MR. STONE-As we speak, it’s coming along, because it does address these intersections on 149, the Bay and the Ridge and obviously the other end, but our call right now, and Craig help me if I’m wrong, I mean, we’ve got to worry about the canopy and its incursion into the Travel Corridor Overlay and the 50 feet, and the other concern that we seem, that we have is the buffer zone on the north side, and the destruction or the disturbance that’s going to take place there. MR. HAYES-It’s not only the disturbance. It’s the fact that, by definition, there could be very limited replacement. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. HAYES-Because normally, if there was some assurances that there was going to be a replacement, you could mitigate it. MR. STONE-And that’s coming in the future, too. In the zoning we are talking about bigger trees, bigger caliper trees, and making sure that they live, which is something we haven’t had. MR. BROWN-And the last one, which is the smaller out of the three requests, is the drive, the access drive aisle width is limited to 40 feet, and on the plans it shows it at least 45. MR. STONE-Yes, I saw that one. MR. HAYES-It wasn’t in the last application either. MR. BROWN-I’m not sure if the width had changed in the previous application. MR. STONE-Yes, that’s why I asked. You said identical, and I knew that was there. MR. ABBATE-There were changes then. There were changes from the original application. MR. DECKER-Again, I wasn’t with this thing two years ago. MR. ABBATE-No, I’m not placing the responsibility on you. I was concerned, the Chairman made it a point, since you’re the representative, you’re here, he wanted you to state for the record that this was identical. Apparently it’s not. MR. BROWN-Well, what happens is the variances are granted first, then it goes to the Planning Board for site plan review, and at site plan review, some changes could have been made to the plan, and those changes could be reflected now into this variance that’s come back before us. The setback relief, the buffer relief and the driveway width relief, they’re all, I don’t think there’s a significant change in this plan from the last one. It’s not a. 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) MR. ABBATE-He didn’t say significant. The question was, is this identical, and the answer now is no, it is not identical. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Correct, am I correct? Is this identical, let’s start from the beginning, to the original plans that were submitted? MR. DECKER-To my knowledge, these plans are identical to the point where we were finalizing everything with the Planning Board two years ago. MR. STONE-And what Craig is saying that there might have been some modification by the Planning Board. MR. ABBATE-I understand. It’s nothing personal. Don’t misunderstand me. MR. STONE-Norm, go ahead. MR. HIMES-All right. Thank you. Let’s see, one thing, I think there were some comments about the lights being moved and this, that and the other, but they look like they’re right on the 50 foot line. MR. STONE-No, the base is about five feet in. MR. HIMES-Okay. Neither here nor there. If they want to move them, they can move them. I think the aspect of the septic and what’s going to happen up there in the northern line is of a concern, especially when there appears to be some real estate available to the east, which might be able to substituted for the septic. I don’t have a problem with the variance for the Travel Corridor Overlay. The curb cutting, although I can’t say that I’m any kind of an expert on the impacts of it being five feet bigger or smaller, but I would not decline this application on that account. The parking, there was something mentioned about parking. I think you mentioned you were going to have 23 spaces. MR. DECKER-Twenty-three cars are shown now. MR. HIMES-To park, and that would seem like it’s plenty, but evidently, wasn’t there a comment in the Staff Notes that there’s. MR. BROWN-In the Off Street Parking and Loading Regulations which cover access drive widths. MR. HIMES-Okay. So it’s not the actual parking limits. Okay. I see. I’m sorry. One thing that occurred to me, in connection with the area that’s involved, and although it is residential as well, kitty corner across the street, that big lot on the corner, I don’t know what is going to happen to that, but I have a feeling it’s going to be something commercial or what have you, that’s going to be something pretty good sized, and it’s going to make the intersection a little busier, and it’s probably going to have a lot of lighting and God knows what there. So I think that, in connection with that corner, I’m kind of tempering my thoughts about this with that in mind, more in favor, I should say. So I tend to be sympathetic towards approving this. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Well, I guess I’m going to have to be the bad one, then. Applicant proposes demolition of an existing filling station facility and the reconstruction of a new service station with an accessory gasoline island canopy. I applaud it. I think it’s a wonderful, wonderful project. However, I feel a project of this magnitude belongs more on Quaker Road than it does on 149 and 9L, and, based upon things that I have been hearing this evening, and new information has come forward, at this point I would be against it. MR. STONE-Okay. Your turn. MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. HIMES-Lew, if I could just add to my comment the fact that drainage going to the east, with the septic going to the east, I would approve it. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, I think we’re going to probably end up asking for something like in Fort Ann. MR. HAYES-No, I mean, there’s one in Fort Ann. 48 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) MR. BRYANT-Actually, Mr. Abbate is not the only bad guy. I understand what Getty is trying to accomplish there. I mean, the whole trend in the State, 2002 they’re going to widen Route 4, have 149, 197, there’s going to be major traffic going back and forth to Vermont. That’s what the State anticipates, and I think that’s what prompted you to design this elaborate gas station, and I’ve got to agree with Mr. Abbate that it really belongs on Quaker Road or Aviation Road, but if you look at the other Getty stations, and I don’t know what’s on the boards, but the one on Aviation Road, there’s no way that it can be that size. The one in Hudson Falls is not that big, and that’s a major corridor. The one in Fort Edward is not that big, and that’s a major corridor. On that basis alone, and considering the area, and here you come off of the lake, down the road, through the woods, and there’s this giant gas station, and frankly, I think that the project should be downsized. So that you don’t encroach on the TCO and the buffer zone and maybe eliminate a couple of those islands like the Stewarts across the street, which is very modern, and still have your convenience store. So as it stands right now, I’m opposed to the project. MR. STONE-Jamie? MR. HAYES-Well, this is my second time through with this project, and I essentially feel the same way, with a few modifications. I think the filling station that’s there now, which is a pretty good sized filling station, is terribly undercapitalized, and it cries out for a total recycling, in my mind. I think that the traffic on this road, as Allan has pointed out, is going to increase dramatically. It already has. I mean, that’s part of what’s driving the improvements that are happening there now, and that’s where filling stations go. This is an historical use on that corner, and it’s liable to continue. So, having said that, I don’t have any problem with the Travel Corridor Overlay because I think that there’s enough room there that’s been reserved for additional intensification of traffic improvements in that corner or at that light or whatever, and that may very well be, but I think there’s sufficient room to be there now. So I don’t have any problem with the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone. As far as the turning radiuses, which you’re seeking to make 45 feet wide, I don’t have any problem with that either, and I think that, in a back up to that, that the Planning Board is going to review all of this by definition, and that if they’ve tweaked this plan here and there, that five feet really does not concern me, in this particular case. I think, you know, when you’re finished, based on the plans, I think we’re looking at a balanced site, to my understanding, where I would envision. The only thing that concerns me, and I think it kind of mirrors Norm’s outlook on this parcel, is certainly the removal of the buffer zone, of the vegetation to the north to construct the septic field where you’ve placed it, to me, is a fatal flaw, because the concerns that have been expressed in the letter, as far as separating residential and commercial property, to me, that’s the point of the buffer zone and that, even though it would be natural grass, that would destroy that, the buffering effect of that, and I think that I would agree with Norm that I would only approve that part of the relief requested if that site was constructed some place else, and I mean substantially constructed some place else, so that that natural vegetation, or even an enhancement, in berm or trees could be placed there. If somebody made that part of their motion to actually increase the vegetation, I think that’s very low cost compared to what you’re proposing for this project, and I would support that contingency. So, I guess I have, as far as the effect on the neighborhood, I have faith in the fact that the Planning Board is going to make you use materials and design factors and everything else that make this as good an improvement in this site, which I, again, go back to. I think it will be a dramatic improvement. I have faith to charge them with requiring you to do that, and coming up with a plan that in fact accomplishes that. That’s what they’re charged with, and I think that they’ll do it. So, on balance, I think that it’s a good plan. It needs to be re-capitalized, recycle this property dramatically so, and if you can change the impact on the buffer zone, as I’ve felt before, I think it’s a good idea and I think it’s a good plan, and I think it ultimately could even be a benefit to the neighborhood if the Planning Board requires you to do it properly, which I’m sure they will. So, I’m in favor of it, changing the encroachment into the buffer zone. MR. STONE-I agree with everybody. No, I agree with Jamie, in the sense that I think this is a good project. I think that corner has been an eyesore. I think as someone pointed out, I guess two years ago, that it is the entrance to Queensbury. We have enough problems with the entrances to Queensbury, since most people don’t even know where Queensbury is, and we’d like to think they should but also stay out, if you know what I mean, but it is an entrance to Queensbury. It is people coming down that road, and it’s one of the first things they see, and I think the Getty station is not been a credit to the organization, and I think this will. Having said that, I feel no problem with the setback of the canopy. I feel no problem with the 45 feet driveways into the property. Certainly, having it reduced to only two, one on 9L and one on 149, that’s certainly a positive, and you do want to take advantage of the truck traffic on the road and make it easy for big rigs to get in there. I can understand that, and hopefully it will be good for business. I do have a great concern with the buffer on the north. Certainly we are responsive to neighbors, and the letter certainly makes us all think. It doesn’t necessarily make us make a decision one way or the other, but it makes us think, and having access to information that we did not have before, namely this septic system, there is a great deal of concern by me, and I hear it in about four or five members of the Board. I would prefer that you go back to your client and try to work out something on the septic system. I mean, we could, I mean, 49 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) we have a total application before us. Now we could grant relief, if we were so inclined, but I would be more inclined to, and don’t jump on me, guys, to deny the application, so that you have to make major changes to bring it back to us. Because once we deny an application, we are masters of our own fate, in terms of what we will accept as a new application, and I think the feeling here is that we need a major change in the buffer, and if we deny it, I think we’re sending a message that we want to see a major change before we would even hear it, and that we have to actually vote on it ahead of time, a second time, and I hear great concern. I’m getting a lot of shaking of heads here agreeing with me. Now, this does not say that the feeling, certainly I agree, as I said, with Jamie on the setback. I don’t hear any serious problem there, but right now we have one application before us. Is that right, Craig? MR. HAYES-Can I make one suggestion, as an alternative to that? MR. STONE-Go ahead. MR. HAYES-Is that if we approve the relief for the two that everybody seems comfortable with approving, and don’t give any relief for the buffer zone, that means you’ll have to change or you can’t go the Planning Board. MR. DECKER-I can live with that. MR. HAYES-I mean, you won’t have to come back to us at all. MR. DECKER-Yes, deny my buffer, and then it’s incumbent upon me to fix it. MR. BROWN-You took the words out of my mouth. MR. STONE-That’s good. I like that. MR. DECKER-I’m looking at the test holes, at where they popped them in around the site. They’re fairly consistent all the way around. It’s probably not a problem. You guys are talking about talking the septic system and putting it to the east. MR. HAYES-Right. MR. DECKER-I mean it’s all down-gradient anyway. I mean, I don’t have a major problem with it. If you want to deny the buffer, then it’s incumbent upon me to fix the problem. MR. STONE-Are we going to get approval for that, guys? MR. MC NULTY-In fairness, I didn’t finish all my thoughts when we were going through. MR. STONE-I’m sorry. MR. MC NULTY-That’s okay. I do have a problem with the Travel Corridor Overlay, too. It strikes me that the two corners that are there now, that are developed, Stewarts, and the restaurant, which I don’t know is closed or whatever, but set back fairly well from the road, and while we may not need the Travel Corridor Overlay in order to build a road, I think it gives us a visual setback that makes the area look nicer. MR. HAYES-Are we going to be kicking it into the buffer zone, though, if we try and move him away from the road, going to be kicking it further north. MR. BROWN-Well, that’s exactly what the Travel Corridor Overlay is for, for improvements to the road. The 50 foot setback, which the canopy meets, is for the visual setback, but the Travel Corridor Overlay setback is specifically for the widening and improvement of roads, and if they’ve, I think if they’ve accommodated that, then it meets the 50 foot setback, it seems like it’s not a big issue. MR. STONE-I don’t think it’s a big issue either, because I think they have accommodated all we asked. If there were no TCO there, they wouldn’t even need a variance. Now, you may disagree with the zoning, but that’s what we live with. MR. HIMES-Can I make another comment here? I had second thoughts here a little bit on going back to the matter of the traffic flow, and in connection with the larger vehicles going to turn onto 9L. There is no real turning lane there, as I recall. Now you add whatever happens kitty corner across the street there, which is maybe going to make more traffic coming on and off Ridge Road and 149, but I don’t think it’s, you know, our problem, so to speak. I look to the point of, to whatever extent truck traffic might be coming along and slowing down and just about coming to a stop there to make that turn and go up Ridge Road, and nothing can go around them, and the impact 50 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) on the traffic flow going east and west there. In other words, it almost seems, entering from the east an exiting on Ridge Road would be better, but I see there getting to be some congestion here, and the aspect of the Travel Corridor Overlay, if they were going to make a turning lane along there, on 149 to go north on 9L, for any traffic, but certainly big trucks, and I’m not saying there’s going to be 5,000 trucks pulling in there to get gas every day, but there may be enough, and all you need is one or two on a green light situation, slowing down to make that turn, with cars lined up right there on the other side. It’s like the middle of Fort Ann. So, I introduce that for whatever caution that we might be able to invoke here. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, again, that is not in the variance that we’re granting, and that obviously is a Planning Board and the State asked you to do it that way? MR. DECKER-Yes. MR. STONE-I don’t understand, listening to you, I don’t understand why they would ask trucks to turn north to come back in. MR. DECKER-We didn’t want it. We wanted them to be able to have equal access from both directions, and they didn’t want it, and they’re making us, I mean, look at the signs. They’re making us put up the signs like that. MR. STONE-Okay. A vehicle cannot, cars and trucks cannot egress, enter and egress on the same road. Can cars come back out on 9L, on 149? MR. DECKER-Right, 149 ingress and egress for cars only. We can only egress trucks out of the easterly most driveway on 149. MR. STONE-Either direction. MR. DECKER-Either direction, on the Route 9L driveway, cars can in and out that driveway, but trucks are only allowed in that way. MR. STONE-I think truckers are going to find very quickly that they don’t need diesel fuel at your place. Because getting out onto 149 is not easy. MR. HAYES-They must have the pagination studies. I mean, that’s their area. MR. BROWN-We could go along with this for another hour. MR. STONE-Okay. With Jamie’s suggestion, how many are willing to grant, consider granting the variance for the Overlay for the canopy, and the 45 feet versus 40, and saying we’re not going to grant relief on the buffer zone? I mean, is that a motion that is reasonable for enough people? MR. HIMES-I liked the idea when it came up, but I’ve really got a fix on this traffic situation. MR. STONE-Well, I understand, but we’re not going to touch the traffic system, one way or the other. MR. ABBATE-We’re going to deny the buffer area. MR. HAYES-We’re not denying it. We’re not going to grant it. MR. STONE-Yes. In a sense, we’re saying we’re going to grant relief for this and not grant relief for that, in the same motion. MR. DECKER-And that makes me fix the problem. MR. STONE-Right. MR. ABBATE-I’ll go along with the majority. It sounds reasonable. MR. STONE-Okay. Why don’t you make a motion? MR. BROWN-Just to avoid confusion in making one, if we could get the applicant to remove his request for buffer relief, then you don’t even have to talk about it, because it’s not on the table. You don’t even have to say, well, we’re going to remove the buffer, we’re not going to give buffer relief. If the applicant will remove his request for buffer relief, it’s not even considered. MR. DECKER-Yes. I’d rather not have a denial on it. 51 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) MR. BROWN-Rather not have a denial. Just withdraw any request for buffer relief. MR. DECKER-And then what I can do is, if for some reason, say our septic people say it’s going to be a problem over there, I don’t see why it would be, but if they did, I’m still going to have to come back to you folks and ask for relief, but this time I’m going to have a hardship because, hey, guys, it can’t go there. I’ll make a formal. MR. STONE-Just a second. I’m just wondering aloud, without any mention of our concern about the buffer in the motion, are we losing something? MR. BROWN-I don’t think so. MR. STONE-Okay. All right. MR. DECKER-I’d like to make a formal request for a withdraw of my request for dimensional relief on the buffer at this time. MR. STONE-Encroachment on. MR. DECKER-Encroachment in the buffer. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-It’s off the table. MR. STONE-All right. Jamie, do you want to do it? MR. HAYES-I guess I can do it. That’s no problem. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2001 GETTY PETROLEUM, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Corner of Rt. 149 and 9L. The applicant proposes demolition of an existing filling station and facility and the reconstruction of a new service station with an accessory gasoline island canopy. Specifically, the applicant requests approximately 25 feet of relief from the southern, that being Route 149, side of the site, from the 75 foot minimum front yard setback requirement of the Route 149 Travel Corridor Overlay Zone for the proposed gas island canopy structure. Additionally, the applicant requests relief from the off street parking and loading regulations, Section 179-66. The applicant requests relief for the access drives to be the property to be 45 feet wide. Section 179-66B Part 4 limits the drive lanes to a maximum width of 40 feet. The benefit to the applicant, the benefit is that the applicant could construct a new gas station, more modern one, and improve the overall site and presumably their business thereupon. Feasible alternatives, I believe that feasible alternatives are somewhat limited, based on the width of the site and also the applicant’s desire to have their gas station located in a way that is going to produce the best results, as far as a balanced site, in that particular case. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? A 25 foot relief from the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone I believe is moderate. I believe that, based upon what’s been presented here tonight, that there is room to accommodate traffic improvements at this corner, which is the purpose of the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, and the fact that outside of that TCO, the applicant is 50 foot setback from the property line, which would be the requirement short of that. Effects on the neighborhood or community? I believe that based on a stringent site plan review by the Planning Board, that the variances that we propose to grant today will actually have a positive impact on the neighborhood, as this gas station, in my mind, is rundown, needs to be recycled, and at this particular time, as brought up by the Chairman, actually is not a compliment to that neighborhood, and I believe that a new one could be, if properly managed. Is the difficulty self-created? I don’t believe that it is. I believe that this is a good plan, in an overall sense, and the fact that this was an older station, it doesn’t accommodate the type of business or traffic that is there now, makes this, that was a change from the past. So, on balance, I think that the test falls in favor of the applicant, in this particular case, for the two pieces of relief that we’ve granted, in this particular case. As part of my motion, I would like to recommend to the Planning Board that they, in fact, recommend the materials and other such things as presented in the Staff Notes, to makes this new plan actually accommodate the neighborhood or be improve the neighborhood, or be a compliment to the neighborhood, which is part of our test, with the overall intention of satisfying the Comprehensive Use Plan that covers this intersection. Duly adopted this 20 day of June, 2001, by the following vote: th MR. DECKER-Do you want to make any mention the application is consistent with the decision AV 30-1999 that was previously granted? 52 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) MR. HAYES-I don’t think we should because as Chuck pointed out, actually, there are some changes, and I think that we’ve reviewed this as it stands, and that’s also the reason behind the denial for the septic area, because that was a new piece of information. MR. DECKER-That’s true. MR. HAYES-So I think that I’d like to make that motion, just based on what we’ve reviewed tonight, and the discussion tonight. AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant ABSENT: Mr. McNally MR. DECKER-So does this mean the station stays the way it is? MR. ABBATE-It means the application has been denied. MR. STONE-I understand. I guess I don’t understand. I’m not putting anybody on the spot. I don’t understand. MR. ABBATE-It’s five to two. MR. STONE-You’re still concerned about the traffic. MR. HIMES-Yes. I agree with Jamie. The idea was great that he came up with, and up until that thought hit me, I had said that I would be in favor for it, but I think we are creating a potential. MR. STONE-You don’t think we should do anything to that intersection except leave it the way it is. MR. BRYANT-That’s not what he’s saying. I don’t think that that’s what, that’s not what anybody has stated. Basically, everybody’s said that it needs improvement. We agree that it needs improvement, but that the project is an overkill for that particular area, and that whole environment, that Rural Residential area, and it’s not, you know, it doesn’t belong there. Okay. So I think that the applicant should re-think the entire project. It’s a good, it has a good basis. It needs a nice convenience store, Adirondack look, a couple of gas pumps, a rural atmosphere. It doesn’t need, this is not a place for a truck stop. MR. DECKER-This has been re-thought and re-thought over, over the last couple of years. That’s, where we are today is where this Board and Warren County Planning and the Planning Board were at two years ago. We’re actually just, I don’t want to call this a reinstatement, but this is where we were two years ago. MR. STONE-The only reason I’m asking is I’m trying to help the applicant. I mean, what does he need to do? I mean, you’re not saying there shouldn’t be a gas station there, or maybe you are. MR. BRYANT-No. I’m primarily saying that the convenience store is nice. The gas station is nice, but I don’t think we need all these diesel pumps and, you know. MR. DECKER-That’s what’s there now. MR. BRYANT-Well, that’s not what’s there now. You don’t have the five islands there now. MR. DECKER-Yes. That’s what I was trying to explain before. Under the diesel configuration, there are two diesel dispensers there now. There will be two diesel dispensers when we’re done. That satellite was a, satellite dispensers were, that’s a mechanism for the diesel dispenser. That is not increasing fueling capabilities for the diesel. MR. BRYANT-We’re not talking about fueling capabilities. We’re talking about two giant canopies that don’t exist now. MR. DECKER-But the canopies would meet zoning. I mean, that particular diesel canopy meets zoning. MR. STONE-Well, I’m trying to help him. I’m only concerned that, and I don’t want to use those two nasty words, but I think we’re being arbitrary and capricious because that’s not the variance that’s before us. 53 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) MR. BROWN-I think the decisions that you make should be based on the merits of the case, not the subjective decisions that the Planning Board should make. Does it fit here? Is it a good use? MR. STONE-That’s what I’m saying. MR. BROWN-Those are Planning Board issues. If you don’t like the canopy at that setback because you think it’s going to violate the Travel Corridor in the future when they need to widen the road, that’s the rationale you should use to deny it, not because you think it’s going to increase the traffic or you don’t think it’s, it’s too intensive a use for this site. Just to caution, that if you’re going to deny this application, you’re going to act on this application, you have to use the parameters that you’re given, the five questions to do that. MR. ABBATE-Let me interject something here. I don’t like where this is going. This Board has made a decision, and I don’t feel we have to justify to anybody what this decision is. We’ve done it during our conversation, and I don’t like the idea that we’re being challenged. The vote was five to two no. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Case closed. MR. STONE-Well, I don’t think it’s case closed. That’s why I’m asking why you’re voting. Because I think the record has to reflect that. MR. ABBATE-I think the record did reflect it. MR. BRYANT-In that respect, I think that the canopy should be redesigned so that we don’t infringe on the TCO. Okay. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BRYANT-I don’t have any objection to the driveway. Redesign the canopy. MR. DECKER-Okay. Can I ask for a reconsideration for a second? A reconsideration of the vote, can we bifurcate, separate the driveway issue from the canopy issue for now? Only in that, again, I think what the Chairman’s trying to do here is give me some direction on what to do. MR. STONE-That’s what I’m trying to do. MR. DECKER-Because, frankly, I don’t know what to do here now. If we separate the issues, like we did with the buffer, I know that this Board does not want me monkeying around with the buffer. Okay. So it’s incumbent upon me to fix that. So I know what I have to do with that. If the driveway is an issue, maybe we should discuss the driveway issue, if you don’t mind. If I made a formal request for a reconsideration, if you were, if you felt you were in favor of the driveway configurations, then I’d know the driveway is okay. I guess I’ve got to reconsider the canopy, which again, I don’t know how I’m going to do it, but I’ll have to reconsider it I guess. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, let me ask a question if I may, please. MR. STONE-Go ahead. MR. ABBATE-I know the application that we vote against to deny it, do we have to justify it in the future? Is this a new procedure? MR. STONE-No, I don’t think it’s a new procedure, but from the comments that I heard, I don’t think we were talking about the variance. we were talking about the project, and I don’t think that’s our call. That’s my only concern. I don’t want the applicant to say, to take us to court and say, you guys made a decision on the wrong basis. MR. ABBATE-Well, if he feels that way, take us to court. MR. BRYANT-I understand what you’re saying, okay, but in the original motion in 1991, they do make reference to your Comprehensive Plan for the area. I mean, when we talk about the project, per say, in the area, that is part of our purview, okay. The nature and the character of a neighborhood, you know, granted this particular variance is not addressing that per se. However, in 1999 it was addressed. So my comments relating to the monstrosity of the project, which really has no bearing, because all I have to do is move the canopy and they’re out of the TCO and they can 54 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) have their gas station, and that’s the end of it. Okay, and I understand that, but as it’s presented now, today, in the Travel Corridor, I’m not in favor of it. MR. STONE-I have no problem with the amplification you make. MR. BRYANT-Understand that the rationale comes from the nature and the character of the neighborhood. That is a major consideration as far as I’m concerned. MR. HAYES-That’s all you have to say, though. That’s part of the test. MR. STONE-That’s what you’ve got to say, and we haven’t said that. I didn’t hear that, during when I asked people. MR. BRYANT-That’s because you were listening to Jamie. MR. BROWN-Well, what I think a procedural question is, there was a motion to approve that wasn’t carried. MR. ABBATE-That’s correct. MR. BROWN-So I don’t know if that necessarily means it’s denied. If you want to deny this project, you make a motion to deny, and have reasons for the denial. If you want to do that for whatever reasons, you think it doesn’t fit in the neighborhood, you can do that. MR. STONE-You can propose a motion to deny, with all of those reasons in there, and that we’d have no problem with. MR. HAYES-It’s part of the test. MR. ABBATE-As it is now, he would have to come back with a new application. MR. STONE-If you deny, he has to make significant changes. MR. ABBATE-No, no, no. Under the current status of the vote right now. MR. STONE-He has to do whatever he wants to do. MR. HAYES-This is like a no action vote right now. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. BROWN-The motion to approve was not carried. MR. HAYES-There hasn’t been a successful motion. MR. HAYES-Right. MR. MC NULTY-Right. MR. BRYANT-In that framework, what the applicant is asking is whether we would consider the driveway as a separate issue. In reality now you want to withdraw the thing we have a no action vote. MR. BROWN-Well, no, I don’t think we should parcel up different parts of the approval. If you don’t like the application, make a motion to deny it. MR. STONE-Let me ask for a motion to deny. Someone please offer a motion to deny, going through the five steps. MR. ABBATE-Why do we need a motion to deny when we’ve already voted five to two? MR. STONE-Because that was a no action. That was a motion to grant. MR. HAYES-That was not a successful motion, Chuck. MR. ABBATE-I didn’t hear it, then. MR. HAYES-What I’m saying is, if I make a motion and we don’t approve it, that’s not a denial. It didn’t carry as an approval, which means there’s no motion that’s been successfully. 55 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) MR. STONE-He read all of the reasons that would allow us to accept, to grant the variance. Now we need a motion to say why we want to deny it. MR. HAYES-By definition really. MR. STONE-By definition. MR. BROWN-And I think in doing that you’re going to give the applicant direction on how to come back with a new application. MR. STONE-Yes. This is not a refutation of your vote. This is an amplification of your vote. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I move that we Deny Area Variance No. 39-2001 Project Applicant: Getty Petroleum Project Location: Routes 149 and 9L. The applicant proposed demolition of existing filling station facility and the reconstruction of a new service station with an accessory gasoline island and canopy. I move that we deny this application for the following reasons: The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to develop the site. Feasible alternatives, the proposed development could be relocated elsewhere on this rather large parcel, eliminating the need for the Area Variance. MR. DECKER-Mr. Chairman, can I withdraw my application for variances this evening? MR. STONE-You want to withdraw your applications? MR. DECKER-Yes. MR. STONE-So granted. MR. BRYANT-Well, then I’ll withdraw my motion. MR. STONE-You certainly may. We have no application. MR. DECKER-Gentlemen, I just think this would be easier. I’d rather not walk out of here with a denial. Let me take what we’ve talked about here tonight. Let me just go back and reassess what I can do with it. I think I’ve heard pretty much what your thoughts are. I don’t know how I can work out the geometry of it. MR. ABBATE-I think that’s the smartest move. I really do. MR. STONE-Fine. All right. MR. HAYES-So, you’re going to withdraw this, why don’t you formally withdraw the sign application, too. MR. DECKER-Yes, I want to withdraw the sign application at the same time. MR. STONE-Okay, and you’re withdrawing both Area Variance No. 39-2001 and Sign Variance No. 40-2001. MR. DECKER-I just want the Board to know that Getty knows that the property is in significant disrepair. They want to do a lot of environmental upgrades, a lot of physical upgrades. There’s a lot functional and economic obsolescence out there. We would like to upgrade it. We want to fix the traffic. We want to fix the driveways. We really believe that there are good things that can be done out there, architecturally, in civil, Civil Engineering wise, that that’s what our attempt was to do here tonight, and, you know, we’ll reassess it. There was two years of history to this thing that brought us to this point here now. MR. ABBATE-Well, I would also suggest, Mr. Decker, that when you come back to us, you come back to us with no surprises. The Chairman asked you if there were any changes, and I have to lay this on you because you’re the representative this evening, you said no, unequivocally no, and then all of a sudden we look at a plan where there’s a buffer zone now intruding, which is new information. MR. BROWN-In fairness to the applicant, those things may not have been addressed by Staff last time, or they may have been changed if they were presented or developed by the Planning Board. MR. ABBATE-No matter who made the changes, there were changes, and one was a significant change, in terms of buffer zone. 56 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) MR. BRYANT-In this regard, I’d like to make a suggestion. When you have these applications, like you had two tonight, it would be very helpful to, I think the Board, and I’d like to hear somebody else’s comments, to get the old minutes from the old variance and the application and include it with the notes. MR. STONE-Well, he should have. That’s why you got them before the meeting. MR. BRYANT-Well, we’re talking about the motion. We’re not talking about the minutes. I would be curious to see what the discussion was back in 1994 and 1999 in this particular case. MR. BROWN-Sure. MR. BRYANT-And that would help a great deal in judging. MR. BROWN-Okay. We can do that. They’re free to view at any time, but I can put them together and send them with the Staff Notes. MR. BRYANT-It would make everything a lot easier to see what everybody thought. MR. ABBATE-And I agree because it would then show us, indicate to us what areas they did addressed. Now, Mr. Stone was concerned that we were addressing areas we had no concern in. I’d be interested in seeing what areas that were addressed by other Boards. MR. BRYANT-Just a suggestion. MR. BROWN-Right. Sure, we could do that. MR. STONE-All right. Good point, and we’ve done that on a couple of issues, and I didn’t think about it tonight. MR. BROWN-Just a suggestion, and I don’t want to belabor this too much, if there’s not any significant changes to the Sign Variance, would you want to table that, rather than reapply, or do you just want to start again? MR. STONE-Well, it’s going to depend on where the canopies are and all that. MR. HAYES-Yes, absolutely. That could change really. MR. BROWN-Okay. That’s fine. Just a suggestion. So they’re both withdrawn. MR. HAYES-He formally withdrew it. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. STONE-Look at your drawing, where it says 70. That’s the only thing I would suggest to, 70 square feet. That’s what’s on your. MR. BROWN-For the sign? MR. STONE-On the sign, just look at that. MR. DECKER-Actually, what I was doing tonight, what I mentioned to Warren County was, our application was for 106, and Getty said forget the 106, go back to the 70 that this Board granted two years ago. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. DECKER-So I was going to try to make that easier. MR. STONE-Well, that would have been helpful, but I think you’re better off coming back. MR. DECKER-Thanks, guys. MR. STONE-Okay. We’ve got two sets of minutes, guys. Let’s see if we can get them done. CORRECTION OF MINUTES May 16, 2001: NONE 57 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/20/01) MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES FOR THE MAY 16, 2001 MEETING, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Duly adopted this 20 day of June, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Underwood ABSENT: Mr. McNally May 23, 2001: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES FOR MAY 23, 2001, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: Duly adopted this 20 day of June, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant ABSENT: Mr. McNally On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 58