The URL can be used to link to this page

2001-09-19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 19, 2001 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY PAUL HAYES NORMAN HIMES JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE ROY URRICO, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT CHARLES ABBATE ALAN BRYANT ROBERT MC NALLY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. STONE-Before we get started this evening, there will be several changes in the agenda order, and maybe in the agenda itself when we get everything straightened out. The first item of business on the agenda is Area Variance No. 52-2001. The applicant Hayes and Hayes. That will be heard after 8:30 or 9:00 o’clock, at the request of the lawyer representing the applicants. He unfortunately has another meeting in Saratoga and hopefully he said he’d be here by then. Secondly, there may be some changes in the agenda that it’s possible that one application will be withdrawn, but we’ll get that when the time comes. AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2001 TYPE II DAVID AND JANE HOPPER AGENT: PROFESSIONAL BUILDING SYSTEMS PROPERTY OWNER: DAVID AND JANE HOPPER ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 35 HANNEFORD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH EXISTINGS STRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,074 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW A 33 FT. TALL HOME. (RELIEF OF 5 FT.) ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 9/12/2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 19-1-8 NEW TAX MAP NO. 240.06-1-14 LOT SIZE: 0.43 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 JANE HOPPER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 62-2001, David and Jane Hopper, Meeting Date: September 19, 2001 “Project Location: 35 Hanneford Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,074 sf, 33 ft tall single family home. Relief Required: Applicant requests 5 feet of relief from the 28 foot maximum allowable height 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 home in the preferred configurations. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a shorter proposal. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 5 feet of relief from the 28 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created, as compliant construction appears feasible. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 40-99 – res. 5/19/99 dock/boathouse SP 21-99 – res. 5/24/99 dock/boathouse Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. While the proposed construction may not pose a significant visual impact to the adjoining residences on Hanneford Road, an oversized structure, atop a substantial ledge area above Pilot Knob Road, may present a moderate visual impact when viewed from the lake. It does not appear as though a strict application of the requirement will prevent the applicant from a reasonable use of the property. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form September 12, 2001 Project Name: Hopper, David and Jane Owner: David & Jane Hopper ID Number: 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) QBY-AV-62-2001 County Project#: Sep01-40 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: The applicant proposes to demolish an existing structure and construct a 2,074 sq. ft. single family dwelling. Relief of 5’ is requested from height requirements to allow a 33 ft. tall home. Site Location: 35 Hanneford Road Tax Map Number(s): 240.06-1-14 Staff Notes: This parcel is located at the very base of Kattskill Bay, and the proposed house would be located approximately 60’ from the shoreline. The applicant has not included any landscaping plans to screen the impact of the house. Drawings will be available at the meeting. Due to concern about the impact of additional visibility from Lake George, Staff recommends discussion. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve” Signed Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 9/13/01. MR. STONE-Thank you. Before I get to you, I just want to apologize to all of you who are here. Our Board normally is seven people. We normally have two alternates. We are using two alternates this evening. Two of our people were adversely effected, not in a terrible way, unfortunately by the horrific events of last week. One was stuck in Hong Kong, just got back today, and apparently is not in any condition to consider any of these applications. Another member had to go down to New York because his company is apparently in serious trouble as a result of what happened, and we have one other person who is stuck in court. So that’s why we have six, and we certainly apologize, but we will do our very best to render good judgement. Now, it’s your turn. MRS. HOPPER-Good evening. I’m Jane Hopper. My address is 444 Canada Street in Lake George. I come before the Board because I need five foot relief for the house I want to build. It’s two fold, one to obtain the look I want, but another important reason which I neglected to put on there is there are power lines that run right along Pilot Knob Road. When Dave and I initially bought the property, we had to upgrade the electrical service on our property because it was out of date, and NiMo wanted this done. As a matter of record, we had to put two new poles on our property, which, at the time, NiMo asked us if they could hook other people on Hanneford Road to our poles because they were also out of code. At this time, we asked them if there was any way that we could, and pay for, bury those lines that are in front of our house. They said they don’t do that on Pilot Knob Road at this time. So that was not an option. We thought about it then when we put the new power in, and they were not in agreement with this. If you stand on the porch as she stands now, you are looking directly into those power lines. That’s another reason we want the house up just a little bit higher so that when you look out your windows, you’re not looking directly at the power lines. Also, the design of the house that we want we need a five foot variance. There is a home, I think it’s five doors down from us, that was just built. It’s a beautiful log home, very similar to what we want to put up. It looks very nice sitting there. Theirs is log. Mine would be cedar. They have big pointed windows. I like the rounded look, and the Warrensburg Board mentioned landscaping. I originally started the landscaping on this property on this hill, being very naïve the first year. It took four men all summer to clear probably eight years worth of growth off that hill. It was back within five weeks. You have to literally live on that property to maintain the landscape of it, and it would be redundant to put landscaping on their now until after the house was built, but I can guarantee the Board that the landscaping will be quite extensive, both in the front and along the back of it. I do a lot of landscaping at my motel right now with flowers and bushes and things. That’s my hobby. So whatever the Board recommends, I will do. MR. STONE-This house you mentioned, down the road, how high is that? MRS. HOPPER-Sir, I would say it has to be at least 32 feet. MR. STONE-Is it new? MRS. HOPPER-Yes, it’s brand new. It’s only I would say a year and a half old. MR. STONE-Who owns it? MRS. HOPPER-I don’t know, sir. I don’t live over there now. I just get to visit it every once in awhile, with the motel, I don’t get the chance to go over too often. MR. BROWN-It’s the Frank Koenig house that’s on Hanneford Road. Their building permit was filed, and the variance was considered for a 28 foot house. MR. STONE-That’s what I thought. MRS. HOPPER-Okay. MR. STONE-There was some question on the property about wells, septic and all that. Has that been resolved? 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) MRS. HOPPER-Yes. The septic system is going to cost us approximately $30,000 to put in, but, yes, it’s been resolved. MR. STONE-Okay. Questions, gentlemen? MR. URRICO-Have you considered 28 feet? Do you think that would, you would not be able to raise the house enough with that being the top? MRS. HOPPER-Not only that, you’d be looking directly into the power line, but also you, because of the window design and what not, you would, it would look squatty. It would not achieve the look that I want, and it would have to totally redesign the entire house, but the main thing, if you stood on the porches, you would see what I’m talking about. You look directly in to the power lines that run right along Pilot Knob Road. MR. URRICO-Thank you. MR. HIMES-In front of the structure that’s there now, there are two or three fairly tall trees with the lower limbs cut off. Sometimes when we see the construction drawings, it shows the shrubbery’s and trees and things, and I don’t see them on this one. You’re a little, looks like, a little closer out than the existing structure. Are those trees coming down? MRS. HOPPER-A couple of them are in very bad shape. There’s one very large tree to the left of the property where the patio sits now. In fact, if you look on the plot plan, you will see like a “V” that sits to the left of the house. There’s a patio and then there’s a “V”. There’s a huge tree that sits there. I would guess this tree’s well over 100 years old. That is my main objective is to keep that tree right where she is. The house literally has been kind of squished on this plot to make sure that that tree stays. Whatever trees I can leave will definitely be left. MR. HIMES-The ones that are in front or back, depending on, on the water side, are the ones I’m speaking of, that are in, let’s say in front of the property. MRS. HOPPER-Well, there’s trees that run along by the boathouse. MR. HIMES-No, they’re up right on your, almost the level of the proposed. MRS. HOPPER-A couple of them will have to go. They will just have to, because otherwise you’d have a tree limb looking right in the house, but you have the afternoon sun there from 12 o’clock on. So you’re going, I would leave as much shade as I possibly can. MR. HIMES-Thank you. MR. STONE-Any other questions of the applicant? Well, hearing none, I shall open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor of? Anybody wishing to speak in opposition to the application? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions, gentlemen? Okay. Let’s start talking about it. Jamie? MR. HAYES-Well, it seems, from the drawing, that it certainly is going to be a compliment to the neighborhood, particularly with the camp that that’s replacing, not that that’s bad, but this is certainly an upgrade, and based on your testimony, there seems to be some design implications for where you’re trying to go with the height. My concern, at this point, or my direction, if you will, is pretty much the same as when I read the application. I could probably go for something in between the Code and what you want, and be comfortable, feeling that I was granting a minimal amount of relief as possible, and also not creating a precedent for over height requirement developments, particularly around bluffs around the lake, which the Staff has pointed out, and that’s certainly a concern that we all have. Because whatever height relief that we grant in this particular circumstance is actually going to be more dramatic than it would be if the property was set back into a hill, or further back. So, in my case in this thing, I would feel comfortable granting some form of relief that was in between what is proposed and what is required or allowed. So that’s where I stand. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) MR. MC NULTY-I guess in some ways I stand about where Mr. Hayes does. I don’t like to always look for compromises, because I think somebody has designed the house. It’s designed for the height that you intend it to be, and I hate to see a Board play architect with it and try to chop three or four feet off, but I guess I’m going to have to wait and hear the thoughts of the rest of the Board, because I’m right on the fence. On the one hand, I would like to approve it so we get a better building in there that is built the way it’s designed. On the other hand, when I think of that log home which Staff says is at 28 feet now, and think in terms of five more feet on top of that, that strikes me as being a bit much for that location. I guess that’s all I can say at this point is I’m on the fence. I’m not sure. MR. STONE-Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. Some of the other structures that are there, including the one being talked about at the meeting here, are very visible as you come from Lake George, you come around the corner there, and they’re not very tall, but they’ve removed a lot of the vegetation in front of them. So they really stick out. Yours presently, and the one, I think, to the north of you, and maybe the one to the south of you, have some trees and all, and even though you’ve got that up and down porch, which is kind of an ugly looking thing now, I’m sure you’ll agree, are not that awfully noticeable. So they’re probably, I don’t know what percentage, a third or what not, as you look down that stretch of Pilot Knob Road, are very visible, and in a not becoming way, in my opinion. Then again, who’s looking at it. Across the bay you’ve got a marina, and a few camps, some of which stick out pretty well themselves. So I’m a bit, you know, I figure, well, what impact is it going to be as far as view from the water. However, I do think, agreeing with what Chuck has said, that an additional five feet, I think, is going to make yours appear to be much more formidable than the ones that are there now, and especially when the trees that are there, maybe one or two of them may be taken away. So, in spite of the fact I recognize your problem with the telephone wires, I did not notice that situation. I was in back of it, the front of it when I visited, but I tend to be not in favor of the application. MR. STONE-All right. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would have to agree, too, as everybody else has said. I think, looking at this structure from down on the lake itself, it is going to stick up way up in the air, and I think we want to minimize the fact that, you know, that house just down the road, the log place, is 28 feet. I think that five more feet would be stretching it a little bit. At the same time, I would agree with Norm, too, that the trees in the front, you know, irregardless of whether they look scraggly or whatever, trees are there for a purpose, and I think that somewhere along the line, I think that we have to remember that, you know, when people first came to the lake it was all treed, and we somehow have gotten in the habit of feeling that, you know, we can just remove everything and still preserve what we originally came up there for. At the same time, I think that we should, you know, consider the back of this home, you know, was basically built on grade, and if we lowered the front of it down, I don’t know what that does to the upstairs and the back of it. So we have to think about that also. So, I’m kind of sitting on the fence on this one, other than I think that a compromise probably is the best bet, somewhere in between what you want and what’s permitted. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I basically agree with my Board members, whereas I can understand what you’re trying to achieve here, I have a hard time setting a new standard height for that neighborhood. Because once this gets accepted at 33 feet, that pretty much creates a standard by which the rest of the neighborhood can apply themselves to. I can probably live with a compromise of some sort. MR. STONE-I think the Board members have very succinctly stated my position. I think 33 feet is just too much. I am really concerned with the precedent that we would set. We had one new house that you have said is a very good looking house. It’s at 28 feet. I know, from previous conversations with your neighbor to the south, that at some point he intends to rebuild his particular structure, and if we say, you can go to 33, then what do we have to deny him going to 33 feet if he wants. I think the Board has made it fairly clear, at least four of the members have made it fairly clear, that they would be open to some compromise, somewhere between 28 and 33, hopefully closer to 28. I would, if you’re willing to consider that, I would be willing to table this application for 62 days, so that you can come back to us with a proposal that might find more acceptance by the Board. MRS. HOPPER-Then I’m going to have to ask the Board, because I’m not a contractor, and these house plans were custom drawn. What does that mean? Do I have to submit? MR. STONE-You have to bring something to us that we would find acceptable. Right now what you have submitted, as I poll the Board, they would not approve a five foot variance for the piece of property that you have. They might approve something less, and I gather it’s something closer to 28, 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) rather than closer to 33, but I can’t speak for them. I can only speak for me. I would, I, personally, would like to see it at 28, but that doesn’t mean that, with a full Board and with an attractive design, that I couldn’t be swayed. We had one no vote. He said I would not like it. I’m saying I don’t really like it, but I might be persuaded, and I’ve got four other people who say they would like to see a compromise. MRS. HOPPER-Well, what I’m asking the Board then if I go back to my draftsman and I said, you’re going to have to do another whole set of plans, because you just, like you said, you just can’t chop off five feet off a house. You’ve got to redesign the entire house again. So if I’m going to go to the expense, again, of having another house all redesigned, I’m going to ask the Board, if I come back with something 30 and a half feet, the house, if I leave the house at 28 feet, the view, gentlemen, I’m going to get are telephone wires. That’s what I’m going to look at. I’m not going to see a lake. I’m going to look at telephone wires. They’re right smack in front of this house. The gentlemen that sits down from me, that has a 28 foot, his house sits back, looks this way, and the telephone poles are down below him. Where my house sits, those poles run directly smack in front of my building. MR. STONE-And I think that is appreciated by members of the Board, but the compelling factor to most of us is that, on the Waterfront One Acre zoning in the Town of Queensbury, the standard is 28 feet. Apparently, you have not convinced enough of us that you should be allowed to go to 33. I mean, that’s basically what I could say. Now, I mean, I don’t want to sit here, as a group, and try to redesign the house. I mean, maybe we could, you could say, well, if I had an acceptable design to you, at 30 feet, maybe we could vote on that, but I, for one, would be reluctant to do that, even though that’s a possibility. MRS. HOPPER-Well, what I’m going to do is go back to the designer and say to him, I want this house, the exact house I just showed you gentlemen, at 30 feet and a half. Would that be acceptable? If they can redesign it, because they’re going to have to change all the roof pitches. They’re going to have to change all the master bedroom upstairs. The entire house has to be changed, and what I’m asking, if I go to all this, and I come before the Board, do you think you would be receptive to a house that would be 30 and a half feet? That’s splitting right down the middle. Hopefully I can get this much above the telephone wires. MR. STONE-If you’re asking for a house whose design would be 30 and a half feet? MRS. HOPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-If you’re changing your application to 30 and a half feet, I will be glad to put it to a vote. MRS. HOPPER-Okay. MR. STONE-I can’t guarantee where the vote will come out, because we’re not going to be able to see the house, but if you’re saying the relief that you’re asking, because we don’t get into design. MRS. HOPPER-I hear you. MR. STONE-And you’re saying you would like relief of two and a half feet. MRS. HOPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-Craig, am I on safe ground here or not? MR. BROWN-Yes. I think so. If I could just ask a question, it may or may not solve some of this. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. BROWN-If you look at the front elevation, it looks like the basement wall, if you will, is complete like a full story exposure. Is there a plan for a walkout basement? MRS. HOPPER-No. MR. BROWN-So if you filled the ground in the front up to 28 feet, you’d meet the height requirements. MRS. HOPPER-Because of how the house sets, as you gentlemen know, there’s ledge and then it goes down. We have to have some kind of a little bit of a basement to put the furnace and the water tank and stuff in. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) MR. HAYES-He’s talking about the back filling for the. MRS. HOPPER-Yes. The back of it, basically, is just going to have like a crawl space, and then you would have a little bit of. MR. URRICO-What he’s talking about is back filling, so that. MR. STONE-Show her what you’re talking about. MR. BROWN-On Page Three, I was just showing her, to the left side of the drawing, if there’s a way to bring that elevation up closer to the bottom of the deck, that would bring this dimension to 28. This isn’t going to be a walkout basement. The house doesn’t actually move. The ground comes up. MRS. HOPPER-Well, because of this, it has to be at least higher than, you can’t achieve this kind of look that I want. So I think if I go back to PBS, I’ve talked to them once before about this, that they might be able to keep, I think I can compromise with you gentlemen and go down 30 and a half feet, and take two and a half off, with a little tweaking here and a little tweaking there, I can get it where you guys want it. MR. BROWN-I was just suggesting, the actual top of the house wouldn’t move at all. It’s just the ground would come up to make this distance shorter, but it’s up to you. MRS. HOPPER-I think we can get a little between both of them. MR. STONE-Okay. You’re asking for two and a half feet relief. MRS. HOPPER-Two and a half feet. MR. STONE-And however it goes. MRS. HOPPER-However it goes, gentlemen, because. MR. STONE-Okay. All right. I have no idea where this vote will go, because my numbers here, in my poll could go either way, but I would like someone to move that, if they would. Jamie, do you want to try it? MRS. HOPPER-The only other comment I have is this house will be cedar. It will blend in as best I can with its natural surroundings. There also will be extensive landscaping done on the hill alongside the house, with high plantings, so that, unlike a couple of them that have cleared the property right down, and I know what you’re talking about. I’ve seen it. It’s clear cut. That will not happen on this property. I give the Board my word. MR. STONE-Well, we will put that in the motion and see where we go. MRS. HOPPER-Yes, that will not happen. MR. STONE-Jamie, do you want to try it? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2001 DAVID AND JANE HOPPER, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 35 Hanneford Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 2,074 square foot 30.5 foot tall single family home. Specifically, the applicant requests 2.5 feet of relief from the 28 foot maximum allowable height requirement of the WR-1A zone Section 179-16. The benefit to the applicant would be that they would be permitted to construct the house within those parameters, a new house in replacement of an existing camp. Feasible alternatives. Feasible alternatives in this case are limited, to some degree, based on the contour of the land, particularly in the front of the house where the relief is essentially being requested. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? At this point I believe that the compromise of 2.5 feet would still be moderate, in this particular case. Effects on the neighborhood or community. I believe that based on a reduced height variance request, I believe that the effects, while there still will be some, in the case of precedent setting, I believe that they will be moderate. Is the difficulty self-created? I believe the difficulty is self created, being that there is a compliant construction site available on the property or a compliant design that could be obtained, if the applicant went that direction. Therefore, I move for its approval based on what the applicant put forward for a motion, essentially. I’d also like to make any approval, in this particular case, contingent on the retention of existing screening to the extent possible, outside of the trees directly impeding or preventing the construction as depicted. I’d also like to make the approval contingent on the applicant providing the Code Enforcement Officer with a height depiction that indicates on a final construction basis that the house is actually 30.5 feet or less. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) Duly adopted this 19 day of September, 2001, by the following vote: th MR. BROWN-And since this is a dimensional relief, vertically rather than the horizontally, it wouldn’t normally show up on a final survey. If you want to add that, that that final survey show the final height of the house, that’s up to you. Otherwise I’d have to hold the ladder while Bruce climbs up. MR. STONE-This would require an as built survey anyway, new construction. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. HAYES-But they don’t have height. MR. BROWN-But it typically doesn’t show the vertical. MR. STONE-Okay. I didn’t know that. Okay. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood NOES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate MR. STONE-So we denied it. MR. BROWN-I think you had a motion to approve that didn’t pass. MR. STONE-We didn’t deny it. We had a motion to approve that didn’t pass, I get confused on that all the time. So we did not approve the variance. This does not say that you cannot come back with a different proposal. It doesn’t have to be, in this case, significantly different. In other words, we don’t have to rule on the fact that, if you want we can table the application at this point. Okay. AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED KENNETH W. & CHERIE C. LUKE D/B/A DIET CENTER AGENT: N/A PROPERTY OWNER: KENNETH W. & CHERIE C. LUKE ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: 425 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESS DRIVE AND PARKING SPACES AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS. APPLICANT WISHES TO USE A PORTION OF THE BAY ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PARKING AREA. CROSS REF. SPR 36-2001, SV 66-2001 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 9/12/2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 61-1-43 NEW TAX MAP NO. 296.15-1-23 LOT SIZE: 0.23 ACRES SECTION 179-66 CHERIE LUKE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 65-2001, Kenneth W. & Cherie C. Luke, Meeting Date: September 19, 2001 Project Location: 425 Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of an access drive and associated parking spaces necessary for a professional office use. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the requirements of the Off Street Parking and Loading Regulations, § 179-66. Specifically, the applicant seeks 18 feet of relief in order to construct a 58 foot wide access drive. Also, the applicant seeks relief to construct 6 parking spaces, none of which are completely located on the subject property. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to develop the site as desired. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include reconfiguration of the access drive, which might, in turn, address the parking space issues. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 18 feet of relief from the 40 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial, while relief to construct six spaces that straddle the right of way line for Bay Road may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate to substantial effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. Construction of an uncontrolled 58 foot wide access drive onto a Regional Arterial highway may present a significant adverse impact on the neighborhood or community, especially if the vehicular traffic could potentially back up across the sidewalk into the right of way. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Petition for rezone 5- 2000 res. 6/26/01 from NC-1A to MR-5 Site Plan Review pending to establish a professional office use. SV 66-01 pending construction of a 6 sf sign in the Bay Road right of way Staff comments: Moderate to substantial impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The applicant began 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) construction of the parking areas several months ago. Construction was stopped upon re- notification of the need for review. It appears as though the applicant is currently operating the business at the site. The applicant has supplied a Warren County Department of Public Works work permit. Staff understands that the work permit might only allow the applicant to perform the work. it does not appear to be an agreement or easement to actually occupy or use the land for the purposes stated in this variance. The County has entertained similar proposals and a written agreement has been issued…(Cool Beans parking, Kaidas Kitchens sign). SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form September 12, 2001 Project Name: Luke, Kenneth W. & Cherie C. Owner: Kenneth W. & Cherie C. Luke ID Number: QBY-AV-65-2001 County Project#: Sep01-43 Current Zoning: MR-5 Community: Queensbury Project Description: The applicants propose construction of an access drive and parking spaces and seeks relief from the Off Street Parking and Loading Regulations. Applicants wish to use a portion of the Bay Road right-of-way for parking. Relief requested is 18.58’ from the 40’ access drive maximum requirements. Site Location: 425 Bay Road. 4/10 mile north of Quaker Road on left. Tax Map Number(s): 296.15-1-23 Staff Notes: This proposed action has also been referred to the Town for site plan review (Agenda #41). The proposed action would require a variance from the Town’s Off Street Parking and Loading Regulations, which require each parking space to be accessed by a 20’ drive aisle. The applicant also wishes to use a portion of the County right-of-way for parking; it is not clear whether the applicant has permission from the County DPW to do so. The applicant has a County DPW permit to construct a driveway entrance and pave the area (attached), but the permit says nothing about using part of the right-of-way for parking. Staff is checking on this and will have more information at the meeting. Due to the unresolved issue of DPW permission to use the right-of-way for parking. Staff recommends discussion. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve” Signed Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 9/13/01. MR. STONE-Is the applicant here? Please come forward. I have a question, Craig, the question of whether this is a legitimate use in this? MR. BROWN-Professional Office in the MR-5 zone? MR. STONE-Yes. Well, I’m looking under Professional Occupation, “One who is engaged in professional services, including but not limited to all members of the field of medicine, lawyer, architect, engineer, surveyor, licensed beautician, barber, real estate broker or accountant”. Now your interpretation is that this falls under, this “Diet Center” falls under that definition? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Okay. You’re on. MRS. LUKE-Okay. My name is Cherie Luke, and we would like to pave a part of the front of this building at 425 Bay Road. We believe that it would be safer to be able to actually turn around and pull straight out onto Bay Road, instead of having to back out onto Bay Road. The sidewalk ends right at the driveway at 425 Bay. Actually, the sidewalk only runs from the end of my driveway, not even the end of my driveway, before that, down to where Whittemore’s are, before you get to Dr. Hughes’ office, and there’s like a vacant lot there. There’s like a footpath through there. So the sidewalk is very limited, you know, how much is there on Bay Road, and all the other businesses along there, they all drive over that sidewalk to get onto Bay Road, the Ballet Center, the funeral parlor, the Harvest Restaurant. So I think it’s just safer to be able to do that. MR. STONE-Can you tell me, because I’m confused, and maybe Mr. Brown knows. What actually are you looking for here? MRS. LUKE-We just want to pave a little portion, like I have a two car driveway, and so. MR. STONE-The two car driveway is the one to the north of the building? MRS. LUKE-Yes. MR. STONE-Where there is no building. MRS. LUKE-Right. MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. LUKE-Yes, in front of the garage, there’s a garage, and then it’s, well, it’s a little bit wider, so two cars can fit in there, but we want to make it a little bit wider than that. So I’ve been parking on 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) the gravel, like there’s gravel right there in front of the house. There were some old shrubs and things there that we ripped out. They were all overgrown and so we had those all ripped out, and we put gravel in there, and I planted some flowers in there, and I park over there on the gravel, and that way when my clients come in, they usually park in the driveway, but then they will be able to back up and pull onto where it’s gravel right now, and back and pull out onto Bay Road. So I think it’s safer. MR. HAYES-How long have you been doing business there as the Diet Center? MRS. LUKE-Well, I was at 379 Bay, up until, well, we bought the building a few months ago, and then the zoning was just changed a couple of months ago. So, since then, for a couple of months. MR. HIMES-Do you have your clientele come by appointment? MRS. LUKE-Yes. MR. HIMES-And this is no retail? MRS. LUKE-No. It is a service business, and everyone has an appointment, and it’s very low traffic, you know, and the majority of my clients come very early in the morning, because they come in to get weighed, and they like to do it early, and it’s not even that busy on Bay Road at 6:30 in the morning. MR. HIMES-So how would you prevent, cars, it appears to me now, can pull in and park on that crushed stone area or in the driveway, to come and go, which is not safe, not as safe as it could be in my opinion. Now would you explain again, please, how your plan is going to improve that situation? MRS. LUKE-Well, because then they have a wider area to be able to turn around, and I suggest to them that they do, you know, pull straight out and not back out onto Bay Road. I mean, the shoulder there is really wide, and I notice some of the other businesses, they park right on the shoulder itself, right kind of on the sidewalk, but I don’t think that’s the best way to do it. MR. STONE-Have you talked to the County at all about using their right of way? MRS. LUKE-Yes. I was at their meeting last week and they approved it. MR. STONE-That’s the Planning Board. That’s not, that’s a group of volunteers like we are. Has the Staff of the County, the Highway Department, any indication that they’ve given you permission to use that space? MRS. LUKE-Yes. When we hired Alex Deyette to pave the driveway, he called over, the called the County, and they said it was fine. They had no problem with it at all. MR. STONE-Does the County usually provide a piece of paper, Craig, if they do that? MR. BROWN-Well, in the application that was submitted, there’s a County Work Permit to perform the work in the right of way, and I know on previous applications where applicants have proposed to use the right of way for part of their business use, some sort of revocable agreement is issued by the County that says you can use it, but we can terminate it any time we want to. This is just a Work Permit. It’s not that agreement that I’ve seen before, and that’s something that, typically, they would do. MR. STONE-So as far as we know, officially, they’ve not given permission to use? MR. BROWN-Well, they’ve given permission to the extent that they can. MR. STONE-They can build it. MR. BROWN-I don’t know what that word is, but fill blacktop between the sidewalk and road. I mean, it says that they can do the work there. You may take that the next step and say that if they’re going to let them pave it, they’re going to let them use it, but there’s that. MR. STONE-You deal with government, that’s what happens sometimes. While I’m thinking about it, in your Staff notes, you wrote 18 feet of relief in order to construct a 58 foot wide, that’s because it’s supposed to be 40? MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. STONE-Okay. Somehow I got confused when I read it. Okay. Go ahead. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) MRS. LUKE-Okay, and it is consistent, if you look down the road at Evelyn’s Flowers, if you look at the Chinese restaurant and that little strip, it’s consistent with their use. Only ours, I think, is wider. There’s more room there. MR. STONE-Any other questions, gentlemen, before I open the public hearing? MR. URRICO-Craig, how does this work into the new draft of the zoning code? How does this design? MR. BROWN-I don’t think the drive aisle width changes, and I think the requirements are still going to require you to actually have your parking spaces on your site. So I don’t know if the new ordinance would really alter this application at all. MR. HAYES-Was this a private residence before you used it for the Diet Center? Did someone just live there? MRS. LUKE-She lived there, but she also had a business there. It was zoned that you could live in that section and have a business out of your home, and actually she did have a business there, the lad that lived there, and like next door there’s an attorney and I believe he lived there, and he had his business out of his home. MR. HAYES-Garfield Raymond? MRS. LUKE-Yes. So, that’s what it was, and then we wanted it rezoned because we didn’t really want to live there. MR. STONE-Okay. If somebody drives in to your, in front of your building, and parks in one of these four stalls, not the three and four, but one, two, the employees. Do you park on the County right of way? Would that car end up on the County right of way? MRS. LUKE-I don’t think so, because when I park, I’m kind of really close to the house. So I don’t know how many feet out of the County right of way. I’m in the front lawn almost. MR. STONE-Craig, I see this, and, I mean, I can’t tell the length of these parking spaces, whether or not the back wheels are going to be on that section beyond the property line. This is not a survey. MR. BROWN-Right. What I did is I had some conversation with Mr. Luke, and if you notice on this drawing that’s in the application, to the left there’s a dimension of 20 feet. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. BROWN-And there’s a line drawn, and just above that, there’s a line across the drawing that says property line. So you can kind of gauge how much of the actual parking spaces is going to be in the right of way. MR. STONE-Okay. So we’re saying, aren’t parking spaces supposed to be 20 feet long? MR. BROWN-Nine by twenty, yes. MR. STONE-Okay. Nine by twenty. So, technically, it’ll be on the County. MR. BROWN-A portion of each parking space. MR. STONE-So how can we give permission to use the County? MR. BROWN-Well, I think you can’t. You can give relief from the Town Zoning Ordinance that says you don’t have to have all your spaces on your site, and you maybe condition that that they follow up with the County and get permission, but you can’t give them permission to use the right of way. MR. STONE-Any other questions, gentlemen? MR. HIMES-Yes. I have one. The dimensions of the lot, it looks like 100 feet wide, but at least I don’t see on the drawing here, how much space you’ve got between, let’s say the south end of the structure and your property line. MRS. LUKE-How many feet are there? MR. HIMES-Yes. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) MRS. LUKE-I don’t know, but I think it’s pretty big. MR. HIMES-It looked it, but I couldn’t tell. It was just kind of open area, you and the neighbor there. MRS. LUKE-I think that it like, it kind of slopes down there, it’s kind of like a ditch, and I noticed that when Garfield Raymond’s guy comes to mow, he doesn’t go over very far. So I think I have the greater part, like between the two houses. MR. HIMES-Yes. I was just thinking whether or not there could be some alternative to have that as the entrance and exit. MRS. LUKE-Like next to the house, instead of in front? MR. HIMES-Or on the other side of the garage. MRS. LUKE-Yes. MR. HIMES-Although, you know, as opposed to being right in the front. That’s what occurred to me when I visited the site. It still does occur to me, but I was just wondering if you knew exactly what other options there might be available to help you with the problem. MRS. LUKE-But I think that would take away some of the green that is there, you know, the lawn part, if we went over into that sign. MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. MR. STONE-Any other questions? Well, let me open the public hearing, and see if anybody wants to speak. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application, in favor of? Anybody opposed to this application? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions? Specifically what we’re talking about, Craig, so that I’m clear. The applicant is seeking this 58 foot wide access curb cut, if you will, type thing, plus the fact relief to construct six parking spaces, but we can’t give relief to put it on County property. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. You can give relief that she doesn’t need to construct all those spaces on her property. You can only give relief from the Town Ordinance. MR. STONE-I understand that. MR. BROWN-That says that you have to have them. You can tell her that she doesn’t have to have them, and effectively she’s going to be using the County right of way, and you may want her to follow up with the County and get the agreement or lease or whatever, if the County’s willing to do that. MR. STONE-Any other questions, gentlemen? Chuck, you start. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. This is a tough one. My first reaction when I looked at the property is, I didn’t like the way the parking was structured in the front because I think it does encourage people to park, like some of your vehicles have been parked, nose into the house, and back onto Bay Road, and while Bay Road’s got a real wide shoulder there right now, it still means people are backing on to Bay Road, and I don’t think that’s a good idea. My first thought was, put a driveway around, park in back of the house, but I see from your diagram that’s where your septic drainage field is. So you don’t want to do that, and the house is, where it’s sitting, is just close to the front property line now, the way Bay Road’s been constructed. So it leaves you with a dilemma, but I think for me looking at it, I would still like to see some thought put into the possibility of reconfiguring the parking somehow, so a couple of cars park beside the house or something. I don’t like the idea of potential people backing onto Bay Road. So I think I’m going to be opposed, on the basis I don’t want to see a 58 foot wide access drive. I want to see something that complies with the requirements. I could go with approval for not having all the parking places completely on the subject property, if they were reconfigured. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) So for instance, a car or two parked parallel to the house in front or something, but I don’t like the idea of the way they’re parking now. So I need to see something different, I guess, before I could approve it. MR. STONE-Okay. Norm? MR. HIMES-Thank you. Yes. One last question. Does the structure have a basement and a full cellar? MRS. LUKE-Yes. MR. HIMES-Okay. Thank you. There is a situation there not too unlike some of the other business establishments that are also bad, in my opinion, and this may or may not make the situation a little better, but I think still has some drawbacks. From a safety standpoint I think there is some degree of pedestrian traffic there, a lot of joggers coming out of the Racquet Club there and people walking. I use that road a lot and I see them. So the access that by one or more vehicles concurrently, let’s say, or coming from something other than a well established driveway may contribute to the problem. So I would like to know more about the alternatives, some alternative, the side yard, whether any of that, whether any property might be where you could acquire other property, if that would be feasible. It may not, as opposed to the application as submitted. So, as it is, as it appears here, I would not be in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I, too, would question our judgement of whether we would allow this as proposed. I think that we could definitely lower down the number of parking sites on this site, but at the same time I think maybe we ought to consider maybe shared parking between the offices next door and the two in between. I can’t imagine there’s that much traffic generated, and I drive by it all the time during the day time. It doesn’t look like there’s a lot of people coming and going all the time. So maybe on that south side there, a few places over there instead, you know, so you could back in front and turn before you went out into the right of way, itself, past the sidewalk, and maybe lower it down to two or three parking places. I think that would be adequate, as opposed to six. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in agreement with the rest of the Board. You’re in a dilemma. I appreciate what you’re trying to do there, because it’s a tough area. That road, Bay Road, confounds a lot of people. It’s wider than it should be in certain spots, and that’s one of them. The sidewalk certainly makes it more difficult, but I think I can only lean toward approving this with up to the County line, but with less parking spaces or maybe a smaller driveway. I kind of like Jim’s idea, but I realize that might be a tough go, but as it stands right now, I don’t think I can approve this. MRS. LUKE-So, in other words, even though there is some kind of a, I don’t know, variance, or whatever it is, that according to how many square feet of office space you have, you’re supposed to have X amount of parking spaces. This doesn’t apply? That doesn’t apply? MR. URRICO-You’re dealing with several issues here. One of them is the County right of way. MRS. LUKE-Okay. So that has nothing to do with it. MR. STONE-Yes, there are two things. I mean, we certainly, Craig, we could grant a variance for less parking places, if the applicant desired to do that. That’s in our purview to do. So, what, let us finish, and then I will give you the options as I see them. Jamie? MR. HAYES-I think I’m in agreement with the rest of the Board members in this particular case. I think the idea of an almost 60 foot like undefined sweeping curb cut on Bay Road is too much. I think it’s too much for a lot of reasons, one of which is the fact that the intensity of use on Bay Road is increasing all the time, and in my opinion it’s going to even go further. The development on the east side is continuing rapidly, and that road is one of the main corridors, if not the main corridor in that particular case. The other problem that I have with this application is this isn’t a matter of having some of your parking places be in the County right of way, and therein we’re kind of letting go a small portion of your parking requirements to meet the needs and try and make a parcel work. You don’t have any parking spaces that is going to be entirely on your own piece. So really we’re being asked to have all the relief be through the County right of way, which, to me, that’s too much, I think, in this particular case. Some of the examples of the parking that you gave up the street, which I think are true, like Evelyn’s Flowers and stuff like that, I think that those were allowed, or happened before Bay Road became the thoroughfare that it is today, and I don’t think if even those properties come before us with the same type of idea, I don’t know if I would approve it, just based on how that whole intersection is working right now, with Lowe’s and everything else, and I think 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) Norm was right. I think that, based on the College, and the development, there is some increased pedestrian use and joggers and runners and bicyclists and everything else, and while it’s not a big issue, it’s a growing one, and I think, when you combine all those things in a balancing test, I don’t think I could see clear to vote for it. MR. STONE-It’s clear to me that, if we were to vote on this application as you’ve presented it, it would not be approved, and more than likely would be denied. The two are separate. When I say that, I still don’t understand it, but that’s what my Staff tells me, that they’re not the same. In this particular case, I would suggest that we table this application, for several reasons. One, that you come back with a plan, first of all, one, that you come back with permission from the County to even use part of their right of way for any kind of parking or partial parking, if you will, three feet of relief, whatever it comes out to be. I would also like to see a better drawing that tells me exactly the distances that we’re talking about, where these parking spaces would be and I certainly, for one, would entertain an application or request for less parking spaces, if we can get this on the lot in such a way, as you mentioned, so that we get cars driving out the right way, but I think the whole thing, in total, is just too much relief, and the Board obviously agrees, so if you’re willing, I would propose that we table this up to 62 days, for you to get County permission to use any part of their right of way for any part of the parking, and that you come back with a better plan. One I heard people not happy with the 58 foot, but some kind of plan that gets your desires across, but that protects the safety of cars going up and down Bay Road, and that doesn’t use the County, unless they give you permission. Am I saying it correctly, gentlemen? Is that what I heard? Okay. Is that all right with you? MRS. LUKE-Well, yes. I think the big problem, though, in two months we’re not going to be able to pave. It’s going to be too cold. MR. STONE-Well, you know, it doesn’t have to be in two months. You could come back next month. MRS. LUKE-I don’t have to wait 60 days? MR. STONE-No. That’s the maximum you could wait. MRS. LUKE-Okay. All right. MR. STONE-No, you can get back on the schedule for next month. MR. BROWN-Yes, the submission deadline to get additional information, we try and get even the tabled ones in by the same deadline, which is next Wednesday, so we have a chance to review it. MR. STONE-So if you go to the County tomorrow, maybe you can push them along, and get some kind of statement from them that it’s acceptable, and then you can work on a design that would be acceptable. Is that all right? MRS. LUKE-Okay. MR. STONE-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-2001 KENNETH W. & CHERIE C. LUKE, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption seconded by Paul Hayes: 425 Bay Road. For up to 62 days, so that the applicants can get written permission from the County for the use of their right of way for partial parking, and that they come up with a design which would minimize the opening onto Bay Road while providing the relief from backing on to the right of way as much as possible, and as part of this, I think we need a more accurate drawing to show exactly what the incursion is into the County right of way and exactly where the property lines are and all that. Duly adopted this 19 day of September, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate MR. STONE-Okay. Stay right there. Don’t go anywhere. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) SIGN VARIANCE NO. 66-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED KENNETH W. & CHERIE C. LUKE D/B/A DIET CENTER AGENT: N/A PROPERTY OWNER: KENNETH W. & CHERIE C. LUKE ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: 425 BAY ROAD APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 6 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIGN SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. THE SIGN HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED IN THE COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR BAY ROAD, 4 FT. OFF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. CROSS REF. SPR 36-2001, AV 65-2001 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 9/12/2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 61-1-43 NEW TAX MAP NO. 296.15-1-23 LOT SIZE: 0.23 ACRES SECTION 140 CHERIE LUKE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 66-2001, Kenneth W. & Cherie C. Luke, Meeting Date: September 19, 2001 “Project Location: 425 Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a 6 ft. sign in the County right of way for Bay Road. Relief Required: Applicant requested relief from the 15-foot minimum setback requirement of the Sign Ordinance per § 140-6. Apparently, the applicant has placed the sign 4 feet into the right of way and seeks relief to maintain the same. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to maintain the existing sign in the current location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include relocation of the sign to a compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: Minus 4 feet of relief from the 15 foot requirement may be interpreted as extreme. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate to substantial effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 65-2001 pending – relief for construction of drive and parking spaces Petition for zone change 5-2001 res. 6/26/01 NC-1A to MR-5. Site Plan Review pending to establish a professional office use. Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Moderate to substantial impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The applicant has constructed the sign within the right of way. It appears as though the applicant is currently operating the business at the site. The applicant has supplied a Warren County Department of Public Works work permit. Staff understands that the work permit might only allow the applicant to perform the work. It does not appear to be an agreement or easement to actually occupy or use the land for the purposes stated in this variance. The County has entertained similar proposals and a written agreement has been issued….(Cool Beans parking, Kaidas Kitchens sign). SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form September 12, 2001 Project Name: Luke, Kenneth W. & Cherie C. Owner: Kenneth W. & Cherie C. Luke ID Number: QBY-SV-66-2001 County Project#: Sep01-42 Current Zoning: MR-5 Community: Queensbury Project Description: The applicants have constructed a 6 sq. ft. freestanding sign and seek relief from sign setback requirements. The sign is located off the property, 4’ into the County right-of-way. Site Location: 425 Bay Road. 4/10 mile North of Quaker Road, on left. Tax Map Number(s): 61-1-43 Staff Notes: The applicants have placed a sign not on their property, but 4’ away from their property line within the County right-of-way an unmeasured distance from the sidewalk and the paved area of Bay Road. Built structures within road rights-of-way impede road expansion and paving projects. It appears that the applicants have a permit from the County DPW to place sign in the right-of-way. Staff is checking on the validity of that permit. Regardless of whether the permit for placing the sign in the right-of-way is valid, the Board should evaluate the impacts to the County road and official Queensbury development policy from this sign setback variance. Staff recommends discussion. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve” Signed Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 9/13/01. MR. STONE-Okay. Anything you can add to the application? MRS. LUKE-It’s the same sign that I had at 379 Bay Road, which was the office that I rented, and 379 Bay is just up the road, just a tiny bit, the same distance away from the sidewalk as it was at 379 Bay. So there really has been no change except it’s been moved a little bit north. MR. STONE-Okay. The situation is the same. You have no piece of paper says you can put the sign on their right of way. They said you could build it, or is that what the permit said? MR. BROWN-That’s what the work permit said. MR. STONE-The work permit, that’s what I meant, yes, but you don’t have a permit that says you can encroach on the County right of way with your sign. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) MRS. LUKE-I thought last week when I went to the County meeting that that was what it was for, that they would give me permission to have my sign there. That wasn’t what I went there for? Why did I go there? MR. STONE-Craig, are we right? MR. BROWN-Those are County recommendations. They recommend that local Boards act to approve or to deny. They don’t make a decision. They make a recommendation. MR. STONE-Right, but the Highway Department could give you a piece of paper saying that if Queensbury is happy with it, you have our permission to put the sign there. That’s the difference that we’re talking about here. MRS. LUKE-I thought it was if Warren County was happy, you were happy. I don’t know. MR. STONE-No. We have a Sign Ordinance that says the sign has to be 15 feet from the property line, on your property. That’s what we say. MRS. LUKE-All right, but the rest of Bay Road, they aren’t. Right? MR. STONE-We’re doing our best to make that not be the case. MRS. LUKE-So it is consistent with the other sign on Bay Road. MR. STONE-I noticed next door, the attorney, he’s about as far out as you are. MRS. LUKE-I think he’s closer. MR. STONE-Well, I won’t say that. Any comments, gentlemen, any questions? MR. HAYES-How is that sign anchored in the ground right now? MRS. LUKE-Just a big pole. That’s all. MR. STONE-Where would the 15 foot line be on the drawing? Let’s see, we had 20 feet was out here, so it would be almost up against the building I gather. MRS. LUKE-Right. MR. MC NULTY-Right. Her answer to one of the things said that there’s 43 feet 6 inch from the road to the house. MR. STONE-Right. MR. MC NULTY-And she figures the sign would be required to be 43 feet from the road to be in compliance, so six inches from the house. MR. BROWN-It scales about 10 feet from the house. MR. STONE-It scales 10 feet from the house. Okay. You’re being harder on yourself. Any comments, gentlemen? Any questions? If not I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this Sign Variance? In favor of? Anybody opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Let’s talk about it. I mean, to me it seems that we’ve got the same kind of problem that we’re putting the cart before the horse or the sign before the County, but let’s, Norm, why don’t you start. What do you think? MR. HIMES-Thank you. I was thinking about the aspect of when I was looking for the building, I wasn’t sure which one it was, and had a hard time finding something that said 425, and I saw it down on the other side of t he garage there. The thought kind of occurred to me that maybe something like a wall sign or what not to identify the place might be helpful, not, at the time, I didn’t know where the County and your lines are, and I was wondering, well, I wonder what would happen if the 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) sign was put back where it was supposed to be, and see how it works, and if you could come say with an application that says you think you’re definitely affected by the fact that the sign is ineffective because of thus and so. That would have some meaning to me, in connection with it. It has having a negative impact or something that needs to be done to help the business, but the fact that it’s kind of along the line, you know, as you look down the road maybe with some of the other signs, I can certainly see why you would put there, I might have myself. As Lew said, maybe some of the other signs down there will have to be looked at and brought into compliance, if they do not have a variance themselves. So my thinking is that I would like to see, it’s a modest sign, as you’ve said, a very small sign, tastefully done, that some other signage or ideas and a placement that is a little closer or all the way to what is required might not be asking too much, figuring that certainly if it just didn’t work, then we’d try something else that might require a variance. That’s my thinking. MR. STONE-Craig, we can only give relief to the property line. We can only give 15 feet of relief. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. STONE-The rest is her problem. I mean, if we were so inclined, we could say, you could put this on the property line. That’s all we can say. Okay. MR. BROWN-Or get a wall sign. MR. STONE-Yes, there’s other possibilities, I agree, but I mean in terms of the strict amount of relive for this sign, it would have to be four feet closer to the building, at a minimum. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. STONE-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I would think if you moved it to the property line, that would be reasonable, and I think at the same time it’s a nondescript sign. It’s not like it’s some giant gaudy thing poking out into the street out there. It’s pretty much the same as the one next door, but if you move it in a little ways, I think it would probably go a long ways in relieving the problem. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. This is the old domino effect. I think the sign next door is closer to the road because there’s a large tree there. You can’t see it coming north. So he moved it closer to the road so he can be seen, and I think you have to be a little closer also to be seen. The only question I have is, if you have to reconfigure that parking lot, will you have to move that sign from where it is now? MRS. LUKE-No. MR. URRICO-You don’t think so? MRS. LUKE-No, because it’s way off to the other south side of the lot. MR. URRICO-I think I could approve it up to the property line, and if the County said it was okay, I think I could go even further, because the exception for Kaidas Kitchen was caused by the overpass, and I see that tree being a similar, a similar blockage of people being able to see that sign. So I think I can approve it up to the County line, and if the County approved, I would actually approve it further. MR. STONE-Okay. We could put that in a motion if we wanted to, if it comes up. Jamie? MR. HAYES-Well, in this particular case, Staff tells us that they’re comfortable with this piece of property being used for a business, the Diet Center, and I’ll take that at its word, and if it is, in fact, I think that, you know, some relief for a modest sign, which, as Norm pointed out, is certainly, I think everybody agrees it’s certainly a modest sign. Six square feet, compared to some of the ones we’ve had to look at recently, is very modest in this particular case. I think a wall sign, myself, would be ineffective, based on the speed of the traffic and the road, and similar to Norm’s experience, when I pulled out of Cronin Road, I had a hard time finding your place, and to me, that’s a testament that the sign didn’t really hit me enough maybe as it was, but you’ve got a certain amount of relief that we’re dealing with here. My only thing would be is that I think you should be required to move the sign back the four feet to get it within your property line there, and that I would be comfortable granting the 15 foot of relief out to the property line. I don’t think it’s a good practice to get into negative variances. I know that sometimes they’ve been obtained in the past, but I don’t think that, I wasn’t a part of that vote, by the way, but I think that in this particular case, we’ve already restricted your parking, or told you that we’re not going to go for that, but I think that sign is, I think it’s understandable for a small business, and I don’t think it’s a detriment to the neighborhood at all. In 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) fact, I think it’s already been pointed out that there’s a bunch of those signs on that road, and they don’t offend me, and I think it’s consistent with that little piece of corridor there. So I would be in favor of 15 feet of relief and having the sign be out to the property line, but no further, not into the County right of way. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, bottom line is I don’t have a problem with the sign the way it is. I’ve hollered a lot about signs on Quaker Road and other places, but I’ll agree, as some of the other Board members mentioned, I think the sign is important. It’s how I found the place, and it strikes me that it was easier to find it with the sign where it is than if it were a wall sign. It also strikes me that a sign where it is, the size that it is and the style it is, is less obtrusive than a wall sign which I would think you would want to make bigger, and which you probably could if you put it back on the house. It does strike me as being consistent with some of the other signs right in the same area, same size. So, on that basis, I think I’d be willing to approve it where it is, with the provision that it stays the same size, nothing bigger. MR. STONE-Well, I certainly think that, at a minimum, the sign could be on the property line. I’m not comfortable with passing a motion that says you can leave it where it is, because that’s not our property to do with. I probably wouldn’t be adverse to leaving it there. If you had come in here with the County permission, I probably would have said we’ll grant you the 15 foot of relief and recognizing the County, but we don’t have that in hand. Therefore, I would be comfortable with providing 15 foot of relief, and then we’ll leave it up to you to go to the County. I’m concerned that if you wanted to leave it where it is, and we said 15 foot, and the County said okay, do we have to do anything, Craig, on that, or should we, I mean, should we try to condition it on the County? MR. BROWN-That’s a good question. MR. STONE-I’d prefer to go to 15 and let her. MR. BROWN-To a zero setback. MR. STONE-Yes, a zero setback. Okay. All right. May I have a motion to the effect of zero setback? MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 66-2001 KENNETH W. & CHERIE C. LUKE, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 425 Bay Road. The applicant has constructed a six square foot sign in the County right of way for Bay Road, and the relief required, the applicant requests relief from the 15 foot minimum setback requirement, and that’s what we’ll be granting. We would not allow the sign to stay where it presently is, four feet out into the County right of way. So it would be on the line. The sign also would not be allowed to increase in size from what it is presently. The benefit to the applicant would be that the applicant would be permitted to maintain the existing sign but on the property line, moving it back four feet. The alternative, this is the alternative that we’re granting here, and is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Fifteen foot of relief from the Ordinance, I guess we would say that would be moderate. Effects on the neighborhood or community? Moving it to the line is going to be a moderate effect, but it’s in keeping with the other signs that are located along on that side of the road, within a reasonable distance of the sidewalk. Duly adopted this 19 day of September, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Himes ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate MR. STONE-Okay. You got half a loaf, as they say. MRS. LUKE-Okay. MR. STONE-We’ll see you next month, I assume. MRS. LUKE-Soon. MR. STONE-Okay. Now I come to a slight dilemma, in terms of the agenda. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) AREA VARIANCE NO. 68-2001 TYPE II ISABELLA HORTON GRANT AGENT: JACK DAVIS PROPERTY OWNER: ISABELLA HORTON GRANT ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 10 HICKOK PLACE, OFF HICKOK LANE OFF PILOT KNOB RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING 400 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE INTO A BEDROOM AND CONSTRUCTION OFA 536 SQ. FT. COVERED PORCH. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. ALSO, THE APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 9/12/2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 19-1- 37 NEW TAX MAP NO. 227.18-1-18 LOT SIZE: 0.44 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-79 MR. STONE-Is anybody here for this application? I mean, to represent the Grants? I did promise the applicant that I would try to hold that off until nine o’clock. Mr. O’Connor, are you ready for? Then I will go, because we’re still not ready for Hayes and Hayes yet, apparently. So I will go to Area Variance No. 70-2001. MR. BROWN-You may want to, if there’s a significant amount of public hear for the Horton Grant application, anybody here for the Horton Grant application? The agent’s made a request that the application be withdrawn, not a formal request, but a phone request. So if you just want to table it and not hold the meeting. It doesn’t look like anybody’s going to be here to represent the application. So, in case the public wants to. MR. STONE-Well, they said nine o’clock. I talked to him yesterday. MR. BROWN-Not from the applicant, though. It’s a neighbor that has an attorney coming. MR. STONE-That’s true. MR. BROWN-I don’t think anybody’s going to be here to represent the application AUDIENCE MEMBER-Perhaps somebody I represent may have requested extending the time. MR. STONE-Okay. So you’re here. AUDIENCE MEMBER-In opposition, yes. MR. STONE-Okay. So let’s go back to that one. We don’t have an official piece of paper on that. We have a phone conversation. MR. BROWN-So I think if you can just table it. MR. STONE-We’ll just table it, but if anybody wants to speak, no, we’ll just table it. MR. BROWN-No, I wouldn’t let him speak if you don’t have the applicant here to present it. MR. STONE-Okay. Do we have that note, that comment? On the basis of this note that I’ll read into the record, I will request to table this application. This was a memorandum to the Zoning Board of Appeals on file, from Sue Hemingway in the Zoning Office, and it was signed by Sue. The applicant name, Isabella H. Grant, Area Variance No. 68-2001, dated September 19, 2001. “I received a phone call on Wednesday September 19, 2001 at 1:30 p.m. from Mr. Jack Davis, agent for the project of Isabella Horton Grant. Mr. Davis is withdrawing the application due to neighborhood conflicts and plans to resubmit a different application in the future. A formal letter will be sent to the Zoning Office for withdrawal of the current proposal.” Since we did not get this formal letter, I will table. I will ask to table Area Variance No. 68-2001. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 68-2001 ISABELLA HORTON GRANT, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: 10 Hickok Place. For up to 62 days, so the applicant can furnish either a formal letter of withdrawal or a revised application. Duly adopted this 19 day of September, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone MR. BROWN-In the event they do that, re-notification, new public hearing, just so everybody who’s here gets re-notified. MR. STONE-Right. It will start all over again, for anybody who is interested in this. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate MR. STONE-Okay. Now, thank you, gentlemen. AREA VARIANCE NO. 70-2001 TYPE II ELIZABETH O’CONNOR LITTLE AGENT: VAN DUSEN AND STEVES PROPERTY OWNER: ELIZABETH O’CONNOR LITTLE ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 73 FITZGERALD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN ATTACHED ONE CAR GARAGE AND DECK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE SETBACKS AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. ALSO, THE APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF. SPR 39-2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 41-1-33.2 NEW TAX MAP NO. 289.14-1-14 LOT SIZE: 0.21 ACRES SECTION: 179- 16, 179-79 MICHAEL O’CONNOR & MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STONE-Do you want us to read the application in? I mean, I understand you have a proposal, or am I in error? MR. O'CONNOR-No. I think we have a proposal. MR. STEVES-New plans were submitted. MR. STONE-No, we have nothing. MR. O'CONNOR-How large is the deck on the one that you have? Is it 12 by 24, 12 by 25? MR. HAYES-Twelve by thirty-three. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. That’s not the plan that we would, it’s been modified. MR. STONE-That’s what I heard. MR. O'CONNOR-Since the time of submittal. MR. STONE-The side one is gone? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. STONE-And the garage is now? MR. O'CONNOR-Is now a freestanding garage to the back of the lot. MR. HAYES-Is that, the one that’s there now, there’s a small building there now. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s where that is, that’ll be removed. MR. STONE-On the other side of the gravel or whatever that road is. I don’t want to characterize it for the moment. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. HAYES-Right, dirt road, like it says on the. MR. STONE-Dirt road. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and Matt did submit 15 copies of this. MR. STONE-Did we get them? MR. BROWN-It’s not in the files? They were submitted, absolutely, but. MR. MC NULTY-This was just in the file with a rubber band around it. The one I looked at said the old one. It’s got the deck around to the side and the garage on the back. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) MR. STONE-You submitted, but Staff did not have a chance to provide Staff notes on the basis of the new application. MR. BROWN-There was a little bit of miscommunication/confusion, I guess, on our part. I thought this was going to be a separate application, since additional relief was requested and the garage was going to be detached, instead of attached to the house, and probably why Sue didn’t put it in there, she probably considered it for an October agenda, rather than to be considered tonight because it wasn’t really advertised for the floor area ratio that we talked about. It wasn’t identified before. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. There is, I’d like to proceed, if I can, to whatever degree we can this evening. There are two different aspects of the application. One is for construction of a deck, and the other is the construction of a garage. I think the construction of the garage is what brings up the new element that may require this to be tabled so that it can be re-advertised, but it was on. They would like to see if they can begin construction, and it would be helpful if we could get the deck approved, even if we don’t get to the approval of the garage. We could probably proceed on that basis. The deck that’s being proposed now is substantially less than the deck that was shown in the initial application, and I think the deck that’s proposed now is much simpler and probably easier to understand. MR. STONE-The concern that I had, Mr. O’Connor, was the permeability. I mean, even by the numbers it was said 38% non-permeable, and it’s supposed to be no more than 35. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The change in the deck does not change the permeability. The addition of the garage does not change the permeability of the site. The site is nonconforming, as far as permeability now, but by adding either the freestanding garage or the deck, it doesn’t change the permeability. MR. STEVES-Matt Steves. There’s going to be, there’s a portion of the asphalt parking that is there now that is proposed to be removed. So the square footage of non-permeable stays exactly the same as it is in the current condition. MR. STONE-Okay. How would you describe for me that roadway that I drove in on to get to Mr. O’Connor’s house, that goes behind this which is on the property? MR. STEVES-How would I describe that? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. STEVES-I included that as non-permeable. MR. STONE-You did? Okay. Fine. That’s why I didn’t want to get into gravel versus dirt. MR. STEVES-In the Ordinance, if it’s parking or driven, whether it be dirt, asphalt, concrete or gravel, it is considered non-permeable. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. STEVES-So therefore in the calculations I considered it non-permeable. MR. STONE-Good. Then we won’t even talk about it then. Fine. MR. STEVES-So I think the question that you had, Lew, is a good point, but what we have with the proposed deck and the proposed garage, even if we don’t look at the garage at this time, but for future consideration, what we had proposed in the entire site, no change to the non-permeable exists. Okay. MR. STONE-So it’s nonconforming and it will stay nonconforming and will stay nonconforming. MR. STEVES-But no increase to nonconforming. So what you have on there is the deck now gets reduced to just the width of the front of the house by 12 feet out. MR. STONE-Let me just ask Craig, we have nothing, we can’t read Staff notes because they’re not applicable. MR. BROWN-Well, I think what you can do with this application, and this is something I think that the applicant is offering is to not consider the attached garage. MR. STONE-I understand. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) MR. BROWN-Reduce the width to just the width of the house, and give them that variance if you choose to, and then next month they’ll come back with another application for a detached garage, and I think there’s setback relief and floor area ratio for those two reliefs. Two separate variances. The one that you have in front of you would be considerably downsized, to just the deck. MR. STONE-Okay. Let’s let you make a presentation, and if you would address to the relief required per what’s going to apply to what we’re doing right now. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. For the purpose of your record, I’m Michael O’Connor, from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent the applicant, Elizabeth O’Connor Little. I apologize for her not being present, but she is speaking at some event this evening. So that’s where she’s at. Basically, what you’re looking at on the survey, whichever survey you have, is property that has been in my family since 1952. It represents three different homes that my father built from ’52 to ’60 to probably, I think they were fully built in ’60, all three of them. Betty has the center home, and she wishes to put a deck on the front of it. The first proposal that she had, that Matt submitted, had a deck in a different configuration than what is proposed here. That deck had a wraparound walkway, if you will, that would go along the side of the house that is already there, that’s pre-existing on my side of her property. I own the property to the north of the property that you’re looking at. What she has done is downsize that deck, so that it is 12 feet, or 12 feet in depth, I guess, looking from the lake in, and for the full width of the existing house. No side line setback variance is required for the deck, as it’s been reconfigured. The reason for the 12 foot is to allow her enough room so that she can construct, within the deck, a stairway that will go directly down to the ground underneath the deck. It’ll give her enough room to have a reasonable run. MR. STONE-Inside the 12 feet? MR. O'CONNOR-It’ll be inside. Basically what she’s going to propose is three posts on the outside of the deck, and then a stairway someplace within there. She hasn’t fully configured yet how she will do that, but we looked at the rise between the ground and the area where the platform will be, and you’re probably going to need 10 to 12 feet to get a reasonable pitch on a staircase, and keep it inside the deck area, so that it doesn’t extend, it doesn’t encroach upon a side line, on either side. The property to the south of this is owned also by the family. It’s owned by my sisters, Mary Louise Moynihan, and Ruth Ogden. We’re the only ones that are affected in any manner by that encroachment, and what we are talking about is an encroachment on the 50 foot setback from the lake. MR. STEVES-And the side. The existing house is 11.3. The deck, going consistently in line with the house, would also be 11.3. So you would have the eight inch, roughly, variance from the one corner of the deck on the south side. MR. STONE-Yes, from the side setback. Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, I apologize on that. Also, the setback, as I understand it, even from the front, is only for probably a portion of a corner of it on the southwest corner, as it, because of the shape of the shoreline. We’re talking about relief of 4.75 feet, and that’s based upon the average setback of the two adjoining properties, which happen to be greater than 50 feet. I think the Ordinance reads that 50 feet, or the setback of the two adjoining properties. MR. BROWN-The average is 57 feet. MR. O'CONNOR-The average by scale, is 52.25 feet. MR. STONE-Well, the Staff says 57. MR. BROWN-I’ll take a look at whatever Matt has. MR. STONE-If Matt says. MR. O'CONNOR-Matt’s figured it out for me, because I’ve looked at this and said you’ve got to go by the average, as opposed to the 50 foot line, because my camp sits back further. MR. STEVES-And you also have to take the most restrictive, where you have a perpendicular from the mean high water mark, and the way the shore changes and undulates in there, it’s a little bit more difficult, but we went up and located, on an elevation that was based up DEC’s standard of the mean high water in Glen Lake and established that line across all three properties. MR. STONE-As far as your professional reputation is concerned, you’re willing to say it’s 52 and a half? 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) MR. STEVES-Absolutely. MR. STONE-And we’ll find, since you’re the survey man. MR. O’CONNOR-The variance and the setback will not be noticeable, I don’t think. It’s going to set into the front of the house that’s still into a two story structure. It’s not something that sets out by itself. I don’t even know if I would notice it, if I sat on my front porch, whether it was back two feet more or not, because you look across that side, you’re looking into the bay, and the property on the other side of it is much lower in elevation. If anything, the wall, by the natural wall that’s there already, is in their view sight. MR. STONE-Okay. You’re saying the neighbor to the north will not object. MR. O'CONNOR-I also said that. That’s the issue on the deck, okay. I think we will stand on the application as it’s been submitted, as to the garage, but we understand that Staff wants to have time to comment on it. I think we have submitted enough information that they can, I don’t think we need to submit further on it, but that was a late submittal. Basically what she did was change, she’s changed the garage two or three times. She had a two car garage and it didn’t fit on the septic. She tried to put a one car garage, that didn’t fit very handily. So we’re going to put a one car garage on the back of the property, as opposed to attached to the house, and on that garage we will ask for relief from the back setback, and if you went back and looked at it, it’s a ravine back there. It’s not near anybody or encroaching on anybody, or shouldn’t present a problem to anyone. We’re also going to ask for relief of height, which is two feet, I believe. This is 18 feet, as opposed to 16 feet, to give a little bit of storage above it, not living space, but it would be simple storage, and this lot is nonconforming, as to floor ratio. Presently, it is 25.3. If you add the garage square footage, it becomes 29.1. It will not change the living space. It really will not have a great deal of impact. The garage will be behind the house. It won’t be visible from the lake. It won’t make the lot look anymore developed than what the lot presently is developed. So we can get to that argument when we discuss it with you. I have no problem with you tabling that portion of the application. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, I just had one question. For the purpose of the record, if you’re going to use a certain dimension to base your decision on, you may want to consider having that drawing as part of the record. Not that I disagree with Mr. Steves, but if you want to use it to determine the shoreline setback, are you going to use it because Mr. Steves says so, or you have a map in front of you, and I understand, I’m sure it’s accurate, but, I mean, we have a map that shows something different, just for the completeness of the record. MR. STEVES-Well, the map you have is the same thing we have, that shows 47 and a half from the actual lake, but what we’re talking about is the average between the two buildings, the one to the south being 37 and a half feet from the lake at the closest point, and Mr. O’Connor’s camp being 77 feet from the lake. So then if you average those two, it’s 52.25. So that’s why we’re talking about the four and a half foot then. MR. O'CONNOR-We have no objection to submitting a drawing with that calculation made on it, so that there’s no question in the record of what we’re speaking of. MR. STONE-If you accept the 76 and 38, that’s 57, that’s my math, says 57. MR. STEVES-Thirty-seven and seventy-seven, add the two together and divide. MR. STONE-That’s 114 divided by two is 57. MR. STEVES-Fifty-seven. MR. STONE-He’s a good surveyor, but as a mathematician. MR. O'CONNOR-Relief is nine feet, seven five. MR. STONE-Okay, as it says in the Staff notes. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. BROWN-And I guess the other two options that we have, or one of the two that you want to choose is, I’d be hesitant to recommend that you give a partial approval on the application. If they want to remove the garage and modify the deck so they can have their variance on the deck and get 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) construction underway under that, that’s reasonable, and then the other application that they’ll submit for next month will deal just with the garage. MR. STONE-Okay. So you’re saying that they should submit a new application. MR. BROWN-They have, and if you want to consider it as a separate application, and only look at the garage next month, I think what they want to do is get under construction with the deck. MR. STONE-No, I understand that. I’m just thinking in terms of two applications, two fees and all that. Is that what you’re suggesting? MR. BROWN-Unless they want to table this entire application and come back with an amended one next month, and I don’t know if that interrupts their construction schedule. MR. O'CONNOR-Why can’t they approve part of the application? Without prejudice as to their action on the balance of the application? MR. BROWN-That’s up to the Chairman, but I’ve never seen it done. MR. STONE-I have no problem with that. I mean, to me, it’s common sense. If you’re willing to say that we’re talking about the deck tonight, and we’ll table part of it until next month, I have no problem with that. Does the Board have any problem with that? MR. URRICO-Sounds logical to me. MR. STONE-Okay. It sounds logical. MR. O'CONNOR-The applicant so stipulates. MR. STONE-Okay. So what you’re asking us to do tonight is grant you relief from 57 to 47 and a half, for the deck which will be along the front of the house, period. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. STONE-12 by 25. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. STONE-Yes, 12 by 25. MR. STEVES-Yes, correct. MR. STONE-Okay, and then we’ll table the portion that concerns itself with a garage. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. STONE-Mainly a detached garage, but we’ll, okay, any other questions before I open a public hearing? All right. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the application, what we’re considering, let’s put it that way. Anybody opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions? MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I have a copy of correspondence, I’m not sure who it was sent to. I’ll submit it to your secretary. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-Yes, I lied. This may be the one, from Wilson? Sorry about that. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) MR. STONE-I’ll open the public hearing again. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. MC NULTY-This is addressed To Whom It May Concern, dated September 19, 2001, “I have no problem with the applicant’s request for relief from their proposed construction of an attached one car garage and deck.” And it’s signed Respectfully, Robert S. Wilson, 75 Fitzgerald Road. MR. STONE-For the record, where is he located? MR. O'CONNOR-If you look at the location map, Wilson is on Tax Map Parcel No. 28, which is four to the south. MR. STONE-Four to the south, okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and 32 is Mary Louise Moynihan and Ruth Ogden, 31 and 30 is Floyd Rourke. 29.3 is Michael J. O’Connor, II, who also has no objection. MR. HAYES-No letter? MR. O'CONNOR-I’ll write one. MR. STONE-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing again. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other comments? If not, let’s talk about it. Start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I had an opportunity to talk to the applicant about the property, and I was a little bit concerned about where she originally placed the garage, but because we’re not going to talk about that, I won’t get into that anyway, but the deck on the front, I think it’s a step back from what was originally proposed. It’s a lot more reasonable. At the same time I spoke to her, I said, you know, there is an impact, I think, from the lakeshore because of the fact there’s not much, if any, vegetation out in front of there, except for grass, and I had asked her at the time, I said possibly, you know, could there be some kind of vegetative plan drawn up or some kind of planting, just to kind of break up the view there a little bit, and I don’t know what her response was to that. She was sort of noncommittal on that at the time, and the only other problem I had on the property, as far as that was, was the permeability issue, and I think the deck does impact it a little bit, not a whole lot, since you’re only going to put three posts in the ground there, but the decking I think does, to a degree, change that, and I think a little bit of vegetation in front might have an impact, as far as softening it. I think most of the new properties on the lake have made a reasonable attempt to do some plantings to soften that effect. The only other thing I pointed out to here was kind of that ditch that runs down along the side of the house there, and I don’t know if that is what you were proposing to remove or that tarred kind of depression in there? MR. O'CONNOR-No. I know what you’re talking about. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-That used to be a lot worse, though, before that was put in. MR. UNDERWOOD-Where it washed out all the time. MR. O'CONNOR-It washed out the driveway every time you had a storm of any nature. Since that’s been put in, they’ve let, at the end of it, like an accumulation get there, and it will run down the ditch, but it will spill out onto the lawn before it gets to the lake. MR. UNDERWOOD-The only suggestion I would make was maybe you might want to consider some kind of a catch basin or something, just a little short section just to catch everything from washing straight into the lake, you know, when you get a real big rainfall. As far as the deck goes, I would probably be in favor of it if there were some plantings placed in front of it. On balance, I think that you have to look at the fact that you do have a deck down on the dock there, too, and I’ll wait and hear what my other Board members have to say. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Using the balancing test criteria, which we’re given, I don’t see a problem with this. The modifications to the plans seem to really put it in a better light. I think, barring any unforeseen 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) objections from the immediate neighbors, I don’t think there should be any problem. I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I essentially agree. I think in particular with the removal of the deck to the north, in this particular case, I think at this point the deck represents a very modest proposal, in this particular case. The relief is relatively small, particularly from the side setback, it’s less than a foot. So, to me, I’m really not troubled by that at all. As far as the effects on the neighborhood or community, I think this deck, in a certain sense for a seasonal enjoyment would be consistent with other usage’s in that area, and certainly the immediate, immediate neighbors, under pain of duress, are in favor of the application. So, I think it’s a modest proposal, and I think on balance I’m okay with it. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I basically agree. On the one hand, I don’t like giving variances into the setback from the shoreline, but I think the impact as seen from the lake is going to be minimal, and in this case, since the immediate neighbors have no problem with it, and as has been pointed out, the deck has been modified to be smaller than the original proposal, which lessens its impact, and I guess I’m going to trust the applicant to produce an attractive deck, and on that basis, I’d be inclined to approve. MR. STONE-Okay. Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. Well, I don’t want the Board to lose its reputation of not having at least one bad guy on it, but I’m afraid that I’m not in favor of it. I’m sure that it would be nice and all. I think, when I looked at it, there’s a screened porch or what have you on the bottom, and something similar to that up on the second floor, which I think probably are used for looking at the lake and fresh air and so forth, and the dock has a deck on it, a nice yard there. I can’t remember, a little patio out there or what, but I think that I just wasn’t swayed at all by what the needs might be or what there might be there that would be anything other than a convenience or something that somebody wants to do, and I can certainly understand why, perhaps, somebody might want a deck, but we’ve got the Ordinance, and I think that my vote will be to uphold the distance from the water. So I would not be in favor of it. MR. STONE-I have one question before I speak. This deck will be open for water to come through under? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. STONE-We can stipulate that it will not be closed? MR. O'CONNOR-It’s not a closed deck. MR. STONE-Well, I don’t mean closed deck. MR. O'CONNOR-Covered? MR. STONE-No, I meant the boards, the boards will have space between them. MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. MR. STONE-So that the ground underneath will get the water. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. STONE-Yes. Having that assurance, I don’t really have a problem with this. I certainly have been critical, over the years, of encroaching on the lake setback. In my mind, the average regulation is for those particular places where you’ve got a shoreline that makes it, sticks out or something and really has an adverse effect on the neighbors. In this particular case, at least one neighbor is not troubled by the fact that this is going to be close to the lake. Actually, the relief, in my mind, is two and a half feet. I can live with two and a half feet, particularly when you consider the openness of the area. In this case, it works to the advantage, as far as I’m concerned, because you’ll never, 50 foot wouldn’t look any different than 47 and a half. So, having said that, I think the balance of this part of the applicant comes down in favor of the applicant, and I would be willing to entertain a motion to approve this portion of the application, and also a second part of the motion tabling the consideration of a garage until next month’s meeting. So I need a motion to approve. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 70-2001 ELIZABETH O’CONNOR LITTLE, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: 73 Fitzgerald Road. The applicant proposes construction of an open deck. Specifically, the applicant requests 9.75 feet of relief from the lake setback of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16, and I will say one foot of relief to allow for possible posts and stuff, in simplification of this matter, from the 12 foot minimum side setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16. To make the motion clear, that is the only portion of relief that we are dealing with in this motion today. We’re not dealing with any relief associated with the garage. Benefit to the applicant. The applicant will be permitted to construct the deck as amended in the desired location. Feasible alternatives in this particular case are limited, based on the fact that the house is already existing, and I think that a 12 foot depth on the deck is a minimal level for usage for normal activities. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I do not believe it is in this particular case. I think the 9.75 feet of relief from the lake frontage, as has been pointed out by the Chairman, is actually less than that, in the sense that it was only created by the average calculation of the two other camps. Not being that, the relief would only be two and a half feet. I don’t believe that the decrease in the shore setback will affect the views in this case either. As far as the side setback relief, one foot, again, I believe is very moderate, if inconsequential in this particular case. Effects on the neighborhood or community, I don’t believe there will be any. These properties have been in the O’Connor family for a number of years, and I think that this is actually consistent usage with what the other properties that even extend beyond that point. Is the difficulty self created? Certainly it’s somewhat self created in that the applicant does not have a deck and wants a deck now, but on balance, I think that this test falls in favor of the applicant. I’d like to condition the approval as pointed out that the deck will be constructed in a manner that will allow permeation through the deck itself, as far as rain or whatever. I guess that was brought up and it appears to be significant, and I guess I should state for the record that at this time, we are only approving this portion of the application and are specifically not voting yes or no on the proposed garage. It’s our understanding of the Board and contingent thereupon that the proposed deck, which has been modified from the original survey, will in fact be continuous with the house, 12 feet deep by 25 feet wide, those dimensions only. Duly adopted this 19 day of September, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Himes ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 70-2001 ELIZABETH O’CONNOR LITTLE FOR THE GARAGE PORTION OF THE AREA VARIANCE, Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: For up to 62 days, with the consent of the applicant, for Staff to review the submitted revised plan as to the calculations that the applicant has made, and properly identify the relief and advertise it. Duly adopted this 19 day of September, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNally MR. STONE-So we’ll see you next month on the rest of this. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Is there anything that jumps out in anybody’s mind when they look at that, that I should be mindful of? MR. STONE-The garage? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. STONE-Not as far as I’m concerned. MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. Thank you. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) MR. STONE-Again, the only thing is the guy behind you, the guy behind that. That’s all. I mean, it is somebody’s property, but it doesn’t bother. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I can show you the elevation of their prints, and we can even talk to them. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. STONE-Is Mr. Lapper here yet? MR. M. HAYES-Not yet. MR. STONE-Okay. Moving on. AREA VARIANCE NO. 74-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED CIFONE CONSTRUCTION AGENT: VAN DUSEN AND STEVES PROPERTY OWNER: HARRY BERES ZONE: CURRENT IS SR-1A; OLD IS SR-20 LOCATION: SMOKE RIDGE DRIVE IN BURNT RIDGE SUBDIVISION APPLICANT PROPOSES A 6 LOT SUBDIVISION AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION NO. 11-2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 121-10-999 NEW TAX MAP NO. 308.08-1-21 LOT SIZE: 11.33 ACRES SECTION 179-79 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 74-2001, Cifone Construction, Meeting Date: September 19, 2001 “Project Location: Smoke Ridge Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 6 lot subdivision and seeks relief from the minimum lot width requirement. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the 150 foot minimum lot width requirement of the SR- 1A zone, § 179-19. The applicant seeks to create 6 lots, two of the proposed lots are planned to have average lot widths of 140 feet and 113 feet. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to create the desired lots in the preferred configuration. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include reconfiguration to allow for compliant lots. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: While 10 feet of relief from the 150 foot requirement may be interpreted as minimal, 37 feet of relief from the 150 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate to significant. 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 as there appears to be a feasible alternative. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Subdivision 11-01 pending – 9/25/01 create a 6 lot subdivision. Subdivision 7-85 4/28/86 create 19 lot subdivision Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Apparently, the proposed subdivision is envisioned for duplex development. Per the Suburban Residential, SR-1A zoning requirements, duplexes are allowable, however, 1 acre of land is required per dwelling unit. No lot in the proposed subdivision meets the 2 acre minimum requirement for duplex construction. While this item is not the basis of this variance application, consideration may be given to the potential for these lots. The previous “phase” of this subdivision was approved in 1986 according to the SR-20 Zoning requirements. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-And we don’t have a County. MR. STONE-No County. MR. MC NULTY-No County. MR. HAYES-Mr. Chairman, at this time I’d like to recuse myself from the consideration of this application. I was one of the potential suitors for this particular piece of property. Obviously, I ultimately lost that suit, but I’d like to remove any possibility of anything. So I’ll sit this one out. MR. STONE-Thank you, Mr. Hayes. You’re done for the evening, then. Mr. Steves. MR. STEVES-Good evening, Matt Steves again. The application in front of you is for six, one acre lots. As the Staff notes, I’ve indicated that Lots 22 and 23, as shown on that plan, do not meet the SR-1 Acre minimum lot width of 150 feet, and again, the lots in the subdivision are currently at about 120 feet, with duplexes on them, and they all average around 40,000 square feet, obviously. When they were SR-20, to allow for the duplexes, they had around 40,000. The lots that we have are all basically an acre, except for two that are a little bit over an acre. So very consistent with the 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) neighborhood. Consistent with the lot widths. So what the applicant is looking for at this time is the variance for those two lots, to get the subdivision approval, and then I wouldn’t mind discussing the potential for duplexes, because we would be right back here after the subdivision is approved for that variance to allow duplexes on those lots, so that we can stay consistent with the neighborhood. If you have driven up through there, you’ll know that the entire subdivision of the 18 existing lots is all duplex units. To the south of us, which would be the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, there’s not an easement, but the actual ownership. So it kind of precludes us from going to the back of the property and doing anything more, and the area that surrounds this, it’s light industrial to the south, and then the SR-20 immediately to the east of this, that was the Clute parcel that was rezoned. So we think we’re staying completely consistent with the neighborhood in what we’re proposing to do. MR. STONE-The lots to the west, though, are single family homes, are they not, a couple of them? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. STONE-Right next to this substandard lot. MR. STEVES-Actually along the Sherman Avenue corridor, correct, the longer lots that come in off of Sherman Avenue. MR. STONE-Yes. Why isn’t it possible, with these lots, well, I guess my question is they wouldn’t be one acre. I understand that. MR. STEVES-If we could widen them out, what you start doing is crunching them down to the east, so that the other ones are less than an acre, because you can see how the property gets narrower from north to south, and you could really accommodate a one acre lot with the appropriate frontage and width, but then what would happen is all the lots would have this little tail along the back, along the power lines, to accommodate the one acre in size. So, I mean, that’s why I say that I believe that this would create good geometry, as far as the lots not being skewed from the road, so that you have the potential of somebody building too close to the side line because of a weird angle coming off of the road. They all work quite well this way, and we believe to be the least problematic would be to have the two lots on the westerly end be a little narrow. MR. STONE-What is this drainage easement on Lot 20? MR. STEVES-There is an easement that came across. Why it was developed where it is, I’m not exactly sure, but in this subdivision proposal, the client has proposed to redirect that between Lots 21 and 22. MR. STONE-21 and 22. MR. STEVES-21 and 20, sorry. MR. STONE-Okay. So right down the setback line. MR. STEVES-Right down the setback line. That’s correct. MR. STONE-And obviously you show it going somewhere. I mean, is Niagara Mohawk happy with, would they be happy with directing it a little further west or not? MR. STEVES-Actually, what it would do is, where it is discharged at this point, it would still be discharged there. It would come down the line and just reconnect back to the same discharge point. So it would just be a re-piping. Actually, it was called for to be perpendicular off the road. I think it just ended up being the easiest place to build it. I have no idea. I wasn’t involved in the construction, but we would be relocating that between those two lots. MR. STONE-So across the street, I mean, that’s the rest of the subdivision, is across the street to the north, right? MR. STEVES-Is to the north and to the east of this, correct. MR. STONE-And those are all 20,000? MR. STEVES-They’re all 40,000 square foot. MR. STONE-I mean, 40,000, because they’re duplexes. MR. STEVES-Correct. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) MR. STONE-Now these are all rental properties, or owned properties, on the other side? MR. STEVES-I believe that there’s a few of them that are independently owned, and I believe that Mr. Cifone, at this point, owns a few of them. I’m not sure all of them, and I don’t even know if maybe Mr. Hayes owns a few of these buildings. MR. STONE-Okay. Then I won’t complain too much. No. I didn’t mean it that way. I meant that there’s one property that I was not pleased with, looking at it. Any comments? MR. HIMES-I would just like to ask Staff a question here, as to why the requirement that two acres be needed for duplexes, why isn’t that part of the variance equation? MR. BROWN-There’s no proposal for a duplex development right now. I think this is just a possibility that they’ve shown on there. They haven’t applied to the Planning Board for a site plan approval for a multifamily project. This is just a subdivision approval right now, to create the lots. MR. HIMES-So if duplexes do become, or it sounds like it’s going to be. MR. BROWN-They’ll be back before you. MR. STONE-They’ll be back before us. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. HIMES-For a, okay. MR. STEVES-I’m making you full aware of what we propose to do. In talking to Staff, they said let’s carry it through the proper steps, you know, let you know exactly what we’re doing, but as you pointed out before, we’re kind of putting the cart before the horse, if we start asking for duplexes when we haven’t even been to the Planning Board yet. So at this point, we’d like to have the variance only for the lot widths, but this Board understanding that we will be coming back for duplexes. MR. STONE-Yes, but what you’re asking for are six, one acre lots, in an area zoned for one acre. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. STONE-And all you’re saying is that, the way this gets configured, to make it reasonable, we can’t meet the average width on two of the lots? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other comments? Any other questions? Hearing none, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody wishing to speak against this? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. STONE-No County. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions? If not, let’s talk about it. Roy, let’s start with you. MR. URRICO-Okay. I’m going to apply what I think is a strict interpretation of the criteria, and I look at the benefit to the applicant, and I can see where he would benefit by having this permitted, to create the desired lots in the configuration as presented. I also see feasible alternatives, which include the reconfiguration for compliant lots, especially, I think 10 feet of relief from the 150 foot requirement is minimal, but I do not like the 37 feet of relief from the 150 foot requirement as presented, at least on one of the lots that I can see, and there’s another lot, too, which seems beyond what I consider reasonable. As far as effects on the neighborhood or community, right now there are minimal effects on the neighborhood, but there could be significant effects on the neighborhood down the road, but I’m not going to deal with that right now. I’m going to deal with right now, and give that benefit to the applicant. It brings me to item five, which is whether it’s self created, and I do think it’s self created, and on the weight of the criteria, I would go against this. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I have to basically agree with what’s just been said. I can understand the reason for the applicant wanting what’s been requested, but I think the minimum lot width requirement is there for a reason, and I don’t think the benefit to the applicant outweighs the detriment to the neighborhood of allowing, especially the narrower lot. So I’m going to be opposed. MR. STONE-Norm? MR. HIMES-Thank you. Yes, I tried looking at it from the standpoint of how wide they are, and I want to agree with what I’ve heard from the Board already, and yet I look at the layout, and considering the other lots in the neighborhood, I’m a little more sympathetic with the application. I would have to say, however, that I wasn’t happy with the aesthetics of the development across the street for all but one of the buildings that I saw, I kind of felt that the development was done without any concern at all for aesthetics, and I hope that doesn’t happen with what’s planned on this side, but I think that I would probably go along with what the other Board members here. The lots are quite narrow on the road front, and it might just depend upon how far back from the road any planned development or structures might take place. So I’m a little on the fence here. I’d like to think about it for just a moment. Is there anyone else to speak, or am I the last one? MR. STONE-Yes. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would have to agree with my fellow Board members. I was not very much impressed with what’s been done down there so far, and I think that, based upon what’s been done there, I would not doubt, in the least, that they’re going to propose duplexes on those lots. If we create them as these small narrow lots, you know, I just happened to look around the neighborhood at the number of vehicles parked in front of the other places, whether they’re rented or owned, and I just think that, you know, for some reason whenever we get to the southern portions of Town, we tend to look the other way, and maybe lower our standards a little bit, and in this case I think that the builder and the applicant has not shown that he’s willing to do a quality job down here on this end of Town, and I think that it would be not in our interest to create lots like this. MR. STEVES-My client is the one proposing this. I have no idea who developed the rest of the property. I understand that, and, like I say, consistent with the neighborhood is one of the key items that we have to look at at this stage, and they are all consistent with the existing lots in that subdivision. MR. STONE- I, too, am concerned by this thing. It seems to me, you just said something, Mr. Steves, in that subdivision. This is a new subdivision. You mean in that neighborhood maybe, but not in that subdivision. This is a new subdivision. MR. STEVES-Right, in the existing subdivision, not the one we’re proposing. MR. STONE-Across the street. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. STONE-Okay. It seems to me that the applicant is attempting to squeeze a lot into minimum acreage. I mean, just the fact that there’s six acres there, doesn’t mean that we should automatically grant six lots, if a variance is required. If a variance wasn’t required, obviously we would have no say in the matter. MR. STEVES-Right. Understood. MR. STONE-Six acres, six lots, one acre apiece, but the fact that you’ve got to squeeze, because of the configuration of the road, and the, and I would agree, it’s a reasonable use of space, from an owner’s standpoint, but I’m troubled by the fact that we need so much relief on one lot, when these lots could be a little bigger than one acre. We could do five of them. Yes, I know it raises the cost of the property by one sixth, and I appreciate that, but I can’t, in good conscience, vote for it, at this particular point in time, particularly, I think Mr. Himes said it, and I wrote in my note here, I hope they’re not going to look like the one across the street. Now I know the owner has no control over that, but I was troubled by that, and I think Mr. Underwood put it very well. Let’s not relax our standards just because it happens to be in the southern part of Town, and I, for one, don’t intend to. So, having said that, it appears to me that we can, I can ask for a motion to deny the application, because I think what we need, in this particular case, if you want to develop a subdivision there, I think it has to be a dramatic change, and therefore, I am perfectly willing to ask for a motion to deny. Mr. Brown, do you have any problem with that? 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) MR. BROWN-No. I think that’s certainly your prerogative. There’s always the option that the applicant could request a tabling for a full Board. That’s up to him. MR. STONE-You’re right. He could request a tabling for a full Board, since there are only five of us at the moment and four negative votes. So that’s fairly strong, I think. MR. HIMES-It’s five negative. MR. STONE-You didn’t say. Okay. Five. So I would call for a motion, unless you want us to table it and come back with another proposal. MR. STEVES-No, I’m sure that, after hearing what the Board has to say, and I’ll be talking to my client tomorrow, that his reaction, I’m sure, will be to reduce it to five lots, and make them all compliant. MR. STONE-Okay. Then we’ll deny it and you can go seek a subdivision from the Planning Board. Is that right, Craig? MR. BROWN-If that’s what your motion does, sure. MR. STONE-Yes. I mean, as I say, I don’t always understand this not approve versus deny. In this case, I would like to deny. MR. STEVES-I do have one question to pose to the Board, before we go for that motion. Realizing all the concerns you have, with no problem with that, to reduce this to five lots, all with a 150 foot minimum, all above an acre at this point, they will all be more than an acre now. MR. STONE-Well, you can take the application off the table. MR. STEVES-Right. No, but I’m asking this Board now, if I came back, what would your feeling be about duplexes on Lots, you know, if I keep going around and around with my client, I want to make sure that I’m not coming back to something I know I’m not going to get approved. I just want to get a basic idea from this Board that, okay, I understand your concern with packing too many of these lots in here, as you say. If we reduce it to five, what is your feeling on duplexes? MR. STONE-My only concern about doing a straw vote, and that’s what it would be, is that we don’t have any drawings in front of us. We don’t know what these are going to look like, how they’re going to sit on the land, or anything like that. I, for one, would be uncomfortable doing a straw vote. MR. MC NULTY-And the Board may have a different composition when that comes up. Because you’ve got two alternates sitting here. MR. STONE-Right. I mean, we have two alternates in the Board tonight, and that’s what we have them for. MR. STEVES-I didn’t hear a definite no. Okay. MR. STONE-You can come back, but I would ask for a motion to, unless you want to pull this application, recognizing that you’re going to have to go to five lots. MR. STEVES-That would be great. That’s what we’ll do. MR. STONE-Okay. So you are pulling the application. We will not vote on it. MR. STEVES-Okay. Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. We neglected to do a SEQRA on the Sign Variance. So we’re going to have to do that, and then re-affirm our vote on the Sign Variance. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 66-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED KENNETH W. & CHERIE C. LUKE D/B/A DIET CENTER AGENT: N/A PROPERTY OWNER: KENNETH W. & CHERIE C. LUKE ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: 425 BAY ROAD APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 6 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIGN SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. THE SIGN HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED IN THE COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR BAY ROAD, 4 FT. OFF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. CROSS REF. SPR 36-2001, AV 65-2001 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 9/12/2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 61-1-43 NEW TAX MAP NO. 296.15-1-23 LOT SIZE: 0.23 ACRES SECTION 140 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) MR. STONE-All right. MOTION THAT IN CONNECTION WITH SIGN VARIANCE NO. 66-2001 KENNETH W. & CHERIE C. LUKE THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 19 day of September, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant MOTION THAT THE ZONING BOARD REAFFIRMS ITS PREVIOUS MOTION IN CONNECTION WITH SIGN VARIANCE NO. 66-2001 KENNETH W. & CHERIE C. LUKE, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: Duly adopted this 19 day of September, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-Next on the agenda, and I do apologize, and I will ask the applicants to apologize profusely to you people. You have been very patient. AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED HAYES AND HAYES – ASHTON CEMENT PROPERTY AGENT: JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. PROPERTY OWNER: WEST MOUNTAIN LAND TRUST ARCHIE MESSENGER, TRUSTEE ZONE: SR-1A AND RR-3A LOCATION: WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD (WEST SIDE) AND SOUTH OF POTTER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 98 UNIT TOWNHOUSE PROJECT ON AN ABANDONED INDUSTRIAL SITE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM DENSITY REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. PLANNING BOARD DISCUSSION MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 21, 2001 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 9/12/2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 87-1-21 NEW TAX MAP NO. 300.00-1-19 LOT SIZE: 33.53 ACRES SECTION 179-15, 179-19 MICKEY & PAUL HAYES, REPRESENTIING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STONE-We have no Mr. Lapper? MR. M. HAYES-The only part missing is our agent, Jon Lapper. Before you bother reading the application, I guess we’re probably going to try and table this tonight, being that Jon isn’t here, and also we modified our plan. I don’t know if Craig talked to you about that. MR. STONE-Yes, he did. The problem is, and I’m going to have to be guided by kind of the people in the audience. Obviously, there’s a great deal of interest in this particular application. MR. M. HAYES-Sure. MR. STONE-It was advertised a certain way, and that’s all they know, as far as I know. You all think it’s 98 units, I believe. It would be unfair not to let them talk to the project. What I would suggest that you do is do a short summary of what it is that you’re going to propose, or your modification, so that they can compare the differences and I think we’ll let the public speak, and then we’ll just keep the public hearing open, and at that point we’ll table until next month, or whenever you. Is that acceptable to you gentlemen? MR. P. HAYES-I guess. In this particular case, it’s just that the proposal was changed, and it might be better to have the proper depiction and the proper Staff notes. The proper everything to do it, but. MR. STONE-Well, the people are here, and I think that if you do a reasonable job of comparing 98 versus whatever, at least they can comment, and we’ll still leave the Staff, the meeting open. Some of 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) the people may not be able to get here next month, and I think they have a right to be heard. They’ve been very patient. MR. P. HAYES-We certainly are not opposed to people speaking. MR. STONE-I understand. Okay. MR. P. HAYES-I guess the things that he’s going to read, though, are actually. MR. STONE-No, no. He’s not going to read. No, no, no. I’m going to hold that. I’m going to ask you to state the differences, what you propose and what you’re going to propose, compared to what you have now, and then we’ll let the people comment. MR. M. HAYES-My name is Mickey Hayes. Originally we proposed 98 townhouse/I guess you’d call maybe a residential apartment complex. We had our preliminary meeting with Staff, and we had a preliminary meeting with the Planning Board, and from the feedbacks that we got from Boards and from Staff, that they felt maybe that that style or that size was a little bit out of character for the neighborhood, and they were concerned about that. So we went back to the drawing board and came up with a plan, using Jim Miller, Landscape Architect, and he came up with a plan that we thought it was economically feasible to cover the cost of the clean up, but also be more fitting to the neighborhood and a little less density. We came up with single family and duplex homes, in place of fourplexes, sixplexes and eightplexes. We feel there’s a market for single family homes. It kind of sounds funny to rent, these are rentals. This is not a Town road. It’s strictly a rental property, for people who want to live in a maintenance free environment, which seems to be a trend that we are finding that people necessarily don’t want to be caught up in the hassles of every day mowing, plowing, having their furnace fixed. So that’s a market that we’re trying to take advantage of. So, hence, the returns on investment aren’t as great, obviously, on 98, because of the clean up costs of the site, but we found that we can make it work at 70 units, in duplexes and single family homes, instead of more of a traditional townhouse development. MR. STONE-Okay. So can you be more definitive about the 70 units that you’re proposing? MR. M. HAYES-Sure, I could show you a depiction, if you’d like. MR. STONE-I think the people would like to see that, and then give them an idea so they can comment. MR. P. HAYES-While he’s getting those depictions to you, I guess the essence, or the logic behind what we propose stems largely from two major factors, one is the cost, the tremendous cost associated with cleaning up what is a brown field site now. There’s literally dump trucks, waste areas. There’s hundreds of thousands of square foot of cubic cement that were just dumped. If they weren’t used by the cement trucks, they went there and dumped them to clean their trucks, and in fact some of the trucks are still buried there now, partially, if you walk the site. So it’s kind of a, it’s a disaster area, in a place that otherwise is quite naturally a very beautiful, beautiful area at this particular time. So, keeping in mind that it has to be a reasonable return for anybody, we’ve constructed pro formas, which we’ll give to you at the next meeting, to demonstrate between the construction costs of the units, the houses, and the clean up of the site that we’re proposing, that’s the minimum density at which that can be accomplished, mathematically, and as we examine the property, from a historical perspective, this property has been entertained or looked at by a host of other developers, including, we have letters from, the attorney for the sellers, I examined the whole file, and in that file which is like this thick is essentially a wrath of interest in then backing away from it based on the clean up costs that are associated with the mess that’s there. There’s even the names of the developments that they propose for these sites, along with of course a lot of bills that they’ve run up to try and make it work, which of course they could not make it work, and that’s why they didn’t buy it. There was ashwood, the western reserve. I mean, it was just one name after another of different developers that approached this property, and of course they’re not going to do anything that doesn’t make financial sense. Nobody, rationally, would do so. So really the crux of our argument is, in this particular case, that, if you look at the site, there’s just one contaminated area or problematic area, after another, but, you know, it’s still, the potential of the property, we think, is tremendous to be, once again, be a compliment to the entire surrounding neighborhoods. The other aspect of our argument is, in a nutshell, and I’m sure Jon will develop these ideas for you, is that the density that we’re asking for is actually the same density of everything around there, and we will demonstrate that for you, in the future, in that all the residential developments completely surrounding this property, have density that’s much higher than one acre zoning. It’s much, in some circumstances it’s actually surprising, including the neighborhood that I live in, which is, you know, basically a mile away. So, we’re actually asking for a density that’s consistent with everything around that. We’re not asking for a use or intensity of use that’s dramatically different than what the neighborhoods or homes in the immediate area are to this day. Jon will develop that, but I think you’re asking us for the basics of that. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) MR. STONE-Yes, okay. MR. P. HAYES-Mickey can comment to you about the exact buildings and homes. MR. STONE-Yes, that’s the70 and 98. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, if I could just interrupt for just a quick second. Since we have such a crowd here, I just want to make sure everybody feels comfortable. If you want to go up and take a look at any of that stuff at any time, feel free to do that. It’s not just for the Board, it’s for everybody, for your public comment, too. So, that’s all. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I ask a question. Who presently owns the property? I mean, it’s a trust. Is it the people that originally owned it, or? MR. P. HAYES-Having read that file, I believe that they’re descendants thereof, essentially. Some of the names on the trust that I saw were Ashton, but at this time there’s 13 owners, depending if they’re all still involved. So it makes for a difficult transaction, because they essentially have to get a large agreement, but they’re all in agreement with what we. MR. STONE-But it is one parcel? MR. P. HAYES-Absolutely, yes. It’s the historical Ashton Cement plant site. MR. M. HAYES-Well, this is the original plan that we came up with. This plan actually depicts 110 units. Ninety-eight is what we proposed originally, but he put on 110 because he thought that was the best use that was the landscape architect. Primarily, sixplexes, fourplexes of townhouse style, similar to Hiland Springs in Hiland Park, almost identical type buildings to that. That’s the, we feel those buildings are a nice representation of a rental market today. That was the architectural, architectural shingles and siding and walkout basements. That was the kind of market we were going towards, but after our meetings, we turned the corner on that because we felt that the neighbors and Staff had some reservations about a complex that size and that style in a neighborhood that was primarily residential. So we heard that. We’re not here to beat our head against the brick. So we adapted the plan, and what we’re trying to develop here is more of a village type concept, having, primarily people have their own homes, but in rental format, without the responsibility of the homes. We also have a walking trail, a pond. There is a pond on the site, but right now it’s basically, I don’t know if you gentlemen have walked the site, but it’s a disgrace. Dredging that, and also making it a steeper bank so that the water would be deeper, and actually have like a pier off that, make that an asset to the property, rather than a negative. We also wanted to do things like communal gardens, where we tended to the gardens. We fertilize them. We rotatill them. So we will come and plant their own garden that we maintain for them. Once they plant their crops, it’s their own. We’re not going to weed, but we’ll get it ready to plant. Just to create more of a sense of community, on a piece of land that we feel, underneath the warts of all the cement and the tires, the trucks and the steel, it’s a beautiful piece of property. People would really like to live there, but also try to get some kind of community feeling within that property. MR. STONE-And how many units are there? What’s the breakdown? MR. M. HAYES-It’s reduced down to 70 units. That one has 110 units down to 70. There’s basically 30 duplex town homes. Then there’s basically 10 single family sites on there, which is kind of a different concept for rentals, to have single families, but we feel there’s a good market for that, and actually makes it a lot softer development. MR. STONE-Are they mixed in, or is it a unit of homes? MR. M. HAYES-They’re mixed in, but they’re all on their own. They’re separated. MR. STONE-Yes, but I mean there’s not a group of single family homes? MR. M. HAYES-They’re primarily, they’re mixed in, but they’re primarily in the front, to give it more of a look of a traditional neighborhood in the front. Compared to traditional rental development, like Hiland Springs we think is a nice development in Hiland Park, the density is less than a third of those developments, but we feel that can be an asset, even though there’s costs incurred with length of roads and infrastructure, but we think it makes it more of a country, it’s a nice place to live. MR. STONE-Okay. What is, on the drawing you gave us, it says single family home site, single family home site, up in the corner? 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) MR. M. HAYES-That is, we did the depiction of the house, because those particular sites that we are contemplating building a house for my aunt and my cousin there, which we’d be still part of the parcel, but we couldn’t depict the style of the house on there because that’s yet to be determined. It’ll probably be larger than what these are shown. MR. STONE-Okay. So that would add to. MR. M. HAYES-That would make the 70. MR. STONE-That would make it the 70. Okay. MR. M. HAYES-But we didn’t want to represent it the same thing, because the house may be significantly different, because our plan is now build a house for each, for our aunt and for our cousin there. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys have any kind of a tentative, in other words, if you got into your clean up, and it ended up that it was some drastic, way over the top what you thought it was going to be, like, would you just walk at that point, or I don’t know what your plans. MR. M. HAYES-We actually set up a disaster reserve. Of course, whenever you get into environmental concerns, there’s always a tendency not to work out, but also we were looking into an insurance policy that covers the cost, in case you run into hazardous materials, that could go beyond. Because, honestly, nobody in this room can say honestly what exactly could be there. When you walk the site, it is a frightening thing to think that’s in the middle of Queensbury. So we don’t pretend to know if there could be a barrel there. So we are looking into the possibility of getting insurance that that could cover beyond our disaster part of that, but we don’t envision that. We checked it out. We’ve done as much research as we could without going full bore. We feel that it’s mainly more nuisance stuff than there is like Ciba Geigy type. MR. STONE-If you got approval from this Board and the Planning Board, you would buy the property before you started to clean it? MR. M. HAYES-If we got approvals from the Zoning Board, before we went to the Planning Board, we would do a full environmental assessment on the property, so if we ran into something that was a disaster for us, we wouldn’t waste anybody’s time, but we’ve already done the preliminary, and we’ve found that it’s all right. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. P. HAYES-The DEC has already been involved to some extent with this property, because obviously we’ve had a number of concerns, and we’ve researched that for the last 15 years, including all the letters back and forth. There’s been at least four different engineering firms that have been involved with dealing with aspects of the property. There’s still a lot of things there now, but there was even more things there before. So we’ve researched it as far as you can go without actually doing like borings and all those types of things (lost words). MR. M. HAYES-We did do some test digs ourselves, to make sure, in certain spots where gentlemen that worked there in the past said this went on there, this went on here, because Bill Threw supposedly removed the oil, the barrels, and had the soil burnt all that process, and we kind of like went back to make sure that that, in fact, happened the way it was supposed to. It wasn’t anything scientific. It was more like by guys with experience. MR. STONE-Any other questions before I open the public hearing? I mean, I think these people have been very patient, and I think we should let them speak. Before I open the public hearing, anything more you guys want to add at this point? MR. M. HAYES-I don’t know if anybody had any questions about the specific environmental problems. If so, I’d be glad to answer them for them. MR. STONE-Well, why don’t we see what they have to say. MR. M. HAYES-Sure, no problem. MR. STONE-Let me, before I open the public hearing, I just want you people to understand that we will just listen. We will, obviously, keep the public hearing open until next month when the formal application is back on the table, as revised. I do ask you, when you do speak, if the guy ahead of you 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) said exactly what you’re going to say, say I agree with the previous speaker, and any other comments you might want to make, but let’s not everybody say the same thing over and over again, if you agree with them. Just kind of let us know you agree. So, having said that, let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor? Please come forward, sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHARLES BAKER MR. BAKER-My name is Charles Baker. My wife and I own the property in back of and beside the Ashton property. MR. STONE-North, south, east or west? MR. BAKER-North and west. MR. STONE-Okay. Up the hill. MR. BAKER-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BAKER-I, in fact, dug the pond hole that he was talking about previously, Mr. Hayes was. My father-in-law and I ran a sand plant there originally. That was the property my wife was born. The property next store we still own. To my knowledge, there is no contamination, like you said Cieba Geigy, there’s nothing like that, and if there is any, it would be where the building, the garage, which was out on the West Mountain Road, they may have dumped oil from changing oil in trucks. They may have dumped something like that there, but as far as any other contamination, I don’t believe that there’s anything else in that ground, outside of concrete, where they’ve rinsed there trucks out, you know, at night when they got through, they rinsed the excess concrete out. We have had our property on the market for five years. We could not get our property sold, because of the condition this property is in this day. There’s trucks, there’s parts of trucks. There’s everything you can imagine, tires thrown out in the woods, that’s still there. It’s been there. The last time that I was working on that property was 36 years ago, and then I worked for Tom Ashton. I left him and went to work for Finch Pruyn. So, after that deal, I have no idea what went on there, other then I know there is no contamination there. Now it is used as a private recreation area. There’s all kinds of goings on down there, including shooting guns and all kinds of things going on. These people that use these four wheeler and snowmobiles and mountain bikes, they go through this property. They go across my property, which I put up signs and tried to keep them out. They’ve set the mountain on fire several times up there. We had a major fire, three or four years ago, as you probably know, and it’s just access, and if these, Mr. Hayes, cleans up the property and does what he says he’s going to do, I think it would be an improvement to the neighborhood, and I think everybody would appreciate it being cleaned up. That’s all I have to say. MR. STONE-Thank you. DON KRUGER MR. KRUGER-For the record, I’m Don Kruger, and I run a company called Kruger Concrete in Queensbury, New York. In the late 80’s, early 90’s, my son and I looked extensively at that property. I had bought concrete from Ashton for years, and we tried to develop a ready mix company there. With the zoning at that time, the only thing we could do was a ready mix company or single family houses. No matter how we ran the numbers, the ready mix concrete did not work there, and that was when there was a building boom. Now we’ve built that west end of Town out, and it’s just totally infeasible in any way to try and revamp that as a ready mix concrete plant. We looked at it for single family, and by the time we cleaned it up, it just totally wasn’t in the cards. Now, apparently the Hayes brothers have figured out some way to make this thing work, and I agree with Mr. Baker. I know what, if any, pollution or misuse of the land has been other than dumping concrete there, and that was probably limited to draining oil from the truck motors, which sounds terrible, but it’s not the end of the earth, when you look at the way that could be treated. I’ve looked at it with other people, and no matter what I came up with, I couldn’t come up with anything. I think if Mr. Hayes has this proposal, I think it’s a very good use for the land, in my opinion. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? BOB GOVER 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) MR. GOVER-My name is Bob Gover. I’m a real estate broker, and I sold the property to Mickey, and I represented the Ashtons. That property’s been on the market now for 16 years. They started off with a price of around $235,000. They’ve had several contractors look into the property, and no one’s been able to make the numbers work. The cost of clean up has been, I’ve heard numbers up into $200,000 to clean that up. So the project there, they’re trying to put together here, seems to be a good way to remove some liability that’s going to be there with the site the way it sits now, and the, well, the cost of the clean up, Mickey already went over all the different things that’s wrong with the property. There’s tires there, cans, abandoned vehicles and so forth, and I think it would be a definite improvement to the property values for the adjoining property owners as well as that end of Town in general. So, I just wanted to add that. MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak in favor? In favor of? All right. Opposed? Anybody wishing to speak opposed? Mr. Carte, come forward KELLY CARTE MR. CARTE-My name is Kelly Carte. My wife and I own the property immediately to the south and to the west. I’ll take exception with Mr. Baker’s statement that he has property on the mountain side of it. If you’ll look on the tax map, or a survey map, he owns 100 or 150 feet, possibly. I own the rest, 1,000 feet or something like that. MR. STONE-Okay. We’ll look. MR. CARTE-Okay. The border along the mountain is somewhere around 1,000 feet, as I recall. I am adamantly opposed to this subdivision, this proposal, for several reasons. Number One, the basic thing that I want to start out with is that the reason I bought the property, I own four and a half acres on the south side of the property, 54 acres of land on the west border of the property. The reason that I bought it in the first place was because the zoning was one acre. It had been changed, I believe some time in the 80’s, when they rezoned it, and apparently it has been reaffirmed with the new Master Plan, because I looked at that, and there’s no thought of changing the zoning on this. So, the zoning in that whole area was zoned SR-1A. The property is surrounded by lands that are zoned even more restrictive, and my property on the mountainside is 10 acres. The property to the north border of this is both one acre and three acres. Mr. Baker said that he hasn’t been able to sell this property, and I would question that, or take exception to that, too, because I’ve spoken to the person that is redoing the house that is on the one acre parcel north of the proposed Ashton property, the proposed subdivision, and he has a purchase contract with, according to him he has a purchase contract to buy the 40 acres of land from Mr. Baker that are on the northern border, both the one acre and the three acre zoned portions. So, to say that the character of the neighborhood is something less than that is not quite true. I mean, in the past, those subdivisions that Frank Bronk put in, to be specific, Applehouse Lane, Lester Drive, Bronk Dr., along in that area, were, I believe, quarter acre or third acre lots, something along those lines, and those were put in years ago, but since that period of time, the whole strip down there was zoned one acre, and there are many new single family houses that are going in that are one acre, on one acre lots. Much has been said here regarding the looks of the land and the fact, I mean, the article in the newspaper went so far as to say it’s polluted. It alluded to the fact, I didn’t know that I was living next to a toxic dump here, because it sounds like the thing is really terrible. If you’ve walked on it, you know that it is certainly unsightly, cement and miscellaneous metal, steel and stuff like that, some old tires in the back, but nothing that is, I would say would be polluted or dangerous or anything of that nature. I bought my property knowing that this was there. I bought it specifically because it was zoned SR-1A, and I said this, obviously, will be awhile before somebody will do anything with this property here, the way that it is. I would hope that the condition of the property would not be a deciding factor, shall we say, in the Board’s deliberation on this matter, because it’s been that way for 15 years or 20 years, or however long the property has been abandoned from the cement mix plant, and no one seemed to care a real lot about what the condition of the property is for all this time. It would seem to me that the property remedy for this type of thing would be to compel Ashton’s trust or heirs to clean the property up, if it’s such an eyesore that the Town feels that there should be something done with it. To allow this to go through on the promise that it’s going to be made better, I think that should be left up to the people who live around there, as to whether or not, and I, having the property, as I said, surrounding two thirds of it, certainly do not think that the proposed subdivision would make it better. While it would make a better appearance to the property, the detriment to my property value and the others around here, around that area, would be far outweighed by this proposal. The other thing that I’m somewhat, not somewhat opposed to, one of the other reasons why I guess is to consider a piece of property like this, and consider what the applicants are proposing doing, because it would make it economically viable for them, is also something that I would hope would not be a consideration that would take place. I don’t believe the Town should be in the position of making a project economically viable for a developer. If it’s not viable the way that it’s zoned, then a person has the option of going somewhere else, finding some other land that’s zoned the way they like it, that they can work with, and doing that. They’ve also stated the economic hardship, so to speak, of having to do the work necessary to clean the project or clean the land up before they do their project. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) If it was a piece of land that someone already owned, and they wanted to do something like this with it, you might be able to say that there was some economic hardship if they had it on the market for that long and couldn’t find anybody to be interested in it, but someone who doesn’t own the land, does not have an economic hardship in the least, this, as they indicates, Hayes’ indicated, has not been sold. It’s only under a purchase contract. If they don’t get what they’re looking for in the thing, it won’t be sold, and I think that that’d perfectly understandable, but to change the character of the neighborhood from single family residential, which is every house, basically, to the south of that, and to the north, for that matter. I don’t think there’s just anything in there that is, that are rental or apartment type of houses anywhere along there, but to change the character so drastically, and negate what the Town has done with the zoning for the past 15 or 20 years that the zoning has been changed to this, would be, in my opinion, highly excessive. I talked to Craig regarding the way that subdivisions like this would be figured if they were to be used as one acre lots, and there’s 33 acres of land there, subtracting acreage for the roads or streets that would be necessary to be put in there, subtracting for the City of Glens Falls water main right of way, which runs across this property, subtracting for the pond which is on the property, would take away a certain amount of land from that. I don’t know if it would make, I guess it would be five or six acres, or something like that. Therefore, the nominal use for this particular piece of property would be something in the range of 25 to 30 houses or dwelling units, not 98, not 70, not 40, not whatever. I knew that going into the thing, buying the property as I did. I can live with that. That’s what it was zoned for, and that’s what I would expect it would be used for. To say that the thing would not be ever cleaned up or done anything with is not really true, because, in the period of time that has transpired, in the 15 or 16 years that they’ve been trying to sell this, and I’m not exactly sure of that. I have papers back showing listing back as far as ’90 or ’88, something like that, but land values in Queensbury have gone up dramatically. Land has been used up dramatically in other housing projects. As the land values get higher and higher, it becomes closer and closer to where it’s a viable project for someone to buy this, do the clean up on it, and do what it’s zoned for. The fact that it’s not this year, or not these people, is not, shouldn’t really be a problem I would guess. These things that people are quoting to other people that looked at the project and whatever were based on years past, when land values were lower, and it just stands to reason that now you’re up to $25,000 or something like that for a one acre, single family lot anywhere around that area. When it gets to be $30,000 or $35,000 or $40,000, does it become then economically viable for somebody to do something with it? The other aspect of it is that there are other uses for the land that may not have been proposed yet but certainly are out there that would allow it to be used for, allow it to be used at the price that’s being asked for it and what the clean up would have to be done to it. The fact that these haven’t been brought forward yet or whatever are not really a problem here. I have some information. Well, before I get away from the land, there’s one other aspect on this that has not really been addressed. It probably is not in the scope of what the Zoning Board would be concerned with, and probably more properly the Planning Board, but the pond that’s on this property, and the land and whatever surrounding this pond, the Hayes brothers have only seen it, as I understand, I met Mickey Hayes over there mid summer, something like that on it, the pond is not much of a pond at this point in time. It’s a runoff catch basin, so to speak, for the mountain, and the water that is there is groundwater. The water level that’s there at this time of the year is groundwater level. The pond is probably an acre, acre and a half in size, or something like that, at this point in time, somewhere around there. In the spring, when the water runs off, it expands to six acres, seven acres. It is a huge difference, and the water level rises probably five feet or six feet, something like that, over the level of the water that is there now. This situation is not going to be cured by making the pond smaller and steeper. You can dig out all you want, but when it’s groundwater, the water level is going to stay where the water level is now, and the runoff in the spring from the pond is condensed with steeper walls, will rise higher than it does now, because it’s more restricted, and will back up probably beyond, I don’t know, I have never done any elevations there like that, but from walking the land, will probably back up beyond their property onto my property, and that, in the drawing that’s here, there is absolutely nothing there. The pond is not in the location that is shown on this map really. It’s further back than that, and you would need a channel, running all the way to the back part of the property, to allow for this buildup of water in the spring. So this part of it, as I said, is probably not necessarily in the Zoning Board’s realm, but it is something that definitely needs to be addressed on this, and would probably preclude even more of the land being not allowable for building on, more of it being withdrawn from the 33 acres. I’ll sum it up. I’m adamantly opposed to anything other than the zoning that this property is presently zoned for and has been, as I said, apparently continuation of the zoning in the new Master Plan. I’m the one that is most affected by this property, being 2/3rds of the land surrounding it. Across the street is watershed property. So, obviously, there’s no vote from the City as far as that goes. So, I would hope that the Board would take this into consideration when they do the deliberations on this. Are there any questions I can answer? MR. STONE-One question. I notice on the posting signs your name is there, along with an Ashton. MR. CARTE-Right. I got permission from Ashton’s heirs, or trustee, actually, a man named Archie Messinger, who’s the trustee of the land for the Ashton heirs, and I got permission from him and from Bob Ashton to post the property, to try to keep people off the property and to keep them from not only going there, but going through there up to my property in the back. We all know about 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) liability. We all know about the City and this fool that killed himself on the snowmobile going on one of their roads, and how the City will end up paying, or the City’s insurance company, will end up paying for this. I am attempting, to the best of my ability, to keep that from happening to me, and in doing so, the border on the road was the logical way to stop people. If this kind of a thing goes through here, people that don’t own their own land and their own house are somewhat less responsible, shall we say, for neighbors and adjacent property, not having the responsibility of their own, I would have to say as a generalization that the rental situation would be that they’re not going to be respectful of my property. I’m going to end up having to do an eight foot chain link fence or something for 1,000 or 1,200 feet, to keep people from going upon (lost words) if it’s developed as planned here. So that’s, you know, I would take exception with the amount of money that it would take to clean this up. I mean, we haven’t, you can do whatever, but I have a documentation from Morse Engineering, I think, was the last one that did some work on the property here for Ashton, with calculations as to how much cement needed to be cleaned up and such. He didn’t get into disposal of tires and stuff like that. The main problem in there is the amount of cement that’s in the ground, and they obtained a permit from DEC to bury the amount of cement that was calculated to be there, on site, with DEC’s permission, and the calculations that they came up with, both them and a letter from Bob Ashton to Bill Threw, regarding the clean up that needed to be done there, and the figure that they came up with was $30,000. Now this was in 1996. Thirty thousand dollars, to me, realistically, sounds ridiculously low, but the figure that I heard in the, I think it was in the paper, of $270,000 to fix it up sounds, you know, not ridiculously high, but very high, to take care of the clean up on this property. It’s probably going to be somewhere in between there. It would be, if you factor in some figure in between the two of those for the cost of clean up, and you factor in a price for the land, the last listing I heard, they had put it down to $200,000. So something less than that, and divided by the number of houses there, you’re talking about a land acquisition cost here of four, five thousand dollars, per dwelling unit, which is considerably below what the going rate would be in the Town of Queensbury, in what would make a very lucrative subdivision for these people to undertake, but I don’t think that it should be undertaken at the expense of the neighbors, and I think there’s some other neighbors here that want to speak. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak opposed? TIM OLESKY MR. OLESKY-My name’s Tim Olesky. I live on Applehouse Lane, which is just one street south of the property, proposed project. I just want to expand upon what Mr. Carte had mentioned about the water problem. I purchased the last remaining lot on Applehouse Lane 15 years ago. I have a water problem, and my concern, as with many residents on Applehouse Lane, Lester, who follow the runoff pattern of the mountain is what impact this might have on our properties. The pond does rise in the spring, depending upon the snowfall and the rain, and we can follow the water problem on the height of the water. This would have a significant impact on the runoff, not only would the homes, or these proposed homes, on the topside have a water problem, but it would have an impact on our homes as well, and my concern is, if the project is approved, is the Town or is it the builders who will be responsible for the possible damage down the road? Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Come up, sir. JIM STONER MR. STONER-Hello. My name is Jim Stoner, and I live on Lester Drive. The water issue is one I hadn’t even considered, and I don’t know if it’s appropriate for here, but as happens to actually drain past my house and around back. So I’m concerned about that as well, but the things I wanted to mention, I’m concerned about a large rental property that close. The current properties there are not rental properties, and there is an issue in that regard. I also wanted to mention that, it does not seem to me, we’ve heard a couple of different figures for the price of clean up. I believe the realtor just mentioned $200,000. I saw in the paper $270,000. If you wanted to give some relief, and say there were 30 lots by zone, current zoning requirements, if you gave 30% relief or even 50% relief, you’re talking then maybe 40 single family lots. If you assume $200,000 for cleaning. That’s only $5,000 additional money per lot. That doesn’t seem like a lot to me. I’m not a realtor. I don’t know for sure. Even if it is currently an issue, I agree that over time, that $5,000 will become insignificant. So I don’t see a need to go up to 70 units, whether they’re rental or single family homes, and finally, I’d like to just register some annoyance that the Hayes brothers new that they had a new proposal, that they wouldn’t be able to proceed with it today, and completely separate from the appearance of their lawyer, is there any reason why we couldn’t have been told this at seven o’clock, rather than waiting three hours? Not a big deal, but a little bit annoying. MR. STONE-I apologized for that. MR. STONER-It’s not your fault. I mean, they were here. They could have said something. 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) MR. STONE-Okay. Sir? BOB RAYMOND MR. RAYMOND-My name is Bob Raymond. I live on Applehouse Lane. Unfortunately, at this point in my life, my children have moved on from the Queensbury School District into college life, and they’re not so apt to be running around the streets anymore, as they did for years and years, and through the fields in the back through the Ashton pit up onto Mr. Carte’s property and up on the mountain, and the statements have been made that this property may have some kind of toxic waste or whatever. Well, my kids aren’t dead yet. They’re not deformed. They were born and lived in that area since they were very, very little, but aside from that, just looking at 70 homes, 70 homes. How many cars are going to be in those 70 homes? Be associated with those homes? A minimum of 70, correct? Well, now you take, I know in the mornings when I go to work, and I leave at 6:30 in the morning, many mornings I have to wait to get out of my street, which is, to get out onto West Mountain Road, is 50 miles an hour. There’s a passing zone all the way through there. Those are little things that can be addressed. However, you add those 70 cars, minimum 70 cars, with all the other neighbors that are in the area, the trucks that go through there, the people that use the West Mountain Road corridor as a shortcut to get to Corinth, or wherever they may be going, and I think that poses a significant risk to the community in the area, and the clean up, I think it would look good cleaned up. I mean, some ideas there, that gives me some ideas that would be feasible to do, but I just want you to take into consider the safety factor of the people in the neighborhood. There have been fatalities on that street, on West Mountain Road, because of people’s failure to use their commonsense when they drive sometimes, but when you add 70 cars to a currently overused road, I think we add, a minimum of 70 cars, I think that adds an awful problem. Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you. Come forward, sir. PIERRE CASTONGUAY MR. CASTONGUAY-My name is Pierre Castonguay. I live on 24 Applehouse Lane, actually backyard neighbors with Mr. Carte. I have quite a few things to cover, but I’ll just cut it down to just three of them. I think, talking about relief, need 70 homes to have a feasible property, I think we’re looking at this the wrong way. I would suggest the property’s equity has been consumed with the material that’s on site. So if they’re trying to sell it for $200,000, $230,000, I would suggest it’s really worth maybe $30,000, if you take into account the cleanup that’s required to bring it to par. Suggestion. The other one is I’d like to go a little bit more on the water issue. About 10 years ago, Mr. Wiley, who used to own Mr. Carte’s home, cut down a significant number of trees on the property west of this property, and that changed the water pattern so that we actually had flooding in our back yard. What I’m concerned about is, that water has to go somewhere. Today we still have water that goes across the backyard, but it’s not, not today, but during the winter, or in the spring, we do have water that comes across, but not nearly as bad as it was 10 years ago when that property when that property was somewhat in a cleared position. Now there’s a lot of vegetation, so it absorbs into the ground. With this development, I’m just wondering if more of that water will not be seeping into the ground but be running across the property, and the third thing, the density. I would suggest that by putting single family homes on one acre lots will increase the value of my home, and I’ll suggest that if you put apartments, duplexes, townhouses, give it whatever you want, rental properties of reasonably high density, it’ll decrease the value of my property, and of the neighborhood. I look at that map, and we talk about 70 homes on 33 acres or so, it appears to me it’s really 70 homes on about 2/3rds of that. So it’s 70 homes on 25 acres. That’s what I, those are just my points. Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak opposed? MARY LEE SPECTOR MRS. SPECTOR-Mary Lee Spector, 23 Applehouse Lane. We’ve lived at 23 Applehouse Lane since 1973. Three children grew up in our home and in the ‘hood, as my son calls it. Neighbors have come and gone. I have never heard anyone complain about the condition of the Ashton property. The only people that complain are the ones that are on it to make money from the development of it. The neighbors are not upset by the condition of that property. Unless you go on it, you don’t even know there’s anything there. In going by it, on West Mountain Road, the trees hide it, the vegetation that’s grown hide it. We’ve known it’s there. It doesn’t bother the neighborhood, but I heard you, in fact, say tonight that the duplexes on Sherman Avenue are definitely detrimental to that neighborhood. MR. STONE-Anybody else? ADOLPH ARZBERGER 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) MR. ARZBERGER-I’ll make it quick. This’ll be quick. It’s probably repeating some of the things. My name is Arzberger. I live at 50 Bronk Drive, corner of West Mountain Road. We lived there for 20 years. I strongly object to rezoning the parcel of land formerly known as Ashton, to allow 98 units to be built on this property. I have no objections to seeing this property developed into possibly 25 to 30 single units, as the zoning will allow. If this piece of property is supposed to be polluted, then the previous owners of the Ashton Cement company should clean it up. Thank you. MR. STONE-Sir? TOM DELCOURT MR. DELCOURT-My name’s Tom Delcourt. I live on Applehouse Lane. I guess I just wanted to address the comment that was made about homes not being able to sell in that area. On Applehouse Lane alone, there are, I believe, five or six homes that have turned over in the last 12 or 13 years, with new families coming in and moving out. So that, in my opinion, has not been an issue for somebody to be able to sell their home right now in that area, and I agree with everything else that’s been said this evening, especially the water issue, because I’m also one of the people who gets caught with the runoff from the mountain in the winter time, it goes into the backyard and settles there and it’s something I’ve dealt with for awhile. I guess, like anything else, you get settled in to a lifestyle that you enjoy and you have a comfort level with, and you watch your family grow up, and you really enjoy it. The idea of change is hard, especially when it goes in a different direction. Duplex homes are something that really don’t fit in to that area. So, I guess that’s it. Thank you. MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak against? WALT WICKS MR. WICKS-My name is Walt Wicks. I’ve lived on 644 West Mountain Road, I’m just down from Arzbergers, for 37 years. I was one of the first ones up there. I have seen a big change in the whole area. I’ve seen about every house go up around there, but I’m really against building duplexes. I might as well say that I go along with the rest of them. As far as the traffic, we have seen so many people, many accidents on that road. I have, so many times, trying to get out of my driveway, now I have to back in to get out, and I can’t see where it’s going to help, building them there. It’s going to compact the traffic tremendous, and there’s been a lot of fatalities there. I just am thoroughly opposed to it. Thank you. MR. STONE-Anybody else? CINDY STONER MRS. STONER-My name is Cindy Stoner, and I live on 15 Lester Drive. I just want to, I agree with pretty much everything that’s been said. I wanted to add the comment, a couple of people have mentioned the value of houses and property in that area is increasing, and that’s partially related to some of the rezoning and the fact that it’s all single family and such, and if this is allowed, that the change over to rental and the decrease in property distance will contribute to reversing that trend of property value increase in that area. It seems like it’s sort of a direct relation increasing it now, and this would reverse that. MR. STONE-Just something that you said. We’re not talking about rental here. MRS. STONER-Right. MR. STONE-We’re talking about the number of units, whether they’re sold or rented, just so that you know that. MRS. STONER-Right. Okay. MR. STONE-And that’s the only issue before us, when we get to it next month. MRS. STONER-Okay. MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak? ALAN CASEY MR. CASEY-I guess I’m the last one. MR. STONE-You never know, I hope. 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) MR. CASEY-My name’s Alan Casey. I live on 640 West Mountain Road, one house down from Applehouse. Thank you very much for apologizing for the delay tonight. It would have been nice to have gotten an apology from both the Hayes brothers and Mr. Lapper, who came in at the last minute. I saw the agenda and I thought, we’re the first on the list. Let’s get in and get out, you know. I don’t have a problem with this. I have a problem with 98, 110, 70. I’m kind of with everybody else as far as the development, as it’s zoned, is fine. The traffic, I’d like to go along with Mr. Raymond and Mr. Wicks. I sit in my driveway. If I don’t back in my driveway and get a straight shot, at certain times of rush hour, you could sit there for five, ten minutes sometimes. School buses are another concern of mine. When it comes to the clean up of this, you can go down the watershed on Potter Road, and you can probably find the same debris down there. I mean, I could guarantee that. There’s leaf piles down there. There’s tires down there. There’s wrecked cars down there, and this is right across the street from this property. Also, you go on top of the mountain, Mr. Baker brought up that there’s tires out in back of, you know, on this property. You can go up on Bear Town Road, look over the edge of Bear Town Road, 200, 300 tires, easy, refrigerators, stoves. So, you know, when they’re saying toxic, I think that’s a little over-exaggerated. I will agree with maybe the oil spillage. Maybe they, you know, changing the oil in the Ashton trucks, they probably dumped that, but like Mr. Raymond said, you know his kids don’t have green hair. I’m kind of concerned that, I’ve been up there for 16 years, and I’ve never heard of a toxic dump up that way, you know. I twitch now and then, but I just wanted to voice my concern and I want to go home. MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak? PAT LANSING MRS. LANSING-I’m Pat Lansing, and I live at 623 West Mountain Road, and I’ve lived there for 31 years. When I moved there, some car drove by at 10 o’clock at night, you looked out the window to see who it was. Now the traffic is incredible. I mean, I can’t even hear my t.v. set when my windows are open. I can’t talk on the phone when my windows are open, and we’re going to talk about more traffic? What I really want to say is that West Mountain is a beautiful area. To those of us who live there and have homes there, homes that we paid for, bought, wanted to live there, to us it’s just as beautiful as living at Lake George. To us, it’s as much of a jewel as Lake George is to those people that live there, or anybody that lives on Glen Lake or anywhere else, and to have that mountainside, with all the beautiful vegetation, the animals, the deer, everything, the birds, everything that lives there, destroyed by putting in 70 to 100 units of houses that people won’t even own or care about, like we care about ours, I think it’s disgraceful. MR. STONE-Does anybody else want to speak for the first time? Mr. Olesky, you had a question? MR. OLESKY-Let me just clarify. If you would just clarify the comment you just made. You will be considering what next month, concerning this proposal? MR. STONE-All that’s before us is an increase in density. In other words, this is zoned for one acre. There’s approximately, I mean, we’ve heard different numbers, but somewhere, 25 units, if the development were made with roads and all that, it would be 25, 26, 27 houses in there. The applicant wants to put in 70 units, or whatever the number is currently. That’s the only question that will be before us. The Planning Board will address all these other questions, runoff, the pond, anything you can think of. That’s their job. They get to look at the whole enchilada. We get to look at a very small thing in this particular case. MR. OLESKY-Thank you. You had another question, sir, or another statement? NEIGHBOR-As I heard your comment about density, I just, maybe I need to have an understanding of how the Town of Queensbury came up with a specified one acre minimum requirement for housing on West Mountain Road, and now why, I guess that’s probably the first question that I have that I’d like an answer to before I go forth, and I don’t know, Mr. Stone, if it has to go through Staff to get that answer. MR. STONE-Well, no, I can only tell you, since I sit on the committee on the new zoning, zoning is a community determination, based upon what the community would like it to look like. It’s not an exact science. It would be great if you could start with 100, 72 square miles of nothing, and put down grids all over the place and say we want one acre here. We want three acre here. We want 10,000 square feet here. We don’t have that, but the Town of Queensbury, in its infinite wisdom, and when I say that I mean volunteers like myself and Staff, who have worked on it, and ultimately the Town Board, the elected officials who make up our Town Board, are the people who decide what the zoning is going to be on any particular parcel or parcels of land. I mean, they don’t go and say, this one lot will be one acre. That lot will be two acres next to it. 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) NEIGHBOR-It’s an area. I understand that. So, therefore, the community, which includes the people in the neighborhood of the watershed, Applehouse, Bronk, the old Applehouse Estate, if you will, as well as the Staff, already made the determination that that should be one acre. Am I correct? MR. STONE-That is correct. That is the current zoning. NEIGHBOR-So now we’re looking at coming back in and saying, it’s established. There was development, individuals who wanted to build on the West Mountain Road, and there was a big issue came up about the amount of footage that someone had to have on West Mountain Road to build. MR. STONE-Correct. NEIGHBOR-As I recall, it’s 300 feet. Am I correct? MR. STONE-150. MR. CARTE-Three hundred on West Mountain Road because it’s an arterial road. MR. STONE-Right. Excuse me. MR. BROWN-It also depends on the zoning district. It could be 400 feet. NEIGHBOR-Right, but I mean it is a significant size lot that you have to have to build on on West Mountain Road. Correct? Significant frontage on West Mountain Road. MR. BROWN-Yes and no. NEIGHBOR-Well, unless it’s already built on. MR. BROWN-Well, if you do a subdivision and say two lots share a driveway, you can do the normal lot width. If you want each of your lots to have its own driveway, then you have to do the double the lot width. Right. NEIGHBOR-But that was determined based on, I’m sure, significant studies, correct, input from the community and so on and so forth. I’m kind of being a little sarcastic here, because, and I know it’s late, and I’m frustrated because we were supposed to be on first, and like, to reiterate what Mr. Casey said, it was unfair to all of us that are here, and you made the comment several times what the remainder of the evening was going to be like, but I just, you know, stop and think about what is really on the table here. That’s all I ask you to do, and take into consideration what was already zoned and then rezoned to be the same thing, or the increase in the size of the lots. MR. STONE-Okay, but that’s the job we do every time we sit here. NEIGHBOR-I understand that. MR. STONE-I mean, our bible, as someone said to me, or I also work on the Board of Assessment Review, and we always say, the Assessor is always right, until we say the she’s wrong, and that’s the same thing true here. The zoning is our bible, until we say we’re going to grant a variance. That’s why we’ve been asked to do this job. Thankless as it may be. Anyway, anybody else wish to speak? Obviously, we will leave the public hearing open. You may come forward now, sir. Mr. Lapper, I will acknowledge that Mr. Lapper called me this afternoon and asked me to delay this, he said until 8:30, so I don’t feel badly until 8:30 went by. JON LAPPER MR. LAPPER-Well, first of all, I’d like to apologize. In all the years that I’ve been before this Board, I’ve never been late. Unfortunately, I had to be at the Saratoga Springs Planning Board, which I probably should have been here first because that went longer than I could have imagined, but I apologize. It’s certainly not my practice, and it was unavoidable tonight and as I’m sure was discussed, I’m frequently here ‘til eleven or midnight. So it’s not unusual for me, but obviously if the applicant, if the neighbors thought they were going to be on first, I apologize. That was certainly unintentional. I would still like to present our principle case, whether this Board wants to table it or vote on it tonight, because I just think that, since you’ve all heard the neighbors and their concerns, I think it’s important that, in the same breath, you hear where we’re coming from. We think that this is a property with some serious problems, and I hear a bunch of scared neighbors, and they’re threatened that this is going to impact them negatively. It’s certainly, we look at this as coming in and cleaning this up and making this better, and I want to try and assure them. 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) MR. STONE-Keep in mind that Mr. and Mr. Hayes did make a presentation, not as eloquent, maybe, as yours. They acknowledge that, but they did explain the differences between the two, the one that the people thought we were going to be talking about tonight, and that we thought we were going to be talking about tonight, and the alternate proposal, which is less rigorous, I understand, but go ahead, take a little while. MR. LAPPER-Let me just explain that. I mean, is your point that you’re going to table this, and we’ll do this again next time? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. LAPPER-If that’s the case, then we can put on most of the details of our case at the next meeting, but I’d like to just make a few comments, in terms of how the project progressed and how we got to filing and submitting a new map, and what happened here, we came in, I’m sure you’ve all walked the site, because I know you all walk the site before meetings. Mickey and Jamie Hayes have experience in taking, let’s say underutilized, disadvantaged sites, and improving them. It’s something that they’re good at, and an example of that is the Cool Beans on Quaker Road, which was a used car dealership that they turned into something really special. This property is something that all of the developers in Town have been aware of for years. I’ve had discussions about this property for years, because it’s in a very nice residential area, but it’s a real eyesore, and the problem is, I think Mickey touched on it, that when you start to run the numbers, the costs of cleaning this up are excessive, and I don’t expect that the neighbors are experts in the cost of this, but we’ve submitted proposals from two competing excavators, in terms of site remediation. None of those numbers include environmental remediation. We’re not aware of any toxic substances. Obviously, if there are any, they would have to be cleaned up before this could be developed, and that would add to the cost. We’re not taking the position that there are any toxic substances, because we’re not aware that there are any. As the project progressed, Craig Brown, the new Zoning Administrator, suggested that, because we were talking about a density increase, even though it was an Area Variance, a density increase, it might be appropriate, first, to go to the Planning Board and to have them give a conceptual review, so that we could get their areas of concerns or areas they wanted us to investigate. That was a good idea of Craig to mention that. We went to the Planning Board last month, and what the Planning Board said was that they were concerned about some of the issues that some of the neighbors were mentioning, which was really the fact that it looked like apartment buildings, just in terms of the character. Now, I think that the neighbors don’t understand the zoning code, and I think that’s what the Chairman touched on, that multifamily development is a permitted use. We’re not here for a Use Variance. We’re here for a density variance, to justify the cost of cleaning up this site, but anybody could go in and build multifamily without a Use Variance, because that’s a permitted use under the zoning code. So whatever the number is, whether that allows 30 units or 33 units, we’re seeking to roughly double that to get to around 70. When we first proposed it, we came in with 98 units, in multifamily. I want to point out, in terms of the impact on the neighborhood, on the property values that they’re concerned about, that around the corner from here is Hiland Springs, a project that Rich Schermerhorn did, on Meadowbrook Road, which is the density of 120 units on 23 acres. In the Town’s multifamily, MR-5 zone, which is the more typical multifamily, at 5,000 square feet, you can have roughly eight units per acre. When you get green space and parking, you really get a little less than that, but in the Schermerhorn project, their 120 units, the Phase III is under construction out of five phases, and that is around the corner from three and four hundred thousand dollar homes which have been selling very well. They hadn’t for awhile, and now the Michaels Group is developing them. So in terms of impact, I think that the neighbors are concerned or worried, but the Hayes have a reputation of doing quality development. This would be a quality development, and I would give the example of what’s right around the corner from where we’re sitting that it will not necessarily impact them negatively if it’s done nicely. We’ve also tried to design the project, in terms of clustering it in the center, so that there’s buffers. Keeping a large buffer and a berm on West Mountain Road, so it wouldn’t change the character, but beyond that, and most importantly, and the reason why we submitted a new map today, was when we went to the Planning Board, we got the impression, walking away from there, that they would prefer it, and obviously, assuming that we’re successful with the variance, we have to go for a detailed site plan review that would look at traffic and drainage and all these other issues, that they would be more comfortable with something that looked single family in character. So, unfortunately it took until today to get the landscape architect to do the design work, but what we’ve come in with now is a completely different design, which is single family homes and duplexes, which would just look very different. I’ve got the drawings, which I’ll submit next time, but just drawings of what a duplex can look like, which are very attractive, and these are high end units, at the $650 to $900 range. These are high end units. The project around the corner is about $850 a unit. So we’re talking about nice units, expensive units, and that’s what the Hayes want to do with this property, but we’re certainly not making it up about the fact that this is a significant remediation situation, and that’s why it sat there in the heart of this residential area, and what we’ve submitted are proposals that that’s what it’s going to cost to clean up. In terms of the one issue is the use, which is a permitted use, the other is in terms of density. Mickey prepared, and I’ll submit this next time, but an analysis of all the neighborhoods in the area. Where most of the neighbors are from, it’s on primarily 15,000, 20,000 square foot lots. So 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) the density that we’re talking about here is no different than the density in the area. It’s different than what’s zoned now, but it’s not different than what was built, and most importantly on that issue, there’s a two page memorandum from Marilyn Ryba, actually three page, which she prepared for the Planning Board, but which I don’t think was included in your packet. MR. STONE-It wasn’t. We got it this evening. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. STONE-That’s another reason why. MR. LAPPER-Yes, and that, she points out how this project is compatible with the Town’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan. So I think that this memorandum is very important in terms of establishing our case, but, in general, we’re trying to take something that’s an eyesore, that’s expensive, to try and clean the thing up so that it will not be a problem for the neighbors because of the project design, buffering, keeping away from West Mountain Road, having one access road, instead of numerous driveways, in terms of the traffic issue. We think that this is a well designed project that will improve people’s property values by cleaning this up. The site is also an attractive nuisance, and I think you could see from some of the comments of some of the neighbors that they and their kids and people have used this, and there was evidence of that on the site, in terms of beer bottles and trails and things that the site has been used for kids partying, which is not a good situation. It’s been there for 20 years in this state, and nobody else has stepped up to the plate to be willing to clean this up, and we’re asking for the density variance to justify the cost, and the case that we presented, while obviously a Use Variance, financial hardship case, is not appropriate or necessary here, we submitted the pro formas to show you that we feel that we could really get to that level of a hardship and establish that if that was the standard, but here we’re talking about the benefits to the applicant versus the burden on the neighborhood, and we think that there’s a significant benefit to the neighborhood, even though, obviously the people behind us are, or many of them are concerned, but we think that their concerns will be addressed at site plan, and we think that by coming in with this new plan, that are one and two family, instead of four and six family, and reducing the density to 70, which is the absolute minimum that the Hayes tell me that they can go forward with the project, but to go from 98 to 70, you know, we could have waited, heard everybody, and then pulled that out and said, okay, here’s what we’ll do as a concession, but we heard the Planning Board the last time, when the public wasn’t there, and we listened to them, and we’ve come up with 70 units, and the density of the 70 units is similar or less than what’s developed in the area. So we think that this is something that the Board should, and hopefully will support, and we’ll try and talk to the neighbors that we can, between now and the next hearing. MR. STONE-Anybody want to say anything before I do a motion to table? All right. I move we table Area Variance No. 52-2001, for up to 62 days, just in case, in order for the Board to have the opportunity to review the revised application, and to study it in detail, prior to the formal discussion at the next meeting. Any other questions about that? MR. BROWN-Just a couple. I think with the public we have here, you may want to pick a date, first of all, for the tabling, and probably for the applicant, too, they’d like to be probably on next month’s meeting. You’ll probably be ready for it. If we can pick the first October meeting, and they’ll be first on the agenda. MR. STONE-You’ll be first on the agenda. MR. BROWN-October 17 is the third Wednesday. th MR. STONE-So we’ll adjourn this until October, table this until October 17. th MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. STONE-And it’ll be the first item on agenda, and everybody will be in attendance by the applicant. Mr. Lapper will be here. MR. BROWN-I think it would be beneficial, so we don’t get into this next time, is to maybe give the applicants at least some information with regards to the Board’s position about the density calculation. It’s a, I guess a fundamental difference that I guess the applicant’s agent and I have had throughout this process is calculating the density. It’s my position that the Zoning Ordinance says you do a density calculation just like you would if it was a subdivision, for any multifamily project. Remove areas of unbuildables, ponds, slopes, right of ways, utility easements. You take those out, then you come up with a number. What we need to do is come up with a base number, so we know what type of relief we’re seeking. MR. STONE-Okay. 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) MR. BROWN-That can be issued as a determination that they can appeal and it’s another month, or we can. MR. LAPPER-Well, I don’t think it needs to be, I don’t believe that we need to formally do that. We would concede, for the sake of discussion, that you could approach the variance based upon Craig’s analysis. The density calculation is only found in the subdivision regs. So, because this is not a subdivision, they would own the whole project, I don’t think that that applies, but, for the sake of the discussion, whether we’re going from 28 units or 33, if you want to treat it as 28. I mean, we’re saying that we need to get to 70, that the site can support 70, that 70’s compatible with the neighborhood. MR. STONE-Okay. So we’ll determine, you want 70. Whatever Craig says is what’s allowed, that’s the variance that we’ll consider. MR. BROWN-I think that that information should come from the applicant. There’s a section in the Ordinance, and I’m sure Jon has a copy, Mr. Lapper has a copy of the Ordinance, that deals with multifamily projects. In the very beginning of that section of the Ordinance, it talks about how you do a density calculation, and it’s either use the density calculations in the subdivision regulations, or the density requirements of the specific zone, wherever the property is located in, and that’s specific for multifamily projects. MR. LAPPER-But if you look at the zone, that’s different than a subdivision. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. LAPPER-But I would still concede, for the sake of discussion, that if you do it the more conservative way, that’s certainly appropriate to talk about it. MR. BROWN-And those area calculations probably should come from the applicant. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-How much land is in the RR-3 zone. How much land is taken up by the pond. How much land, and you come up with those numbers, and then we can agree or disagree with them, rather than us make that determination that they don’t agree with. MR. LAPPER-That’s fine. MR. STONE-Okay. So, as part of this, you will provide the buildable area. MR. LAPPER-We’ll do them both ways. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. CARTE-Mr. Stone, how do they get calculations for the size of the pond and they have no idea how much water the thing? MR. STONE-That’s a good point you made earlier, and that’s a question that we will raise at the time. MR. BROWN-I could probably answer that question, as far as the Town’s position is going to be. Whatever, this isn’t a classified wetland. It’s not a jurisdictional pond. It doesn’t show up on any register. So whatever area they propose the pond to be at, that’s the area that they need to take out. If they propose it at 20 acres, they take out 20 acres. If they propose it at one acre, they take out one acre. So it’s going to depend on the applicant as to the size of the pond. MR. LAPPER-We agree with that. MR. CARTE-When does it determine, the Planning Board determination as to whether or not that’s adequate? I mean, when does it determine whether or not that that’s an adequate amount for (lost words)? MR. BROWN-Yes. Typically that calculation’s going to come from their engineer. NEIGHBOR-They can’t even move it to where they show it on there. MR. BROWN-Based on the stormwater analysis of the property, how much, you know, where the watersheds are, how much stormwater is actually going to be generated on the property and whatever 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/19/01) their engineer feels is going to be sufficient, that’s what they’re going to submit in their site plan application. Once we see that information, we can determine if it’s going to be sufficient or not. We haven’t seen that at this point. We’ve got a date picked of October 17. If it changes from that, we th would do another mailing, but I think that everybody’s here and sees the October 17 date. th MR. CARTE-Most of the people that were here, I mean, a lot of the people that were here, because I notified them. The mailing did not go out to anywhere near the people. They didn’t even go to the other people on the other side of Applehouse Lane, which certainly was within 500 feet of the property. MR. STONE-It’s 500 feet. MR. BROWN-Within 500 feet of the property, we’re required to send a direct notification. It’s in the newspaper. MR. STONE-But I will state on the record, it doesn’t work well. I really don’t think so. I think we need to tell more people. MR. BROWN-It can be deceiving where that 500 feet comes. We could take a look in the file and see, I could show you exactly. If you want, we could take a look at the file and see where that comes. A lot of times people think they’re in it, and they’re not, and some people think they aren’t, and they wonder why they get a notification. MR. STONE-Well, it pays to talk to your neighbors, if you find out. Talk to your neighbors. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2001 HAYES & HAYES – ASHTON CEMENT PROPERTY, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: West Mountain Road (west side) and south of Potter Road. Until the first meeting in October, at which time the applicant will make a formal presentation of the 70 units and will tell us, in their estimation, what kind of increase in density that is, so that we can make a determination. Duly adopted this 19 day of September, 2001, by the following vote: th MR. BROWN-To get that information to Staff, so we can prepare a review of it and notes to the Board, I realize that next week is the deadline for submission. I don’t know if that’s going to be something that’s going to work for the applicant. MR. LAPPER-Yes, not a problem. MR. BROWN-Okay. As long as they can meet that submission deadline. MR. STONE-Okay. AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-I will say, for the public, you have been very patient, and I appreciate it, and I will apologize again. I’m not sure how we could have handled it differently. I mean, I think we made a presentation, so you all could see what the changes were. I’m sorry about the lateness of the hour, but for us this is perfectly normal, unfortunately. So I thank you very much. I think we will just adjourn. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. M. HAYES-Thank you. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 47