The URL can be used to link to this page

2008.09.17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 INDEX Area Variance No. 9-2008 Gregg Brown 1. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-7; 239.7-1-6 Area Variance No. 11-2008 Debaron Associates by Debra Schiebel, 2. Partner Tax Map No. 239.18-1-47 Area Variance No. 5-2008 K-Twin Holdings/Daniel W. Krueger 2. Tax Map No. 296.20-1-9 and 10 Sign Variance No. 45-2008 Ed Moore d/b/a Log Jam Outlets 5. Tax Map No. 288.12-1-17 Area Variance No. 53-2008 William and Sharlene Morehouse 9. Tax Map No. 308.8-2-12 Area Variance No. 54-2008 Daniel J. Grasmeder 12. Tax Map No. 308.18-1-19 Area Variance No. 55-2008 Gina M. Canale 19. Tax Map No. 308.18-1-35 Sign Variance No. 56-2008 Colortyme Rentals/Thomas Glogowski 23. Tax Map No. 296.13-1-18 Use Variance No. 61-2008 Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless 28. Tax Map No. 295.18-2-11 Area Variance No. 63-2008 The Pyramid Co. of Glens Falls, 53. NEWCO, LLC Tax Map No. 302.5-97; 302.5-1-96.1; 302.5-1-96.2; 302.5-1-93.1 302.5-1-93.2; 302.5-1-92.4 302.5-1-92.11 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT JAMES UNDERWOOD, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOYCE HUNT BRIAN CLEMENTS RICHARD GARRAND GEORGE DRELLOS MEMBERS ABSENT JOAN JENKIN LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll call the meeting to order. Tonight’s meeting date is September th 17. At this point in time, first off, let me do a quick review of our procedures in general. For each case I’ll call the application by name and number. The Secretary will read in the pertinent parts of the application, the Staff Notes and the Warren County Planning Board decision if applicable. The applicant then will be invited to the table and be asked to provide any information that they wish to add to their application. The Board, then, will ask questions of the applicant. Following that we’ll open the public hearing. I’d caution the public hearing is not a vote. It’s a way to gather and understand information about concerns, real or perceived, and it’s a way to gather information and understand it about the issues at hand. It should function to help the Board members make a wise, informed decision, but it does not make the decision for the Board members. As always, we’ll have a five minute limit on each speaker. So that basically says to tell us everything you want to know in five minutes. A speaker may speak again if, after listening to the other speakers, the speaker believes they have new information to present. Following that, we’ll read correspondence into the record, and then the applicant will have an opportunity to react and respond to the public comment. The Board members will then discuss the variance request with the applicant. Following that the Board members will be polled to explain their positions on the application, and then we’ll close the public hearing, unless there’s reason to leave it open, if it looks like the application will be continued to some future meeting. Finally then we’ll have a motion to approve, disapprove or table the vote. I would caution the public, during the public hearing tonight, too, if you’re basically going to say exactly the same as what has previously been said by other people in the room, I think that you can just affirm what’s been said previously, but, in order just to run the meeting, you know, you do have five minutes, but please try to provide us with new information that we haven’t heard before, not repetitive over and over again, 25 times, because sometimes I know there’s contention going on with some of these things that are coming up here. To start off tonight, we do have some administrative items, and just a couple of them I want to read into the record. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II GREGG BROWN AGENT(S): STEFANIE BITTER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S): GREGG BROWN ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 31 KNOX ROAD & 29 KNOX ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A BOUNDARY LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO TRANSFER 180.88 SQ. FT. OF PROPERTY TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: SUBD. NO. 11-1991 SUNSET HILL FARM/MODIFICATION WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: MARCH 12, 2008 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.63 AC.; 0.62 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-7; 239.7-1-6 SECTION: 179-4-030 MR. UNDERWOOD-The first one is Gregg Brown, which is Area Variance No. 9-2008. That application has been formally withdrawn. We received a note from Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes. It says, “Dear Chairman Underwood: On behalf of the applicant, I hereby withdraw the above referenced variance application.” So that one is out for now. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II DEBARON ASSOCIATES BY DEBRA SCHIEBEL, PARTNER AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING/MC PHILLIPS, FITZGERALD, AND CULLUM OWNER(S): DEBARON ASSOCIATES ZONING: WR-3A LOCATION: DARK BAY LANE, OFF ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ASSOCIATED WASTEWATER SYSTEM AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CONTROLS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE AND REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS AND STORMWATER DEVICES FOR MAJOR PROJECTS. CROSS REF.: N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: MARCH 12, 2008 (NO COUNTY IMPACT) ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.45 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-47 SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-4-090; 147-9B.2(d) MR. UNDERWOOD-Under the second Administrative Item, we have one, and that’s Debaron Associates, by Debra Schiebel, Partner. They’re also the owners of the property, located at Dark Bay, which is up on Lake George, off Route 9L. This is a Waterfront Residential 3 Acre zone, and it’s a .45 acre lot. The applicant has proposed construction of a single-family residence and associated wastewater system and stormwater management controls. Relief is requested from the shoreline and rear yard setback requirements and relief is requested from road frontage requirements as well as stormwater devices for Major Projects. As far as Staff Notes go on that one, we have, at the present time, received no new information from them. We were requesting information from them, and that was supposed to have, I think, gone to the Planning Board, and since they have not gotten back to us with any new information, I don’t think there’s anybody here. Is there anybody here from them, representing them this evening? I think, then, what we’ll do is we’ll table them for 60 more days, and I know there was some mention that they were intending to get some information in, in time for maybe next month or the month after, but. MR. OBORNE-That’s correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we want to table them for two months, then? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. We’ll table them for two months from now. So that’ll be the th second meeting in November, the 26. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2008 DEBARON ASSOCIATES BY DEBRA SCHIEBEL, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Dark Bay Lane off Route 9L. Tabled until the second meeting in November, November th 26. th Duly adopted this 17 day of September, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Jenkin MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2008 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED K-TWIN HOLDINGS/DANIEL W. KRUEGER AGENT(S): RICHARD E. JONES ASSOCIATES OWNER(S): K-TWIN HOLDINGS/DANIEL W. KRUEGER ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: WEST SIDE MEADOWBROOK RD., NORTH OF QUAKER RD. INTERSECTION APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,886 SQ. FT. OFFICE BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED SITE DEVELOPMENT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT YARD AND SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM WETLANDS CLEARING REGULATIONS. CROSS REF. FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 4-08 SPR 7-08 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: FEBRUARY 13, 2008 LOT SIZE: 0.22 AC.; 0.43 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.20-1-9 AND 10 SECTION: 179-4-030 TABLE 4; 179-6-060B1a; 179-6-060D2e3 RICHARD JONES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 5-2008, K-Twin Holdings/Daniel W. Krueger, Meeting Date: September 17, 2008 “Project Location: West side Meadowbrook Rd., north of Quaker Rd. intersection The Planning Board on August 26, 2008, issued a SEQR Negative Declaration for this project and has forwarded this application to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct 2,886 sq. ft. office building with associated site improvements on 0.61 acres. These plans are an update of previous plans addressing the Planning Board concerns over stormwater management issues derived from Planning Board meeting dated May 20, 2008. Relief Required: The applicant requests 44.30 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement of the Highway Commercial (HC-Int) zone. Additionally, the applicant requests 20 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum front setback per Section 179-4-030. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct and operate a business office on the property as desired. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited as the front setback and shoreline setback overlap. Some relief will have to be granted in order for this project to move forward. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? The request for 44.3 feet or 59% relief from the 75 foot shoreline setback per Section 179-4-030 may be considered moderate to severe relative to the Ordinance. The request for 20 feet or 40% front line setback relief may be considered moderate relative to the Ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minor effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action as the design of the office mimics the neighborhood located east of the project. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created as the site does not lend itself to development of any kind. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): No parcel history evident. Staff comments: The proposed project is severely limited due to the zoning constraints imposed on the parcel and the subsequent relief required. The shoreline setback and frontline setback overlap throughout the site. Hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline is also proposed. That being the case, there is no place for a compliant building to be constructed on this site. The applicant has reduced the proposed footprint substantially and made it more compliant in relation to the original plan submitted. The applicant will need an approval for this area variance in order for site plan review to commence. SEQR Status: Type II Project now under 4,000 square feet.” MR. UNDERWOOD-This project is two lots which I think at this point in time have been combined. They’re one of .22 acres and .43 acres, located in a Highway Commercial Intensive zone. We had given Lead status to the Planning Board on that one, and at this point in time the Planning Board had gotten back to us. All right, the Planning Board did discuss this at significant length, and they made a resolution. “RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE”, for Site Plan 7-2008 and Freshwater Wetlands 4-2008 of K Twin Holdings. This was a resolution that was done August 26, 2008, and last, I’ll just summarize this briefly here, “Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law.” That again, was passed unanimously by the Planning Board, and specifically in the Staff Notes on that one, I’ll just read in briefly again, just for the record. Our Board had discussed this, and initially when this project came in I believe it was an Unlisted action, but now because of the size of the project has been downsized, it comes in as a Type II. So our Board, I think our concern was there were limiting factors on this very small site. It was surrounded by wetlands, but it was sort of an island in the middle there. It’s a high point of land there. So I don’t know if Board members want to discuss this at all. Anybody have any commentary they want to make from Board members? Anybody from the public wishing to speak on this? I think we left the public hearing open. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t think we’ve received any letters, have we, Roy? MR. URRICO-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys have anything you want to add? MR. JONES-No. We have no new information at this point. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I think based upon the Planning Board’s review of the project, then, having reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form that was submitted, everyone, I would imagine by now, has reviewed that Short Environmental Assessment Form that was put in with the project. If so, I’ll make a motion as follows. MOTION THAT BASED UPON A REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM THAT WAS SUBMITTED WITH THIS APPLICATION, IT IS MOVED THAT THIS PROPOSED ACTION WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. AS SUCH, I HEREBY MOVE THAT WE ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND FURTHER MOVE TO HAVE PART III OF THE SUBMITTED SHORT FORM TO BE COMPLETED AS SUCH, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: th Duly adopted this 17 day of September, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Jenkin MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I guess I’ll make a motion. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2008 K-TWIN HOLDINGS/DANIEL W. KRUEGER, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: West side Meadowbrook Rd., north of Quaker Rd. intersection. The Planning Board issued a SEQRA Negative Declaration for this project and has forwarded this application back to us for our granting or not granting of the variance. As far as the relief requested and required, the applicant is requesting 44.30 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement of the Highway Commercial Intensive zone, and additionally the applicant requests 20 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum front setback per Section 179-4-033, and that’s off Meadowbrook Road specifically on that one. I think the Board recognizes the benefit to the applicant. They worked with us. They downsized the project significantly from the original proposal, and the Planning Board feels that all on site water runoff can be handled on site. That’s not going to be, that was one of the primary concerns, I think, initially. As far as, is the relief substantial? The request for 44.30 feet or 59% relief from the 75 foot shoreline setback per Section 179-4-030 could be considered moderate to severe. The request for 20 feet or 40% front line setback may be considered more moderate relative to the Ordinance. As far as 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) effects on the neighborhood or the community, minor effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated. It’s sort of a busy corner there, but this is set back from the corner of Quaker Road somewhat. So the ingress and egress is not going to be a problem as far as that goes. The difficulty can be interpreted as self-created because the site doesn’t really lend itself to development, but they’ve worked things out, I think, with the Planning Board to a reasonable conclusion here. So, in general, I think that I’ll move for its approval. th Duly adopted this 17 day of September, 2008, by the following vote: MR. JONES-Basically the system as designed now is a storage system which is located under the paved area. Basically we’re storing the entire drainage from the entire site, any developed area in that system. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Jenkin MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. You guys are all set. MR. JONES-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 45-2008 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED ED MOORE d/b/a LOG JAM OUTLETS OWNER(S): ED & ED T ENTERPRISES, LLC ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 1476 STATE ROUTE 9 RE-HEARING OF APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL TO REMOVE EXISTING FREESTANDING SIGN AND INSTALL ADDITIONAL WALL SIGNS FOR SEVERAL TENANTS IN THE PLAZA. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE SIGNS PER BUSINESS IN A BUSINESS COMPLEX. CROSS REF. SV 69-2006; SV 40-2004; SV 10-2004 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 9/10/08 LOT SIZE: 4.51 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-17 SECTION: 140-6 ED MOORE, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-Last month, just to give a little recap here, we heard this well over a month ago now, tried to work it out to a reasonable conclusion, and it sort of, the bottom fell out at the last, eleventh hour there. So they were sort of left hanging in mid-air, wondering what options they had. So the last time the Board convened we granted a unanimous decision to re-hear the whole project, because we thought that a workable solution could be reached, that the Board could live with, and that you guys would be happy with also. So there have been some changes here, and I’m going to have Roy read that in. Essentially what we’re doing here tonight is a re-hearing of the applicant’s proposal to remove the existing freestanding sign and install additional wall signs for several tenants in the plaza. Relief is requested from the number of allowable signs per business complex. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 45-2008, Ed Moore d/b/a Log Jam Outlets, Meeting Date: September 17, 2008 “Project Location: 1476 State Route 9 Note: This is a rehearing of the Zoning Board of Appeals decision rendered on July 23, 2008 for this project. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove existing Pylon Sign located at the entrance of the business complex. The applicant proposes to place two (2) wall signs on the west side of building below the current Brooks Brothers sign and six (6) additional wall signs attached to the wall of the covered walkway facing Route 9. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from the minimum of one wall sign for all existing tenants per Chapter 140-6. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance; Minor change to the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action as this area is highly commercialized. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; A feasible alternative may be to cut down on the number of signs requested or not to apply at all. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial; The request for one (1) additional wall sign or 100% relief for eight (8) tenants may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; Minor effects regarding the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood are anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Sign Variance No. 45-2008 Denied 7/23/2008 (See attached resolutions) Sign Variance No. 69-2006 Approved 11/22/06 (Brooks Brothers second wall sign facing State Route 9) Sign Variance No. 40-2004 Approved 7/21/2004 (Twenty foot high, 130 sq. ft. freestanding sign located 6.5 ft. from front setback.) Sign Variance 10-2004 Denied 3/24/2004 (Carter’s second wall sign facing State Route 9) Staff comments: The applicant is proposing to tear down a non-conforming twenty foot high, 130 sq. ft. pylon sign. The applicant proposes to replace the advertising that sign afforded with multiple, in this case 8, signs located on the west facing or Route 9 end of the property. SEQR Status: Unlisted” “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form September 10, 2008 Project Name: Ed Moore d/b/a Log Jam Outlets Owner(s): Ed & Ed T Enterprises, LLC ID Number: QBY-08-SV-45A County Project#: Sep08-22 Current Zoning: HC- Int. Community: Queensbury Project Description: Re-hearing of applicant’s proposal to remove existing freestanding sign and install additional wall signs for several tenants in the plaza. Relief requested from number of allowable signs per business in a business complex. Site Location: 1476 State Route 9 Tax Map Number(s): 288.12-1- 17 Staff Notes: Sign Variance: The applicant is re-submitting a proposal to remove existing freestanding sign and install additional wall signs for several tenants in the plaza. The number of signs proposed is 16 where the number of signs currently is 18 – where the code only allows one wall sign. The resubmission indicates the request is to remove the pylon sign and add two wall signs to the south side of the building to be located under the “Brook’s Brothers” sign. In addition there would be hanging wooden signs between the columns identifying the stores within the plaza. The County Planning Board recommended NCI in July 08 where the local board denied the application directing for resubmission. Staff recommends No County Impact based upon the information submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law Section 239 L applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 9/12/08. MR. UNDERWOOD-So, last time I think the one that held everybody up was the ones that you no longer have on the table. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) MR. MOORE-Right. The extra four signs that were going to face north. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. MR. MOORE-So we removed those from just the overall plan of the building. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So just to refresh everybody’s memory, this is the present façade facing Route 9. What they’re proposing is two future signs there for those tenants, and those are the last two way in the back that are kind of on that offset angle you guys have from the road. You’re not really at right angles. So in the past I think it’s lead to difficulties with tenants having any kind of showcase for what’s back there. They’re kind of way in the hinter zone there. MR. MOORE-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-So the other second part of it would be the tenant tags that are going to hang, you know, on eye hooks or something like that, and those are very similar to the ones that are in front of the building along the access point to each one of the. MR. MOORE-Actually they’re smaller. MR. UNDERWOOD-They are smaller. Yes, I noticed those other ones are. MR. URRICO-And they’re not visible from the road. They’re not visible from anywhere other than right in front of them, pretty much. MR. MOORE-Correct. Yes. Like you’ll see the one sign when you’re going north, and when you’re coming south you’ll just see the ones that are on the, over the stores. MR. URRICO-Those small slat signs. MR. MOORE-You can’t see those unless you’re on the walk. They’re totally hidden from view. MR. UNDERWOOD-You’ve got to stand right in front of them, yes. Okay. Board members want to add any discussion? MR. DRELLOS-What’s the timeframe for taking down the freestanding sign, if this gets approved? ART BELDEN MR. BELDEN-We’re in the middle of another project now, but it could be tomorrow. MR. MOORE-Yes, it could be end of next week. MR. BELDEN-I mean, we’re just waiting now, like if you guys have driven by, this is the name on the sign hasn’t changed yet. We’ve been waiting to see what’s going on with it. So it’s something we really want to do. MR. UNDERWOOD-And that’s the one out front? MR. MOORE-Correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s going to completely go. MR. BELDEN-Yes. MR. URRICO-Can I just ask one question? You own the other outlet store up the road there, French Mountain Commons. MR. MOORE-Correct. MR. URRICO-Now you use a pylon sign there, and storefront signs. MR. MOORE-We do, yes. MR. URRICO-Why should this be different? Why is this one different? 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) MR. MOORE-Well, because the pylon sign, there’s no, when you’re heading south, when you’re traveling south, there’s no view of the building at all. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. MOORE-At French Mountain. So you can’t see it. So that’s where the pylon sign kind of helps. Also at French Mountain we kind of built the sign into the motif of the building, and it all kind of blends and it doesn’t really stand out, and, you know, in an ugly nature as the other one does. It’s not back lit. It just has the halogen light that goes up on it. So, the pylon sign here we feel is also for an ingress and egress nature of pulling in and out of the building, on the north side of it, kind of gets in the view of the road, and, you know, it’s close to the building. So the building almost serves as its own sign. So therefore we’d like to just put those few signs up on the building, take down the pylon sign. Let people see, because I know when I pull out, to look to the left, you can’t really see, you know, when you pull up close to the building. So, it’ll look better, as the flow of the road goes, you know what I mean? Instead of having the sign that close to the road. I believe the previous owner had to get a variance to have a sign that close to the road, and the other sign at French Mountain is right within its, you know, when it was built originally, when the building was built and we designed it, we designed and built the French Mountain building. This one we purchased a year ago, and just trying to get it, to make it work and turn it around. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other Board members have questions? All right. I’ll re-open the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD- Any letters at all? MR. URRICO-I don’t see any correspondence. No. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-Let’s poll the Board. I’ll start with you, Brian. MR. CLEMENTS-Sure. I was in favor of this, you know, when you guys were here before. You’ve cut it down by, I think it was three signs on the other side. So I certainly would be in favor of this, and I’m glad the pylon sign’s coming down, because I really think that is an eyesore. So I’d be in favor of the project. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. George? MR. DRELLOS-Yes. I would have to tend to agree. I think that pylon sign’s pretty big, and it needed a variance for that before. So that would get rid of that variance for that sign, and I think I would enhance the looks of the building a lot better with that sign gone. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich? MR. GARRAND-I think the applicant came back with a good faith proposal here, which to me is considerably different than the last time around. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. As you know, I was against it from the beginning, and I took a closer look at it, with the compromises you’ve made, and I took also a closer look at the neighborhood and realized that many of your fellow outlet centers actually have three signs. They have the pylon sign, they have the wall sign, and they have side signs as well, which I’m not even sure are legitimate, but that aside, I think that your signs make sense to me. I think it’ll make the area look nicer, and I would be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I was in favor of it last month, and I do think it would be a big improvement to take that pylon sign down. I think it’s kind of ugly, and I do think it’s a hazard. So I’d be in favor of the variance. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s sort of still an unorthodox alternative to what we currently allow in the Zoning Code, and I think we’ve made that point last time, those of us that were not in favor of the project, but I think that in lieu of the fact that you’ve made a legitimate case for the extra signage, you know, the past history of the operators of that place has been that people come and go and there hasn’t really been any steady clients, and with Brooks Brothers sign that we granted last time, that seems to have had a positive effect. So maybe this will be enough to make things work even better for you in the future. So I, too, would be in favor of it. On balance, it’s a big change, and I think we’re always concerned when we deviate from the plan that the Town allows us to use, but at the same time, we’ve listened to what you’ve said, and we’re, I think, understanding what you’re trying to accomplish. So does somebody want to make the motion? MR. GARRAND-I’ll make a motion. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, excuse me. This is SEQRA Unlisted. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’ll just do that Unlisted thing first. Okay. MOTION THAT BASED UPON A REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM THAT WAS SUBMITTED WITH THIS APPLICATION, IT IS MOVED THAT THIS PROPOSED ACTION WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. AS SUCH I HEREBY MOVE THAT WE ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND FURTHER MOVE TO HAVE PART III OF THE SUBMITTED SHORT FORM TO BE COMPLETED AS SUCH, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Drellos: th Duly adopted this 17 day of September, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Jenkin MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 45-2008 ED MOORE d/b/a LOG JAM OUTLETS, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 1476 State Route 9. Applicant proposes removing the existing pylon sign located at the entrance of the business complex. The applicant is also proposing to place two wall signs on the west side of the building below the current Brooks Brothers sign and six additional wall signs attached to the covered walkway facing Route 9. In the first part of the balancing test, can the benefits be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant? In our estimation, the objective cannot be achieved by any other means feasible, given what the applicant is looking for. Will this produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood? We don’t believe it will produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood. Will this request be deemed substantial? Relative to the Ordinance, it may be deemed as substantial. Will this have any environmental or physical impacts on the neighborhood? We cannot see any potential adverse physical or environmental impacts, and is this difficulty self-created? It may be deemed as self-created. So I move we approve Sign Variance No. 45-2008. th Duly adopted this 17 day of September, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Jenkin MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set. MR. MOORE-Thanks. AREA VARIANCE NO. 53-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II WILLIAM AND SHARLENE MOREHOUSE OWNER(S): WILLIAM AND SHARLENE MOREHOUSE ZONING: SR- 20 LOCATION: 497 SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) OF A 456 SQ. FT. SECOND STORY ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE BY GREATER THAN 50 PERCENT. CROSS REF.: BP 2008-313; BP 95-384 ABOVE GROUND POOL; BP 89-622 ALTERATIONS; BP 2004-240 2-CAR DETACHED GARAGE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.18 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.8-2-12 SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-13-010 WILLIAM MOREHOUSE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 53-2008, William and Sharlene Morehouse, Meeting Date: September 17, 2008 “Project Location: 497 Sherman Avenue Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes the construction of a 456 square foot second story addition to existing one (1) story residence. Relief Required: The applicant requests 7.1 feet of relief from the 10 foot minimum side setback per 179- 4-030. Further, relief is required for the greater than 50% expansion of a non-conforming structure per 179-13-010(A) (2). Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance; Minor change to the character of the neighborhood and nearby properties may be anticipated as a result of this proposal. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; The applicant could build in a more compliant location. However, the application as submitted appears to be the most logical considering the constraints. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial; The request for 7.1 feet or 71 percent from the 10 foot side setback requirement per 179-4-030 may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. The request for 100 percent relief from the greater than 50 percent expansion of a non-conforming structure per 179-13-010 may be consider severe relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district’ Minor adverse impacts to the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created; The difficulty may be considered self created. However, the size of the lot and the existing size of the house will require some form of relief as proposed. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): P2004-0240 Two Car Garage Approved 4/27/04 P95-384 Above Ground Pool Approved 7/14/95 Staff comments: The applicant’s property is approximately 7,900 square feet or 0.18 acres and as such there are limited areas on which to build. The septic has not been located on the survey; however, with a one bedroom second story addition being proposed, little impact can be anticipated in regard to the drain field. SEQR Status: Type II” 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Just to summarize here, I’m going to read in the letter that they included with this to us. “I’m writing this letter to ask permission so I can put my second story addition on my house. I live on 497 Upper Sherman Avenue in Queensbury. My wife and I bought our home 4 years ago. Our property line on the east side of the house is 36” roadside and 18” at the back yard side. That’s the way it was when we bought the house and I can’t change that. We have very little room on our property as it is. Our bedroom is a finished basement and ceiling height is 5’-10” and I’ve been banging my head for 4 years now and it’s getting old!! I’m six feet tall. And I would like to put my second floor on for our bedroom. I would like your permission for my permit before it gets cold out. Thank you. William & Sharlene Morehouse” So anything you want to add? MR. MOREHOUSE-You’ve got it. That’s it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Board members have any questions? MR. MOREHOUSE-Other than, as far as safety, too. I mean, the furnace, everything’s in the basement. I mean, we bought the house that way. I’ve done a lot. I re-modeled the whole entire house, but we sleep down there. It’s small, that’s the way it was, but if there was a fire, I mean, there’s no way out. I mean, I can’t, I worry about that every night. If something happens, you’ve got to, so, I mean, that’s another big thing about it, other than needing a bedroom. MR. UNDERWOOD-Does anybody have any questions? Okay. I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence? MR. URRICO-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess I’ll poll the Board, then, and I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-We’ll start with you, Joyce. MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Yes. While the relief may seem, that we want to grant is great, the house was built sitting there where it is, and I went by, and it’s very attractive. MR. MOREHOUSE-We spent a lot of time taking care of it. We need a room. MRS. HUNT-And I can understand needing a second floor. So I would be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I agree with Joyce. I see this is a good improvement, and a necessary one. I’d be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich? MR. GARRAND-Having been in that house, I have to tell you, it is pretty cramped in there. It’s like, it’s a camp. MR. MOREHOUSE-That’s what I said. I spent a lot of time remodeling it. MR. GARRAND-It’s a camp. Even the basement in that house is tiny. MR. MOREHOUSE-There’s no way out. MR. GARRAND-And there’s no moving around. I would be in favor of this application. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. George? MR. DRELLOS-I also would be in favor. I think that’s the best solution is to go up with the size of the lot. So I would be in favor, Jim. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Go ahead, Brian. MR. CLEMENTS-I agree with the rest of the Board here. I’d also be in favor of it. I think you’ve done a nice job so far, and when you put that addition on, I think it’s going to look very nice there. I’d be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’d be in agreement with everybody else. It’s a very modest structure. It’s not going to increase the setbacks. You’re just adding on up above. So, I mean, although it is a tiny lot, I mean, everybody’s entitled to a reasonable place to live in their home, and this is certainly going to make it more reasonable. So I’d be all in favor of it. So does somebody want to make a motion? MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a motion. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 53-2008 WILLIAM AND SHARLENE MOREHOUSE, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: 497 Sherman Avenue. The applicant proposes the construction of a 456 square foot second story addition to an existing one story residence. The applicant requests 7.1 feet of relief from the 10 foot minimum side setback per Section 179-4-030. Further, relief is required for the greater than 50% expansion of a nonconforming structure per Section 179-13-010A(2). Considering this variance, whether the benefit could be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. We have discussed that it’s a small lot and it’s pretty well built up with a garage and paved driveway. Would there be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties? I don’t think so. I think it would be a benefit to the neighborhood. While the request is substantial, the house is an existing structure, and so I think that’s a mitigating circumstance. Will the request have adverse physical or environmental effects? I don’t think so, and the alleged difficulty is self-created only in that the Morehouses want to enlarge their home. So I suggest we pass Area Variance No. 53-2008. th Duly adopted this 17 day of September, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Jenkin MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set. MR. MOREHOUSE-Thanks very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II DANIEL J. GRASMEDER OWNER(S): DANIEL J. GRASMEDER ZONING: SR-1A LOCATION: 19 HONEY HOLLOW ROAD, BEDFORD CLOSE SUBDIVISION APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 576 SQ. FT. WORKSHOP/GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR A SECOND GARAGE. CROSS REF.: BP 2008-109; BP 88-003 SFD WARREN CO. PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 1.09 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.18-1-19 SECTION: 179-5-020; 179-2-010 DANIEL GRASMEDER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 54-2008, Daniel J. Grasmeder, Meeting Date: September 17, 2008 “Project Location: 19 Honey Hollow Road, Bedford Close Subdivision Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a 576 square foot detached garage/workshop. Relief Required: Relief requested for a second garage per 179-5-020D Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. A minor to moderate change may be produced in the neighborhood due to the granting of an area variance for this structure. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. There appears to be ample room to the rear of the house for this project. Further, the applicant has an existing two car attached garage and the possibility of expanding the garage may be a possibility. However, the location chosen is where the applicant seeks an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 100 percent relief may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this proposal. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): P88-003 Single Family Dwelling 1/15/88 Staff comments: The proposed project is located 75 feet west of Honey Hollow Road. There are a group of trees having some buffering effect located in front of the proposed project. As stated above, there appears to be ample room to the rear of the property and as such would mitigate any concerns neighbors might have. It should be noted that a building this size may be used for commercial purposes and as such should be noted on the final plans that no activities of that nature be allowed on said property. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. UNDERWOOD-Just as a short follow up to that, I’m going to read this letter in, because this was the original letter sent to Mr. Grasmeder from Craig Brown. “I am writing to you with regards to the above referenced proposed workshop application. As I understand your proposal; you plan to construct a 576 sf workshop on your property at 19 Honey Hollow. Please note that an Area Variance is required for your proposal. Specifically, an accessory structure is limited to 500 square feet in size and your proposal exceeds this limit. Further, as your proposed workshop contains a garage door and is capable of storing a vehicle, the structure is considered to be a garage. Our records indicated that you have a garage attached to your home and a second garage requires an Area Variance from our Zoning Board of Appeals. Your options are to reduce the size of the structure to 500 sf or less and remove the garage door or seek approval from our Zoning Board of Appeals for the second garage.” So, that’s essentially what we’re here for this evening. Anything you want to add to that, or do you want to explain what you intend to use it for, for hobby purposes? MR. GRASMEDER-Yes. I did put together at least some pictures and things. Can I give these now, would that be all right? MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Thanks. MR. GRASMEDER-Okay. I guess I’m kind of in the mode of a picture is worth 1,000 words. I’m going to try not to be redundant, because a lot of the stuff is what you’ve already said. Again, at least what I tried to put together here was to give you an idea of what the intended use is, and really the first slide there is showing some of the projects that, in the past, I have worked on, and probably most significant, bottom left corner, is, it took me about six years to restore an old rusted out Mustang. So I like to work on older 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) classic cars. Certainly I think I do nice work, and I’m working on the pick up truck that’s above it right now. Other projects that, I do woodworking. I’ve restored that piano, the player piano, that’s from my great-grandparent’s camp in New Jersey to, I built a t.v. stand and again refinished some other pieces and built some pieces that are in the bottom right corner of that first picture. So those are the things that I enjoy. I added in here radio and t.v. I’ve probably watched the last 10 Super Bowls, for all you guys that do that, standing in my garage, is kind of where I enjoy getting out to. What I’m looking for is a safe, clean, contained, not only contained from what’s going on outside, but certainly from a noise standpoint as well, and a secure work area to do these type of projects. I have no intention of doing any commercial activity on it. I do have a letter signed by both my wife and I to that effect. I don’t know if you read those in later or not, but again, I have absolutely no intention to do any type of commercial activity with it. It’s difficult. I tried to explain it, if you flip to the second page, difficult to expand the existing garage because we do have a green, if you will, geothermal heat system that’s under the backyard, and I’m not exactly sure where it is in that area. Obviously it’s a large field. What that is is there’s brine pipes back there that lead into our heating system, and I don’t want to put that at risk in any way. So that makes it difficult to come out the back. If look at the side or the front of it, you’re really going to change the character of the house, and kind of give a negative look to the home. So the proposed location, again, if you look at that second page, the plan on the top, that’s an existing turn out where we do currently park cars in that turn out. I’m not requesting any type of setback variance at all. It fits well with the property, and the way the set up is. It is, and was noted earlier, a buffer of trees, limited visual impact. If you look at that second page, I kind of went wild on my computer the other night, and tried to superimpose what this may look like to the neighbors straight across the street. So the top one with the arrow is, I actually put a garage back in the area where I’m talking about doing it. Again, our property has a lot of trees, and certainly it’s set back into there. The lower one is what it will look like if you’re looking down from our driveway. Again, you’ll just catch the corner of the building, coming in there. So that’s where I’m trying to, again, give you at least a picture says 1,000 words as far as the visual impact of it. Flipping one more page, again, it’s a very nice neighborhood. There was, and I don’t know if they’re still there, covenants about exterior finishes. I’m finishing it exactly the same way as the current house. High quality, not only workmanship, but materials that are going into the project. It’s significantly better that dropping a shed into there, or that type of approach to it. So again, I’m making a substantial investment into this workshop. Again, matching the roof pitch of the house, same cedar siding finish, paint scheme. I’m doing it on a floating (lost word) because even out where I am, I don’t know where the geothermal system is, and that will allow me to stay above the geothermal system that’s under the backyard, and when we finish this, and again, in at least the location that we’re talking about, we can still play the whiffle ball in the back yard and it won’t really substantially change the overall look of our backyard. So that’s, I think the last page is just, again, reinforcing the type of projects that I enjoy doing and that I work in the current garage and looking to move that activity to a, again, a more secure and detached area. One other comment is I did go out and I’ve talked with every neighbor, at least within the immediate area. Most, I’ve got basically a letter, you read these in later as well? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, during the public hearing. MR. GRASMEDER-I’ve got a group of letters for those that, again, when I came, because I didn’t want them to be surprised hearing about it through the mail, was trying to get out there and see people ahead of time and make sure they knew what I was thinking, what I was up to. So I think that’s most of the points I wanted to make. Hopefully I didn’t go over five minutes. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, you’ve got as much time as you need. MR. GRASMEDER-Well, I’ll still keep it down to five minutes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Board members have any questions? MRS. HUNT-Now on your table of contents here, you talk about first floor plan. How high will the second, the attic part be? You won’t be doing anything with that will you? MR. GRASMEDER-If you look at the roof truss design, there is room for storage. I have, the plan is to put hideaway steps that you can pull down to get up there. I know in reading some of the minutes in the past, you had asked what’s the size of that area. It ends up being about a seven foot height up there, and then because of the roof pitch, it comes down to about four and a half feet on the side. So it’s basically. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) MRS. HUNT-A storage area. MR. GRASMEDER-Right, and because I’m matching the roof’s pitch of the house, you end up with an extra area there in the roof truss that it fits into. So that’s the intention. MR. UNDERWOOD-So they’re just attic trusses, so you’ve got access and you can move around up there without banging your head. MR. GRASMEDER-Yes. MR. GARRAND-You mentioned covenants. What’s the homeowners association have to say about second garages? MR. GRASMEDER-I don’t know that the homeowners association is active at this point, or, you know, have a, if it were that type of thing, today. So I really, I think that’s something coming from the past. When the original builder I believe was, I’m trying to remember the name of the homes, the home builder, Northern Homes, and he had some ideas on, again, and it was tied to exterior finish and those type of things, trying to maintain the look of the neighborhood. As far as the current neighborhood goes, there’s a number of second garages that are out there right now, whether the precedent’s been set. I didn’t come prepared with pictures of those. I’m sorry, did I answer your question completely? MR. GARRAND-Yes, you did. Thank you. MR. URRICO-Would you consider decreasing the size to 500 feet instead of 576? Because our charge is to grant the minimum relief. MR. GRASMEDER-Okay. MR. URRICO-And 576 is over the, for an accessory structure. MR. GRASMEDER-For an accessory structure, but a garage, a second garage is 900, I thought. MR. URRICO-Well, for a second garage. There is no second garage. MR. GRASMEDER-Right. MR. URRICO-That’s 100% relief for a second garage. You’re not, I’m trying to reduce this so it would be considered an accessory structure rather than a second garage for you. MR. GRASMEDER-Right, and I guess the thinking, and you hit me with something that I didn’t think about. I had it coming into here. MR. URRICO-Well, it was in the letter that Mr. Brown sent to you. MR. GRASMEDER-Right, but he also, I think that the, and again, maybe it’s the way that I’m interpreting it, that letter was tied to, if it’s an accessory structure and not having the intention to put, I want to put a garage door on it, because you can see the type of projects that I work on. So I’m looking for a second garage that I can, and he was saying you can’t have a second garage unless you get rid of the garage doors, and you reduce the size down to under 500 square feet. What I’m saying is, I want to do some of the current activities that I’m doing at my other job in this thing. So that’s where I was coming, and again, maybe I‘m not an expert in this. Maybe I’m interpreting it wrong, but I thought, you can have up to 900 square feet with your current garage. My current one is about 650. So my current garage is under the 900, if I get a credit there, if you will, of something like 350, somewhere in there, my current garage is a little bit under, or the whole bay or more, under the maximum, and if I go for a second garage, I could go up to 900. I don’t want to go to a 900. I was looking at 24 by 24, and I don’t think I included it in there. I’m trying to do some workbench tops around the edges, to work on it in there. So I definitely, I can understand your question. I’m sorry. I tried to anticipate everything. I just didn’t anticipate that one, and so I guess I would like to keep it in keeping with at least the original intention and design, and I’m not hiding the fact that my objective is I need a garage door on it because I want to work on the Mustang and others, in addition to the woodworking projects that I have. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions from Board members? 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) MR. CLEMENTS-Yes, I had one. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. CLEMENTS-As I was looking at this, I see that you’re more than, the 10 foot setback, you’re a foot away from that. The area that’s next to your house is homeowners association property? MR. GRASMEDER-Yes, that’s forever green area. MR. CLEMENTS-As I drove in your driveway there, I saw that there were a lot of, quite a few large pine trees, and I noticed in your application you said no trees will be required to be removed, and I didn’t get out and measure that, but if you think of a 24 by 24 foot structure in there, it looks like you’re going to have to remove at least one tree. Have you measured that in there? MR. GRASMEDER-I have it closed right now. I know the big trees, the really big ones, I mean, there’s some scrub lower stuff that will have to be cleared out, but you saw, and you can see it in the second page of the pictures, that there’s, these are some big pine trees that are in that area. Those are what we want to keep. Absolutely, and there’s, in the area, when you come completely around there to the turn out, there is, there’s like scrub, some smaller stuff, if it’s the lower clearing and grubbing type of a thing, and there is one other dead tree, too. There’s one that’s dead that I’ll be removing as well. So I’m not, there’s going to be some clearing, because part of it is going to go into what looks, right now, to be the woods, you know, where there’s leaves on the ground and not grass, but I’m not whacking any of the bigger trees, which is what my objective is. So, I’m sorry, I don’t want to be skirting your question. So, if it has to go on the record from earlier, there are some smaller saplings and scrub pines that are in that area that’ll have to be cleared out. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. So your intent is to take some of those out but leave all the large trees? MR. GRASMEDER-Absolutely. My wife is, and you can see how our property is. My wife is, she’s like the tree police. The last thing she wants is to lose trees. MR. CLEMENTS-Our other Board members are tree police here, too. So, I’m taking on her role tonight. Thank you. MR. GRASMEDER-Yes, sure. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-You had that correspondence with the neighbors that had signed off on it? I can read it in for you, if you want. MR. URRICO-You also said that there was another letter that you submitted? MR. GRASMEDER-Yes. MR. URRICO-I don’t see that in the record, in the folder here. You said something from you and your wife. MR. GRASMEDER-Here’s the ones on the, that’s all the neighbors, and this is the one from me and my wife. Again, our intentions are not commercial at all. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I will read these in. These are addressed to me. “This letter is in response to your public hearing notice dated September 10, 2008 regarding the above captioned property. Unfortunately, we will not be able to attend the public hearing scheduled for September 17, 2008. I would like it on record that I have reviewed the plans for the proposed workshop/garage, and I am not opposed to the variance for a second garage as requested by Mr. Grasmeder. Thanks for your time and service. Mark & Lena Posniewski” The next one is. MR. GRASMEDER-They’re all pretty much the same letter. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-They’re all pretty much the same letter. This one’s signed by Cathy Meacham. “Dan and Kathy are great neighbors. We don’t have any problems with this project. We live directly across from them at 18 Honey Hollow Road.” This one is signed Mridula Paranjpe residents at 21 Honey Hollow Road. This one is signed by Redmonds at 22 Honey Hollow Road. This one is signed by the Redekers at 23 Honey Hollow Road. This one is signed by Jack LaBombard at 30 Honey Hollow Road, and I guess that’s it. MR. URRICO-Do you want me to read this other letter in? MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. That’s just from them, though, isn’t it? That’s going to specify what they’re going to do. MR. URRICO-Yes, but. It says, “Dear Mr. Underwood: As you are aware, we have submitted Area Variance No. 54-2008 Relief Requested for Second Garage for our home at 19 Honey Hollow Road. Our proposal is to build a 24 foot by 24 foot workshop structure designed to match the colonial style, color scheme, and construction materials found on the main house. We wanted to go on record that the purpose of the structure is hobby or recreational use. This structure will not be used for any commercial purposes whatsoever in the future. Thanks for your time and consideration. Daniel J. Grasmeder Kathleen R. Grasmeder” MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. All right. I will close the public hearing, then, and poll the Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-And I’ll start with you, George. MR. DRELLOS-Yes. I don’t really have a problem with this project. I think it fits in well with your house. I like the structure. I think it’s far enough off the road, and behind the trees, where you’re really not going to see that much of it. I think you’ll see a quarter of it, maybe, and with the green space on the other side, I think that’s a plus for you, too, that you didn’t have a neighbor there that might oppose it, but I’d be in favor of this, Jim. MR. GRASMEDER-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-In considering the criteria, I’m going to come down against this one. I think the benefit to the applicant could be achieved by other means, and we’ve pointed out some areas where it can be achieved. It can be moved. It can be cut down in size. So those are feasible alternatives. Whether there’s an undesirable change in the neighborhood character, maybe not now, but it’s basically a one acre piece of property, and even though we consider these as individual applications, once one goes in, once a second garage goes in, then there’s a reason for other applicants to come forward, and once you start making that change it becomes a defacto standard for the neighborhood, and I don’t think we want two garages on one acre of property throughout the Town. I think the request is substantial. I don’t see any environmental effects, and as much as I understand why you want it, and, you know, I commend you for the work that you do, I think this application is self-created, and I would be against it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-As I drove around the neighborhood, I noticed that there were a couple of other homes that had garages, second garages or second buildings also. They did set back in, I think, farther than yours, although as looked at yours, if it’s going to be set in behind those trees, it’s probably not going to be as visible. As long as it isn’t going to be a commercial building or for commercial use, I’d be in favor of the project. MR. GRASMEDER-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes, I think we’ve got semantics here. If you had no garage door, it’s only 15% larger than an allowed shed, and with the garage door, it’s 40% less than an allowed garage. So I would have no problems with it. I think it’s a good project. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) MR. GRASMEDER-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich? MR. GARRAND-I have to agree with Mr. Urrico on this one. I keep reading over the Code, and, you know, our charge here, and it’s approve minimum variance necessary, and this, to me, seems excessive. So at this point I wouldn’t be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. In looking at the project, I think if you do the balancing test here, we’ve had numerous requests from other people in the community for secondary structures on their property. Most often a lot of these are in more rural settings, but in the case of yours here, I think it’s been aptly pointed out by Brian that, you know, you do have pretty good coverage here. Your neighbors don’t seem to be upset about it. When I think back to some of the other projects that have been proposed before us, they oftentimes are much larger. You’re not asking for 900 square feet. You’re asking for 576 square feet. Although I would agree with Roy and Rich that, you know, we have to be careful what we’re doing here, this one here to me seems, you know, like, as far as a hobby workshop, it’s a little over the top, but it’s not really in the sense of a second garage that you’re going to be out there with a fleet of vehicles, and, you know, somehow adding on endlessly in the process here. I mean, it’s been pretty aptly pointed out the stipulation that you’ve included can be included in what we’re doing here. So, although I think the structure could be shrunk down smaller, I mean, if you’re going to make a useable facility to work on a vehicle, you’re probably going to want to have it be at least that big there, and your workshop is going to take up the rest of the room. Does that still have a hurricane motor in it your Jeep, the original one, right? MR. GRASMEDER-It does. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anyway, I’ll be in favor of the project. MR. GRASMEDER-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-So does somebody want to make a motion? Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-2008 DANIEL J. GRASMEDER, Introduced by Brian Clements who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Drellos: 19 Honey Hollow Road, Bedford Close. The applicant proposes to construct a 576 square foot detached garage/workshop. The relief required is for a second garage as per 179-5-020D. In making the determination the Board shall consider these things. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood? Minor to moderate change may be produced in the neighborhood by granting the Area Variance. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method feasible. I think the applicant has shown that because of some of the other things that are in the yard, that this would be the best spot for the structure. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. The request is substantial, but there are other homes in the neighborhood that have similar types of structures. Whether the proposed variance can have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor or no impacts I think would be probably what the impact would be. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. It is self- created. I would like to make a motion to approve Area Variance No. 54-2008. With the condition that it’s only going to be for the applicant’s own personal use. No commercial usage. th Duly adopted this 17 day of September, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand ABSENT: Mrs. Jenkin MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. You’re all set. MR. GRASMEDER-All right. Thank you guys. I appreciate it. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II GINA M. CANALE OWNER(S): GINA M. CANALE ZONING: SR-1A LOCATION: 7 BROOKSHIRE TRACE, BEDFORD CLOSE SUBDIVISION APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 6 FT. TALL, 64 FT. LONG STOCKADE FENCE IN THE NON-ARCHITECTURAL FRONT YARD. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM THE STYLE AND HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS OF THE FENCE ORDINANCE. CROSS REF.: BP 86-706 SFD; BP 87-215 INGROUND POOL WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.75 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.18- 1-35 SECTION: 179-5-060 GREG CANALE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 55-2008, Gina M. Canale, Meeting Date: September 17, 2008 “Project Location: 7 Brookshire Trace, Bedford Close Subdivision Description of Proposed Project: The applicant has constructed a 6 foot high, 71 foot long stockade fence in the non-architectural front yard. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from placement and height restrictions per 179-5-060. Specifically, one (1) foot in height and a style change. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor effects on the community may be anticipated as a result of this proposal. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. According to the applicant, the proposed fence is for safety and privacy as the applicant’s have an inground pool in their rear yard. The lot is a corner lot and as such, the amount of compliant yard is limited. However, the applicant could place the fence perpendicular to the southwest house corner and be complaint. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for one (1) foot or 16.7% relief may be considered minor relative to the ordinance. The change in style from an open style to a closed style is in conflict with 179-5-060 of the zoning code. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Any possible physical or environmental impact on the neighborhood may be considered minor. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): P87-215 Inground Pool Approved 5/06/87 P86-706 Single Family Dwelling Approved 10/17/86 Staff comments: The proposed southern and eastern run of the fence are to have landscaping on the road side. According to the applicant, the septic is located in the front yard as well as the water and gas lines. In appears in the photos that the fence will be made of cedar planking. It also appears in the photos that the fence has been partially installed with only two sections missing. The applicant has stated in a call initiated by staff that the fence was installed for safety and aesthetic purposes. SEQR Status: 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) Type II” MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Anything you want to add? MR. CANALE-Yes, thank you very much for this privilege to appear. My name is Greg Canale, and I’m representing my sister, Dr. Gina Canale. We seek a variance primarily from Section 179-5-060 of the Town Code which prohibits stockade fences. We’re a little bit of the opinion that the fence that we’re seeking to put in here is not necessarily a stockade fence as that term is commonly used. I think you have pictures. The stockade fence that has to do with this project is one that we’re taking down and in fact we’re replacing with a board fence with toppers on it. Be that as it may, we seek permission, and I think it’s pretty obvious as to what we’re seeking permission on. If this wasn’t considered a stockade fence, we’d be able to run this fence exactly as we’re proposing to run it, but because it may be considered a stockade fence, although we don’t necessarily concede that, we’re seeking permission to run it out eight feet, and up 40 feet, and then back. Apparently we need a variance for that. We don’t believe it would be in any detriment to the community, as has been stated. There are several other fences in the neighborhood. We’ve taken pictures of those and I’m sure you’ve all driven around the neighborhood and have seen that, and we do have a couple of letters, if I may submit them to the secretary, from neighbors. MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, are we talking primarily about the one that’s going to be in the architectural front yard? That’s the part we’re concerned with? MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MR. GARRAND-And the height. MR. UNDERWOOD-And the height. MR. OBORNE-Yes, sir. Height and style. MR. GARRAND-And you don’t count from the artificial grade? I mean, because that was eight feet high. MR. OBORNE-That was not a concern of ours, no. MR. GARRAND-Okay. So you can build up five feet of grade and then put six feet of fence on it and it’s still only one foot over? MR. OBORNE-I don’t think that that would be allowed. There’s a certain amount of square footage of fill that you’re allowed to bring in to the property. I don’t know that off the top of my head right now. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you going to put stonework below this? MR. CANALE-Shrubs. MR. UNDERWOOD-So it’s going to look like that when you’re done, right? GINA CANALE DR. CANALE-Well, this picture is in the application. That retaining, stone retaining wall has been built. That lies between my property and the neighbors, the LaBombards. We do have a letter from them, but that’s the only stone. The front of the fence, that the street side of the, in the non-architectural yard, has been graded with dirt. We brought in a lot of dirt that’s, and there’ll be shrubs. These are going to be perennials all along the side, and then the side that faces the street will have, will be landscaped. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I’m just wondering why you have the big gap under the bottom. DR. CANALE-That’s all been filled since. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s all fill. All right. DR. CANALE-Yes. We’ve had tandem truck after tandem truck of dirt brought in there. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other Board members have questions? MR. URRICO-I have a question for Staff. What’s the definition of a stockade fence? MR. OBORNE-I don’t have my Webster’s Dictionary with me right now, but typically. MR. URRICO-As far as the Staff is concerned. MR. OBORNE-A privacy fence, a six foot privacy fence would be considered a stockade fence. MR. URRICO-And you consider this a stockade fence? MR. OBORNE-We consider this a stockade fence for the purposes of calling it a privacy fence, yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because it’s solid? MR. OBORNE-It is a solid stockade fence. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Stockade style, possibly not style of a stockade, but it is serving the purposes of a stockade. MR. CLEMENTS-But you can put that in your, as I understand it, in your backyard. It’s the front yard part of it that’s? MR. OBORNE-That is correct. The applicant’s on a corner lot. MR. CLEMENTS-Right. MR. OBORNE-So it’s a non-architectural front yard. MR. UNDERWOOD-So are they still going to be required to have that separate fence around the pool area, too, you know, like a fence, inside fencing also, safety wise? MR. OBORNE-That I am not. MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re taking that down. DR. CANALE-Yes. You actually can see part of the old fence that’s been taken down, and on the diagram, the existing plot plan, you can see where I’ve marked where the old fence was. It went primarily just around that small area just around that small area around the pool. MR. UNDERWOOD-And you’ve got a three year old running around there? DR. CANALE-Just turned three. MR. UNDERWOOD-Boy, I hope you’re watching him. DR. CANALE-Yes. We have alarms on the doors that go out to that pool area. If he decides to open the door by himself, alarms go off. MR. UNDERWOOD-Board members have any questions? All right. I’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence? MR. URRICO-Yes. I have one letter here, but you mentioned another one, from a Jane Gardner. This one says, “Dear Mr. Underwood: We are neighbors of Ms. Canale and are in full support of her fence. It is tasteful and in keeping with the aesthetics of our neighborhood. Sincerely, Mr. and Mrs. Edward A Gardner, III 6 Brookshire Trace” And the second one is, “Dear Mr. Underwood and Members of the Zoning Board: Our next door neighbor, Gina Canale, has a newly constructed fence in what is described as the non-architectural front yard of her home. This fence does not negatively impact our field 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) of vision or the aesthetics of our home and property. Actually, the fence is a work of art and when the landscaping is completed, it will enhance the beauty of the Canale home as well as adjacent properties. Gina and the builder have kept us informed throughout the entire construction and landscaping process of this project. Please grant Dr. Canale relief from the style and height restrictions of the Fence Ordinance. Thank you for taking our request into consideration. Sincerely, Catherine & Jack LaBombard” MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. URRICO-I have one more question. You’ve already constructed it. Did you speak with Staff prior to constructing the fence? DR. CANALE-No. I didn’t know that I was in violation of any Code, because I didn’t think this was a stockade fence, but as soon as we were informed, I mean, we stopped. MR. URRICO-Okay. DR. CANALE-And as far as we had to continue to make it safe for the neighborhood children as well as my own son, I mean, we had to have something around, we had it open, the pool was open at that time for the summer. This was back in June, but then we applied for the variance. I went and got a survey on my property. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’m going to poll the Board members, and I’ll start with you, Rich. MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When looking at these things, I often look at and wonder about expos facto variances, and whether there was malice of forethought, getting it done and then going for the variance later, but I don’t necessarily think that that’s the case here. For one, I think the fence is very tasteful. It’s a beautiful fence, as fences go. What I do have a problem with is the Town Code. You could build up 10 feet of fill and put a fence on top of it, and if your fence is, you know, six feet, you only need a variance for one foot. Standing beside that fence, that fence is two feet over my head. So it’s about an eight foot fence. There’s nothing we can really do about that. As far as granting one foot of variance, I don’t have a problem with that at all. I think that’s pretty much minimal, and the definition of a stockade fence isn’t necessarily clear either. I mean, there’s areas of the Town Code that certainly need clarification. I won’t go into that as this point, but if you’ve seen anything in the media, I’m sure you’ve, yes, but I’d be in favor of this variance at this point. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. Thank you. I’d also be in favor of it. I think it fits in well with the neighborhood. There’s a very large front yard there. So it sets back. I think that we get into the same problem that we did with pools on corner lots and things like that, that, you know, you’ve got two front yards. So I’d be in favor of this variance. MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. The reasoning for not having a stockade fence, as far as I understand the definition, is so that we don’t build fortresses around Town, but the Code is really unclear as to what a stockade fence amounts to. I mean, I think of a stockade fence as not having any view at all, that you can’t see within, and that point I agree with Rich, but on the balance of the test that we have, I would be in favor of it at this point. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. As Mr. Urrico said, with the corner lots, it’s a problem. This one your back yard, there would be no question. I think you’re increasing the amount, what was it, 300 and some odd feet that is minimal, and I can understand in today’s world wanting a privacy fence. So I would be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. George? 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) MR. DRELLOS-Yes. I’d agree with Rich. You stand next to it, it is eight feet high, really, but it is very tastefully done, and I think if you put shrubs in front of it, it’ll kind of hide some of that height away, but I would be in favor of the project. MR. UNDERWOOD-I guess I’ll agree with everybody else, too. I think we need to make the distinction, though, between when fences become, it turns into a fort, you know, and I can understand you wanting the privacy in your yard and stuff like that, but be careful with that kid and that pool. I mean, with all that open area, I mean, especially when he’s little. DR. CANALE-No, I know. He’s never by, someone’s with him one on one all day long. I know. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right, and in general we’ve dealt with pools, you know, on these side lots, and a lot of people don’t have the opportunity to put the pool where you did in the back of the house there, so, you know, they end up in the side yard and you’d be looking at the same situation if that were the case. So, you know, the neighbors aren’t in an adverse situation with you as far as not agreeing with what you’re trying to accomplish. So I’ll go along with it, and the landscaping is going to mitigate some of the height on that, too, as the trees get bigger, let them grow up and green it up a little bit. Does somebody want to make the motion? MR. GARRAND-I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-2008 GINA M. CANALE, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: 7 Brookshire Trace, Bedford Close Subdivision. The applicant has constructed a six foot height, 71 foot long stockade fence in the non-architectural front yard, and the applicant requests relief from the placement and height restrictions as per Section 179-5- 060, specifically one foot in height and style change. Whether benefits can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. In this situation it’s possible similar benefits can be achieved by other means feasible. Will this produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood or character of properties? No, I do not believe it will produce any undesirable change to the neighborhood. Is this request substantial? I do not believe this is substantial at all. I think this is 16 to 17% relief. So I don’t think it’s substantial. Will this have adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood? No, I do not believe it will. I cannot foresee how it possibly could. Is this difficulty self-created? This may be deemed as self-created. So I move we approve Area Variance No. 55- 2008. th Duly adopted this 17 day of September, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Jenkin MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set. MR. CANALE-Thank you very much. DR. CANALE-Thank you very much. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 56-2008 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED COLORTYME RENTALS/THOMAS GLOGOWSKI OWNER(S): RAYMOND HIPPELE ZONING: HC- INT. LOCATION: 959 STATE ROUTE 9 – MOUNT ROYALE PLAZA APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 32 SQ. FT. ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE ONTO EXISTING FREESTANDING SIGN. ADDITIONALLY, APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR SUCH A SIGN. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FROM THE MAXIMUM SIZE ALLOWABLE FOR A FREESTANDING SIGN. CROSS REF.: BP 2007-322; BP 2007-284; BP 2008-061 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 9/10/08 LOT SIZE: 5.13 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-18 SECTION: 140-6 TOM GLOGOWSKI, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 56-2008, Colortyme Rental/Thomas Glogowski, Meeting Date: September 17, 2008 “Project Location: 959 State Route 9 – Mount Royal Plaza Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes the installation of a 32 square foot additional sign to an existing non-conforming freestanding pylon sign. Relief Required: Applicant requests 32 square feet of additional relief as well as relief from the setback requirements per Chapter 140 of the Town of Queensbury Sign Ordinance. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor change in the character of the surrounding properties may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. With the non- conforming nature of the sign and the setback issues confronting the applicant, feasible alternatives appear to be limited. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for an additional 32 square feet or 64 percent of the 50 square foot maximum for a free standing sign per 140-6 may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the surrounding properties may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2007-284 Commercial Alteration (Colortyme) Approved 5/24/07 P 2007-322 Wall Sign (Colortyme) Approved 6/18/07 Currently 147 additional activities associated with this parcel beginning in 1993. Staff comments: The applicant stated he attempted to procure a survey from the owner but was unable to do so. The cost associated with hiring a surveyor for a business complex not owned by the applicant was not practical. The applicant requested and received a waiver from the Zoning Board of Appeals Chairmen from the survey requirement associated with this sign variance. SEQR Status: Unlisted” “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form September 10, 2008 Project Name: Colortyme Rentals/Thomas Glogowski Owner(s): Raymond Hippele ID Number: QBY-08-SV-56 County Project#: Sep08-21 Current Zoning: HC-Int. Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant is proposing construction of 32 sq ft additional signage onto existing freestanding sign. Relief requested from setback requirements and from the maximum size allowable for a freestanding sign. Site Location: 959 State Route 9 – Mount Royal Plaza Tax Map Number(s): 296.13-1-18 Staff Notes: Sign Variance: The applicant is proposing construction of 32 sq ft additional signage onto an existing freestanding sign. Relief requested from setback requirements and from the maximum size allowable for a freestanding sign. The number of signs proposed is 3 where only two are allowed. The information submitted indicates customers are not able to locate the business. The sign size is currently at 50 sq ft 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) where the total proposed would be 82 sq ft Staff recommends no county impact based on the information submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law Section 239 L applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 9/12/08. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Go ahead. Anything you want to add? MR. GLOGOWSKI-I think everything was pretty well stated. So I’d just answer any questions anybody has. MR. UNDERWOOD-What was the original intent of that sign, when it was originally put up, you know, when the mall first went in, I think it was only supposed to say Mount Royal Plaza, as far as I recall. It preceded us coming on the Board, everybody here, I’m pretty sure. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I could not glean that from the minutes, but it certainly is a large sign. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we were in a situation at that point in time where, when malls were going in, they just had the name of the mall out there. They didn’t include all the tenants that were on site or things like that, and I don’t think we have any record, nothing that I could come up with, as to when, what was specified by the Planning Board. Board members have any questions? What’s the justification for Colortyme and not somebody else in the mall wanting their name on there? MR. GLOGOWSKI-I can’t really honestly say why we should have a sign versus everybody else. I will say that I’ve been open for, you know, a little over a year, and whether it be a trucking company or, you know, especially specifically customers trying to find our location, a lot of them don’t even know where the Mount Royal Plaza is, and, you know, I’ve had people call me from the parking lot and can’t find my store. So, you know, we did institute it in our lease that we had that right, should we, you know, be granted permission to do so, and that’s what I’m looking for, so, we can continue to grow and succeed. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we have any record of the OTB sign, how that got on there? Because OTB hasn’t been there that long. MR. OBORNE-No. OTB, they don’t require a Sign Variance. They’re a State government. MR. UNDERWOOD-So they can just do whatever they want? MR. OBORNE-Yes, sir. MR. UNDERWOOD-Great. That’s nice. Where have we heard that before? MR. GARRAND-Hypothetically, what if the other businesses want a sign up there? MR. GLOGOWSKI-There isn’t going to be space. So they would have to negotiate with the landlord if he wanted to change his top sign and chop it up into blocks, but I highly doubt that he would be inclined to do so. We do have the largest space in the facility. We have roughly 6,000 square foot, and when we signed on, there wasn’t really an anchor to the Plaza. So, you know, we would like to assume that position, but, you know, obviously we want to conform to the requirements. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you have other stores besides this Colortyme? MR. GLOGOWSKI-Not yet, at this point. I have a partner in Louisiana that has three stores. Colortyme is a franchise, and we would like to grow and expand to other areas, but right now it’s an individual store. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because I know around Town there’s other places that do the rentals and lease deals. I’m just thinking in a sense, I don’t know any of the other ones that have them. The other ones down at CVS, down by Hannaford there. There’s a rental place there, I believe. I don’t know what company it is. MR. OBORNE-I don’t know if they have a sign out or not. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t believe they have a sign, except for a wall sign. MR. URRICO-Could you get by with a smaller sign? MR. GLOGOWSKI-I think the reason, they layout of the sign is why we went with that large of a, you know, it looks appealing on the pylon that’s there. MR. URRICO-It wouldn’t look as appealing if it were a little smaller? MR. GLOGOWSKI-I wouldn’t be able to communicate the information that I want to communicate, obviously who we are and what we do, if we just put Colortyme up there. People would think I’m a paint store. They don’t know what I do. So when I list the furniture. MR. URRICO-But it would be more than you have now. Okay. MR. GLOGOWSKI-Yes, it would be more than I have now. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else? Anything you want to add? MR. CLEMENTS-I just sort of have a comment I guess. In the Code you can have two signs for your store, one on a pylon and one on the store. Is that correct? MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I think in the sense of any kind of multiple signage, think about what we just did on this other one and other situations. It’s sort of spinning out of control as we speak, you know. I mean, a lot of these things appear. OTB is a perfect example. It’s, you know, it was never intended for there to be anything on that other than Mount Royal Plaza. Period. When it originally went through, when the plan went through for that mall to build and operate there in that situation. So, it’s, I guess the sky’s the limit. MR. GLOGOWSKI-I just would like to comment on one thing, and I wasn’t involved in the other project, in tearing down the pylon sign, or even heard about it until today. As a merchant, and again, I’m not the property owner, I’m not a developer of the retail space, but as a merchant, I look at, prior to signing the lease and taking this location, a lot of vacancies and a lot of stores that have come in and out of this Plaza, and we felt that it had a good location, high traffic flow, and, you know, the market does support our type of customer, but, after being there for the year, and realizing that people can’t find me, I definitely need the sign. I definitely need it, you know, just so people that have called me and they’re looking for me, you know, will know where to find us. MR. DRELLOS-Is the color, the store colors, it’s a brand, you said, a chain store. That’s the colors? MR. GLOGOWSKI-Yes, the green capsule, if you will, is the Colortyme logo for the store. MR. DRELLOS-Intense blue and vivid green. MR. GLOGOWSKI-That is a duplicate of the sign that is on the front of my building. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else have anything you want to ask at this time? All right. I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Have we got any correspondence, Roy? MR. URRICO-No. I can’t find any in the folder, in the file. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Well, here’s going to be my recommendation to the Board. This is an Unlisted action. This more or less upsets me, you know, and I’m not just saying that as the Chairman, but I think of what we’ve tried to accomplish in the Town with the sign, you know, allowances that we’ve done. We’ve done some real bone- headed moves like when we did Home Depot and they got two signs down there, and I don’t know why the Board ever approved that situation, but I think in retrospect everybody regrets that, but at the same time, here, what, my suggestion to the Board is going to be this. I want to send this to the Planning Board, all right, because the Planning Board was the one who originally came up with the idea as to what was allowable on this site up there. I think two things have happened since then. We’ve added this OTB revenue enhancement sign for New York State, which just out of the 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) blue can just appear anywhere I guess they want on planet earth. I think that’s wrong, Number One, because that set the precedent for this sign request coming on as a second sign added on there, too. I don’t think that we want to put ourselves in a position where, if OTB opens up, you know, Off Track Betting opens up stores all over Town, they get to add signs all over. I think there’s something physically wrong with that occurring, and so what I’m going to do is this. I think I’m going to make a recommendation that we refer this to the Planning Board. The Planning Board gets back to us with their idea as to what was originally intended for up here, and as far as I’m concerned, the Off Track Betting sign is illegal. I don’t care what the State statues say. It’s our community. We make the Sign Variances, as far as I’m concerned. Our sign code basically sets the tone for the community, and at this point in time, if they want to pursue changing signs or adding the Colortyme sign in there, my suggestion is going to be, go back to the Planning Board. My suggestion is going to be come up with a new sign for the front of the Plaza that includes the names of all of the people that are in the Plaza on the sign, in small renditions out there underneath the main name of the Mount Royal Plaza or something like that, including Off Track Betting. I don’t see any reason why OTB gets that giant sign, compared to everybody else. MR. OBORNE-It’s my understanding that the owner of the business complex would have to solicit that. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s Mr. Passarelli. MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but I think that the OTB sign could be covered up until such time, and I don’t think, until the Planning Board makes the ultimate decision on this, I don’t think we need to go there, as far as adding the extra signs. If that’s something they’re amenable to, then we can discuss it with our Board. MR. OBORNE-If that is your will, obviously that’s fine. I do suggest and recommend that you state it clearly and succinctly what you propose the recommendation from the Planning Board. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I would like a recommendation from the Planning Board as to whether the OTB sign is appropriate or allowed. Whether it’s precipitated this second request for the Colortyme sign here, and if something better could be done that includes everybody in the mall, because I mean, everybody should have an equal opportunity out there on that monument sign out front, as far as I’m concerned. I don’t know what you Board members think. Do you agree with me or not? MR. GARRAND-I get a sense that after this, New York Pizza, I think it is and everybody else in there is going to want a sign up on that. So I’d be kind of curious to see what the Planning Board has to say, and I’d also like to see where it’s written that says OTB can have a sign anywhere they want whenever they want. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ve never seen that. MR. OBORNE-Well, it’s not in the Code. The Code administrator has, I don’t want to say determined as such, but I have discussed that with him, and he has said his hands are tied. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, ours aren’t. Okay. MR. URRICO-Well, I agree with you, Jim, about sending it to the Planning Board. I think we need to find out what the original purpose of that sign was, and how that came about. It would help us to make a determination here. As far as OTB, I’m not sure, you know, that’s something that this applicant needs to be in the middle of. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, it’s not the applicant’s, I don’t feel it’s the applicant’s fault, but I think the applicant’s in his situation based upon the fact that there’s already been a sign added here, you know, and no one was granted permission for that. Well, we do not factor it in to the total square footage. MR. CLEMENTS-I have another question, too, and I’d like to know this. I heard you say that you had in your lease agreement with the owner, that if, that you could put a sign up there if you could get it passed by the powers that be. Is that correct? MR. GLOGOWSKI-That’s correct. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) MR. CLEMENTS-I’d like to know if there are other vendors in there that have the same thing in their lease. I mean, because I think you’re right. We’re going to come to a point where everybody’s going to want to put their sign up there. I also think that because he might be an anchor store, and I don’t know, you know, that their sign might be larger than others. Those are, but I agree that it ought to be sent to the Planning Board. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So can we take that as a resolution, or do you want me to make a formal resolution? MS. GAGLIARDI-If you could make a formal resolution, that would help. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’ll make a formal resolution. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 56-2008 COLORTYME RENTALS/THOMAS GLOGOWSKI, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: 959 State Route 9 – Mount Royal Plaza. Tabled until the Zoning Board hears back from the Planning Board as to their take on what the original Mount Royal Plaza sign was supposed to be represented as. It appears that the original intent of the sign was that the Mount Royal Plaza was the only thing written on that sign. In the interim period since Capital Off Track Betting has moved on site into the mall, they put their sign out front there, and we need to get a clarification from the Zoning Administrator also in regards to the Capital Off Track Betting sign, as to whether that was illegally erected on that sign also. In the interim, it’s precipitated this request for the Colortyme sign, and we would like a recommendation from the Planning Board as to whether either of those two signs are appropriate or if something new could be reasonably done that would include all the tenants in the mall, in much smaller forms, obviously, so they all would fit underneath there, as some point on the sign, as has been done elsewhere. th Duly adopted this 17 day of September, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Jenkin MR. UNDERWOOD-And I would recommend, they’re probably going to have to get Mr. Passarelli, since he’s the mall owner, he’s going to be involved in that. So that’s going to be part of the process involving. MR. GLOGOWSKI-That’s not the name of the owner. MR. UNDERWOOD-He’s not the owner anymore? I don’t know who the owner is. MR. GLOGOWSKI-It’s Raymond Hippele. MR. UNDERWOOD-Hippele. He’s listed on there, I think. All right. So we’ll see you. We’ll table you for, until we hear back from the Planning Board and allow you time. So everybody hang on to their request, as is. Do we want to table them for 60 days? MR. URRICO-That sounds good. th MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. We’ll table you until the first meeting in November, the 19. USE VARIANCE NO. 61-2008 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS AGENT(S): MICHAEL CUSACK – YOUNG SOMMER, LLC OWNER(S): QUEENSBURY CENTRAL VOL. FIRE CO. ZONING: SFR-1A LOCATION: 145 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES REPLACEMENT OF A 50 FT. MONOPOLE TOWER WITH 120 FT. MONOPOLE TOWER CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING VERIZON WIRELESS EQUIPMENT, FIRE DEPARTMENT EQUIPMENT AND OTHER USERS. FURTHER, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 360 SQ. FT. SUPPORT BUILDING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE REQUIREMENT THAT TELECOMMUICATION TOWERS ARE NOT ALLOWABLE IN THE SFR-1A DISTRICT. CROSS REF.: AV 62-2008; SPR 38-2008 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.46 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.18-2-11 SECTION: 179-5-130; 179-4-020 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) MICHAEL CUSACK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-This is sort of a two part one here tonight, and I’m sure maybe once we get through the first part here, we’ll have some idea of where we’re headed with this. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 61-2008, Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Meeting Date: September 17, 2008 “Project Location: 145 Aviation Road Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes to erect a 142 foot monopole telecommunication tower capable of supporting Verizon Wireless equipment and Queensbury Central Volunteer Fire Co. emergency services communication antenna. Further, a 360 square foot support structure to house equipment associated with the telecommunication tower will also be proposed. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from allowable uses in the Single Family Residential 1 Acre zone. Criteria for considering a Use Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: The four (4) criteria usually associated with a use variance are different in this case. Verizon Wireless is consider a public utility under New York decisional law (Cellular Telephone Company v. Rosenberg, 82N.Y.2d 364(1993) and a provider of “personal wireless services” under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. As a result of these decisions, the following are to be shown by the public utility in order to gain a use variance: 1.) That the proposed improvement is a public necessity in that it is required to render safe and adequate service; That the safe and adequate service may be considered a common practice by this public utility, the public necessity may not be considered reasonable. 2.) That there are compelling reasons, economic and otherwise, for permitting the variance. This public utility appears to have shown compelling reasons, both economic and other wise, that this variance may be permitted. 3.) Where the intrusion or burden on the community is minimal, the showing required by the utility should be correspondingly reduced. The applicant appears to have chosen this site with minimal intrusion on the community in mind. However, there may be debate on this issue as intrusion is an ‘unwelcomed or inappropriate addition’ to the community as defined by Webster’s Dictionary Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): P91-648 Addition Approved 9/30/91 Staff comments: The applicant is before the Zoning Board in order to gain a use variance. Currently, the zoning code only allows Telecommunication Towers in the Light and Heavy Industrial zones. In order for the applicant to proceed to the area variance associated with this proposal and Site Plan Review, the Zoning Board of Appeals will need to pass the Use Variance before them. Concerning the view shed analysis, it appears that only a minimal amount of locations where used in the analysis and subsequently the View shed analysis map located in section 8 of the application booklet may be understated. Further, the red balloons flown were small in size when compared to the actual width of the proposed tower and attached antennas. The thought here does not include the whip antenna as that will be barley visible at 120 feet. The result is an understated representation of the proposal. Concerning the coverage gaps referenced in section 7 of the application booklet, little to no coverage currently exists. This appears to be erroneous as numerous cell phone subscribers can attest that coverage does exists and is in fact strong and reliable. The above concerns are directly attributable to requirements one and three addressed above in the Criteria section. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) Concerning SEQR, the Planning Board may seek Lead Agency Status for a coordinated review concerning this proposal. If the Planning Board has sought Lead Agency Status, and the Zoning Board agrees to that, then the Zoning Board may discuss this project and not act until a SEQR declaration has been issued. If the Zoning Board wishes to commence their own SEQR review or non- coordinated review, that is allowable per 6NYCRR Part 617.6b (2). SEQR Status: Unlisted” MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. CUSACK-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m Mike Cusack. This is Jean Marie Frawley. Together we’re representing Verizon Wireless tonight. Are names and contact information are on the front of the application booklet that you have in front of you. There’s, in Queensbury, a fairly significant set of regulations governing the construction of our facilities in the Town, and so it’s necessary, as an applicant, to assembly a fairly large application package with a lot of attachments to document the various criteria that are set forth in your Code. So, in terms of how we’re looking at this, the application does summarize the reasons why we think we’re here. In your introduction you said to try to focus on information that might elaborate on the application or expand upon it, but if there’s an area that you do want us to cover or discuss, we’re very happy to go over that tonight, but in very broad and general terms, Verizon Wireless is seeking permission to construct a public utility, personal wireless service facility at the firehouse property on 145 Aviation Road. The purpose of this project is to take our network and improve the service along Aviation Road on the west side of the Northway. So we’re now looking in the center of the commercial area. We’re actually trying to go out towards West Mountain Road and in that direction. In terms of what our network consists of, right now we have three sites that tend to provide some level of service or another to the Town of Queensbury, and without focusing just on this area, we have a facility at Exit 18, the Glens Falls exit, which is in the only district that towers are allowable in the Town. We also have a facility on top of the CNA building in the Downtown area of Glens Falls, and we also are co-located on the tower that was originally built by SBA Communications several years ago, up off of Exit 20 where the Outlets are. So that would be at Route 149 and Route 9, off a little bit to the east of that intersection. So those are our three sites in the area that are providing service to your community. In terms of distance and other factors, these sites are fairly far away from the area that we’re trying to serve. The Queensbury Outlet site is the closest, that 2.8 miles to the northeast. The Exit 18 site at the Glens Falls exit is 3.6 miles to the southeast and the Glens Falls Downtown site on the CNA building is 3.7 miles to the southeast, and the central problem that we’re having as a communications service provider is that these facilities are too far away, and have a use, to provide reliable service to provide reliable service to this particular area of the Town of Queensbury. So, naturally when we identified the problem, as you’ve probably heard in other applications of this nature, the engineering group gets together and they decide that the problem exists and they try to figure out, based upon the existing network, terrain, vegetation, other factors including zoning, where might they put a new facility to help improve the network’s performance, and in this case, when we looked at the area where we were trying to serve, it became fairly apparent that there was no zone that this use was allowed in. So as a result, no matter what we do here, whether it’s on this property or any other property, it’s going to require this relief. So there is a little bit of an issue here, in terms of that’s how we got in front of your Board as opposed to the Planning Board. We just don’t have a choice. State law kicks in at that point, and it provides, in essence, that these facilities are considered public utilities for land use purposes, and they cannot be prohibited by local zoning where they’re necessary to provide adequate and safe service, and that’s where the Rosenburg test comes in, that’s outlined in the application materials. We don’t get a free pass as an applicant. We do have to meet a certain standard of proof to be entitled to an approval from a Zoning Board of Appeals, but the first element of the test is that the project is a public necessity, in that it is required to render safe and adequate service. The second element is that there are compelling reasons, economic or otherwise, for pursuing this alternative, and beyond that, you know, there are other things we can talk about, in terms of what was read earlier. I don’t want to repeat everything from the Staff Notes, but very, very clearly this is a public necessity and there is a compelling need. We understand that people may feel, as a user of possibly being close to this project, that the service from their perspective is fine. At Verizon Wireless, the key to the network is one word, and that’s reliable. It’s not just an advertising slogan. It’s how they devise their monitoring and their testing, and everything else, and what we have found in this particular area of 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) Queensbury, is that the service is not reliable. Depending on when you’re on the system, you may not be able to get on at all, and it is a situation where blocked calls or dropped calls do exist, and so we try, as a carrier, first off, to look and see if there’s anything we can do to the existing network to modify what we already have to try to take care of problems like this, but suffice it to say, giving you the short answer, that the existing facilities are too far away, and there isn’t anything, really, that we can do to modify these facilities, to take care of this particular problem. It actually is necessary to come in and build a new facility in the Town. So that’s a little bit on the background. There are propagation studies and maps and a radio frequency engineering report behind the seventh tab of the application, which tried to illustrate what the coverage looks like from a reliable standpoint, and the areas that are shown as being within service are shaded in blue, would be areas that, based upon current technologies and statistics, your call would be performing, you would have good service, you would have a well performing network if you were within those areas. Outside of those areas, you might be able to get on. You might not be able to get on. It’s hit or miss, and that’s how we gauge the evaluation of potential needs for facilities. In terms of the civil improvements, this is a tower replacement project, as was mentioned. The new facility is actually going to consist of a 120 foot tower. As the construction drawings illustrate, the top of the steel of the tower is 120 feet. The fire department has a 22 foot whip antenna on the top of it, and when you add that together, you come up with 142 feet. For that reason, we listed the total height of 142 feet in our application, but the tower very, very clearly ends at 120 feet. In terms of the visual impact assessment work that was done, two balloons were flown in connection with the visual assessment work. The first balloon was flown at 120 feet, and the second balloon was flown at 142 feet. We did assess the impact of both the top of the tower as well as the addition of the whip antenna that the fire department owns on the top of this facility. So we do believe that the visual impact work is an accurate assessment of what we’re actually proposing, and it’s not understated in any respect in terms of the height. We do, however, understand the question that came up from Planning Staff, because many times applicants will come in in our industry and say, yes, the top of the tower is 120 feet and not mention anything that goes over the top of that, and at Verizon Wireless we’re very particular and very clear in terms of what we’re doing, not only why, but the exact height that we’re proposing and assessing for visual impact purposes. In terms of the civil improvements, I believe they’re accurately summarized in the narrative that was read at the beginning. We do need an equipment shelter to put our equipment in. It is remotely monitored and alarmed. It’s an unmanned facility. No one is stationed there. It’s typically visited one to three times a month, as needed. If there are no problems, it’s not uncommon for this facility not to be visited, because as I mentioned, it is monitored remotely from the switching center here in Town, and when I say here in Town, I mean in the Capital District area. We have a network operations group based down towards Albany, and all sites are wired in and monitored through there. If an alarm goes off or a problem is identified, someone is dispatched to the site to take care of that issue. It doesn’t happen very often, but that’s how it works functionally. So as a result, from a traffic impact standpoint, water, sewer, sewage disposal, none of these things will be an issue with this facility. It is unmanned. In terms of the Use Variance criteria that are arguments for why the use needs to be allowed in this zone are very clearly set forth in the statement of intent. I’ll leave it to you if you want me to walk through everything that we looked at, or if you think that the application speaks for itself, or, by all means, if you want me to walk through it for the members of the public that are here, I’m willing to do that. I just want to make sure that I observe the time requirements. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think what we’ll do tonight is this. We, you know, many of us on the Board were involved with the 149 one. We dealt with that. So we’re quite familiar with the legal standing of putting up towers and, you know, that part where everybody’s pretty familiar with that. My suggestion is going to be this. Because this is an Unlisted action, the Planning Board’s really going to be the go to group here on this one here, but at the same time, we owe to the public the right for them to comment on, as things are here, but prior to doing that, I think it’s important for our Board to, that everybody have a chance to go through the book and look at the maps and things like that, because, you know, the first thing that came into my mind is that, Number One, the current station that’s there, Central station, is an antiquated station. The location has kind of outgrown itself. Suburbia has popped up all around it. In that situation, I would surmise that probably before too long you’re going to see that station be replaced, or it’s going to become, it’s already outmoded in its location as it exists, in relationship to the residential neighborhood that’s there. I’m going to figure, in trying to figure out where the station might be going to, you know, I mean, logically it might end up over on West Mountain Road or something like that, closer over to the edge of the, where the hill starts to climb up Buckbee Road, over in that direction there maybe. You’ve got the State Emergency Management Tower that you have included in your survey there, and the argument that 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) it’s an old tower. I’m not sure if the State Emergency Management Office is going to move, or if that’s always going to be a fixture where it’s currently located, as you cut off the back street there, too. That’s currently a tower that approximates what you’re proposing at this site here. I believe it’s 100 feet or something. MR. CUSACK-It’s about the same height, yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s just almost exactly the same there. So I think that that’s a feasible alternative that needs to be greater looked into. I don’t know how firm you were in your application as far as, you know, or in just simply taking the ease route that the firemen said yes or something like that, but I think in that situation there the SEMO site to me seems more logical to place this, as far as your coverage area. I would also be concerned, you know, from the Planning Board perspective I would think it would be logical to include a survey of the whole west side over there, because if you don’t have, it’s hard for me to believe that you don’t have service, you know, and that this site is going to be the ideal site for maximum coverage on the west side over there. Obviously you’re going to want to cover all West Mountain Road eventually so you have good coverage there, but it’s pretty flat all the way down through, except for the hollows where the creeks and stuff pass down below, kind of grade over most of the site through there. MR. CUSACK-I’m not sure I understand that comment. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, you know, if you go over, if you go to the north, and you get over towards Rush Pond area, things drop down in the hollow, down over the edge of the hill there. Obviously you’re not going to get coverage because you’re going down into a blank spot at that point in time. If you’re going the other direction, towards Peggy Ann, that way, Dixon Road down that way, you’ve got another hollow down there you’ve got a low spot. So, in looking at your site here, if you really think about it as a logical place to put it, is this the best place to put it, the other locations that you might consider might be the water tower over on West Mountain ridge there, you know, that’s off West Mountain Road. That’s a possibility over there. I know that there’s, the Great Escape’s going to be putting up that new ride that’s 19 stories high, you know, and that’s pretty far away from where you are, that one. Over on West Mountain ski area, I know, is that one of your towers up on there, too? Do you have coverage up there? MR. CUSACK-No, that is not our tower. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, because I’m just thinking in co-locating, you know, is that a possibility to co-locate up on that one that’s already there? And I know TV 8’s going to be proposing a new tower, because they’ve got to go digital. They’re going to be putting up one next to that one up there, as far as I know, or at least proposing to put one up there at some point in the near future. So I think there’s a lot of ponderables here. Our Board, we have to look at it from the viewpoint of this is a residential area, and if the, you know, I don’t know what the intent of the fire department is either, if they’re intending to stay on that site, because if they were going to be leaving that site within five years time, and taking down their tower, I think that would have an effect on you putting up your infrastructure, you know, if it was going to revert back to residential, if the station moves to a different location. MR. CUSACK-That would not impact us long term. It would impact us with the tall antenna on the top. That would, perhaps, be remote. MR. UNDERWOOD-What’s your coverage like on the rest of the west side right now? Is it blank over there all the way up to the base of the hill? MR. CUSACK-Yes. As we’ve shown on the mapping, it’s not reliable service. It’s a mixture of hit or miss to no service at all, and it depends, really, where you are and what time of the day it is when you’re trying to use the system. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is that a general perception amongst all the providers, or is it just you guys that are missing over there? MR. CUSACK-That’s a good question, because some of the other providers have different facilities in different locations around this exit, one side or the other of the Northway. One of the facilities that we did look at is at the Ramada Inn. There’s a flagpole disguised tower there that was originally built by Sprint, back several years ago, and we’re very familiar with that site. We looked at it pretty hard, and in addition to spatial limitations that are on that facility. Verizon Wireless is using two, soon, three types of advanced technologies that they’re putting out wirelessly. It’s not just a phone 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) system on one band. We’re operating on the cellular, traditional cellular network. We’re also operating on PCS, which gives us additional bandwidth and higher speed for data, and in March and April we won a nationwide license at auction that they paid about nine or ten billion dollars for that is in the 700 megahertz frequency range, that’s supposed to help with all of the newer advanced technologies that people are working on now for deployment around 2010, 2011, and so we’re looking at running three different things from one location, and the reason I tell you this background is if I go inside that flagpole, I can put up one antenna. It’s just not going to work, too narrow. We need different types of antennas to get out those various technologies. Not all carriers are doing that. Sprint is operating strictly a PCS network at this time. Nextel and Sprint are one company. There are, you know, rumors going around now they’ll be two separate companies later, but, you know, for now they’re one company, basically doing the same thing. You have T Mobile, which operates under Omni Point. Sometimes you’ll see the name Omni Point T Mobile, same operation. Strictly PCS. They can do a one antenna and a flagpole type deployment. So it depends on what you’re trying to do. To answer your question about do I see them needing service, I see them as being ahead of us in this area because they’re able to use that facility, and for them on their one off type of technology, they’re on the air in the area and we are not. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. URRICO-When the proposal came forward for the 149/Route 9 tower, at that time, the only mentioned gap was sort of a slice, a triangular slice between Exit 19 and Exit 20. I don’t recall there being a problem in the area you’re talking about. Why is that a problem? I mean, there was mention at that time that there might be smaller towers needed to subsidize the other bigger towers, but why all of a sudden is this a necessity there when it wasn’t, say four years ago or five years ago? What’s happened since then? MR. CUSACK-That’s a fair question. This is a little bit of an answer here. So just bear with me for just a second. When cellular started, it’s not that old of a technology. It started in 1985, 1986. We were an analog system. We ran one call per channel. A cell site typically had 40 or 50 channels on it, and what that meant was that if 40 or 50 people got on the phone at the same time, the site was filled up. So, if you tried to make a phone call you were busied out. You had a no service indicator displayed on your phone. Similarly, if you drove into the coverage area of that site when it was filled up, your call would drop. So that’s how we operated from roughly ’85, ’86, until the late 90’s, and in 1997, 1998, they started rolling out digital technology because there just wasn’t enough bandwidth within the cellular licenses that the two carriers, the two cellular companies held, to be able to serve the population that were signing up for the phones. The growth was exponential. The interests from ordinary citizens in having portable cellular devices was extremely high. So they had to do something. What they did was they came up with digital technology that allowed them to take the mathematical equivalent of one call per channel and get roughly speaking 10 calls per channel out of that. When they switched to the digital technology, however, the power levels had to drop, both at the handset level and at the antenna level, on the towers. So if you could think back to the earlier days of cellular, you had a three watt phone in your car. It was screwed in to the floor of your car. There was an external antenna. The uplink from that phone to the antennas on the tower was three watts, using the general wattage levels. Coming down, it was 500 watts minimum with the antennas. So you had a very reliable uplink and downlink. In our technology, if you don’t have both ends of the conversation, up and down, it tells you that you’re out of service. So how does that effect what happened in the conversion to digital? The three watts at the handset level drop to roughly .1 of a watt to .3 of a watt. So you have a significant loss in the uplink power. That’s because of battery size. It’s because of demand for smaller devices, but it’s also because of, the digital technology, to function properly, must be balanced at low power. You can’t have one site higher power than the other and too much power throughout the community over the multiple sites, or there will be interference and problems with functionality. Coming down from the antennas, the cellular technology nowadays, before it hits the antennas, we’re probably around 16, 20 watts of power, as opposed to the hundreds of watts that we used to broadcast at. That didn’t even do the trick. So that gets us up to about 2000 when you were considering that project. That project was originally a cellular deployment by Verizon Wireless, and if memory serves me correctly, in 2002 or 2003, they bought one of the defunct PCS licensed companies that had won license rights in auction and started to deploy that throughout the community. You may remember from your other applications dealing with PCS companies that it’s higher frequency, which means faster rates of exchange on data, because even a call is data, and a voice communication is data. Everything is ones and zeros, but, at the higher frequency rates, it doesn’t go as far through free space. So you wind up deploying 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) facilities that don’t cover as far as the 800 megahertz cellular, because you’re closer to two gigahertz on the electromagnetic spectrum. So that’s another factor that comes into play. We’re using technology that doesn’t cover as far. The power levels have dropped, and as a result, we’re seeing that taxed by just tremendous demand. So, for the past several years, what have we done? As I mentioned earlier, we’ve tried to go out to our sites and make changes where we think it might work to make things perform better, maybe swap out antennas, do things that change the directions the antennas are pointing to try to maximize the coverage, but at some point you have to try to sit back and be honest with yourself and say we’re not going to be able to make this better, without going out and spending real money and putting new facilities in the ground, and I think that that’s the answer to your question. What was presented to you was accurate then. We are just dealing with explosive growth, incredible advancements in technology, and dramatically reducing power levels. MR. UNDERWOOD-What’s your actual coverage area from this proposed tower? Like how far out is it going to go, like a mile and a half, two miles? I mean, it looks tiny on here. MR. CUSACK-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-The actual coverage area looks miniscule. MR. CUSACK-Yes. We’re, in this particular application, we’re looking at trying to get a couple of, a two to three mile coverage circle out of the site. You are contained by several factors. This is a radio based technology, which means it’s, in general terms, a line of sight technology. What the means is the radio waves do not go through land. They are interfered with or blocked by vegetation or trees. As an example, an 800 megahertz wavelength, which is what cellular is, can be completely absorbed by a one inch pine needle, and we have a lot of pine needles in the area, and going one step further, existing build conditions can impact service. If there are buildings or a lot of development, down close to the ground, depending on how that development is, what it’s made up of, brick, steel, etc., that can interfere with the signals as well. So what we have here is very much you’re contained to a certain extent by terrain, particularly towards the west and the north. The mountains there are higher than the top of our facility, and will definitely stop the service from going any further in those directions. Similarly, coming down to the south, you start running into just plain distance issues. It’ll go through free space for a certain amount, but eventually it becomes ineffective after that, which is why we disclosed in our application that we are looking at a second facility in the southern part of Town that we call Luzerne. That is within the Adirondack Park. It’s very conceptual, but we’re, you know, in the interest of disclosing to you what we’re doing to address the whole problem, that is our ultimate plan. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is there any benefit to putting it at a higher location so it’s downcast, I mean, so you’re zooming down on the whole of Queensbury from one position? MR. CUSACK-There’s a very good question. We, in the original days of cellular, that was our network design, and we covered the entire Capital District with approximately six or eight sites, and around here those sites were, Prospect Mountain was our main site, and what we found out, over time, is if we go back to the question asked by Mr. Urrico about how our system is evolving and developing, those sites cover a very, very wide area, and they wind up going a lot farther than we actually want them to go, and if you think of it this way, if it’s covering a very, very large circle and a high number of people can get inside that circle and get on the system from that site, you are creating a network problem for yourself in that you’re providing service to a larger pool of users than the facility can actually serve. So the trend in the last seven, if not ten years, has been to take these facilities down from the top of the mountain, very tall structure, and bring them down to something that provides service to a limited area on purpose. A related point, and I’ll just bring this up, is that your Code requires that we design this facility with a certain amount of co-location in mind, and some of the height we’re proposing does, in fact, include space for other users. If you were to determine that the other users were not in need of space at that facility, we could go back and ask the engineers to take a look at that and see if there’s any room there. MR. UNDERWOOD-Did you have coverage here when you used, are you still using Prospect, then to cover this area? MR. CUSACK-Yes. We’re still on Prospect. It does not provide any reliable service to this area, however. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-Because you’re kind of down over the hill there at that point in time. MR. CUSACK-Correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m just thinking in a situation like Queensbury, where, you know, if you could have one thing that supplied the whole west side, it would make a lot more sense than creating little mini stations all over the place. I mean, it’s sort of going the opposite direction from where you started. I don’t know if there’s something reasonable to do with, you know, I don’t know how many you’re going to end up two more or. MR. CUSACK-You hit it right on the head exactly where our industry is, though, and it is that we cannot mathematically serve a population this significant from one spot, high placed, because of not only the through put on the cell site, but also the distance which the signal can travel through free space, given the low power levels we’re operating on. MR. UNDERWOOD-So it’s pretty different than land lines, then. MR. CUSACK-Yes. It’s still a lot less resource intensive. We’re still able to serve a larger area with a lot fewer facilities and a lot fewer pieces of equipment and personnel, but we do need the height, and that is the tradeoff here. Simply as a matter of physics of radio frequency propagation. The antennas do have to be a certain height above terrain and trees and buildings and that is the tradeoff. The flipside here is that the site that we’ve selected, and the reason we like it visually, is that we found, after doing our analysis, that it was not all that visible throughout the community. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I think the Board understands what you’re proposing here at this point in time. The public, obviously, is here because they want to make known their opinions as to how they feel about this being located in a residential area, and I think we’re going to give them time to speak on the record also. I think what we’re going to do, just for the sake of moving this in some direction, here, our Board is, you know, our charge is different than the Planning Board’s charge, and the Planning Board is going to be the ultimate authority here, because I think what we’re going to do tonight, before we’re finished here, is give Lead Agency status to the Planning Board to pursue, you know, whether they think this is reasonable. We’ve brought up some points, and I would like the minutes from our meeting provided to the Planning Board, because I think some valid banter went back and forth here as to possible alternatives and things like that. Has this appeared before the Planning Board yet or not? MR. OBORNE-Yes. They requested Lead Agency status last night. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s all. So it was more of an administrative, that’s it so far. MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So for the people in the audience, too, I mean, I think that your, whatever you’re going to say here tonight, you’re going to be repeating that to the Planning Board. You’re going to get two bites at the apple, so to speak. So you’re going to inform our Board as to your opinions here. We’re all, most of us on the Board have been involved in these situations before, and we’re quite understanding of the situation from a legal standpoint, as well as from an aesthetic standpoint, and human health, whatever spin you want to put on to it as far as your opinion goes here. We’re not going to make a decision here this evening, but we will listen carefully to what you have to say to us. All right. So I think what I will do right now is I will cut you off, and just to move things, so we don’t run too late here. MR. CUSACK-That’s okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-We’ve been trying to move things along here, but I will open up the public hearing and again, it’s going to be limiting you to five minutes. If you find that your opinion is basically agreeing with someone that has already spoken, it won’t be necessary for you, for five minutes, to say exactly the same thing again. Our Board, I think, will understand, you know, where you’re coming from. Try to add some information, try to add, you know, your take as to whether you think this is the proper location, or maybe there’s some other alternative that maybe we’ve come up with here tonight that you might think might be better, too, for your neighborhood. So, I’ll start with the left hand side of the room. So raise your hand, please, if you’d like to come up and speak in regards to the project. Please state your name for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) GARY DE ANGELO MR. DE ANGELO-Okay. My name is Gary DeAngelo, and I live about 200 yards from this project. I guess my first question is, monetarily, who is going to benefit from this? JEAN MARIE FRAWLEY MS. FRAWLEY-The Fire Department. MR. DE ANGELO-The Fire Department, and how much are they getting? MS. FRAWLEY-That I truthfully do not know. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think what we want to make sure is that we don’t have some banter going back and forth. In other words, you can pose the questions. They can write down and come up with the answers afterwards, but try to keep it, in other words, we’re looking at a Use Variance here. You’re a residential area, so try to keep your commentary germane to the question of, you know, how are you going to be affected by this, or, possibly effected by this. MR. DE ANGELO-Okay. Well, if you go to Glens Falls, picture that 10 story building, the insurance building there. Add four and a half stories on top of that. Now picture that right next to the Fire Department. Now would you want that in your backyard? Any of you? Now this proposal is going to be about 50 feet from someone’s backyard. They’re going to probably remove trees. It’s adjacent to Dorset Place. It’s adjacent to Crownwood. I mean, to look at that thing and see what it would do to this area, it’s unbelievable. I don’t even know why you’re even bringing this up here. Quite frankly, they’re entitled to good coverage. They’re not entitled to perfect coverage. I’ve never had any problem with Verizon, and I have Verizon, in Queensbury. I don’t have any drop spots in Queensbury. I can go all over this area and I don’t have any problems whatsoever. So why are they picking on this particular area? Convenient? Easy? Give them a little money in the pocket for the Fire Department? I mean, what’s this all about? MR. UNDERWOOD-In regards to the SEMO location, would that be a better fit, or is that just as repulsive to you? MR. DE ANGELO-Say that again? MR. UNDERWOOD-The State Emergency Management site, which is, where you turn onto Fox Hollow Road. MR. DE ANGELO-That would probably be a better site. There is no houses right next to it. I mean, I’ve got neighbors that, it’s right next to their yard. I mean, why would somebody want to put a 140 foot tower next to someone’s property? I don’t understand that. I mean, what are you thinking? And this is a residential area. The highest amount of the tallest building in our area is, what, two stories? I mean, you could see this sucker for about a half a mile around. Is a half a mile people come around here, and did you notify all the people within a half mile radius that this was going to happen? You notified a few people on our block, and not only that, you want to put it next to a disability center with children there, and there are health issues with this. I don’t, you know, you can say the studies are this and the studies are that, but they’re not conclusive, and there’s possibilities of cancer related, leukemia for children, and you’ve got children not even 50 feet from this thing. I mean, you’ve got to be kidding me. Why would you put something like that here? This is a residential area. You’ve got all the area you want down the West Mountain Road. You could put it over there, or you could put it any place. There’s open land all over the place. Why would you want to put it in a residential area, next to a dilapidated fire department? I’m not happy with this, and I can tell you, you know, you’re going to hear from me all the way through. Because this is wrong. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Somebody from the other side of the room. Raise your hand, please. Come on up. JOANNE EGGLESTON MRS. EGGLESTON-My name is Joanne Eggleston, and I live on 17 Crownwood Lane, and since I’ve heard about it, I’ve done a lot of research on it, and it doesn’t sound like there are any long term health answers yet, and I’m appalled that they would, I’m in education, and they’re putting it next to, I know I’m repeating what he said, but these kids 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) are living with a handicap as it is, without more, subjecting them to more possible health issues, and it’s not like they’re going to go through now to sixth grade and get out of there. They’re there for a long term, in Prospect School, a lot longer than any student going through. Us, as a, living in the neighborhood, every research I did says there are health issues involved, not with the tower itself, but it got in depth with the health issues. One of the articles I looked up, there are several houses on Crownwood Lane for sale, one of which is ours, and one of the articles, which isn’t helping Queensbury or our neighborhood, says if you can look out your door and in any direction see a cell phone tower, do not buy that house. So it is red tagging our houses. How do you sell these houses then? We’re just all upset in the neighborhood. I mean, it’s just absurd that they would put it, especially that you’re talking that this firehouse may not even exist down the road. Where is that money going? What’s happening? What’s that feedback? What’s it going to do to something that may not exist down the road? I mean, I’ll let other neighbors speak, but we’re very upset, very upset over this situation, and not so much my house on the market. It’s those kids at Prospect School that are playing probably within 100 feet of it. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Okay. ROMAN JAROSH MR. JAROSH-Good evening. I’m Roman Jarosh. I live at 8 Crownwood Lane. I’ll try to add some different items here. I was reading through their statement of intent, and it’s very sugarcoated. It’s a public necessity. It has to provide safe and adequate service. I’ve had people at my house. They all have service on their cell phones. I don’t know why it’s a public necessity. I think it’s more for profit necessity than a public necessity. They mention that, you know, for the safety and welfare of the community and the traveling public there needs to be a cell phone tower there or else it jeopardizes their safety. Are we in current danger right now? Is there a dangerous problem that we need to be aware of that we need a cell phone tower to cure that? They also state that, you know, there’s mention of mature trees and mature vegetation that you won’t see the tower. Remember that windstorm the other night? How many trees came down in that? Are those trees going to be there for the remainder of the cell phone tower? I don’t think so. If somebody is going to move in, wants to take down their trees, they’re gone. Trees fall down, ice damage, they’re gone. So don’t give us a snow job and say there’s mature vegetation that’s going to be there the whole time. That’s about it. I can’t see how you can justify it for whatever reason. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Somebody from this side. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. I read here in Staff Notes that the Zoning Board of Appeals will need to pass the Use Variance before them. I submit that I do not think you can pass the Use Variance, and it’s not for reasons which you’ve heard here tonight. It’s for reasons that the owner of the property is the Queensbury Central Volunteer Fire Company, and as such they are precluded from entering into this kind of a contract. You probably remember the information I distributed to this Board concerning the North Queensbury Fire Company, and the contract they entered into with Behan Communications, and what I would like to do is read into your th record a portion of that letter of June 25, which is applicable to the Queensbury Central Volunteer Fire Company as well. Queensbury Central Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., is organized within the New York State in accordance with Article 14 of the Not For Profit Corporations law, and more specifically as a Type B Special Not for Profit corporation defined in Section 1402 thereof. A Type B not for profit corporation is defined in Section 201B as a not for profit corporation of this type may be formed for any one or more of the following non-business purposes. I emphasize non-business purposes, charitable, educational, religious, scientific, literary, cultural, or for the prevention of cruelty to children and animals. Practice commentaries following Section 201 speak to Type B not for profit corporations as the type of non-business organization which may qualify for tax exemption under Section 501C(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and these volunteer fire companies are authorized to file under 501C(3). The type of non-business corporation established primarily for the benefit of society in general, as opposed to members of a not for profit corporation, that is the Type A, is what you hear about most commonly, the type of business corporation which is more carefully regulated than Type A corporations, because of the public benefit purpose, and finally the type of non-business corporation which is publicly funded. Subsection F of Section 1402 speaks to yet another reporting requirement of the Queensbury, of the Central Queensbury Volunteer Fire Company. The directors of the Fire Company are required to file a report annually, and I can assure 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) you this has not been done since the beginning of time. I communicated with the Clerk of the Warren County, the Warren County Clerk’s Office, and there’s no record of any such filing, and I’ll read to you what they’re required to do. It shall be the duty of the th Directors of all Fire Corporations, incorporated under this Section, on or before the 15 day of January in each year, to make and file in the County Clerk’s Office where the Certificate of Incorporation is filed, a verified Certificate stating the names of the directors and the officers of the corporation, containing an inventory of its property, a statement of its liabilities, and that the corporation has not engaged directly or indirectly in any business other than that set forth in its Certificate of Incorporation. By the way, I should point out that the State Committee on Open Government has opined that Volunteer Fire Company records are subject to FOIL, and so this gentleman’s interest in who’s getting what and the contracts and all is subject to public scrutiny. It’s available under FOIL, and who knows to what extent the records of Verizon would also be subject to FOIL. In any case, Verizon has the wrong contract partner, simply because the Volunteer Fire Company owns the land. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Somebody from this side, from the back. JOANNE SIGISMONDI MRS SIGISMONDI-Hello. My name is Joanne Sigismondi. I live at 168 Aviation Road. I’m about 800 feet away from the firehouse. I have often watched that commercial on t.v. about can you hear me now, about Verizon. I have tried to reach Verizon to find out how can I get service. Because in my house I do not have service. I do not have service in my garage or right close to my driveway. I have several acres. If I go out behind my garage, there I can be heard. When people from Time Warner have done work in my house, when people from different agencies, because I have also Verizon phones in the house, they, too, have had to go outside. So other people who have come have not had Verizon phones. They also do not get service when they’re in my house or right by my house. So I could only think that if this would be put up, that other telephone companies are going to be added to it, making it even higher usage. I am strongly opposed, and I’m very curious, because when I look out my window, I look across the street, down the block, I see the firehouse. I see the trees that are to the right of it, and the houses that are all the way down for a ways. I never saw a balloon, and I have a clear view of that. I would assume 142 feet is a lot higher than the trees that were there, and if I saw something, because I could see the mountain from my kitchen window. If I’m looking out, and there had been a balloon of any substantial size, I would have wanted to know, what is that thing doing there? I wouldn’t have known what it was for. I do know that places like Schuylerville I have just found out have had balloons, and the whole area was able to see for the height of what was going to be done. So when you asked about the service, it’s not just Verizon that’s not good. It’s others. The SEMO, as you asked the other people, I do not believe that’s good, because what about the people who live on Fox Hollow? What about Indian Ridge and the senior citizens center in there? Then they’re going to be looking at it instead. It’s my understanding that the top of West Mountain, part of it is owned by New York State, and if the State is the one that is allowing public utilities to go wherever they want, then maybe you could go on the top of West Mountain some place where it would not interfere with anyone. On another note, I didn’t know that the fire department was extinct, and I must say, I can see these guys going and respond, they do a fantastic job, but their whistle, if that thing is going to be there more than five years, or hopefully less, I would invite you all to come over to my house, stand in my driveway, at twelve o’clock noon and listen to the volume of that thing, because it’s a very old system, and it’s not like the one on Lafayette Street. It is much, much louder. So if they’re going to, if they’re not going to be there, I can see not changing because it probably would cost a lot of money, but if they do go to move, hopefully they’ll have the newer system in so wherever they go they’re not going to disturb all the people, but again, I am opposed to having this so close to a residential area, and I think most of my neighbors, many of whom couldn’t come tonight, are also opposed. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Somebody from the other side of the room. GEORGE STUART MR. STUART-This won’t be very long. My name is George Stuart, and I live on Crownwood Lane, and I’m a contrarian. I love cell phones. So I would love to have better service, but listening tonight, I would suggest maybe, given, I’ve never heard this every two to three miles you need a tower. Maybe there needs to be a grander plan in place as to where you want to put these towers, every three or four miles in Queensbury, rather than make a singular decision. I do have Cingular, by the way, and have some 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) kind of plan where you would put all these towers, and why can’t they share the towers as well? I do have Cingular and get good service on Crownwood Lane. So that’s all I have. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Somebody from this side, way in the back. ANDY CUNIFF MR. CUNIFF-I’m Andy Cuniff. I live on 4 Dorset Place, and I’m pretty much opposed to this also. It’s within, well, they say it’s 164 feet from my house. I’m not quite sure if that’s correct or not. I took a walk out in the woods this afternoon, and there’s several trees marked with some pink paint. Apparently that’s the trees that are going to be taken down, and I think that’s going to change the looks of what they’ve simulated in their photos that Tectonic took when they take all those trees down to put their tower pad and building in there. So, as far as I’m concerned, this is a residential neighborhood, and they should probably put this 142 foot tower somewhere else. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thank you. Somebody from this side. NICK SIGISMONDI MR. SIGISMONDI-My name is Nick Sigismondi. I live at 168 Aviation Road for many years. All I want to say is that I’m opposed to this new project they have going on. That’s all I really have to say. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Somebody else? Way in the back. ANNE GOBBO MS. GOBBO-My name is Anne Gobbo, and I live at 6 Dorset Place, and it almost would be behind me. Andy Cuniff, who just spoke before, is next to me. I am shocked that they would even think of such a thing. I really am, but I guess they have a right to bring it up, but I can’t believe how close this is to my backyard. We’re talking, I went out today, I walked to the edge of my property, and I counted. It’s 18 of my steps to the middle of where this gigantic tower would be. I am absolutely appalled. I hope it doesn’t go through. I’m very upset. It’s going to be big, and there’s no way, I mean, my backyard now is a kind of lightly wooded, aesthetically it’s attractive, and now I’d be, there’s no way you can hide the fact that I’m going to go in my backyard and basically I’m going to look at this big erector set thing. It is totally going to destroy my home value. I’ve been paying off this house for 30 years, and I am convinced that if I go to sell it, I wouldn’t buy it. It’s looming and there’s no way of hiding it. Even if they did a Franken Pine or anything like that, which I don’t know if they even would, that’s creepy, and I think it’s lipstick on a pig type of thing. It’s not going to help, and the neighborhood is residential. It never should even be considered. There’s got to be another spot for it. Also, I don’t know about the health ramifications of the electromagnetic field, but a lot of people in my family have defibrillators and cardiac arrhythmias and all this kind of thing, never mind the other problems that they don’t really know about, health problems, but it concerns me also, and even if in the end there isn’t some kind of danger, they don’t know for sure. Who knows what they’ll find out in five years about all of these things, whether it’s cardiac or cancer or anything else, but you know a buyer is going to consider that, and even if it weren’t so, they’re going to have that fear, and I think it’s going to scare away potential home buyers significantly. I’m just trying to think if there’s anything else. The photo, I understand the photo makes it look far away, kind of like it’s behind, you know, the treetops or something, but first of all they’re going to take down, I saw all the trees that are marked. There’s tons of trees with orange paint on them. That whole area is going to be open, and like I said, I walked 18 steps and I was right in the middle of this huge open, what’s going to be an open area, and it’s going to look a lot closer than it does in a photo. You know the way that things look further away in a photo. I think that’s just basically all I wanted to say. It’s surprisingly close. That’s all I can tell you, from my house. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Somebody else. JIM DAHLHEIMER MR. DAHLHEIMER-I’m Jim Dahlheimer. I live at 12 Crownwood Lane. I’m also very much opposed to this whole idea, for many of the reasons that have been brought up. It seems absurd, in an area that is almost as densely single residence places, that we’d even consider some sort of a variance here. I lived at, a couple of streets over on 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) Moorwood, and one of the reasons that we decided to live there, and why we only moved a few blocks away, is simply because of that. It’s a nice, solid residential area, single families, and zoning is one of the few defenses we have for our property values. I mean, there’s all sorts of things, obviously, the housing has gone, you know, down the tubes in a lot of other ways, but one of the things that you’d like to be able to count on is that we’ve got zoning. We’ve got some protections against something like this monstrosity. I would be able to see it from my property, and like they say, geez, if it can’t go through needles now, I guess you do have to take down some more trees. This is going to just impact the whole thing, and it’s, I just can’t even see why it would even be proposed, and this other legal challenge here with the Fire Department maybe not even being able to enter into such an agreement, I think that’s got to definitely be pursued. How did that get missed? Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Somebody else? DARLENE KOSINSKI MS. KOSINSKI-My name is Darlene Kosinski, and I live at 150 Aviation Road, which is right across the street from the firehouse. I’m against the cell tower being placed in a residential neighborhood. It’s just plain wrong. First of all, the intent of the residential zoning is to protect residents against certain structures and buildings and maintain an appearance and feel of being residential without the intrusion of commercialism. Building a cell tower in a residential area disrupts the whole intent. The Town Zoning Code states that telecommunication towers are not allowed in an SFR-1A district, and there’s also rules about property setbacks and height requirements. Allowing a cell tower in our neighborhood would decrease and hurt our home values, be totally out of character and would look unsightly. The letter sent to everyone states the tower will be capable of supporting Verizon Wireless equipment, fire department equipment, and other users. Who are the other users? Does this mean that Nextel, Sprint, etc. will be able to connect to the tower down the road? And who’s benefitting from the tower? It’s certainly not the taxpayers because we’re losing the quality of our neighborhood, and again, the value of our homes. I agree with what was said earlier about maybe placing the tower up on West Mountain where TV 8 is putting their cell tower, or next to the water tank on West Mountain Road. These two locations would probably provide Verizon with better reception. As a taxpayer, I’m voicing my opinion that I’m against a cell tower in our neighborhood. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else? Mr. Strough. JOHN STROUGH MR. STROUGH-John Strough, Queensbury, West Mountain Road, near this area, and I have Verizon, and I’m further away from the cell tower as they mentioned at Exit 20 and Exit 19 and Exit 18. I get fine reception. Okay. Maybe they might argue that it’s spotty, but I don’t think it’s conclusive, and I don’t think they’ve investigated alternative areas. It doesn’t sound like they’ve investigated alternative areas at all. We’ve got the water tower. We’ve got a cell phone user on that now. They could co-locate there. They could even build a cell tower there. Glens Falls just put a new access road into the new dam. That’s on the side of West Mountain. Now, why don’t they use that new access road and put a cell tower up there? As a matter of fact it would probably provide a whole lot better coverage than where they’re proposing, and Glens Falls even might be able to use their services, maybe even co-locate security cameras and maybe even, you know, bring their electrical equipment up there so they can automatically operate the dam, or what have you, I mean, and TV 8 wants to put a tower up on the crest of West Mountain. They can co-locate on that. I mean, I don’t think they’ve investigated any of the alternative possibilities that they’re supposed to. I called Channel 8 and I said would you allow a cell phone company to co-locate, and they said by all means. Send them right to us. So, yes, you know, I don’t think it’s fair sending this to the Planning Board. I think it should be denied tonight. It’s quite obvious, and the propagation mapping, I was on the Planning Board for four years, and I know it can be played around with. There’s so many variables that are subjective. In any event, I did research, case law, etc., and I came across, you know, you can deny, for valid reasons, you can deny a cell phone location. For example, if they didn’t look at the alternatives, which they haven’t, but also, you know, if you drive around the country, and I’ve driven through 43 states, your cell towers are in Light Industrial. They’re in Commercial. They’re in open rural areas. They’re in open fields. One of the reasons why is the ice and the snow wind blow. You can’t have houses next to this. I’ve never seen a cell tower amid houses. I shouldn’t say houses. I say homes, because that’s what they are. In any event, let me get to my written commentary. This Town, this community, is allowed reasonable means in controlling a 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) freestanding communication towers and provide for the maximum protection of the health, safety and aesthetic sensibilities of the residents. Many cell towers have been denied based on aesthetics. They’re just not aesthetic where they’re being located. That’s a valid one. Health reasons they don’t allow. Home values, unless you can prove it, generally don’t allow, but aesthetics are allowed. That’s one of the reasons why they have trouble locating them up in the Adirondack Park, but you’re locating it here in a residential zone, amid houses that are, you know, just short distances away from this. I can’t believe that Queensbury Central wants to do this. My read of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 allows rules and rationales that imposes requirements necessary to protect public safety and welfare and safeguard the rights of consumers. Local residents can make compelling arguments that zoning rules limiting the placement of telecommunication facilities protect their economic and emotional welfare. Affected local residents do have rights and interests. It is further the purpose and intent of this community’s plans to minimize visual intrusions of such communication equipment and to protect residents from unsafe structures and equipment. Further, it is the Town’s intent to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents and to protect as much as possible the natural features and the aesthetic characteristics of our Town. While recognizing the increased need for communication towers, the intrusion of a large or a high structure of unusual shape or size, monolithically towering above standard appearing homes and structures can be aesthetically objectionable and disturbing to visual sensitivities. Bulk and visual impact of such installations create aesthetic problems making it appropriate to deny, if not within aforementioned standards. Is it five minutes already? MR. URRICO-It goes by fast. MR. STROUGH-I didn’t get through even half of this. Is it possible for me to come back later if other people? MR. GARRAND-Or you could submit copies. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, we’ve all got copies of it, and we will read it. As I said before, we’re not going to reach a decision here this evening. MR. STROUGH-I think it would be appropriate. I think you do have grounds to deny this Use Variance, and so I ask you and urge you that you do. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anybody else wishing to speak? In the back? BRIAN LA FLURE MR. LA FLURE-My name’s Brian LaFlure. I’m with the Queensbury Central Fire Department. I’ve listened intently to all the comments and the things that have been said tonight, and I would like to state the Fire Department’s status or stance on this scenario. A brief history. A while ago, I want to say now 18 months ago, an engineer from Tectonic Engineering was at our Station Two taking pictures, looking around. One of our gentlemen, one of our firefighters saw him, asked me to come up and meet with him. We talked with him, said they were looking for a location for a cell tower. Is it something we might be interested in? I said what are the advantages? He said, well, we might be able to do some things, obviously there’s an income stream from it, and also we could get your antennas up higher, which they need to be. Right now our communications is not the best there. I said, okay, well, we’ll talk about it. Went back to our organization. Went back and forth after many months, went through all the legal issues, our attorney, everybody reviewed the contracts, and I have a letter from the Town Supervisor, Mr. Stec, indicating that he’s aware of it and he’s in favor of, if this works, if the Fire Company wants to enter into an agreement, which we did. There is no secret. They’re willing to give us $900 a month if they can put their facility on our land. We tried really hard. We get beat up all the time. We’ve spent too much money. It costs too much to run the Fire Company. We thought we could bring some money back in, some revenue stream. We weren’t going to put it in our pockets. It would be part of our budget, and I’m sure Mr. Strough will concur that the Town Board would make sure that it was part of our budget, and we have no problem with that. We thought we were doing a good thing, for us personally. I deal with radios every day. That’s what I do for a living. I’m not concerned about the cell tower, and don’t get mad at me, Andy and everybody else. MR. DE ANGELO-Did you ask your neighbors? You didn’t tell us anything about it. MR. LA FLURE-This isn’t our project. Okay. 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) MR. DE ANGELO-It isn’t? MR. LA FLURE-This is Verizon’s project. MR. DE ANGELO-It’s your project, you’re the one that said okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m going to have to cut you off and let him finish his five minutes, please. MR. LA FLURE-I haven’t interrupted anybody else here tonight. Some people have taken some serious shots at the Fire Company, the dilapidated firehouse, we’re leaving in five years. I’m not sure where you’re getting this information. We’re not leaving. We’re not going anywhere. We don’t have the money, nor do we want to build a new firehouse. If it’s dilapidated, we’ll paint it, whatever you need us to do. I’ve offered, in the past, to meet with people and talk about the siren. You want to talk about the siren? Then let’s meet appropriately with Mr. Strough or whoever you want, I’ll be glad to meet with anybody and see if we can’t come up with a way to make it better for you, but to take the Fire Department’s, you know, take us down for this, this is not what this is all about. We were looking at a way to improve our communications and help with the funding stream. I’m not going to tell you whether it’s good or bad or whatever. I have the State Police building, which belongs to the Town of Queensbury, in my backyard, and they test their sirens on their cars every night at eleven o’clock, at shift change. So I have neighbors, too, that I have to deal with. So, I think, just from the Fire Department’s standpoint, please understand, we were trying to do something good, and I still think it could be a good project. I understand everybody’s comments, but I don’t think it’s appropriate to say we’re leaving, that it’s a dilapidated station, that we aren’t doing our job, because we are. So I would appreciate just the consideration of that. MR. DE ANGELO-You’re our neighbor. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m sorry. We don’t allow arguments during this. All right. You had your chance to speak. If you would like to come up afterwards, you can talk to him outside. Thank you. MR. DE ANGELO-I’ll talk to him outside. MR. LA FLURE-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else wishing to speak? Okay. Why don’t you guys come back up. MR. CUSACK-Just touching on a couple of the concerns that were brought up, and it’s obvious when we do these types of projects, it’s not unusual that not everyone agrees that it’s the best idea, and there are differing opinions. So I’m going to try to deal with the points that were raised, that raised legitimate zoning issues. The visual impact question that keeps recurring for the facility, I’ve been doing this for more than 15 years for Verizon Wireless and other carriers, and this is the least visible tower that I’ve had in it has to be a decade. The area, the zone of visibility, is .3 of a mile from the site, and, you know, we’re talking less than one percent of the two mile study area will have views of this facility, and that’s as documented by the engineering analysis that’s in the application package. That analysis does constitute substantial evidence, in our opinion, of a lack of visual impact. It doesn’t mean everyone’s going to be happy with where we’ve sited it, but I think that the visual impacts here are extremely small to moderate, as demonstrated by our evidence. With respect to alternative sites, Verizon Wireless, for two years, followed the process outlined in the Town of Queensbury zoning law, exactly and to the letter. We have evaluated sites in the exact order that is required under your Code. The analysis is set forth both in the radio frequency engineering report at Tab Seven, as well as the narrative that I’ve written. The alternative sites that were considered include the Ramada Inn flagpole tower, the SEMO tower that’s been brought up a couple of times, as well as the existing tower that’s at the Fire Department right now, and the reasons why those sites were rejected are set forth. Mr. Chairman, we have over one year of time in considering the SEMO facility. There are reasons SEMO does not want private carriers coming onto their property. These facilities tend to be a little bit sensitive. If there are things you can do to help with that, we would certainly appreciate it, but that alternative has been examined and ruled out for very, very legitimate reasons. They are running a State emergency office facility there and they want their facility to be secure and under their control. They do not want third parties coming in and out. In terms of the other alternatives that were mentioned, I am interested in, of course, following up on anything that you feel is something we may have 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) missed or overlooked. If I can use the Planning Department as the information source to get those alternatives, we’d be happy to look at those and make sure we didn’t miss something. That’s part of the exchange that has to go on when we’re doing this project, these types of projects. We’re not perfect, and we’ll certainly look at things if you see a better idea. As to the health effects, yes, these are a legitimate concern from the public. From a local perspective, they are absolutely preempted by Federal law, but having said that, Verizon Wireless, but having said that, Verizon Wireless did provide materials in its application package, two separate reports from a New York licensed professional engineer, documenting the lack of health and safety concerns from this facility, and the second report documenting that this facility will not interfere with emergency services or other broadcast operations. So we have tried our very best to anticipate some of these questions and provide answers for the public, in the event these types of concerns came up, and I direct everyone’s attention to them. As to the no service argument, there’s very little I can do to persuade people that from their perspective our service is fine, and therefore we should not want to build a new facility in their part of the community. The fact of the matter is that the service is not adequate, and if we allow it to continue to go along at the rate of usage that’s going now, the problems will be even greater over time. It is Verizon Wireless’s stance and practice to anticipate these needs and try to address them, not all at once, but in a reasonable fashion, so that you’re not trying to dig yourself out of a hole with a very, very, poor service condition. We have poor service here now. We know it’s at the point where it needs to be corrected. We do not think it is advisable or even prudent to wait for that service to be absolutely deplorable before we come to you, as a Board, in a rush trying to do the project. So our commitment, of course, is that we’ll work with this Board and the Planning Board, we know we’re getting sent there and there’s going to be some interagency back and forth on the SEQRA and the evaluation of these impacts, but please go away from here understanding we have two solid years into this. We have answers to most of the questions that are going to come up and that have come up tonight, and are happy to share that information, but do not believe for a second that we’re trying to hide anything, trying to pull anything off. We have tried to do this as close to by the book as we possibly can, given the fact that this entire area is zoned against our use. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Just a little bit I would like to add here. The thought crossed my mind, where we have vast expanses of the west side that don’t have any human habitation in them, i.e. that’s the watershed properties, you’ve got the Niagara Mohawk right of way that goes through there also, which does have access to it. I guess I should say National Grid now. Those are also alternative sites that, you know, in other words, if the Town really wants to iron out the issue of not placing these in residential neighborhoods as the Codebook now reads, and that’s essentially what you’re asking us for here, permission to build in an area that’s not allowable, I think that the Town’s maybe going to have to adapt a modification of their ideas as to where these things can be located. I mean, ideally they seem to be located in areas not adjacent to where residential dwellings are, as has been suggested here by the public. I see no reason why we cannot ask the Planning Board for a recommendation also in regards to, you know, that’s a possibility to go to the Town Board and ask for a modification of the of the current policy that only allows the location to be in Light Industrial sites and more commercial areas, you know, but does not allow, as has been mentioned for, in residential sites. Our Board is reasonable. We listen to what the public said. We take your comments purely to heart. We understand where you’re coming from. I don’t think that there’s anybody here sitting in front of you who doesn’t live in a residential neighborhood that would be pleased to have one of these proposed in their yard the same time. We’ve listened to what you’ve said here. We’re going to send this on to the Planning Board, and I would ask that the Planning Board be open minded also. In other words, their charge is to thoroughly investigate the effects in regards to the physical limitations of where you can put these things, and I think that the Town is going to have to eventually, in other words, if, as you’ve said, you’ve gone from a wide path of coverage and you’re narrowing down to finer and finer sites of coverage because of the number of users involved, and this is part of the problem. You’re always going to have blank spots, no matter how much you saturate an area, because you’ve got low spots, and I don’t think anyone ever expects that there’s going to be 100% coverage on Planet Earth, unless you go to satellite, geosynchronous satellite coverage, and that’s going to be really expensive for you to do. You’re not going to go there. MR. CUSACK-It doesn’t work. MR. UNDERWOOD-So I think that, in a way there’s been some valid points that have been raised here tonight. Our Town Code does not allow this, as has been proposed here. I think there’s still time, as you’ve said, you’re agreeable to looking at feasible alternatives, other co-location sites. The Town, it would be in the interest of the 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) community, even though you’ve put a lot of time and effort into this proposal, from your perspective, I think that it’s more important that we look at the whole Town, the whole west side, to see where we might locate sites that are basically palatable to the public that resides there. In other words, these things don’t need to be rammed down people’s throats if they don’t want them. The current Codebook limits you to co-location on towers that are already there, and you’ve got the three towers that you presented to us here. I, personally, have to say, if I were going to make a decision here this evening, I would have very strong reservations about what you’ve proposed, and I don’t want any commentary from the public, all right. I’m just closing up the meeting here. I think that we’re going to look at other alternatives on the west side besides what you’ve done here. I know you’ve put a lot of time and effort into this. We don’t have to be in a big hurry. We’ve existed this long without perfect coverage over on the west side, and if it means that it’s going to take another few months or a year or half a year to iron out where the best site for this might be, I think that we can be open-minded enough. We have a Community Development Department. We have a good Planning Board. We have a good Zoning Board, and I think that this can be worked out so it’s of benefit to everyone, that we work towards a goal of that. We’re not going to just decide, yes, this is great, go for it. So I think what we’re going to do here tonight, I’m going to close up the meeting. I’m going to leave the public. I can read the correspondence into the record, but I think what we’re going to do is, before I close out the meeting here, what my suggestion to the Board is going to be, do you have any suggestions, other than what I’ve made? Has anybody come up with anything else? MR. URRICO-The events, the calendar of events as they occur from here on. It goes to the Planning Board for SEQRA action. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. MR. URRICO-Then it comes back to us for a ruling on the Use Variance. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. MR. URRICO-And then if we don’t pass the Use Variance, it dies then? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. URRICO-And if we do, it goes back to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. URRICO-I just wanted to get that on the record. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Yes, that’s the way it works. Does anybody else on the Board have any commentary? Anything you can think of? MR. DRELLOS-Well, I’m just thinking of Queensbury Central. Maybe, Brian, maybe you should go back and just talk to your Board of Directors and see if this is the right thing to do, if you still want to go through with this. MR. LA FLURE-Like I said before, this is not our project. We were approached. MR. DRELLOS-Brian, it’s your land, though, that the project is going on, right? MR. LA FLURE-It’s an advantage to us, okay. MR. DRELLOS-All I’m saying is, why don’t you just go back to the Board of Directors and maybe see if this is exactly what you want to do, if you want to deal with all your neighbors. This is how you want to be is a good neighbor to them. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. What I’m going to do is finish reading Mr. Strough’s letter into the record, because he’s requested that, and we also have some other public commentary that needs to be read in. Do you want me to read some? MR. URRICO-There’s just two letters. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Go ahead. MR. URRICO-Just copies of them. Do you want to read them, or do you want me to read them? 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-I can read them, sure. “To the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals: RE: The Cellco Use Variance I do not think that allowing a cell tower to be constructed and operated in a firmly established residential neighborhood is in accord with our zoning’s intent. Allowing cell usage in this location would run contrary to past practice, a practice of restricting cell towers to commercial and/or open areas. Certainly not adjacent to a well developed residential area. Allowing a cell tower use here would set a precedent of significant concern. I agree wholeheartedly. Jim Gallagher, 15 Crownwood Lane” “To the Queensbury Zoning Board: The Use Variance requested by Verizon for a cell tower in our neighborhood, zone residential, should be denied. If we begin allowing cell towers in residentially zoned areas, look out. Your neighborhood could be next. Not by any reasonable standards could this proposal be considered a minimal intrusion. A 120 foot cell tower in a traditional, orderly and sedate residential area, is a substantial, unwarranted, undesirable, inappropriate, unsuitable, unacceptable, unbecoming, tasteless, inept, disagreeable, detrimental, harmful, and unnecessarily hostile intrusion into this pastoral place where our kids bike and play, our folks walk their dogs, our backyards are used to view the trees, and blue sky, and hold picnics with friends and relatives. Our teenagers pass by with Verizon cell phones glued to their ears because the coverage in this area is just fine. If the cell tower added to our neighborhood’s appeal, I would support it. However, it does just the opposite. Floyd Pickett 20 Mountainview Lane. Okay. I’m going to finish reading in Mr. Strough’s letter. Do you want me to start at the beginning again, or? MR. STROUGH-You don’t have to. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I think we were about halfway down the front page there. “It is a further the purpose and intent of this community’s plans to minimize visual intrusion of such communication equipment and to protect residents from unsafe structures and equipment. Further, it is this town’s intent to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the residents and to protect as much as possible the natural features and aesthetic characteristics of our town. While recognizing the increased need for communication towers, the intrusion of large or high structures of unusual shape or size, monolithically towering above standard-appearing homes and structures can be aesthetically objectionable and disturbing to visual sensitivities. Bulk and visual impact of such installations create aesthetic problems making it appropriate to deny if not within the aforementioned standards. The intent of this Board is to protect the Town’s interest by properly siting towers in a manner consistent with sound land use planning while also allowing wireless services providers to meet their technological and service objectives. The construction and installation of communication devices, such as cell towers, must be regulated so as to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens to the maximum degree possible and to coordinate and control the same so as to preserve and protect the aesthetic qualities of the Town and its environs. Among other things, reasonable controls contribute to the good appearance of the town, stabilize property values, assure the safety of the owners and others, and, in general, contribute to the preservation of a pleasant community within which to work and live. Indeed, a Zoning Board of Appeals may impose conditions, or even deny, to protect the best interests of the surrounding property, the neighborhood or the Town as a whole. The visual impact of this proposed cell tower is substantial; the visual impact is contrary to the rural nature of this area, the visual impact is not in keeping with the rural nature of the area. The visual impact is contrary to the character of this residential neighborhood, the visual impact is not in keeping with the residential nature of this area. Therefore, in terms of visual impact, a cell tower is so out of character, that this proposal would have a significant unsatisfactory visual impact, an intrusion that could not possibly be characterized as minimal; even the use of ordinary standards would dictate that this proposal offers a visual impact that would offend even the most shallow assessment of appropriate aesthetics. I do not think that allowing a cell tower to be constructed and operated in a firmly established residential neighborhood is in accord with our zoning’s intent – allowing cell tower usage in this location would run contrary to past practice; a practice of restricting cell towers to commercial and/or open areas, certainly not adjacent to a well-developed residential area. Allowing a cell tower use here would set a precedent of significant concern. So, please deny this proposal. The argument to deny this variance is unambiguous and compelling. I do not believe that even Cellco will make the argument that this proposal enhances the beauty of this residential area or is generally considered to be a compatible land use. Given the character of the rural and residential environment, a cell tower is clearly out of character here, clearly an intrusion here, clearly a visual disturbance, clearly incompatible with the district and clearly a distasteful visual impact. Aesthetic considerations are your rational basis for denial, a rational basis that is substantive and compelling. And lastly, let us be mindful here, that by this denial we are not prohibiting the cell phone service provider from locating in the numerous nearby 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) sites. Indeed, sites which are more likely to be compatible than this proposed location, which places a cell tower in a well-established residential area. In addition, it is very possible that these alternative sites offer more effective strategies to accomplish the elimination of service gaps in that area and improve the transmission and reception of existing service that Cellco seeks. It appears that while Cellco has argued that it has a public necessity, it has not made a good faith effort to co-locate on existing towers or other available and appropriate structures and/or to construct new towers near existing towers in an effort to consolidate visual disturbances, as that is its burden. This site is not necessary to Cellco to enable the company to render safe and adequate service because feasible alternatives do exist. In addition to failing to demonstrate their due diligence in their search for appropriate sites, they have also failed to fulfill their burden to show public necessity. Cellco Partnership v. Bellows, RJI No. 55-97-00218 (Sup. Ct. Ulster Co. April 9, 1998, Bradley, J.) This location does not have a negligible impact on the surrounding neighborhood, in aesthetic terms it would have a profound impact on this neighborhood. Cellular Telephone Co. v. Rosenburg, 82 N.Y.2d 364, 604 N.Y.S.2d 895 (1993) (permit should have been issued where tower “would have a negligible impact on the surrounding neighborhood,” and “Cellular One established that the erection of the cell site would enable it to remedy gaps in its service area that currently prevent it from providing adequate service to its customers” in certain area). Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 1998 WL 84602, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2143 (W.D.N.Y.Feb. 19, 1998) (Sprint failed to meet burden to show that one 250-foot tower was adequate alternative to three 150-foot towers). Genesee Telephone Co. v. Szmigel, 174 Misc. 2d 567, 667 N.Y.S.2d 588 (Sup. Ct. Monroe Co. 1996, Calvaruso, J.) (denial of a variance for a cellular tower upheld where no particulars provided regarding “capacity and coverage weaknesses” and no “helpful information about other sites for the tower”).” All right. So just amongst the Board, let’s just see where the Board’s at. What would you like to do? Do you want to vote on this? Do you want to send this to the Planning Board? What’s your pleasure? MR. GARRAND-The Planning Board, SEQRA. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. How about you? MR. DRELLOS-Vote. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. How about you, Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-Planning Board, SEQRA. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m ready to vote. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce, are you ready to vote? MRS. HUNT-Me, too. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess I’m ready to vote then, too. Why not? And I think here’s what we’re going to do here. I’m going to make the resolution, and I’m going to read it as follows. The applicant, Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless is the applicant on this project for Use Variance No. 61-2008. The owner is Queensbury Central Volunteer Fire Department Company, and their agent is Michael Cusack of Young, Summer, LLC. Again, the project location is 145 Aviation Road It’s a Single Family Residential One Acre zone. This is an Unlisted action. Have we got to do the Unlisted before we do this? MR. OBORNE-What you need to do is to not acknowledge the Planning Board’s seeking of Lead Agency Status, and what you’re going to need to do is to do your own SEQRA status. You make your determination, and then you’d go ahead and you make your resolution for approval or denial. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. I’m going to go through why, then, I think that this should not go, we’re not seeking SEQRA status. We’re going to do the SEQRA status here ourselves this evening. Have you got a copy of the environmental form? MR. OBORNE-It should be with the application. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. We’re going to use the Short Form. I think there’s one thing that we need to discuss before we do this, and that’s this. These guys put forth this application based upon what the standards are in the Town, and that is the standards in 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) the Town say they are limited as to where they can place these things. They’ve identified three sites in the area where they were proposing this, that is the SEMO, the flagpole over at the Ramada, as well as Queensbury Central’s replacement with this project, as has been proposed here, and that’s with a, the applicant is proposing to erect a 142 foot monopole tower, capable of supporting Verizon Wireless equipment. Further the applicant proposes to build an associated 360 square foot equipment shelter. As far as the Use Variance that they’re requesting here, currently our Code does not allow for co-location of, or any use within a Single Family Residential One Acre zone. The site as proposed here is in the Single Family Residential One Acre zone, although it’s attached to the firehouse. MR. OBORNE-It’s still zoned. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s still zoned SFR-1A, and so relief is requested from the requirement that telecommunications towers are not allowable in the Single Family Residential One Acre zone. All right. What we’re going to do is recognize two things here. Number One, the applicant has acted in good faith based upon the regulations as they exist, all right. They spent significant time and study to ascertain where this tower might go, and they came up with three possibilities. Unfortunately the one that they decided they wanted to go forward is located in a Single Family Residential One Acre zone, and after listening to the arguments, both for and against this project, then, we’re going to say the following. The precise location is Queensbury Central Volunteer Fire Department at 145 Aviation Road, Town of Queensbury. Is the proposed action new? I would say yes. Does everybody want to answer yes to that? MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Describe the project briefly. The applicant is proposing replacement of a 50 foot monopole tower with a 120 foot monopole tower, capable of supporting Verizon Wireless equipment, Fire Department equipment, as well as other users, and further the applicant is proposing a 360 square foot support building and relief is requested from the requirement that telecommunications towers are not allowable in the Single Family Residential One Acre zone. The amount of land area disturbed here is, we’re really unsure because, I mean, that area has been marked. The trees that were to be cut down for this project have been marked, and it’s, I don’t know approximately the size. Would that be the 360 square foot building plus the area of erection for the tower, right? MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t know how far out from the side that would be. Okay. Will the action comply with the existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? I would say no, it will not. It’s a Single Family Residential area and it’s not a permitted use. What is the present use in the vicinity of the project? It’s Single Family Residential One Acre zoning, and it’s, I would say it’s represented as much more than one acre zoning there. The intensity of use is probably more SFR-20, I would think, if you went down in that area, right, as far as density of housing? What’s the average size lot, half an acre? MR. OBORNE-Yes. It’s a half an acre up to an acre. Many houses are even larger than that, in acreage. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. OBORNE-There’s one thing I do want to point out to the Chairman, is as you’re going down this list, you need to mark down what you’re doing, because you’re going to have to sign it at the end of the proceedings here. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Got that. Does the action involve a permit approval or funding now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal, State, or Local)? MRS. HUNT-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-No. MR. OBORNE-Well, it requires permitting for the licensing for broadcasting or for a cell tower. 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-So I guess we can say yes to that. MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Would that be FCC? MR. CUSACK-We have the license. This doesn’t require any new permits. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then we’ll say no. Does any aspect of the action have a currently valid permit or approval? I would say no. As a result of the proposed action, will the existing permit/approval require modification? It would require modification, right? They would have to obtain a variance. MR. OBORNE-They would have to obtain two variances. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. They would have to obtain two variances. Okay. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” MR. OBORNE-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” Or may be superseded by another involved agency. No. MR. GARRAND-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” No. MRS. HUNT-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” Yes. C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” MR. CLEMENTS-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-No. C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” I would say yes. “C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” I would have to say yes because they’re going to add other users on there, right? MR. OBORNE-Right, but the Board needs to be unanimous in these replies. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Let’s go back again, and go through, Board. “C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR. DRELLOS-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Okay. “C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” MR. DRELLOS-No. MRS. HUNT-No. MR. GARRAND-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” 48 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR. DRELLOS-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. “C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” I would say yes. MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR. DRELLOS-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m going to add other users. “C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?” I would say yes. MR. DRELLOS-Yes. MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?” Yes, more radio waves, right? MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. MR. DRELLOS-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?” No. MR. CLEMENTS-No. MR. GARRAND-No. MRS. HUNT-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” I would say yes. MR. DRELLOS-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial, large, important or otherwise significant. Okay, and each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (i.e. urban or rural), all right. So let’s go back up to the aesthetic. Yes. All right. It’s a Single Family Residential One Acre zone. It’s heavily, I’m going to say heavily built up area, right? MR. CLEMENTS-Populated. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s a heavily built up residential area. MR. GARRAND-And that would be substantial. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. That’s substantial. Okay, a community’s existing plans. All right. Cell towers are only allowed. MR. GARRAND-It’s substantial given the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. MR. UNDERWOOD-In certain zones, and this one does not qualify, and that’s substantial. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action. Other cell providers will also co-locate here, and it sets a precedent for other residential neighborhoods to incur the same projects. Long term, short term, cumulative or other affects not identified? I think we’re just going to leave that one open and just say, there will be permanent changes incurred by this neighborhood. Other impacts including change in use of either quantity or type of 49 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) energy. Do we have an argument on the electromagnetic end of it or not? I guess we can note it. How can they deny it? MR. OBORNE-Well, I’m not an engineer. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m not an engineer either. I would say significant change. MR. GARRAND-Unknown value of vmr. MR. UNDERWOOD-And unknown value of electromagnetic radiation, right? All right. Okay. Anything else we’ve got to do here? MR. CUSACK-I have a question, if it’s all right. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. CUSACK-Two observations. I appreciate the tenor of how things are going, but procedurally, earlier in the meeting, when we were making our presentation, you did say to me that you were cutting off our presentation so we could get some feedback from the public, which I agreed to do, and the basis for that was, as stated, was that this was going to be referred to the Planning Board, consistent with the Staff’s recommendation, and the SEQRA process. So as of right now, I feel that Verizon Wireless has not had an opportunity to be heard on this application, and we’re being diverted simply because of strident community opposition, and I’d ask you to reconsider and stick to the path recommended by Staff. Secondarily, we have submitted a tremendous amount of substantial evidence in the written record for why this facility is appropriate, and while I understand and sympathize with the people who are against it because it’s in their backyard, the evidence of impacts are just not there. You’re putting us in a very bad position, all of us. It forces Verizon Wireless to go to court and basically say we went to the meeting and got railroaded into a denial. The impacts were identified but they were not fully evaluated by the Board, and in fact if the court were to look at this evidence, the only substantial evidence in the record is the evidence that we have submitted. I’m asking this as politely as I can to please reconsider this path. We were on the right path. If there are alternatives that the Town is going to consider with its legislation and what not, then time is the solution. Denial is going to put us in court, and I mean that as politely and respectfully as I can possibly say it. MR. UNDERWOOD-What’s the Board want to do? MR. DRELLOS-Keep going. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Let’s do this, all right. We’ve gone through the Environmental Assessment Form here, and does the Board accept, do we have to make a resolution accepting this form as we’ve filled it out? Or are we just filling out the form? MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. We’re just filling out the form. Okay. Here’s what we’re going to do, then. MR. CLEMENTS-Mr. Chairman, just maybe a comment here. Mr. Urrico went through the process if it went to the Planning Board, it was going to come back to us anyway. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. MR. CLEMENTS-I just wanted to mention that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Does somebody want to make a resolution, one way or the other, either approving this or disapproving it? Do you want me to do it? What do you guys want to do? Do you want to go to the Planning Board? MR. DRELLOS-No, vote on it. MR. UNDERWOOD-What do you think? Just vote and see what happens? 50 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) MR. DRELLOS-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Okay. I’m going to make a resolution, then. I’ll make the resolution, all right. I’ll make a resolution that we approve the request from Cellco Partnership, Verizon. This is Use Variance No. 61-2008. The owner is the property is Queensbury Central Volunteer Fire Department. Their agent is Michael Cusack of Young, Summer, LLC, and. MR. CLEMENTS-Did you want to poll us at all? MR. UNDERWOOD-I thought we were past that point. I thought we were proceeding? Do you want to do that first? MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. No, go ahead. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Let’s poll, then. Let’s go back to the Board. Okay. Brian, what do you want to do? MR. CLEMENTS-I just have a couple of things I wanted to say. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. CLEMENTS-One is that I believe that, in general, cell coverage should be expanded. I know that they have problems in the Adirondack Park and those kinds of things. However, I agree with Mr. Salvador about doing this at a fire company and zoning does not permit it. So I would be against this variance. Besides it doesn’t, there’s no balancing effect here. They have to demonstrate that for each and every permitted use there would be a problem there, and I don’t think that there would be. So I’d be against this. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. George? MR. DRELLOS-I would not be in favor of this project in this zone. MR. UNDERWOOD-For what reason, then? MR. DRELLOS-I think there are better locations. I don’t think they’ve really looked into other locations as much as they say they have. I think they could further investigate it. Even if it takes another year or two, what’s the difference? You say you have time, well, what’s another year? MR. CUSACK-To do the referral we have time, yes, and we haven’t had a chance to explain our site selection. We’ve been cut off, clearly. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich? MR. GARRAND-My feelings are basically table it pending recommendations from the Planning Board. MR. URRICO-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-I would vote no tonight, and the reason I would vote no tonight is because I have not seen adequate demonstration that this, that there’s an unsafe and inadequate service in this area that would require us to consider putting a cell tower in an area not zoned for cell towers. That would be my primary concern. I’ve seen the compelling reasons. I think they’re legitimate, but I think there’s also a possibility of an intrusion or burden on the community, although it might be minimal. I think there’s that possibility, but the main consideration is I don’t believe that there’s a public necessity that requires, that unsafe and inadequate service be supplemented with this tower. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I would like to see it tabled and sent to the Planning Board, because we did promise the applicant that that was what we were going to do, and I don’t think he’s had a chance to give his case, and I don’t want, we’d end up in court. MR. DRELLOS-It wouldn’t be the first time. 51 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I think at the beginning of the meeting I had implied that we were going to send this to the Planning Board for their analysis, and somewhere along the way we’ve sort of changed tact here, and as far as due process here, I think that the applicant has acted in good faith as far as presenting the project to us. I think that the applicant realizes that there’s been significant questions raised about whether or not, you know, even though he was working within the current parameters of the Code as it exists, that he was probably correct in their assumption in pursuing this project, that the Board, I think that the question has been raised in Board member’s minds as to whether or not other sites might be more appropriate over on the west side of the Northway, over on the west side, and I believe that at this point in time it would make no sense at all for us to just throw this thing out, and, you know, have it overturned in court as a result of that. I think that, you know, we could send this to the Planning Board with our specific recommendations that our Board has significant questions about whether this is the only site that’s available on the west side, you know, and it’s appropriateness in a residential zone. If I were going to vote tonight on this, I don’t think there’s any doubt that I would probably say that it’s inappropriate as presented. Whether you were allowed to fully apprise us of all your arguments, you know, to make your case, you’ve raised that point with us, and I’ll acknowledge that point, too. So I think what I’m going to do is, my recommendation is going to be to stick with what we originally thought, and that was send it to the Planning Board. I know the people in the public would rather see this dealt with tonight, but if you want to get an outcome that works for everybody, and that’s what we should be working towards here, it’s better to deal with it through the process and allow the process to work. I don’t think the Planning Board’s going to take this lightly. I think the Planning Board will severely run this one through the ringer, and the legal argument that if you need cell phone use, you can put a cell tower up, doesn’t really fly with me. The Planning Board’s going to make a recommendation to this Board. It’s going to come back to this Board, and at that point in time, we can vote as to what we want here, and I think that probably what we should do is make the Planning Board Lead Agency tonight and let them run through the SEQRA process, and as far as the public, all your comments, you’re going to make them to the Planning Board, exactly what you said here tonight. You can go there and you’ll have that, that’s your right and that’s your time to do it, and the Planning Board is the ultimate authority here. It’s not an easy process. We’re not perfect human beings. Nobody’s got it exactly correctly right. MR. URRICO-Jim, they’re the ultimate authority regarding the SEQRA process. The authority for whether there could be a Use Variance or not still rests with this Board. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. The Use Variance rests with this Board, and based upon what the Planning Board says, the remaining points that have been raised here tonight, I mean, that’s going to come back to this Board and we’re going to make the decision, you know, based upon whatever their thought process is, but it’s our decision. It’s nothing to do with what they decide. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Could I ask a question? MR. UNDERWOOD-No, we can’t have any interruptions. No questions. AUDIENCE MEMBER-You represent us, though, don’t you? Don’t you represent the Town and the people in the Town? MR. UNDERWOOD-We represent the people in the Town, and that’s why you have a Zoning Board because we’re supposed to uphold the Zoning Code, but in other words, if we’re split as to what we’re thinking should happen here, there’s no reason not to have a more thorough analysis than what we’ve done here tonight. Okay. AUDIENCE MEMBER-The only time it split was when he mentioned the lawyer. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, that’s fine. I don’t want to get into a knock down drag out fight with one side versus, you know, the Hatfields and the McCoys. In other words, everybody understands where the public is coming from as far as the residential neighborhood. So my recommendation is going to be to send it to, do you guys want to send it to the Planning Board, then? MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I’ll make a recommendation. MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO MAKE THE PLANNING BOARD LEGAD AGENCY FOR USE VARIANCE NO. 61-2008 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON 52 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) WIRELESS, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: 145 Aviation Road. That we refer this to the Planning Board for their SEQRA analysis of this project and that will include an analysis that looks at all other alternatives on the west side, that is the water shed property, up at the dam at the water shed, over on, co- locating over on the water tower, somewhere over in Queensbury Forest, a significant distance from any type of dwellings. Our Code does not allow that right now, but that’s something that I would consider as a Zoning Board member, and that the Town Board could make a decision regarding that also. th Duly adopted this 17 day of September, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Drellos ABSENT: Mrs. Jenkin MR. CUSACK-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Two things we’re going to do here in regards to that last one. We’re going to table both. MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE NO. 61-2008 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: 145 Aviation Road. Tabled until we hear back from the Planning Board in regards to the SEQRA review of that proposed project. th Duly adopted this 17 day of September, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Jenkin MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2008 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: 145 Aviation Road. Tabled until we hear back from the Planning Board in regards to the SEQRA review of that proposed project. th Duly adopted this 17 day of September, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Jenkin MR. UNDERWOOD-And we will table that until we hear back from the Planning Board in regards to the SEQRA review of that proposed project. AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-2008 SEQRA TYPE: I – PREVIOUS EIS THE PYRAMID CO. OF GLENS FALLS, NEWCO, LLC AGENT(S): CHAZEN CO.; BPSR OWNER(S): PYRAMID CO. OF GLENS FALLS ZONING: ESC-25A LOCATION: AVIATION MALL & OUT-PARCELS APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN 11,500 SQ. FT. MIXED USE BUILDING, A 5,000 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT AND 6,500 SQ. FT. OF RETAIL SPACE. THIS PROJECT IS PART OF A LARGER PROJECT PROPOSED FOR AVIATION MALL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: SPR 40-08 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 9/10/08 LOT SIZE: 52.05 ACRES TAX MAP NO.: 302.5-97; 302.5-1-96.1; 302.5-1- 96.2; 302.5-1-93.1; 302.5-1-93.2; 302.5-1-92.4; 302.5-1-92.11 SECTION: 179-4-030 JON LAPPER & BOB ORLANDO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 53 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-And the outbuildings are specifically the ones further up the hill, the old Howard Johnsons complex, and also adjacent to the Friendly’s ice cream place on the main entrance. I think what I’ll do is I’ll read that letter in. All right. This is a letter that was jointly sent from Mr. Lapper to both the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals. “Dear Chairman: On behalf of Pyramid Mall of Glens Falls Newco, LLC we are hereby submitting an application for the development of the area on the northwest corner of the site which was formerly occupied by the Howard Johnsons motel and restaurant complex as well as an expansion of the existing Mall theater. The total additional square footage is 135,955 and includes a restaurant along Aviation Road, three new stores which will be located on the bottom of the existing hill facing JC Penney with one store on the top of that structure facing the back of the restaurant, a mixed use building which will include two restaurants located adjacent to the existing Getty gas station and west of the entrance drive near Friendly’s as well as expansion of the theater. Once the project receives Town approval and leases are signed, the existing restaurant and hotel will be demolished. The project also includes an interior roadway connection to the new development at the top of the hill to the existing ring road. This enables the site to be designed with a right in and right out access at the location of the new restaurant with left turns out available by the existing traffic signal by the Friendly’s restaurant. The entire development project encompasses significantly less square footage than was previously approved by the Town under the environmental impact statement. Initially, I should raise the issue of the prior SEQR review. It is our belief that this project falls within the thresholds of that review. We are enclosing a separate SEQR analysis which establishes that this project is smaller than the approved project. We are also enclosing a copy of the SEQR Findings Statement. Moreover, the most significant potential impact of the prior approved development which required mitigation was for traffic impact. Subsequent to that approval, the State and County have completed the improvements of the Aviation Road Route 9 intersection to provide double left turns. The benefit of that project should be one area of discussion with the Planning Board. The entire project is compliant with the Town Zoning Code with the exception of one minor area variance. The side setback requirement for buildings is 30 feet in the enclosed shopping center’s zone. At one point, at the south east corner of the existing Getty gas station, is proposed to be 10 feet. However, the setback is only 10 feet at that corner point and increases proportionally from there, therefore we feel the request is not substantial. This variance is necessary in part because the rear wall of the small retail building to be constructed at that location will act as a retaining wall to address the grade change. Moreover, the portion of the Getty station where the variance is requested, is an area which has existing trees and no improvements, therefore, it does not impact the use or enjoyment of the Getty station in any manner. We are seeking a waiver from the Planning Board for lighting. As you may recall, the Planning Board previously allowed the pole mounted lights in front of Target to match the height of the lights throughout the center. It was determined that the site would not make sense visually if the pole height changed to 20 feet. We are proposing that the few poles which will be added in the area north west of the JC Penney’s parking lot should use poles taller than 20 feet but will give off the same foot candles as existing. However, the new parking lot at the top of the hill has been designed with 20 foot poles. Additionally, the new parking lot in front of the small mixed use retail/restaurant building across from the Friendly’s restaurant entrance will also utilize the smaller poles. Currently, the northwest property which is being redeveloped encompasses four separate tax map parcels. These parcels will be consolidated for the purposes of this development project. One additional waiver issue is access management. The project does not include a driveway connection between the Sunoco gas station and the new restaurant site. The new restaurant site has been designed with only a right in and right out curb cut because it was previously determined that left turns in and out of the site would be difficult due to traffic patterns near the Northway entrance and exit ramps. Allowing a connection between the restaurant and the gas station parcel would enable cars to use the gas station curb cut for left turns which would be detrimental. As you can see, the site has been designed to reuse and redevelop the existing acreage in a manner which does not exceed the thresholds of the prior SEQR review but which will provide a well landscaped and well designed retail and restaurant center which will benefit the Town visually and economically at this important gateway location. Please place this project on both the Zoning Board and Planning Board 54 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) agendas for September. I look forward to presenting this project to the Boards. Very truly yours, BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES, P.C. Jonathan Lapper, Esq.” The only concerns I would have are this, you know, in reading your letter, you have one line in there that says once the project receives Town approval and leases are signed, the existing restaurant and hotel will be demolished. The last time we went through the whole process, I think it was everybody’s hope that something would have happened up on the northwest corner there, and I know things don’t always work out the way everyone hopes they do, but at this point in time, I think we’re in a situation where, you know, the Town has accommodated, for whatever reason, the need to keep those buildings up there on the hill by the off ramp of the Northway coming from the south there, and I think it would be of great value to everyone, as an act of good faith, that if the project does not end up having all aspects of it occur, I don’t want to see that used as some lame excuse not to take those buildings down. MR. LAPPER-That’s an important point. We can jump there first. We’ve got a really good answer. The first thing that’s going to happen, the first building that goes up, both of those buildings are going to come down before anything gets constructed, and we’ll agree to that as a condition. MR. UNDERWOOD-And everybody just assumes that’s the case, but just to make sure, you know, as long as that’s on the record, I think our Board would be amenable to that, too. MR. LAPPER-And we will agree to that as a condition, absolutely. We understand the whole history, and we really wanted to start out that way, too, to just bring everybody up to speed for some of the newer members. I know everyone’s been here and knows what happened. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but, I mean, I just don’t want to get in a situation where with, you know, knowing the financial situation is deteriorating rapidly before our eyes as each day passes here, and it would seem a shame to undertake this and not have that finally come to fruition. MR. LAPPER-We’re not going to have Leman Brothers as a tenant, that’s for sure. MR. LAPPER-All right. Roy, then, why don’t you read in Staff Notes. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 63-2008, The Pyramid Co. of Glens Falls, NEWCO, LLC, Meeting Date: September 17, 2008 “Project Location: Aviation Mall & out-parcels Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of an 11,500 square foot mixed use building to include retail and restaurant space. This building is part of a larger project proposed for Aviation Mall and associated out-parcels. Relief Required: The applicant requests 21 feet of relief from the 30 foot setback requirement per 179-4- 030. The relief is required at the rear of the proposed building and is adjacent to the property line that is northwest of the project. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The immediate area is commercial by nature and as such minor changes to nearby properties are anticipated as a result of this proposal. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant could build in a more compliant location or reduce the size of the project. However, an area variance will be required for the application submitted. 55 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 21 feet or 70 percent of relief per 179-4-030 may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Undeveloped land Staff comments: Consideration may be given to requesting a recommendation from the Planning Board relative to this requested variance as well as the overall compatibility and consistency of this project with the original SEQR findings of 9/4/01. The back part of the property to be built will be adjacent to a Getty Gas Station, which fronts on Aviation Road. The distance from the rear of the proposed structure and the closest corner of the existing gas station is 91 feet. The slopes in the area are moderate to severe and consist of Hinckley cobbly sandy loam (HnB). SEQR Status: Type II-Previous Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)” “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form September 10, 2008 Project Name: The Pyramid Co. of Glens Falls, NEWCO, LLC Owner(s): Pyramid Co. of Glens Falls, ID Number: QBY-08-AV-63 County Project#: Sept08-27 Current Zoning: ESC-25A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant is proposing construction of an 11,500 sq. ft. mixed use building, a 5,000 sq. ft. restaurant and 6,500 sq. ft. of retail space. Relief requested from side setback requirements. Site Location: Aviation Mall & out-parcels Tax Map Number(s): 302.5-1-97 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant is proposing construction of an 11,500 sq. ft. mixed use building, a 5,000 sq. ft. restaurant and a 6,500 sq. ft. of retail space. Relief requested from side setback requirements. The proposed building is located 10 ft. from the Getty Station property line where a 30 ft. setback is required. The information submitted shows the location of the building and associated site improvements. The plans show the rear of the building that is facing the rear of the Getty building and lot. Staff recommends discussion to address the site development as the project activity is associated with the mall project. This is based on the information submitted and according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law Section 239 L applied to the proposed project. Warren County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact The Warren County Planning Board recommends No County Impact.” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board, 9/12/08. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Have at it. MR. LAPPER-Given the hour, we’ll give you the short version and see where we go. Jon Lapper, project attorney, with Bob Orlando, the General Manager of the Aviation Mall, and Pete Romano, project engineer, from Chazen Companies. The short story of the history of how we got here was that there was a very ambitious project previously that we went through a Full Environmental Impact Statement with the Town Board as Lead Agency, which provided for construction of up to 850,000 square foot addition, which is, you know, doubling the size of the Mall, and for a whole bunch of reasons, it sort of didn’t get done under its own weight. It was really just a very ambitious project, but what we have, well, since that time, we came in with a Target project, which was 125,000 square feet. It was a very positive addition to the Mall and attracted a number of really good tenants that wanted to be near Target. So things have been moving in the direction. We’re really pleased to be here to finally get this aspect of it done, and Bob feels very good about the proposal now. It’s good for the site. It’s good for the Mall. It’s good for 56 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) the Town. We know that it’s been an eyesore and a sore point that those two buildings have stayed, so as I’ve said, as a condition, the first thing that happens, when the first shovel goes in the ground it’s going to be to remove both of those buildings, the restaurant and hotel. We expect that the restaurant, the 6500 square foot restaurant, will probably be the first thing that goes in the ground for this project, and we think that, while we can’t announce the tenant yet, we think that everyone will be, it’s a good, positive restaurant. People are going to want that in Town. So some of the aspects of this project that were important, in terms of the design, we’re connecting this to the regular Mall, the restaurant parcel to the Mall. So that cars aren’t traveling on Aviation Road, so that they stay on the Mall property, the access management issue. We tried to do it right, and the big retail building is built into the hill, so that it faces JC Penney, not that visible from off site, not that it’s such an issue, but it’s just a way, this whole project is sort of to control the grade change. So that building, which will have three stores on the bottom and one store on the top, is a way to manage that grade change, that hill, to sort of utilize that to tuck the building underneath the hill, and the reason that we’re here is really to do the same thing along Aviation Road. The building that, I think it was described two ways in the notes, but it’s 11,500 square foot in total, anticipating two restaurants and two retail spaces, and the way it’s designed is that it’s set into that hill under the Getty station, because the back of the building will act as a retaining wall as well to deal with that grade change. Because we’ve got the hill there and we’ve got the entrance drive coming in by Friendly’s, if we had done something different where we moved it away from the property line, then you’d have to have the front doors facing the hill, and you’d be looking at the back doors of that retail when you drive in, and it just didn’t work. So this was a way to make it make sense, and the only thing I disagree with on the Staff Notes is whether the requested variance is substantial, and our point is that it’s at 10 feet, the closest point is 10 feet from the property line, and that’s just at that one point because it’s at that triangular corner. So it’s only 10 feet for that one point, and most of the building is conforming, and it was very helpful that Staff pointed out that we’re 91 feet from our building to the Getty station. It’s at the back of the Getty station, and that whole area is covered with trees. So there’s really just no impact, and it’s just a nice way to deal with the grade. So that’s why we’re before this Board, and obviously, you know, the site issues will be the Planning Board going through the Site Plan, and the SEQRA aspect is just that, since we went through the whole Environmental Impact Statement for a much larger expansion than what’s contemplated now, this all adds up to 136,000 square feet. After you add that to the Target, 125,000 square feet, and the, what was it, 10,000 that we did for Dick’s Sporting Goods? Approximately, 5,000, this is nowhere near the thresholds of what we had gone through the Full Environmental Impact Statement. We’ve been contributing, every time Pyramid adds on, they’ve been contributing to a traffic mitigation fund to the Town, because that was part of the Findings for the Environmental Impact Statement. So that’s been in effect this whole time, and we’ve been complying with that. It’s just a different result, that we’re just building less Mall, but it’ll get rid of those buildings and it’ll finish the project. So let me turn it over to Bob to just walk you through to describe everything, show you everything we described in the application. MR. ORLANDO-Thanks, Jon. Good evening, everybody. I’ll try and be brief. I know it’s late. I did want to take a minute and just walk you through the plan, even though we’re really only talking about this point right here as the variance. I just want to spend a couple of minutes and kind of take you through piece by piece. This is a 6400 square foot restaurant of a national nature that would be on top of the hill. The 87 Northway is here and the ramp, and this is Aviation Road, the Sunoco and the Getty station. This would be the connector to the existing outer ring road that folks use to traverse the site, away from the building, if you will. This is the right in, right out, as we discussed, or as Jon discussed earlier, and then this piece here is, today, you know, has grade issues and there are some trees in here, but this is the 11,500 square foot building, and the associated parking. Once again, we’re thinking mixed use there, retail and restaurant, and exactly how that’s going to turn out, we’re not 100% sure, but if we had our way, and we were able to get signed leases in that configuration, that’s the way we would go with that, and then this building here would be what we call junior anchor stores. They’d be, size wise, anywhere from 15,000 to 20,000 square feet. Some examples of those junior anchor stores might be stores like Best Buy or Bed, Bath, and Beyond, Petco, you know, those types of folks, and it would be, at least in this point, what we’re thinking and hoping, is three different retailers that are on the same grade as the existing center, and so the Mall would be cut back. This additional parking would be added here, and then these three stores would be facing, really the corner of JC Penney’s, and then on a second level, above those, because this piece here will be at grade or very close to right at grade, with this upper development, an additional junior anchor store facing out towards the restaurant as Jon mentioned, and then over here, the Regal Cinema, that existing cinema has been around for a while. The new idea in that industry is stadium 57 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) seating. So those who are building new theaters are all putting in the stadium seating, and we’re working with Regal, at all of our properties, to try to upgrade the theaters to that, and this property is included as well. So what we’ve talked about and contemplated here is actually expanding it within the Mall, and then also expanding outside of the Mall envelope 25,000 square feet, and the impact back there to this side of the Mall is pretty minimal, the ring road, inner ring road, as we call it, will be just affected slightly as you traverse the site. Quite frankly, that’s something that is probably a little bit further out in this development, as opposed to what we’re looking at doing over here. MR. UNDERWOOD-Last time you were in before us, I think, was with Target, and, you know, we got into that issue of owning their own plots and all that. Are we going to be having to deal with this, you know, like down the road or are you going to maintain control? Are they going to be leasing these? MR. ORLANDO-Yes. Here’s the good news. To do that Target deal, we needed to sell them that parcel. That’s the only way that would work for everybody. We don’t need to deal with that in this project. We own and will continue to own these lands, and then we will do ground leases with these prospective tenants. MR. UNDERWOOD-In looking at it in totality, it seems like our end of it, you know, with that retail double restaurant deal down there, that seems to me to be the one that’s probably the one that’s up in the air, of all of them that’s there. I’m just not, you know, thinking of three restaurants coming in in such a short little stretch there, I mean, it’s a desirable location. MR. LAPPER-Two of them are really small restaurants. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. They’re going to be more like niche? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. ORLANDO-Yes. So part of this 11,500 square feet might be two 2500 square foot restaurants that are in that smaller foot print than you would find in a, you know, a Friday’s or a Chili’s or something like that, and that is a concept out there nationally in the retail world that those folks are able to operate in the smaller footprint with less, you know, operating costs because of that, and still be able to reach volumes which is profitable for them. So they’re out there, and, you know, certainly there is not as large of a number of those to go after as there is these kind of 6,000 to 7,000 square foot national sit down chains, but they do exist, and we are hoping to attract at least two of those to that development. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I mean, our, the variance that you’re requesting from us seems minor to me, as far as what it is. Are we under any obligation with the previously issued SEQRA thing? In other words, obviously Planning Board’s probably going to peruse this and decide if you’re over in your square footage or if you trip any thresholds or anything like that. If we were to grant the request, do we have to do any kind of, do we fall under an Unlisted action or anything, or do we just rely upon? We can make it based upon the previous SEQRA determination. MR. LAPPER-You could make it that this is a not a significant change to the previous SEQRA determination. MR. UNDERWOOD-And if, indeed, something was triggered that the Planning Board would, we would grant them lead status to. MR. LAPPER-Yes. We’re pretty confident that because this was Lead Agency, all the SEQRA was done, that this is not going to need any kind of supplemental, but we’re going to meet with Keith tomorrow and go through the numbers, and we’ll be at the Planning Board next week. MR. OBORNE-Yes, it still hasn’t been decided at this point. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. 58 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) MR. LAPPER-But we’re pretty confident, because of that 850 number that we had approved. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, there’s always, the Town, I think, sometimes, wants us to be timid in not making them go there first and come back again so you guys have got to spend another three months in the process, but I don’t know what the Board’s feeling is on it. What do you guys think? MR. URRICO-The only question I have, do you anticipate more variances down the road, signs and things? MR. LAPPER-They’re very close with some of the tenants, and obviously, as Bob said, you know, some of them they’re still seeking tenants. So we won’t know that. I mean, there’s always the possibility that, you know, in Queensbury, for example, the restaurant would have one pylon, and actually in a Mall it might only have one facade sign. So I could see when the lease is actually signed, that they might want a pylon sign and one or two façade signs. So I mean, that’s possible. We won’t know that until the lease is signed, but I don’t see, because the other stores, just the way they’re oriented on the site, I don’t see that that’s going to be a big deal here. MR. URRICO-Do you anticipate any additional entrances into the Mall, something like The Crossings down in Clifton Park where you have access from 146 right into the Mall area? Do you know where I’m talking about, right off the Northway, it’s almost right adjacent to it. MR. LAPPER-No. What you have there is what we’re looking at. This is really just like that last piece at the top of the hill to get that done. MR. URRICO-Okay. I’m fine with it, then. MR. UNDERWOOD-What do you guys think? MR. DRELLOS-I think what they’re asking for is minor. So I don’t have a problem with it. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, I don’t want to put us in a position where we hold you up for three months. MR. CLEMENTS-I certainly would be for it, too. I just have one mathematical question here. You’re asking for 21 feet of relief, and on your map here, it says you’re going to be 10 feet away from that corner. So how come you’re not asking for 20 feet? MR. LAPPER-Yes. We are asking for 20. It is 20. I don’t know how that got changed somewhere in the Staff Notes, but you’re correct. We’re going to be 10 feet at that closest point. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m just throwing out ideas. Why don’t we do this. Why don’t we open up the public hearing and see if anybody from the public wishes to speak on this matter. Mr. Salvador. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. Mr. Underwood, I share your concern about things lingering on and on and on, and we’d have to look at those unsightly structures for a long time, and Mr. Lapper offered, he said as soon as we break ground for any of those buildings, the existing buildings will be taken down. That could still be a long time. They could get their permits and they may not break ground until they get a lease. So I think you should, if you’re concerned about this, you should tie the demolition of those structures to the issuance of your variances or a site plan or 59 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) something like that, not the building permit, because they can sit on an application for a building permit for years. So, I think, if you’re concerned about this, I think that you should tie the demolition of the buildings to the issuance of your variances or site plan approval. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else from the public wishing to speak? GLEN LONG MR. LONG-Hi. My name is Glen Long. I live at 10 Carlton Drive. We were here quite a few years ago with the Cracker Barrel issue, which this is going to dwarf that, and my main concern is I don’t want to become a prisoner in the Greenway North area. I see a big, in front of the big restaurant, it appears to be another double in, double out there. We’ve got the one down in Friendly’s, which the Friendly’s ice cream store, which is basically our only egress out of our neighborhood. They did do some major construction work, and we have a turning lane now, which is one turning lane. Is that one turning lane going to be enough when we’ve got a project coming in, like I say, that’ll dwarf the Cracker Barrel, and we in the community were very elated when we didn’t have to deal with the Cracker Barrel, and other than that, we just don’t want to become prisoners in our own community. So whatever you can, in your deliberations, it may not even be pertinent to what you’re considering tonight, but I just want to make sure that, throughout the planning process, that we are considered and the traffic mitigation is considered. MR. GARRAND-And we can forward your concerns on to the Planning Board for their consideration. MR. LONG-Okay. Thank you very much, sir. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else wishing to speak? Any correspondence at all, Roy? MR. URRICO-I don’t see any, other than the letter from Mr. Lapper. MR. UNDERWOOD-So, I mean, as far as ingress and egress, you’re only going to be having people coming in off of Route 9? To get back out they’re going to go down and come out the main entrance? MR. URRICO-From Aviation Road. MR. LAPPER-What we’re proposing at this point, and of course that’s subject to DOT, it’s a right in and right out only, no left turns. The left turns are the dangerous movement when you’re crossing the traffic lanes. So he had said that he had looked at it and thought it was a double, and of course it’s not. It’s a single in, single out. So that shouldn’t impact Carlton Drive, and the 6500 square foot is not a large restaurant. I mean, large restaurants are like 14,000 square feet. This isn’t. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you ever consider like people using it as a cut across? You’re thinking, crazy as people are. MR. LAPPER-I guess the answer is it’s easier to go to Friendly’s, where you have a traffic light and there’s a dedicated right turn lane, and make that right turn and you’re in. So I think that if somebody tried it once, because it’s the first entrance coming from the other side of the Northway, you go back around the restaurant, you come down the hill, you know, it’s not a direct shot. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. What do you guys want to do? We’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. URRICO-Let’s vote on it. Let’s get it off the docket. Let’s vote. 60 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) MR. DRELLOS-Vote. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anybody have any concerns? Everybody basically thinks it’s all right. Do we want to put any kind of, language of conditions on there, like was suggested about tearing it down? I mean, you guys have said you’re going to tear it down. I would assume that includes, you know, whether it’s the Cineplex in the back or any of these things starting, breaking ground, boom, down comes the old place, right? Will there be a, are you guys going to apply to have a historical marker put up there or anything, site of Ho Jo’s? MR. LAPPER-Site of a Ho Jo’s that lasted too long. MR. URRICO-The Blacksmith Shop. MR. LAPPER-Yes, we all miss the Blacksmith Shop. That’s true. I guess what Bob is suggesting is that the first building permit, I mean, we don’t think the cinema’s going to happen first, but it really wouldn’t be related. The first building permit, upon the issuance of the first building permit for the northwest property, which is all three of those buildings, that’ll be demolished. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Everybody happy with that? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. CLEMENTS-Sure. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Does somebody want to do this one? MR. LAPPER-There probably ought to be a sentence about SEQRA, that this is not a significant change. MR. GARRAND-Accept the previous EIS. Can we do that? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Why don’t we do this. Why don’t we just do that, just in case we get hassled for it. Do we need to do the Short Form? MR. OBORNE-Well, no, it hasn’t been vetted yet, and we are meeting tomorrow on. My recommendation is what is on the end of my notes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Why don’t we say this. Based upon what we see here, the variance that was requested this evening, on a project, we do not see that there would be any SEQRA findings that would be negative, as far as that goes. MR. LAPPER-Yes, since there was previously a Full EIS. MR. OBORNE-Are you planning on approving this? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Well, you can’t do any approvals until SEQRA is completed. MR. LAPPER-No, that’s not. If they want to do it, because SEQRA was already done on an EIS, they could just reference it. I mean, we still have to go through the whole process with the Planning Board, but I think if they’re comfortable just doing it, we’ll let them do it. MR. GARRAND-Motion to accept previous EIS. Can we do that? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think based upon what was previously done, I mean, it’s not 61 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/08) in a sense that we want to hold you guys up so you’ve got to come back next month for us to say yes. MR. LAPPER-No, we’re glad that you see it as just this little 10 foot thing. This is a small aspect of this project. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’ll make the, let’s just skip and not worry about it. I’ll just put it into the language. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-2008 THE PYRAMID CO. OF GLENS FALLS, NEWCO, LLC, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: Aviation Mall & out parcels. The applicant is proposing construction of an 11,500 square foot mixed use building to include retail and restaurant space. This building is part of a larger project proposed for Aviation Mall and the associated out parcels. The applicant is requesting 20 feet of relief from the 30 foot setback requirement per Section 179-4-030 and the relief is required only at the rear of the proposed building, and is adjacent to the property line that is northwest of the project, and that’s the Getty station, and this is opposite the Friendly. In making the determination, we do not find that there will be an undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. Building this structure into the hill is going to mean that you’re not going to have some huge, monstrous retaining wall and the Board seems amenable to that. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by another method. Yes, obviously the applicant could build it compliantly, but it would not allow the applicant to have the size retail structure that they’re proposing here, and the variance, in effect, seems minor because it’s just one corner. It’s not like the whole building is subject to it. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial? The request for 20 feet, or it’s slightly less than 70% of relief for that section may be considered moderate to severe, but it’s not from any existing building. It’s over 100 feet to the Getty station, in essence, 90 feet. Whether the proposed variance would have an adverse effect or impact. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated. Some trees will come down on that site, I believe, as currently exists, and whether the alleged difficulty was self-created? It may be considered as self-created. We will basically approve this based upon that the Planning Board will have the ultimate SEQRA authority for the entire project, if at some point in time they want to modify your project, and the applicant will be subject to their review, but we will be granting this as requested by the applicant, and we’ll make this decision based upon the previously granted SEQRA from the original project which dates back a few years, in anticipation that this does not trigger any thresholds. The back part of the property is to be built adjacent to the Getty station, and that’s off Aviation Road, and the distance from the rear of the proposed structure and the closest corner of the existing gas station is 91 feet, and again those steep slopes will be controlled by building the structure into the hill. With the condition that upon granting a building permit for the construction of any phase of the proposed project, on the northwest side, that the pre-existing structures at the old Howard Johnsons complex will be taken down, and dealt with. th Duly adopted this 17 day of September, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Jenkin MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody. We didn’t see it as a big deal, but we really appreciate it. It’s an important part of the project. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, James Underwood, Chairman 62