Loading...
2002-02-27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2002 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT PAUL HAYES, ACTING CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY NORMAN HIMES CHARLES ABBATE ROY URRICO, ALTERNATE JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT LEWIS STONE ALLAN BRYANT ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-2002 TYPE II JOSEPH J. TORNABENE PROPERTY OWNER: JOSEPH & JANET TORNABENE AGENT: N/A LOCATION: 141 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD ZONE: WR-1A APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SCREENED-PORCH ON AN EXISTING OPEN DECK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-1A ZONE AND FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF. AV 36-1997, BP 97-423 (231 SQ. FT. DECK) ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 2/13/02 OLD TAX MAP NO. 7-1-16.2 NEW TAX MAP NO. 239.07-1-26 LOT SIZE: 0.83 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79 JOSEPH TORNABENE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 7-2002, Joseph J. Tornabene, Meeting Date: February 27, 2002 “Project Location: 141 Assembly Point Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a screened-porch on an existing open deck. Relief Required: Applicant requests 9 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16 and for the expansion of a nonconforming structure, § 179-79. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to enclose an existing open deck with a roof and screening. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include leaving the deck as it is. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 9 feet of relief from the 20-foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate, relative to the ordinance (45%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 36B-1997; 8/27/97; side setback for deck. BP 97423; 9/8/97; 231 sq. ft. deck. SP 45-95: 8/20/96; 18’ by 40’ sundeck over existing dock. BP 95000: 10/19/95; 720 sq. ft. boathouse. BP 91514: 11/20/91; detached two-car garage. Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The new construction, should it be approved, doesn’t appear to pose any negative effects on the neighborhood. Additionally, the proposed new porch does not extend outside of the footprint of the existing deck. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form February 13, 2002 Project Name: Tornabene, Joseph J. Owner: Joseph & Janet Tornabene ID Number: QBYAV-7-2002 County Project#: Feb02-32 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a screened-porch on an existing open deck. Relief is sought from setback requirements and for expansion of a non-conforming structure. Site Location: 141 Assembly Point Road Tax Map Number(s): 239.07-1-26 Staff Notes: Staff does not identify any issues significant to County Resources. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed, Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board, 2/14/02. MR. HAYES-Please state your name for the record. MR. TORNABENE-My name is Joseph Tornabene. I live on 141 Assembly Point Road. I’ve owned the property for 12 years (lost words) and I’m looking to put a roof over the existing porch for the comfort of my 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) family, and mostly my wife, and I didn’t think it had any effect upon any of the landowners, and it’s kind of hidden. If you’ve visited the site, it’s on the side of the house. Anything I’ve done to my property there, it’s been, I always thought, beneficial to the lake, not beneficial so much as it kept in context of everything else that was built around it. So it looked nice. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Tornabene? MR. HIMES-Just one. Sir, this drawing we have, part of the application file, is this something that was made up for this matter, or did this come from the variance for the deck? MR. TORANBENE-No. That was made up from the original purchase of the property. They asked me for, Craig asked me for a picture of that map. MR. HIMES-Okay. MR. TORNABENE-Which I have here, a full sized one, if you’d like to see it. MR. HIMES-Well, I just wanted to ask to clarify. The part of the drawing that shows the deck here, actually there are two decks, separated by a couple of steps. MR. TORNABENE-Right. MR. HIMES-And I’m just wondering, I didn’t know, the Staff, were both of those decks part of that variance given some time ago? MR. TORNABENE-All I was looking for is the first deck, the smallest part of the deck is what we’re looking for. MR. HIMES-That’s what you’re going to put the screen around, is the upper back portion? MR. TORNABENE-Yes. MR. HIMES-All right. Thank you. MR. HAYES-I think we got it solved. Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? MR. ABBATE-Mr. Tornabene, so that I understand this, if we were to approve this, this new construction would fall directly over the footprint as it is at the present time? MR. TORNABENE-Right. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. MR. URRICO-And that’s the deck that you had an Area Variance on in ’97, that’s the same deck? MR. TORNABENE-No, that deck was originally there. That was with the property. MR. URRICO-That was originally there. Okay. MR. TORNABENE-The other deck, I’m not touching that. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. HAYES-Which deck did you get the Area Variance for? MR. TORNABENE-In front of it, it goes towards the front, towards the lake house, along the side of the house. MR. HAYES-On the north side then, essentially? MR. TORNABENE-Right. Do you want me to show you? MR. HAYES-I think I know where you’re talking about. It’s on the north side. It’s stained dark? MR. TORNABENE-Yes. It steps down, and you sit out there so you can see the lake, on a nice day. This was mostly to provide for the comfort of my wife who has severe cancer on her face, and was, actually her whole face and nose was taken right off, and she can’t be in direct sunlight anymore, and bugs and stuff, have to be very careful about that. She takes medication for this cancer. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) MR. HAYES-Any other questions for the applicant at this time? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak in favor of this application? Anyone opposed? Any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-One piece of correspondence. It’s from a Mary Trello, and she lives at 139, I believe, Assembly Point Road, yes, 139 Assembly Point Road. MR. HAYES-So that’s to the south of you, then, essentially? MR. MC NULTY-It must be the neighbor to the south. She says, “Sorry that I won’t be able to attend your meeting on February 27, 2002, as I’ve made other commitments on this special date. It is okay by me that they construct a screened-porch on an existing open deck. It would be very enjoyable for them and their friends. Sincerely, Mary Trello” MR. HAYES-Thank you. Any other correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No. MR. HAYES-If not, I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-And we’ll talk about it. I guess we’ll start right in order tonight. We’ll start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I don’t foresee that there’s any grand difficulties in approving this one. I think that, given the fact that they’re going to build it on top of the deck that’s already there, I don’t see that there’s any impact, as far as adding more, building out to the side of the property line, even though we’re going to grant some relief. We’ve already granted it previously, and I think the other house to the northwest there I think is also set back a pretty long distance from there. So I don’t think there’ll be any effect on the near neighbors either. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I agree with what Jim has said. Additionally, the neighbor to the north has a garage, which is, or a structure which is right in proximity to the deck that you’re speaking about. So that impairs any view or any interruption to the parties on either side. There’s a lot of vegetation in between them, too, so, given the fact, too, that it’s an existing footprint, I’d tend to go along with the application. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Yes, thank you. This appears to be a very straightforward application. That, in addition to the fact that there really are no objections by the neighbors by the neighbors, and there are other considerations, and I think, that encourage approval, and in my opinion, I would support the application. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I also agree. When you look at the five criteria that we need to weigh this against, the benefit to the applicant, whether there are feasible alternatives, whether the relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance, effects on the community, and whether this difficulty was self created, I think there’s only one that really requires discussion, and that’s the nine feet of relief from the twenty foot requirement, and that’s over a pre-existing deck that doesn’t seem to be bothering anybody. The neighbor’s certainly not bothered by it. So I’m in favor of it, and it looks like the weight of the criteria is in favor of it also. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I agree with the rest of the Board members. It sounds like a moderate variance when you look at the setback, but it really is the same as what’s been there for the deck to begin with. I see no great impact. I’d be in favor. MR. HAYES-Thank you. I also agree. I think, essentially, there is no impact on the neighborhood by this. We’re talking about an existing footprint, which leaves the balance of the test to the benefit of the applicant, and I think you’ve explained some reasons why you want to do this, and they sound all right to me. It just isn’t a big enough, or any impact that I see, that causes me trouble. Certainly nine feet of relief on a twenty foot dimensional setback, at first glance, could certainly be moderate, but I think, in this case, that setback already exists. So that’s mitigated. I would be in favor of the application as well. Having said that, is there a motion out there? 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-2002 JOSEPH J. TORNABENE, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 141 Assembly Point Road. Mr. Tornabene proposes the construction of a screened porch on an existing open deck which will not exceed the footprint. The relief required, he requests nine feet of relief from the twenty foot minimum side setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16, and for the expansion of a nonconforming structure, Section 179-79. The benefit to the applicant, Mr. Tornabene would be permitted to enclose an existing open deck with a roof and screening. The feasible alternatives, well, feasible alternatives may include leaving the deck as it is, but to me that’s not really logical. I think the applicant’s proposal is justified. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Nine feet of relief from the twenty foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate relative to the Ordinance, 45%. The effects on the neighborhood or community, I heard no objections. We had one piece of correspondence which supported the applicant’s proposal. Is this self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. However, the proposal, in my opinion, is logical, and in following it up, Mr. Chairman and Board members, I submit that this application be approved. Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Bryant MR. HAYES-Your application is approved. You just need to see the Building Department for a permit. Thanks for coming. AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-2002 TYPE II JEFFREY HARADEN PROPERTY OWNER: KARA L. HARADEN AGENT: RAYMOND KRAFT LOCATION: LOT 5, KNOX ROAD, SUNSET HILL FARM ASSEMBLY POINT ZONE: WR-1A APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A BASEMENT ACCESS BASEMENT AT GRADE LEVEL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS OF THE WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL ZONE. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 2/13/02 OLD TAX MAP NO. 7-1-16.11 NEW TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-40 LOT SIZE: 2.18 ACRES SECTION 179-16 RAY KRAFT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JEFF HARADEN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 6-2002, Jeffrey Haraden, Meeting Date: February 27, 2002 “Project Location: Lot 5, Knox Road, Sunset Hill Farm, Assembly Point Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a sliding glass door basement access at grade level. Relief Required: Applicant requests 7 feet of relief from the 28-foot maximum height requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179- 16. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired structure in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include continuing with construction of the home as permitted (BP 2002-008). 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 7 feet of relief from the 28-foot requirement may be interpreted as minimum to moderate, relative to the Ordinance (25%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty is self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2002-008: 01/14/02; construction of a single family dwelling. Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Building Permit 2002-008 specifies a Bilco entrance to be constructed where the applicant proposes to have a sliding-glass door access. It appears as though fill has been removed from the site, which would have been used to back-fill the east foundation around the Bilco entrance. However, it doesn’t appear as though any visual impact will result should the variance be granted, being the East Side of the structure faces very dense woods. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form February 13, 2002 Project Name: Haraden, Jeffrey Owner: Kara L. Haraden ID Number: QBY-AV-6-2002 Warren County Project#: Feb02-26 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a basement access basement at grade level. Site Location: Lot 5, Knox Road, Sunset Hill Farm, Assembly Point. Tax Map Number(s): 239.7-1-40 Staff Notes: Applicant is requesting a height variance. Since the applicant is proposing a walkout basement in the rear of the structure, the basement level is included in the height determination of the structure making a two story house exceed the height restraints of the Ordinance. Staff does not identify any issues significant to County Resources. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 2/14/02. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) MR. HAYES-Thank you. Please state your names for the record. MR. HARADEN-Yes. I’m Jeffrey Haraden. I reside at 21 Bellflower Road in Malta. MR. KRAFT-My name is Raymond Kraft, and I reside at 46 Cleverdale Road. MR. HAYES-Is there anything you’d like to add to your application as it was read into the minutes? MR. KRAFT-I think it’s pretty well covered. Just one comment on the fill being removed. There was none taken out. It’s just a sloped piece of property, and the fill it looks like around the foundation is what came out of the hole on the back side. When the foundation was dug, the floor ended up at ground level on the lower end of the slope. It looked like fill had been taken out, but none has been taken out. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. All right. If you don’t have anything to add to your application, I’ll give the Board members a chance to ask the questions that they have. Does anybody have any questions for the applicant? MR. ABBATE-Please. You gave your address as Malta? MR. HARADEN-Yes, 21 Bellflower Road in Malta. MR. ABBATE-Is this a summer home? MR. HARADEN-Yes, it is, at this point. MR. ABBATE-At this point. Are you contemplating that perhaps it may change to a permanent residence? MR. HARADEN-Hopefully. MR. ABBATE-Hopefully. Okay. Your request, I’m going to assume, correct me if I’m wrong, is an adjustment to the original building plans? MR. HARADEN-Correct. MR. ABBATE-And you also indicate, unequivocally, that the roofline will not change? MR. KRAFT-Right. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. MC NULTY-When I was there, a day or two ago, it looked like you had backfill against most of the cellar on that side, except for where the sliding glass door is. Is the intent to leave the backfill against the? MR. KRAFT-The intent is actually to bring more fill in. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. So the only place that really will see the full height, that needs the variance, is right where the door is? MR. KRAFT-Yes, right. MR. MC NULTY-The rest of the cellar won’t be exposed. MR. KRAFT-No. MR. HIMES-Could you explain a little bit what the original design was to be? MR. KRAFT-The original design was pretty much what it is right now. It’s just, everything got dug in there. The slope is a lot steeper than we anticipated, which left a hole in the cellar exposed. So rather than to fill the whole thing up, it was just more pleasing to put kind of a Bilco door and fill up all right around it, then to have to actually climb up to the top of it to get into it, just swale it a little bit and put a doorway at ground level. MR. HIMES-Okay. Thank you. MR. KRAFT-I have a picture of the actual grading if you want to see it, what it looks like. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) MR. HIMES-Thank you. MR. HAYES-Are you hoping to like finish off the basement? Is that the plan, because of the slider? I mean, are you essentially trying to create three stories? MR. HARADEN-I think at this point just be able to access it, it would be a lot easier, as far as putting boating stuff in there and stuff around the house and just easy access. MR. HAYES-Easier than the Bilco that you were originally intending? MR. HARADEN-Yes. MR. HAYES-That’s quite a hill there. I was a little worried about ever making it out of there if I went up. It’s a little muddy. Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here wishing to speak in favor of this application? Opposed to the application? Correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-I’ll begin our poll. I guess I’ll start with Mr. Himes. MR. HIMES-Thank you. I feel favorably about it, given the fact that it’s almost like a little tunnel going into the door, but without a top on it. The only reservation I have is it appears to me that there are two or three other lots there on the hilltop, hill farm land that are probably going to be developed at some near date, perhaps, and by allowing a variance of this magnitude, what might we be faced with when the other people come along to build here, but I think the thing that makes me feel safe in this regard is the fact that, the contour of the land and the fact that even around the back, except where the door is, is at the grade where you are within the requirement. So I would tend to be in favor of the application. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. This is a straightforward application. I really don’t see any complications. I see no negative impact on any of the surrounding areas, neighbors and what have you, other than the fact that it’s quite muddy getting up there. The roofline is not going to change. You indicated that, well, based on the information you’ve submitted, it makes sense to me that your proposal for the sliding glass door makes a little more sense based upon the circumstances, and, quite frankly, I would have no problem with supporting your application. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-I guess the only reservation I have, and I’d like to see it stipulated, if we do approve it, is that this be the only point in which the seven feet is granted, that at some point the backfill is not removed from any other parts of the property, because in that case, to me, that would be circumventing the height requirement. I am willing to, you know, grant, look favorably upon it if this is the only location where that seven feet is going to be needed. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I’ll basically agree with Roy. I don’t see any big problem with granting the height relief for the area of the sliders. Even though Staff points out there’s dense woods on that side of the house, there are also mature woods, and I think there’s a potential some day for some of that to be harvested, and if it is cleared out, then there’s going to be a great temptation to want to put in some more windows in that basement and open it up, and I think then it would be visible from the lake, and it would then be one of these eyesores that we’re trying to avoid. So I would agree. I could go along with it as long as there’s stipulation that that’s the only area that has the extra height. MR. HAYES-Thank you, Chuck. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would agree with everything that’s been said before. I think that, due to the fact that you’re going down below what the original grade was, it’s different than instances where we’ve had these houses that wanted to be 35 feet high, that stick way up in the air, and the impact is going to be minimal, if anything, but I would agree, also that, you know, keep it just in the area of the immediate vicinity of those doors. So, it’s fine with me. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Well, I essentially agree. Similar to the last case, I think that there’s very little, if any, real implication for the neighborhood, as far as granting this relief for a precedent that might be set. As the Staff pointed out, in this case, there’s very mature, very high vegetation, completely surrounding the house, in this case, which kind of makes the test fall in the area of benefit to the applicant, and I guess you’ve pointed out your needs for doing this, and they seem fine to me, in this particular case. Obviously feasible alternatives, you could presumably leave it as it was planned, but I think, on balance, as the rest of the Board has pointed out, I think that most of the test falls in your favor. I think it’s minimal relief, particularly when compared to the no impact on the neighborhood. So, I’m in favor of the application. Having said that, is there a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-2002 JEFFREY HARADEN, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Lot 5, Knox Road, Sunset Hill Farm, Assembly Point. The applicant proposes construction of a sliding glass door basement access at grade level. The relief required, seven feet of relief from the twenty-eight foot maximum height requirement of the WR-1A zone, 179-16. The benefit to the applicant, of course, is that he’d be permitted to construct the desired structure in the preferred location. Feasible alternatives would be to leave it as was originally planned. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? As a percentage, yes, but in terms of the perspective of how much is involved with seven foot, it is minimal, I think, in our opinion, and so I think that in terms of the fact this is a hilltop location, that the approval has a stipulation as we’ve been discussing here, that the entranceway be shouldered with the fill that’s brought up to the level around the rest of the house and there not be any attempt in the future to take that away and create windows or any other type of access. In connection with that, I think I move that we accept the application as submitted. Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Bryant MR. HAYES-The motion is carried. Thank you for coming. AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-2002 KENNETH & DIANA KAMBAR PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: MICHAEL BORGOS LOCATION: 27 HANNEFORD ROAD ZONE: WR-1A APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A DOCK. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE SHORELINE AND WETLAND REGULATIONS. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 2/13/02 OLD TAX MAP NO. 19-1-6 NEW TAX MAP NO. 240.06-1-16 LOT SIZE: 0.44 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-60 MICHAEL BORGOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; KENNETH KAMBAR, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 8-2002, Kenneth & Diana Kambar, Meeting Date: February 27, 2002 “Project Location: 27 Hanneford Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes removal of two wood docks and replacement with a smaller U-shaped dock. Relief Required: Applicant requests 19 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement of the Shoreline and Wetland Regulations, § 179-60. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant will be permitted to comply with Order on Consent #12-008-001 from the Lake George Park Commission. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives might include replacing the existing dock with a single dock, which would require less relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: 19 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum requirement may be interpreted as substantial relative to the Ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate positive effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty is not self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2001-659: 08/30/2001; septic alteration. Staff comments: Minimal negative impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The applicant will be permitted to comply with the Order on Consent from the Lake George Park Commission. Moderate positive impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action, as the owner will be replacing the existing larger and longer dock with a smaller and shorter one in a challenging area of the bay to navigate. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form February 13, 2002 Project Name: Kambar, Kenneth & Diana Owner: Kenneth & Diana Kambar ID Number: QBY-AV-8- 2002 County Project#: Feb02-29 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) Applicant proposes construction of a dock. Relief is requested from the setback requirements of the shoreline and wetland regulations. Site Location: 27 Hanneford Road Tax Map Number(s): Staff Notes: Applicant is proposing to replace two of existing three docks. The remaining third dock does not meet setback requirements. Copy of drawing included. Staff does not identify any issues significant to County Resources. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact.” Signed by Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 2/14/02. MR. HAYES-Moderate positive effects? I didn’t think that would go through the computer. Okay. Thank you. Please state your name for the record. MR. BORGOS-Michael Borgos for the applicant. MR. KAMBAR-Kenneth Kambar, 33 Thomas Avenue, Hudson Falls. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anything you’d like to add or amplify about the application? MR. BORGOS-I’d briefly like to amplify the application, just by pointing out the history of this. We spent a long time, I believe it was about nine months, with the Lake George Park Commission trying to find the best solution for this parcel with these docks. There was an existing Order on Consent from the prior owner when Mr. Kambar purchased the property. You can see in the diagram on the survey that we’ve submitted we (lost words) from an existing wood dock, and that’s what’s shown in these photos here. You can see on the north side, the left side of the photograph, it’s very close to the neighbor’s dock. The Order on Consent, the original one and the proposed one that we’ve agreed with now, with the Park Commission, would move that northerly pier down to a point where we’re seeking relief here the Area Variances. No Area Variance is required for the southern tier. The Lake George Park Commission has another set of requirements beyond what the Town’s are. They also look for the setback from the existing docks in the neighborhood. So that’s why we had to get approval from them for that southerly pier as well. We spent a lot of time dealing with Mr. Hansen to the north, and Mr. Beals to south on those neighboring parcels, and the idea was to try to make sure everybody was able to get their vessels in and out without too much difficulty, and this was the best compromise that we could find. It wasn’t Mr. Kambar’s desired crib dock that he wanted. It’s smaller and narrower than he had hoped for, but it is a compromise and it seems to work, and the Park Commission was happy with it. That’s why we got the approved Order on Consent, and we looked at the various alternatives, because certainly here, the relief requested, 19 feet, is substantial, but we think that the various factors could be mitigated. That’s why there was mention on the way you determine what the setback is. The Code says that you go from the most restrictive line, and that is why we’re seeking 19 feet of relief, but if you look at the location of these docks in the corner of the Bay, and you look at the way the property lines are in effect, if you were to do a 40 foot straight dock, as permitted under the Code, you would need setback relief on both the north and the south, due to where the lines would be intersecting out in the middle of the Bay. The other advantage is as what was mentioned before, the navigation (lost words) users of the lake by coming in and out through that (lost words) and it’s difficult to navigate (lost words) coming back and forth, and if you have a long dock out there, beyond what the existing docks are, we think it would be a hazard to navigation. So we think this is the best solution all around. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for the applicant? MR. HIMES-Just one. I’d maybe ask you to repeat something you referred to. I wonder if you could summarize this Consent part, Order on Consent Number 12-008-001. It’s kind of interesting, it talks about fining someone $10,000. MR. BORGOS-It’s a strong hammer, isn’t it. MR. HIMES-I would think that would get a lot of attention, but it hasn’t been mentioned yet. So would you comment on that, and you know, what happens if something is or isn’t done? MR. BORGOS-Well, we think it’s an excessive amount, of course, but we don’t get to set that number. The Park Commission set it, I believe, as a strong incentive for the property owner, whether it’s Mr. Kambar or some future property owner, mostly to comply with the terms of the Order on Consent that’s set forth here, and that is what we propose to do here, with the Town’s approval, to go ahead and comply with this. If we can’t comply with this, then (lost words) that fine to be considered, and we don’t want to approach that, $9500 is what’s intended, and if there’s any violation, of course, that’s automatically imposed. MR. HIMES-Thank you. MR. BORGOS-You’re welcome. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions? I had one question. The dock that’s in the lower right hand corner, that’s owned by the applicant at this time? MR. BORGOS-No, it’s not. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) MR. HAYES-Okay. It’s owned by your neighbor? MR. BORGOS-Yes, Mr. Beals claims ownership to that dock. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Did I hear Counsel earlier say that approval of this application would aide in the safety and navigation? MR. BORGOS-We believe it would be superior than the 40 foot straight dock. It would be the only feasible alternative, really. If you’re looking at the U-shaped dock or the straight pier, the straight pier is (lost words) too far out. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? MR. BORGOS-I believe this shows it pretty well. (lost words) you kind of want to swing to the left so you can line it up, and that would be (lost words). MR. ABBATE-You don’t want any navigational hazards there, right? So approving this request would removal navigational hazard, right? MR. BORGOS-We’d like to think that. MR. HIMES-Do you have any pictures there that shown 9L, how close that is to? It’s right there. MR. HAYES-Right, and that’s the pass, they come out of the Bay. MR. HIMES-So any boat traffic coming from the other side comes very close to the ends of those docks. MR. BORGOS-We get a lot of fishermen coming through. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak in favor of the application? Anyone in opposition to the application? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-I’ll poll the Board. I believe it’s Chuck. MR. ABBATE-My initial reaction was that usually the standard of fairness and on balance, what have you, I believe that the applicant is making sense in this application. I would be less than candid if I said that I would not support this application. MR. HAYES-That’s a no, then? MR. ABBATE-It’s a yes. MR. HAYES-It’s a yes. Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-I think I’m in agreement with Chuck. I’m not sure, but I am also in favor of the application, considering all the things they had to go through to get to this point, I think they’ve put together a plan that’s as good as can be put together. I’m in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I’ll agree. Normally I would say one foot setback instead of twenty, no, but in this case, that section has got all kinds of docks in there. Clearly, this is going to be an improvement of an existing condition, and I think that the benefit’s not only to the applicant, but it’s also to others. So it’s a win/win situation as far as I can see. I’d be in favor. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Jim? 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think we have to reflect upon the judgment of the Park Commission. I think they take these things very seriously, and a lot of forethought went into this, and obviously it’s going to be better than something that sticks 40 feet out into the Bay. So, I’d be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Norm? MR. HIMES-Thank you. I agree with my four fellow Board members. I’m in favor of the thing. I can’t see anything bad about it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. I essentially agree. I don’t think there’s any doubt in this particular circumstance, even though I’m still shocked by the moderate positive effects, that that’s exactly what we’re dealing with in this particular circumstance. As I viewed those docks and traveled that road, you know, at newer docks, improved docks, they’re going to be a benefit to the neighborhood and might even encourage other neighbors to do the same, and certainly having a dock that is in clear violation now, you’re reducing the size of your dock. So, on balance, based on the Park Commission, which I agree with the other Board members, certainly is, their judgment is superior to mine, that this is what they would like to see happen. I’ve got to believe that it is the best possible alternative, and that’s an important thing for us to consider. So, on balance, I’m in favor of the application. Having said that, is there a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-2002 KENNETH & DIANA KAMBAR, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 27 Hanneford Road. The applicant proposes removal of two wood docks and replacement with a smaller, U- shaped dock. The applicant’s request is for 19 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement of the Shoreline and Wetlands Regulations, 179-60. The benefit to the applicant would be to be permitted to comply with the Order on Consent Number 12-008-001 of the Lake George Park Commission. Feasible alternatives might include replacing the existing dock with a single dock which would require less relief, but in reality would not make it anymore navigable in that area. In fact, it would probably make it far worse. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? 19 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum requirement may be interpreted as substantial relative to the Ordinance, but these being a different kind of circumstance in which the 19 feet of relief is mitigated somewhat, and probably by a lot, the better ability to navigate boats in that area. The effects on the neighborhood or community, going along with the Staff comments, moderate positive effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action, and whether this difficulty is self-created, it’s not self-created. So, all that being said, I move that we accept this application. Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Bryant MR. HAYES-The motion is carried. MR. BORGOS-Thank you very much. MR. HAYES-Thank you. NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-2002 PENSKE AUTO CENTER PROPERTY OWNER: K-MART CORP. c/o BURR WOLF LP STORE 4928 AGENT: KELLY J. O’BRIEN, FAIRMOUNT SIGN COMPANY LOCATION: K-MARTSTORE, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DIX AVENUE AND WALNUT STREET NEW TAX MAP NO. 303.19-1-71 ZONE: PC-1A APPELLANT IS APPEALING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION REGARDING CHAPTER 140-7 PREVIOUS SIGN PERMIT APPROVALS AND FEES; ALL SIGN PERMIT APPROVALS AND FEES PREVIOUSLY ISSUED AND COLLECTED BY THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY UNDER ANY PREVIOUS SIGN ORDINANCE SHALL BE DEEMED VALID, BINDING AND IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT RUSSELL HANLON & JACK POLLITT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Notice of Appeal No. 1-2002, Penske Auto Center, Meeting Date: February 27, 2002 “Project Location: K-Mart Store, southwest corner of Dix Avenue and Walnut Street Description: The applicant is appealing a determination made by the Zoning Administrator with regards to the “PENSKE” sign at site. Information requested: Applicant is appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a decision regarding the placement of a sign at auto service center at the K-Mart site. Staff comments: Please see 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) December 17, 2001 letter from Craig Brown to Kelly J. O’Brien. Additionally, § 140-7 – Previous sign permit approvals and fees was added to address all existing, valid, properly issued permits and collected fees. It is the position of the Zoning Administrator that sign permit 97-3040 was issued erroneously. A sign variance request, for the same sign was denied by the Zoning Board of Appeals less than a year before. The applicant has been offered an exchange of signs; Auto Service for Penske.” MR. HAYES-Thank you. Just for the people in the public here, this is an Appeal application. The Zoning Administrator has determined that the applicant has violated the Sign code, and essentially has issued a permit improperly. Am I summarizing that correctly? MR. BROWN-Yes. I guess I wouldn’t say that there’s been a violation of the Sign code. I’ve made the determination that if they want to put up another sign at this location it would require a variance. That’s what they’re here for. MR. HAYES-I guess to proceed, is there anything you want to summarize further, as far as your position on the case, or did Staff notes do that? MR. BROWN-No. I think it would be proper to let the applicant have their say first. MR. HAYES-Please state your name for the record. MR. HANLON-Russell Hanlon, and I’m here representing Fairmont Sign Company on Penske Auto. MR. POLLITT-And I am Jack Pollitt, (lost words). I’m the District Manager with Penske Auto Center. MR. HAYES-Is there anything you’d like to add to the application that you’ve submitted or the Appeal that you’ve submitted at this time? MR. POLLITT-Well, I think the only thing that I would like to say at this time is I know there was a little discussion that Penske Auto Center put a sign up that was illegal. I can assure you at this point in time, or at that time, that what we thought we had a legal permit to put the sign up. We certainly would not have gone forward with putting the sign up if we did not have that permit in our hands, that permit number 97-3040. We certainly would never violate any law. We want to comply with all laws and regulations. At that time, we thought we had complied. MR. HANLON-It’s very important to Penske to have their name on the building because it’s a quality auto service, and it’s not anything to do with K-Mart directly, and anybody driving by could assume that’s Bob’s Auto Service, at this point, and Penske’s a quality name. So it’s very important that it’s on the building with the Auto Service. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Craig, would you like to outline the Town’s position? MR. BROWN-I guess just to, I think you did it in the beginning, to focus on the issue, is to determine whether the decision requiring them to get a variance for a second sign, or a Penske sign, is required, or if they, as, I think their position is a separate business, a separate entity, is just entitled to another sign because they’re a separate business. My position would be, if this is a separate business, why would K-Mart have their Auto Service sign above the Penske location? What I did was, with Mr. O’Brien, I guess who’s not here tonight, I offered the exchange. The Auto Service sign was issued by variance with, again, I don’t know the number, six or seven other signs, I guess for the K-Mart building. You may be familiar with that. MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. BROWN-So my position was, just change that sign, the Penske sign, I think it was roughly the same square footage. We weren’t talking about a new sign. It would be a swap to the number of signs in the same location, and I guess their position was that they’d get their own sign, in addition to the Auto Service sign. MR. URRICO-When the initial permit was given, that they’re appealing right now, was that for a Penske, or was that for Auto Service? MR. BROWN-That was for Penske. MR. URRICO-And so instead of putting a Penske sign up, they put Penske Auto Service? Is that what the? MR. POLLITT-At one time it said K-Mart Auto Service. We are Penske Auto Service, so there’s no need to come back in, I wasn’t around at the time, but I would assume that there was no reason to change the Auto Service portion of it. We were just requesting at the time, change the K-Mart portion to Penske. MR. URRICO-And it was removed as a result of K-Mart putting up more signs then they’re entitled to? 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) MR. BROWN-What happened is, initially, there was a Sign Variance granted to K-Mart for a number of signs over the allowable two, whatever the number turned out to be, six or seven, and this Auto Service sign was one of the signs in the Variance. Subsequently, they got a sign permit for all the signs to follow up on the Variance that was issued as the proper course. After that, Penske came in with a request to have their own Penske sign in addition to the Auto Service sign that was there. That was denied by the Zoning Board, a different Board make up, but it was denied by the Board. Approximately nine months or ten months later they came in with a sign permit application for that Penske sign that had been denied. It was issued again, in error, based on the determination made by the Zoning Board. MR. ABBATE-Let me ask a question. Let me make a statement, then you can correct me, both of you. It would seem to me that, instead of appealing the determination made by the Zoning Administrator, that the more appropriate course of action would be to request a Sign Variance. Am I correct in that? MR. POLLITT-Well, it’s my understanding that we were instructed to do it this way. MR. ABBATE-Correct, but that’s not my issue. Let me rephrase it, then. Craig, would it be more appropriate, in this instance, for Penske, and I agree with you that the Penske name should be up there. There’s no qualms. Does it make more sense to you that they should request a variance, rather than going through an appealing process? MR. BROWN-I think it’s a flip of the coin. MR. ABBATE-It’s a flip of the coin. If, and this is my logic. I don’t know the way they, what their thought process was, but with the severity, and I’ll call it severity of the Variance that was granted to K-Mart for the number of signs, I would think that, their line of thought would be, I’m not going to have a good chance to get a variance, because a pretty serious variance has been granted to this Plaza or this business already. So their position, apparently, is to argue the position that they don’t need a variance and they’re just entitled, by right, to a sign permit. Does that answer your question? MR. ABBATE-Okay. It would be hard-pressed for anyone to argue that Penske identification should not be up there. There would be no logic, in my opinion, for anyone to come up with that proposal. So, if, in my opinion, I’m correct, that that Penske sign should be up there because it’s a Penske business. Am I correct on that? MR. POLLITT-That’s correct. MR. ABBATE-Okay. So what we have to do, then, is negotiate, somewhere along the line, compromise, perhaps, so that the identification of your business should be appropriately displayed. Okay. Now, what would be a compromise in order to accommodate this business, and I believe we should accommodate businesses, if we possibly can. Craig, we’ve got to compromise somewhere along the line here. Business has to help Town, Town has to help business. MR. MC NULTY-I think we’re jumping a little bit, though, because the question before us not whether they should have a sign or not. It’s a question of whether the Zoning Administrator made a correct decision. There’s two parts. One, was the sign permit that allowed the Penske sign originally indeed issued erroneously, and then if it was. MR. ABBATE-That makes it a little more difficult. I’m trying to avoid that. MR. MC NULTY-It makes it difficult, but I think that’s the question that’s before us, the second part which may come back in as a variance. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Let me take a position on that. I believe that the Zoning Administrator is correct. Therefore, I would not support the application. MR. HAYES-All right. Well, we’ve got to go through the regular procedure here. So, essentially, we have the Zoning Administrator’s position. We have the applicant’s. Is there anything you want to add, Craig, whatsoever? Do we have a public hearing on an appeal? MR. BROWN-Not necessarily. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. HIMES-I’d like to, again, as long as we have Craig here, could I, again. I was looking at it in the correspondence, and came to a little different, that there was a request that, in 1996, that was denied, seven – oh, by this Board, and it looks like, further on here, that the minutes from the meeting held for that revealed no presentation was made by the applicant and the ZBA found no basis for granting a variance, which certainly is understandable. So I had thought, then, that the permit was issued as just a mistake. Okay. So, all right, I wanted to make sure. So the main point that I’m trying to make is that the basis for the declination 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) in the first place was because the applicant didn’t show up to give us any substantive reasons for doing anything, other than declining it, because I don’t see the minutes. So the only conclusion I can come to is what’s here in this. Okay. That’s fine. Thank you very much. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, there was a public hearing advertised. MR. HAYES-Okay. Pardon me for a second, gentlemen. I’m going to open the public hearing. Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of the applicant, that is against the Zoning Administrator, for simplicity’s sake, his decision, I should say? Anyone that would like to speak in favor of the Zoning Administrator’s decision? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-Okay. I guess we should go through the formal process, here, and we’ll start with Jim on this one, and you guys can just summarize or repeat your comments. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think there’s several things we need to reflect upon here. Obviously, the sign permit was issued, you know, improperly or for whatever reason, but that’s kind of water under the dam, but I think that we also need to reflect upon the fact that, you know, in good faith, they, as a separate entity from K-Mart, probably do deserve a Penske sign on the building. That side of the building, I don’t know how many signs are on that side. I forget how many are off to the left there. There’s a few other ones, too, but I would think it would be in our interest to, we could settle this this evening, too. I don’t know, is that a possibility? MR. HAYES-I don’t think so. MR. UNDERWOOD-Not really? MR. HAYES-It hasn’t been advertised for a variance. MR. BROWN-I certainly wouldn’t think you could grant a variance. MR. HAYES-The applicant has chosen this course of action, and we need to act upon the course of action that’s in front of us. MR. ABBATE-And we have to address that. MR. MC NULTY-And that doesn’t preclude that from coming back for a variance. MR. HAYES-None whatsoever. MR. POLLITT-So that was a mistake on our part? MR. HAYES-It’s not necessarily a mistake. MR. MC NULTY-Not necessarily. MR. HAYES-Because your appeal could have been granted. MR. MC NULTY-It’s the way I would have done it, if I were doing it, because it gives you two shots at it. If you won the appeal, you’re home free. If you don’t win the appeal, you still can come back for a variance. MR. HAYES-That doesn’t prejudice you from coming back whatsoever. MR. POLLITT-Okay. So it’s pretty much agreed upon that the first time it was turned down was because nobody was here to state their case? MR. HAYES-Well, that’s what’s in evidence. MR. MC NULTY-That’s the assumption. MR. HAYES-But if you make a new application, that really is irrelevant. Each case is measured on its own merits, and is presented that night with the public hearing and input from those that are in favor and 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) opposed. So what happened in ’96, this is a different Board. I’m not trying to indicate to you that you’ll get an approval, because that’s not my job and I shouldn’t do that, but I guess, you know, the fact, if you do not win this appeal tonight, does not prejudice your application to come in for a variance next month. MR. POLLITT-I just want to impress upon the Board that Penske tried to be above the board and honest and doing it the right way. We even have a letter here from K-Mart allowing the signs to be put on the building. So, whether or not K-Mart has done something funny in the past is really irrelevant. MR. HAYES-I don’t think anybody’s making the accusation that there’s anything funny or out of line here. It’s a narrow administrative decision that has to be made and finalized here. MR. MC NULTY-I think your actions actually speak in favor, because there’s no Penske sign up there. It was taken down when it was brought up that the Town thought it was an improper sign, and we’ve had instances where people have refused to do anything with signs, and in this case you acted to comply with what the Town said, whether you agreed with it or not. That certainly is a plus. MR. HAYES-All right. I’m going to continue with our comments, so we can arrive at a decision on the appeal. Mr. Himes? MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I support the Administrator’s decision, and I think they should apply for a variance. MR. HAYES-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Right. I’m going to back into what I said earlier. I support the Administrator’s decision. However, I do not believe there is an impropriety on Penske’s Auto Center, and that was the stipulation. I support him and I basically support you people with the stipulation. MR. HAYES-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I agree with the rest of the Board members about supporting the Zoning Administrator’s decision on this. I will add, also, that there have been examples of the name of the company being added to auto service signs in this area, but I’ll also say that K-Mart also set up that store to have various departments, and some of those departments are not necessarily owned by K-Mart. So the thing we have to also weigh is do we allow you to put Penske there and then allow Olin Mills to have their name out front and the bank to have their name out front and any other department? So there’s going to be some other considerations here, as well, and, you know, that what you’ve done so far certainly in my estimation weighing in your favor, but that’s what has to be considered. MR. POLLITT-Can I ask you a question, then? MR. HAYES-Certainly. MR. POLLITT-Is it based upon the amount of square footage that you take up as a business, if you are leasing from K-Mart Corporation, like the diner at the end of K-Mart is a different name. It’s not K-Mart diner. Does some of that fall back? MR. HAYES-Well, the Code is very specific as far as feet from the road, size of signs, that type of thing, but in this case, there already was a variance granted for six sign versus the allowable two, and that variance is based on the criteria that you’ve seen tonight, as far as an Area Variance. It’s a balancing test versus the neighborhood, you know, implications for the neighborhood and the benefit to the applicant, and that’s what they arrived at then was that six signs was permissible on a variance at that time, but that’s what’s going to govern, unless there’s another variance granted. So, Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I can basically agree with what Roy said. The question for tonight, I say that the Zoning Administrator was correct, and I support his decision. I can’t guarantee that we’d approve something if you come in with a variance, but I certainly think I’d give it very careful consideration. MR. HAYES-Thank you. I, essentially, feel the same way. I think in this particular circumstance that the Zoning Administrator made the correct decision. I will say, as far as I’m concerned, that, you know, a Sign Variance was already granted in this particular circumstance, and I think, certainly, there has to be some consideration given to extending that variance. I’m sure that everybody is happy to entertain that, and if you file, you’ll have your day here, but, having said that, is there a motion? MR. ABBATE-Do we do a motion on this? MR. HAYES-I think we do. MR. ABBATE-Okay. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) MOTION TO DENY NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-2002 PENSKE AUTO CENTER IN SUPPORT OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S DECISION. I WOULD LIKE TO ADD A STIPULATION. IT IS NOT OUR POSITION TO DICTATE OR SUGGEST COURSES OF ACTION, BUT I WOULD JUST LIKE TO BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE APPLICANT THAT THERE IS ANOTHER AVENUE., Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes: Because the Sign Variance, request, Number One, the same sign was denied by the Zoning Board of Appeals less than a year ago, based upon the timeframe, and I believe that the Zoning Administrator was correct that when the permit was issued it was issued erroneously. Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone MR. HAYES-The Appeal is denied. MR. BROWN-Thank you. Mr. Chairman, if I could just add, just for the record, I hope that from my comments, or my statement tonight it wasn’t inferred that the applicant or Penske or K-Mart has done any wrong doing there. I think they proceeded in good faith. The got a sign permit, had the sign put up. They’ve been responsive and cooperative when we’ve asked them to take the sign down, and they’ve gone through this course of action for the Appeal. So I don’t want the Board to think that, that’s definitely not (lost words). MR. HAYES-Okay. So noted. MR. ABBATE-So noted. Thank you. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 11-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED COST CONTROL ASSOC., INC. PROPERTY OWNER: CCA REAL ESTATE LLC AGENT: HOLLY WHEELER/KD WHEELER CUSTOM SIGNS LOCATION: 310 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF A FREESTANDING SIGN ON THE PROPERTY AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 2/13/02 OLD TAX MAP NO. 107-1-48 NEW TAX MAP NO. 302.08-1-16 LOT SIZE: 0.93 ACRES SECTION 140-6 HOLLY WHEELER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 11-2002, Cost Control Assoc., Inc., Meeting Date: February 27, 2002 “Project Location: 310 Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes placement of a freestanding sign at the entrance of the parking area. Relief Required: Applicant requests 15 feet of relief from the 15-foot minimum front setback requirement and 15 feet of relief from the 15-foot minimum side setback requirement of the Sign Ordinance per § 140-6(B). Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct and display the sign in a preferred area. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives might include moving the sign back so that the rear of the sign is in line with the front of the building. Another feasible alternative might include joining the parcels together to alleviate the need for any side setback relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 15 feet of relief from the 15-foot minimum requirement may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty does not appear to be self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2002-054; pending; (revision to permit #2001-736) 28.33 sq. ft. freestanding sign. BP 2001-852: 12/13/01; Certificate of Occupancy for Matt Ludeman. BP 2001-736: 10/03/01; 13.33 sq. ft. freestanding sign. BP 2001-669; 09/18/01; Certificate of Occupancy for Cost Control Associates, LLC. SP 57-92: 12/22/92; 970 sq. ft. addition to existing office building. AV 136-1992: 12/17/92; 13.6 feet side setback relief. Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The building has a front setback of 11.8 feet. The lack of compliant locations in front of the building, near the parking lot entrance, will not accommodate a double-sided freestanding sign to be displayed as intended. The sides setback relief sought is only due to the parking area being situated on a separate parcel (same owner). SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted” 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form February 13, 2002 Project Name: Cost Control Associates, Inc. Owner: CCA Real Estate LLC ID Number: QBY-SV-11- 2002 County Project#: Feb02-24 Current Zoning: HC-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes placement of a freestanding sign on the property and seeks relief from the setback requirements of the Sign Ordinance. Site Location: 310 Bay Road. Tax Map Number(s): 302.08-1- 16 Staff Notes: Drawing included. Applicant’s materials indicate a 0’ setback request on both front and side yard setbacks. The adjoining parcel is also owned by the applicant so the 0’ setback is a local issue. A 0’ setback along the roadway involves potential visibility issues. Staff recommends discussion. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 2/14/02. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Mrs. Wheeler, is there anything you’d like to add to the application, or amplify? MRS. WHEELER-Pretty much, there’s nowhere to put the sign in this front yard. It’s so small. As you can see (lost words) the stairway is going to block pretty much any signs back farther than where we want to put it, which is in this area, which the line is right along where, I mean, it’s right there. The sign is actually going to be a little bit farther back. We want to put it in this area where those (lost words), but I’m going to have to set it, depending on what underground locators is there (lost words). So it will be in this area. It won’t be right directly on the line. MR. URRICO-There was a pipe in the ground, with the application on it. Was that the approximate location of where the sign would be? MRS. WHEELER-These two pipes here were from the previous owner. They don’t meet setback either. They were just there, once we put the main sign up, we’re going to take those out. I believe they’re set in concrete. MR. URRICO-And where the current sign is is not the location you’re talking about? MRS. WHEELER-No. The current sign, that’s a little bit more than 15 foot back from the front property line, and that’s just a temporary sign, and I put it there to show you how far 15 feet back was, and it’s basically on the side lot line, because the owner has two parcels, one’s the parking lot and one’s this property. It’s a very odd parcel. It’s the same owner. There’s no way that I believe he would sell the parking lot parcel off separate from the building because then there’s no way to access the back of the building which is where the rest of his parking was. MR. HAYES-How big is the sign that you’re proposing, in total square foot? MRS. WHEELER-It’s five foot wide. MR. HAYES-About 28 square foot, maybe? MR. UNDERWOOD-Kind of like Blackburn’s down the road. MRS. WHEELER-Yes, it’s not huge. It’s been changed a couple of times. As you can see, I’m overwhelmed with paperwork. MR. BROWN-The application says 28 square feet. MRS. WHEELER-Twenty-eight, thank you. MR. HAYES-What would be the allowable square footage of that sign, if it was at the proper distance? MR. BROWN-Fifty. MR. HAYES-Fifty. MR. ABBATE-Am I correct that you’re suggesting, by putting that temporary sign up there, you’re suggestion is that it would not have the impact, the appropriate impact, if the sign were to be placed back there? Is that what you’re suggesting? MRS. WHEELER-If I place the sign back there, where it that current post is is a little more than 15 feet back. So the first post would be there, and the sign would go back into this area. MR. ABBATE-So it really wouldn’t have an impact, is that what you’re saying? MRS. WHEELER-Not at all. You wouldn’t see it, you wouldn’t really see it coming from the north, and you probably wouldn’t see it coming from the south, because there’s a fence on the other side of the parking lot. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) MR. ABBATE-It would appear that the most effective way would be to place it right in the middle of Bay Road. MRS. WHEELER-That would be nice, but I don’t think you’d go for that. MR. ABBATE-See, he has Bay Road up there. MRS. WHEELER-I can show you, I’ve got photographs coming from the other direction. From the other side of the parking lot it’s a fence. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? MR. HIMES-What about the existing sign posts? Why not use them? MRS. WHEELER-Those metal ones? MR. HIMES-Yes, that location or the existing posts. I mean, why not put it right where? MRS. WHEELER-First off they’re not wide enough. I wouldn’t mind setting it back that far if I could move it close to the parking lot. I’d like to set it farther south. MR. HIMES-Why is that? The reason I’m asking is even though I think it would be a modest impact, that you’ve got traffic trying to come and go, and the sign is fairly large. Even though it is back off from the sidewalk, just from a safety standpoint, traffic coming in and out, it would impair someone looking out at the roadway to see what’s coming from the north, perhaps, being right there where I think you were talking about, where there’s that little pile of stones, I guess. MRS. WHEELER-Yes. MR. HIMES-Right on the edge, very edge of the parking lot, back a little bit to the right might help alleviate that or make the sign a little smaller. MRS. WHEELER-Okay. The first question, if I put the sign in this area, it’s blocked by (lost words) by the Fire Marshal because that’s the fire exit here and here. There’s basically no visibility coming from here, this direction, unless I can pull it out closer to the parking lot. The second question you asked was the impact on visibility of traffic. It’s (lost words) even back here, closer to the road, you have all the sidewalk and all this shoulder. There’s plenty of room to pull your car up, to see past this. MR. HIMES-Yes, I understand. MRS. WHEELER-It really is a lot of space there. The picture I have shows our truck parked on the shoulder, and you can see there’s still room, beyond the truck, to the pavement. It’s a very wide shoulder. MR. ABBATE-Was there a current permit for those two signs there, the signs in concrete? Was there a permit issued for that sign? MR. BROWN-There probably was. I don’t have that. It’s probably in the history. MRS. WHEELER-That was a previous owner. MR. ABBATE-The reason I’m saying it is this. If there was a permit issued, a previous permit that was issued for a sign, at least you’d have something to go with. You can use that as a basis to contract, expand, what have you. MRS. WHEELER-At the time that was put in, it probably met the setback because Bay Road was narrower. So, I can’t tell you if it had a permit. I have no idea. MR. HAYES-Just based on your familiarity, did Cost Control Associates, is their business generated by spontaneous, off road traffic like Cumberland Farms? MRS. WHEELER-No. MR. HAYES-So it’s more or less a destination, then? MRS. WHEELER-It’s a destination, yes. It’s basically by appointment, from what I understand. MR. ABBATE-By appointment, yes. If you were to place your sign where those two posts are right now, would that meet your requirements? 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) MRS. WHEELER-What I would like to do, I’d like to put it closer to the parking lot, but I don’t mind being where that setback is now, if that’s possible. MR. URRICO-That’s what you were getting at, Norm? MR. ABBATE-That’s my recommendation. The reason I was saying that, it seems to me that would resolve a lot of issues, if there was a permit already issued for that particular area. It’s just kind of a fill-in, more or less. MRS. WHEELER-The only problem is those posts are only about three feet apart, and going, you know, making the sign five foot puts it back into this area, and again, I’m running into the front of the building. Plus, there’s, like I said, there’s this stairway thing. As it is, they took a lot of bushes out of there. So they’ve opened it up. MR. MC NULTY-How much of a disadvantage would it be turning that sign 90 degrees and having just one sign facing Bay? The people across the street have got that, Cushing Architects and what is it Charo’s Hair Design. They’ve got a big sign but it’s on their building, and it’s the only sign they’ve got, facing out, and if Cost Control is a destination, it’s not something that is dependent on spontaneous people stopping. MRS. WHEELER-I think the problem is, Cushing and the hair place, they’re local businesses. People kind of already know where, you know, they know where to look. Anybody coming to this place, a lot of them are coming from out of town. You’re directing them in. I just think it would be really confusing for their customers to try to have to look for it, along with trying to figure out where they’re going and it’s just much easier to see a two sided sign. MR. ABBATE-Craig, could you do me a favor? Could you put up there an area in which the sign would be in compliance? MR. HAYES-It’s where the white sign is there. MR. ABBATE-Yes, well, he can paint it in there, though. So I just wanted to see if he can do it. MR. HIMES-While he’s doing that, could I ask you, on the other side of the parking lot, I’m trying to visualize when I went there, how much land is owned? In other words, say if the sign were put out on the south side of the parking lot, for example. I can’t remember what his. MRS. WHEELER-There’s a fence there. I don’t think there’s anywhere to put the sign on the other side of the parking lot. MR. HIMES-Your property end right there, right where the pavement ends, the parking lot pavement? MRS. WHEELER-I’m sorry. I don’t understand what you’re asking. MR. HIMES-The parking lot pavement to the south, it goes right to your property line? MRS. WHEELER-It goes right to the fence. Is the fence right on the property line? MR. HIMES-I’m just thinking in terms of, well, I mean, why not look at a location for the sign that’s on the south side of the parking lot, for example. MRS. WHEELER-There’s really nowhere in that parking lot to put anything. You’ve got the (lost words) that goes this way, and there’s basically one lane, probably a lane and a half, going in. MR. HIMES-I can’t remember what’s on the south side of it. MR. ABBATE-You see where the Zoning Administrator put the sign? That would be, in your opinion? MRS. WHEELER-That’s a 15 foot setback. MR. ABBATE-Plus or minus. Would that meet your requirements? MRS. WHEELER-No. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’m just asking. That’s quite all right. MRS. WHEELER-There’s no visibility. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) MR. HAYES-Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here wishing to speak in favor of the application? Anyone opposed to the application? Any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-Yes. We have one piece of correspondence. It’s from the Warren County Association of Realtors, which is down the road, and the letter’s signed by David Strainer, President of the Association, “This letter is to inform you that the Warren County Association of Realtors, Inc., is not opposed to Cost Control Association, Inc., Sign Variance #11-2002. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, David Strainer, President” MR. HAYES-Thank you. If there’s no other correspondence, I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-And poll the Board. I believe it’s Roy’s turn to start first. MR. URRICO-Okay. I do agree that 15 feet is too far back to put this sign, and, having missed the property going south and having to come back north and almost missing it again, I know there’s some signage needed there that’s more visible. However, I would like to see some sort of a compromise between where the 15 feet is and where the line, the property line is, maybe some place in front of the staircase or to the left of the staircase, of course, but somewhere where those posts are, maybe closer to the parking lot, but I would not be in favor of it on the property line. I would be willing to compromise off the property line. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I basically agree. I think the sign, as proposed, with 0 setback from the front line and 0 setback from the side line, is going to be too much. I could go for either a fair sized sign where the temporary one is, facing flat out to Bay, or I could go with something about the size of what was there with those two other posts, perhaps moved down closer to the parking lot if that’s what the applicant wants. I’d be willing to go for the side setback on that and what little relief would be required for front setback, but not what’s proposed. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think another consideration might be to have a hanging sign up on the building itself, because that would alleviate the traffic looking up and down the road as they come out of there at the same time, too. So that might be another consideration. So at this time, I think maybe you could reflect on that. MR. HAYES-Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes. I feel similarly with the other Board members, that we should have some compromise. What Jim has said sounds good, and also what Chuck and Roy said, I agree with that, too, but I think there needs to be some give and take here. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Well, I would agree. We talk about balance, and we have to place this balancing act in support and in consideration of both the Town and the business, and quite frankly, I would certainly support a reasonable compromise for the sign. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Well, I think you’ve got a consensus of uncertainty, but I think, as it stands now, the 15 feet of relief, particularly from what I can determine from the road, is not going to carry. Now, we have two choices. We can propose several different motions, vote on them, and arrive at what the Board feels is the most, or the most minimal relief that we’re going to grant, or maximum relief that we’re going to grant, I should say, or you can file a new application along those lines. MRS. WHEELER-Can we just settle this now? MR. HAYES-Yes. Well, I guess we need to talk about it as a Board, just to determine what exactly people are troubled by, the side setback relief or the relief from the road. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it’s more the setback from the road. I think the side setback relief is only from that parking lot which they own. So I think that’s a moot point. I don’t think that’s any problem at all, but I, maybe if the sign were raised higher off the ground. I mean, it’s 36 inches now, and I think that you have to think traffic concerns, even though you specify that there’s plenty of room on that shoulder of the road, I don’t know whether, in the future, it goes to parking along there or not. I don’t think there is any allowed, is 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) there, at the present time, but I think, you know, you could consider a hanging sign, you know. I don’t know if that’s a possibility, on the corner of the building. MRS. WHEELER-I don’t know where I could put it. I’m not sure where you have in mind, what you’re talking about. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would say right on the corner of the building there? MRS. WHEELER-Like here? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, hang it right off the edge of the building. MRS. WHEELER-Okay. The only problem is there’s this loop thing that basically blocks it, along with this huge tree. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I think if you came out right even with the bottom of the roof. MRS. WHEELER-Here? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and came out towards the road. You could hang your shingle that way. MRS. WHEELER-To be honest, I’m not overly thrilled with the hanging sign idea. I’d rather compromise on the setback, maybe in this area, you know, equal to the first post of the old sign post. MR. HAYES-I guess, do you just want to summarize as far as side setback and front setback? MR. HIMES-I think just bringing it this way, partially towards the, again, I’m not too concerned about the side. MR. HAYES-So you’re just interested in creating some front setback? MR. HIMES-Yes. MR. HAYES-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Yes, I would support and go along with what Norm just stated. MR. HAYES-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m not concerned about the side setback as long as that property remains with the current owners, and then as far as the front setback, anything that’s not closer than where those posts are would be fine with me. MRS. WHEELER-Than the first post? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. MC NULTY-I think I could agree, assuming that we can manage to craft a resolution not knowing what the specific setback is from those posts to the road. MR. HAYES-Well, those posts are okay, but I think we’re going to have to get into specific feet. MR. MC NULTY-Right. That’s the thing that leaves me wondering, but in any event, a sign about the size of about what those posts would allow, moved down closer to the parking lot would be okay with me, providing that there’s a proviso in there that should the parking lot be sold separate from the building, that then the sign. MR. HAYES-You’re asking for a reduction in the sign’s size as well? MR. MC NULTY-Right. MR. HAYES-Okay. Do you have any idea approximately how far those posts are apart, as far as the width of the sign now? MRS. WHEELER-The width of the sign in between them now? MR. HAYES-There would have gone in between them. How about the sign size? We might as well get this finished. Jim? 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) MR. UNDERWOOD-I think you still could have the sign. If it’s three feet on center on those posts, you could easily stick it out a foot on either side. So, that would give you five feet wide. MR. HAYES-So you’d have no problem with the sign size? MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s the same width. MR. HAYES-Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes. I agree, size is all right. MR. ABBATE-No problem. MR. HAYES-Okay. MRS. WHEELER-It’s just about three feet apart from those posts, and I would guess they’re six foot back off the property line. That’s just taking this picture and knowing that the temporary 15 feet, just guesstimating, it’s at least six feet. You can tell me six feet back. MR. HAYES-All right. Everyone understands that we have to make a specific amount of relief, it’s discernible for enforcement. MR. HIMES-Six feet back from the front. MR. HAYES-Why doesn’t someone make a motion and we’ll see if it carries. That would be the proper way to do it. MR. ABBATE-Of course there is an assumption here now that those sign posts, a permit has been issued. MR. HAYES-No, they’re not proposing to use those two sign posts. MRS. WHEELER-No. MR. URRICO-No, but that’s just a reference point. MRS. WHEELER-They’re really, they’re awful close. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. MOTION THAT BASED ON THE REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM, THAT THE RESULT OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNFICANT ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Bryant MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 11-2002 COST CONTROL ASSOC., INC., Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: 310 Bay Road. The applicant proposes the placement of a freestanding sign at the entrance of the parking area. The applicant’s requesting 15 feet of relief from the 15 foot minimum front setback requirement and 15 feet of relief from the 15 foot minimum side setback requirement of the Sign Ordinance per Section 140-6 Paragraph B. I move that we approve this with the compromise that the sign would be agreed that there could be the 15 feet of relief on the side setback, on the condition that the parking lot property which adjoins the applicant’s property, stays in the same ownership. In connection with the front setback, the compromise that we feel that we’ve reached with the applicant is six feet from the front property line would be the front signpost, and it would then move from there back. It’s my understanding it’s approximately five foot in width and sixty-eight inches in height I think it was, and in connection with that, I think we meet the needs of the business and there wouldn’t be any damaging impact on the neighborhood or the community. I move that we approve the application with these conditions and the stipulation concerning ownership of the parking lot continuing as the same ownership of the building that Cost Control Associates is located in. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Bryant MRS. WHEELER-Thank you. MR. HAYES-Thank you for coming. AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2002 TYPE II DAVID & LINDA JOHNSON PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: WD WILLIAM CONSTRUCTION, INC. LOCATION: 347 CLEVERDALE ROAD ZONE: WR-1A, APA, CEA APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 1,000 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-1A ZONE AND FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF. BP 99-709 (BEDROOM, KITCHEN, BATH) ADIRDONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 2/13/02 OLD TAX MAP NO. 14-1-9.1 NEW TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-48 LOT SIZE: 0.47 ACRES SECTION 179-16F, 179-79 JAMES CULLUM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DAVE JOHNSON, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 9-2002, David & Linda Johnson, Meeting Date: February 27, 2002 “Project Location: 347 Cleverdale Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a 1,000 sq. ft. residential addition. Relief Required: Applicant requests 13.13 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16 and for the expansion of a nonconforming structure, § 179-79. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of the Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to keep the addition as built. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include completely removing the porch on the south side of the addition, which was not part of the approved plans, and was never shown in the plans for the building permit. Additionally, consideration should be given to removing a portion of the porch, facing the shore, back to the 20-foot setback line creating a more compliant condition. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 13.13 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial relative to the Ordinance (65.7%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 43-99: 09/21/99; 1000 sq. ft. addition to residential structure BP 99709: 11/22/99; 2226 sq. ft. residential addition. Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The applicant claims an error by the architect resulted in a building permit being issued in error. Consideration might be given to the removal of the porch on the south side, which would result in 8.08 feet of relief needed in place of the 13.13 feet of relief currently being sought. Additional consideration might be given to the removal of a portion of the south-facing porch to the 20-foot setback line. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form February 13, 2002 Project Name: Johnson, Dave & Linda Owner: Dave & Linda Johnson ID Number: QBY-AV-9-2002 County Project #: Feb02-28 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicants have constructed an addition to their home and seek relief from setback requirements for the expansion of a non-conforming structure. Site Location: 347 Cleverdale Road. Tax Map Number(s): 240.06-1-16 Staff Notes: There will be no new construction with the setback limits. The existing structure has deficient setbacks. Staff does not identify any issues significant to County Resources. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 2/14/02. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Please state your name for the record. MR. CULLUM-My name is James Cullum, from Fitzgerald, McPhillips & Cullum. We’re the attorneys for the applicant. MR. JOHNSON-Dave Johnson, 347 Cleverdale Road. WAYNE WILLIAMS MR. WILLIAMS-Wayne Williams, 80 Seelye Road, Cleverdale. MR. HAYES-Is there anything you’d like to add to the application, Mr. Cullum? 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) MR. CULLUM-Yes. I’ll speak first, if you don’t mind. Mr. Williams was the agent who filed the papers, and also the contractor, and also a neighbor of Mr. Johnson, but I have gotten involved in this, and I think the first thing to do is to give you some explanation about what has caused the problem. I’ll do this briefly. In 1999, Dave and Linda Johnson decided to improve the structure that was existing on their property. They hired an architect. The architect prepared the plans that I believe you have, and thereafter constructed a beautiful, sound, well constructed house, aesthetically beautiful, in full consistency with the nature and character of that area, and this place was built in accordance with those plans. As part of his duties, he was to draft the plot plans in which the setback lines were shown and in relation to the building itself, to the addition to the buildings, the new construction was obviously to comply with the Zoning Ordinance under setback requirements. As I look up there, I see that you have copies of that plot plan prepared by that architect, and if we look at it, you will see that the building itself, as proposed, is within the setback requirements. We’ll get to the first part of it in a minute. The building itself as proposed, and there is no change in that, was constructed within the requirement as shown on that plot plan. The problem is that, obviously, when the survey was required by the Staff finding that this was not the case, it was too close to the line, the survey was prepared. Mrs. Johnson saw to that immediately, since last fall until now that (lost words) taken place, and the survey clearly shows that the building is not, the new part of the building is not within the setback. As a matter of fact, neither was the existing building before this construction. It was a nonconforming use. So we have this difficulty with complying with that plot plan. There was no change in the location of the building in that plot plan, because obviously they’ve added on to the existing building. So it isn’t as though the Johnsons intentionally moved this building somewhere. The plot plan is wrong, and that’s the underlying source of the problem here. This thing is constructed. The porch issue is that there is a small porch on the southeast, it’s almost a stoop, on the southeast corner of the new construction. It is not shown on that plot plan. The reason for that, and there’s no good reason for that, but I’m telling you what happened. It was a mistake by the Johnsons. They thought there would be no problem adding that porch. They thought they’d still be in compliance with the setback provisions. If you look at the survey, you’ll see that that entire area from the road is blocked by a couple of sheds and garages (lost words). So, those two things have been a real problem, but there are things that aren’t problems, namely that this building, as I said, is consistent with the nature and the character of the area. It’s a beautiful building. Mr. Johnson used a local contractor. He used an architect and tried to keep the design in compliance with the area, and when they finally constructed it, it was indeed a benefit to the Johnsons because it’s a beautiful place, and it also benefits the area. There’s no detriment to the health, safety and welfare of that community and the nearby property. By granting a variance here, there is no undesirable change in character of the neighborhood or to the nearby properties. That, I think, is probably best reflected because you will not hear an objection. The neighbors that have been approached have all been in full agreement and accepting this variance. The existing building is beautiful. So there is no effect, in our contention, that has a detriment to the neighborhood or the community. Feasible alternatives? There’s no feasible alternatives. Now the thing is built. You could say that perhaps you could tear some of it down, tear part of the house down. That doesn’t seem feasible to me. It doesn’t seem feasible to any reasonable person, I don’t believe. There is a back porch on this which is covered by the roof of the building itself. To take the back porch off of part of it and put it in compliance with the 20 foot setback would leave an aesthetically unpleasant thing to look at from the lake. You’d have part of the house, which is well designed now, just cut off oddly. So, that, plus the fact that there would be some structural difficulties because the roof of the house covers the porch. So that doesn’t appear to be a feasible alternative, and as I stated with this stoop on the southeast corner, hidden by sheds, garages, carports, that were much closer to this property line before this construction took place than this portion is now, it would leads one to believe that it makes no sense to take that porch down either. So there are no feasible alternatives, in our view, except for this variance. Whether or not this variance is substantial, substantial when considered in relation to 20 feet, 13 feet out of 20 might be substantial but I ask you to consider that it’s not a substantial variance as to the property itself, if you go up there and look at it. As a matter of fact, (lost words) porch is adjacent to an eight foot line of trees or shrub trees. This is not a substantial setback violation when you look at it in terms of what’s on the ground. I’d also say that the house next door, on the south, which is owned by Mr. Freeburn, later today said, again, he had no problems with it. That house is further forward than the Johnson house. That house is much closer to the lake than the Johnson residence is. So we really aren’t juxtaposed. We claim, and I don’t think there’s any argument, that there’s no adverse impact on the environment, as far as environmental concerns. That leads to the issue of it being self-created, and as I stated to you in our explanation, this was not an intentional act (lost words). This house was presented for site plan review, a building permit was obtained, certificate of occupancy was issued, and I know that those things aren’t totally binding, but that happened, and when this was discovered, it we prepared the survey, submitted, and we’re here trying to correct the matter presently. So, with respect to all of the criteria set forth in the statute, I think they all fall in favor of granting this variance. MR. WILLIAMS-I’d just like to comment a little bit about some of the Staff notes. Regarding the feasible alternatives, again, Jayce, next to me here, has pretty much commented on the same issue, but to remove 20 feet of lakeside porch, or remove back to the 20 foot setback on the lakeside porch would be a tremendous hardship and cost probably tens of thousands of dollars. It’s a truss groove, and you can’t just remove a portion out of there. You’d end up tearing the whole front of the house off (lost words). Is the relief substantial to the Ordinance? Again, this was already mentioned, that the Johnsons would likely consider that they already have pre-existing buildings on the same side of the property in question, as close as 4.26 feet from the property line. Effects on the neighborhood and community, the Johnsons have made significant 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) improvements to the property, and I feel the improvements far outweigh any negative effects on the neighborhood. Some of the major improvements, improved new septic system, (lost words) construction of a large retaining wall on the lake side of the property, greatly reducing the property runoff into the lake, stabilizing the ground, and basically that’s all the comments I had. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Mr. Johnson, do you have anything you want to add? MR. JOHNSON-No, except for when we went ahead and built the property, we met with all the neighbors. We wanted to, I’ve seen what’s happened all around the lake, when we initially went up to Cleverdale, and we wanted to maintain a structure that fit right in and looked like it had been there for 30, 40 years, and we met with Bob and Mary O’Brien, who have the property on the right side, and we talked to them, told them what we were going to do, (lost words), talked to the Freeburns (lost words), and again, everybody was in favor. We needed an architect. Jim Mooney lives across the street. His brother-in-law was the actual architect on the property. We hired him. (Lost words) we just tried to put something on the property that would fit in, improve the general area. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. All right. Then, if that’s all you have to say, are there any questions for the applicant? MR. BROWN-One question. I reviewed our copy of the application. I don’t have Mr. Cullum listed as agent for the applicant. If we could just get him to sign the application, or Mr. Johnson could sign it. Do you have one signed? MR. CULLUM-Yes. MR. BROWN-If you could submit it to the Secretary. MR. ABBATE-I don’t mean to sound intentionally harsh. I do believe that this was not intentional. I believe Counsel has stated that right. Perhaps there may be no negative effects, but in my opinion, I’m not speaking for the Board, Counsel is asking us to provide absolution for professional incompetence. This could go on, go on, go on, go on, and go on. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant? No other questions for the applicant? I guess I had one question. The addition would be the southern portion of the house? MR. WILLIAMS-That’s correct. MR. HAYES-Okay. Because I have to say that it did blend, and the fact that I wasn’t initially sure what exact part was the addition when I went. So, okay. If there’s no further questions, then I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here wishing to speak in favor of the application? Anyone opposed to the application? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENTS MR. HAYES-Okay. I guess we’ll move immediately to the polling of the Board members, then, if there’s no other questions. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Okay. This one is a difficult one. It’s a beautiful house. It fits well in the neighborhood, but, at the same time, I can’t see how anybody could have overlooked the fact that that side porch was less than 20 feet to the lot line. Now it strikes me that it should have been obvious to anybody, not just the architect, but anybody standing there. It’s clearly closer than it ought to be. I wish that a lot more of the homes in that area were built like this and landscaped like this, but that requires a zoning change, and that’s not what this Board is supposed to be doing is giving permission for zoning changes, and for that reason, I think, even though I like the way the house is built, I like the landscaping and the whole design, I’ve got to come down as opposed, simply on the basis that it violates the zoning. I think the difficulty could have been avoided if everybody had been alert, and as I think it’s been alluded to, this can go on and on. It’s easy enough to take the attitude, well, we’ll build what we want and then we’ll go in and get a variance, and that’s not what we’re here for. So I’m going to be opposed. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would have to echo Chuck’s sentiments also, but at the same time, in view of a compromise here, the little stoop that was created on that south side there, I think as far as having a real impact, I mean, it does intrude into an area that we do consider that it should have been 20 foot setback. I don’t understand how that could have happened, that you could have built that close to the property line 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) without realizing what you were doing. As far as an impact, you do have the hedge row along the south side of the property there. I don’t think there’s any impacts as far as the lake goes, because you’re so far set back from the lake, but at the same time, it creates the illusion of building these non-stop buildings that have little tiny spaces between them, you know, them and the property line. So maybe as an alternative to this, I would suggest that a substantial vegetative plot be created on the lake side so you can’t see this from the lake side. As you pointed out, you really can’t see it from the road because you have those pre-existing buildings in the back that are too close to the property line, but I think that you need to lessen your impact and your view from the lake, and I think you could plant some trees down in front there, and those trees, you let them grow up to be big trees, don’t trim them, you know, keep it as a closed off area, so at least you’re not looking at it from the lake and that will break up that view somewhat. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I suppose I should do some huffing and puffing about mistakes that are made, and we’ve had them before, and sometimes I think we should pursue them to their source, and see what to do then. However, sometimes that’s not practical, and in my case, I look at the lakefront things, and usually get an impression of something that’s really overbuilt or it’s just too much and what not. This isn’t the case here, and I think one thing that sways me as much as anything else is that it was brought up that the buildings in front, the garage and so forth there, that kind of run right along with it, they’re very close to the line. The house, when I recall looking at it, doesn’t go further to the south than those. I think we had a picture up there before where from the road you look out toward the lake and you see the shed and the garage and the carport and what is built out, you know, so the aspect of their being any impingement has been there for a long time, by those structures, those three structures there, and so the house kind of came out to where their outside lines were. That softens it a great deal, in my viewpoint. Certainly, mistakes can be made. In any aspect, if this had possibly come along and it was being requested, I’d think long and hard about it, but I might still come down saying, okay, in view of the neighborhood support, in view of the way it looks to me, the aspect of how far away from the water it is, and, last but not least, that it’s not really a tremendously overbuilt structure, which, in many cases like this, we’re faced with that in addition to the request for the other variances. So, I suppose I should stop some time tonight. I am in favor of approving the variance. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-As I indicated earlier, I do not believe that this was intentional. There was an error by the architect and it resulted in a building permit being issued in error. However, there is a problem, and that’s called prudence. It seems to me there’s a responsibility that falls squarely on the shoulders of all parties, to exhibit proper prudence when plans are being built, etc., etc., and certain follow-ups. Now your argument may be made, well, my clients are not architects, etc., but there’s still a responsibility of prudence, and I don’t think there was, and as a result, I’m not going to support the application. MR. HAYES-Thank you. MR. HIMES-Could I say something, in addition to mine, I meant to say about the porch on the side there? The normally, I don’t recall how high, you know, when you step outside there, isn’t it some kind of a step, a building required by the Building Department? In other words, when you step outside of a door where that little porch is there, going right to the ground level, usually, if it’s over a certain amount of inches, aren’t you required to have some kind of a? MR. BROWN-The building code requires, wherever the wood frame construction starts, it’s supposed to be a minimum of eight inches above the final grade. So you’re probably looking at at least an eight inch step, probably more than what (lost words) floor system. MR. HIMES-There has to be something out there, I mean, one of the things was to remove it, which probably shouldn’t be part of. MR. BROWN-If there’s wood frame construction. If there’s a concrete patio there, then you can step right out onto the concrete patio. MR. HIMES-Thank you. That’s all I had, thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. HAYES-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m going to try to remove myself from the mistakes that were made and look at this as if it was presented without those mistakes, if this was just coming to us fresh, and if it was coming to us fresh, I would not be in favor of it. I think 66% is way over the line, and given that there are already (lost words) on the property that are closer, there still needs to be at least an illusion of space, and I think that’s what the 20 foot side setback is there for, so that we can create more space in an area that is in danger of becoming overly congested with houses, and so, as currently presented, I would be against this application. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Well, it certainly is a difficult matter. This Board has been strong in its sanction of variances being granted post construction, and that’s certainly, you’ve heard that from the rest of the Board. So I won’t spend much time there. In this particular circumstance, though, I think my own analysis is very similar to Norm’s, being that as I viewed the property, even though I think the relief is important, in this case, as I viewed the property, I think it actually does not look overbuilt, does not look overcrowded. Certainly the side setback relief that’s involved, that is part of what the Code is trying to protect, but in this particular case, as I viewed the property, and I walked around, I couldn’t help but feel that it was an asset to that immediate community, as it was constructed. Does that mean that I enjoy the fact, or appreciate the fact that it was built with additional relief? No, but this is a balancing test, and in this case, I’m contrasting what I feel would be a rather draconian remedy, which would be removal of some portion of that structure, versus what detriment is being caused by these structures being within the setback areas, and I think in that particular case, my mind tells me that the detriment is less than a possible remedy that would include the removal. Examining the test as itself, the benefit to the applicant is obvious, he’d be permitted to keep his addition as it’s built, and I think it’s fairly agreed by the neighbors, or the other people on the Board here, that the actual addition itself is a compliment. Feasible alternatives, in this particular case, we are trapped a little bit by feasible alternatives because the building is already constructed, but I don’t think that removing the porch, in this particular case, is the answer. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I believe that falls against the applicant. I certainly believe that 13 feet of relief on a 20 foot requirement is substantial, 65.7 percent. There’s no doubt in my mind that it’s substantial. Effects on the neighborhood or community? I honestly can say that I don’t think there’s any negative impacts on the neighborhood in this particular case. Primarily it was constructed on single story. I do believe that it was constructed with the intention of blending and complying with the neighbors, as has been pointed out by Counsel in this particular case. So I think that falls in favor of the applicant, and is the difficulty self-created? I think you could argue this both ways. I do agree with Chuck in the circumstance that you could argue it’s self-created, being that there should have been some, even visual estimation that this was not the property setbacks, but I believe an honest error was made in this circumstance, based on the plot plan. I’ve said before, on these type of applications, that, presented with evidence of good faith, I tend to assume the applicant is telling the truth, and obviously their first time in front of the Board, that’s an assumption I can make. The next time they come before the Board with an honest mistake, that presumption wouldn’t be there. So in this case I’d have to say that I think the difficulty, you know, I think you could argue that both ways. As I balance the whole test, in this particular circumstance, I think I could be in favor of this application slightly. MR. HIMES-Mr. Chairman, if you’re finished, I had another comment. MR. HAYES-Certainly. MR. HIMES-I’m sorry to keep, I don’t know whether this will change any of the other member’s minds, maybe Staff would correct me on this, but as the construction was undertaken, normally, aren’t there site inspections done or the Building Department goes out and checks and sees if the foundation is thus and so, and I don’t know whether checking on the setback and so forth is part of that, and I’m not saying this for any, necessarily to attack the Staff, it’s just that perhaps somewhere in there there was another complimentary mistake made, perhaps, you know, where it seems like there was a congregation of mistakes made that allowed this to come to completion with no one knowing until a year or so after, or longer, that there was anything wrong? You don’t have to comment. I’m just making that as a statement. MR. BROWN-I’d be happy to comment. There’s a process that’s undertaken by the Building Department that requires and involves several inspections of the property, unfortunately, none of which determine where the property lines are and where the building sits in relation to the property line to make sure it’s compliant. Typically those things are discovered when a survey is made. In this case, this application had site plan approval by the Planning Board, and prior to a final Certificate of Occupancy being issued, I made an inspection, initially, before Bruce did, at the lake, and took a look at the site, I’ve got a significant background in surveying. I made a decision that I thought it was incorrect, and that’s the point where we started to talk about, is it in compliance with the plans that were approved. The permit was issued based on the drawing. It showed the construction to be compliant. There’s no reason it wouldn’t get the (lost words). The closing of the permit is where this all (lost words). I don’t know if that answers your question. MR. HIMES-It does. MR. BROWN-The Building Department is not required, nor do they even attempt to determine where the property lines are. A lot of times they’ll go out and maybe assist an applicant and give a best guess, but there’s no determination of property line by the Building Department. MR. HIMES-I’m just, again, as a matter of just my own thinking, that this is the third or fourth instance of something like this that we’ve had, and a couple of them would have involved very substantial impact on the applicant, had we not found some way to compromise, what have you, and I don’t know if there can be anything done in the future that might mitigate or present this kind of thing from developing when, and certainly, approval of the variance or such was done would be one thing, but again, you know how it reads later on, when people don’t know the background to it, and say, my God, if the variance was given there, how about me? That’s all I have. Thank you very much. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) MR. HAYES-I guess the only remedy to that would be pre-built surveys, and the cost effectiveness. MR. BROWN-The foundation location, do a survey, do this, this degree of accuracy of a survey when the footings are in the ground, before you get too far. That’s basically been offered to the Town Board, to require that. It faced some opposition, and understandably, not only by the property owners, but the contractors. It’s another step in the process before you can actually move on to the construction. (Lost words) avoid these, 99 times out of 100, but that’s the only remedy that I can see. MR. HAYES-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Two quick comments. One addressing, I don’t think we should focus in on anyone. I think there is a burden of responsibility that can be shared by all parties, and, number two, philosophical one addressed to you. A draconian remedy. Well, committing a crime and going to prison may be considered draconian by some folks, too. That’s it. Thank you. MR. HAYES-I’m not sure about that, but, they commit a crime they should go to jail, but. MR. CULLUM-Your points are well taken, and the others, about the community and the Town, and the history of people building and coming in for a permit later. I don’t think anybody really feels that that happened. I don’t think that anybody feels that an erroneous plot plan by an architect was submitted intentionally. So, we don’t want to be in the wrong place at the wrong time here for the feelings that you have, hostility that you might have for citizens of this community that do that. The Johnsons didn’t. I would also like to say, Mr. Himes had a good point. This thing was inspected, before the approvals were obtained for building this building. Mr. and Mrs. Johnson had no surveying background, but more importantly, they were in Arizona when the house was built. So they couldn’t look at this thing and say, there’s the house. There’s the property line. This was an innocent mistake. MR. WILLIAMS-I’d like to make one comment, too. During construction I had a few reservations. I’ve seen all kinds of weird property lines, especially in Cleverdale and Rockhurst area. What I did, I spoke with Mr. Freeburn, almost on a daily basis, and I presented my feelings to him about the location of the building to his property line, and he had no concerns what so ever, and he was there almost every day watching us build. He could have come to the Town at any point, if he had a problem with how close the building was to his property line, and it would probably have stopped construction immediately, but that never happened, and also, one of the first times one of the Building Inspectors came, he had a concern on how close it was to the property line, and I’m assuming he came back to the office and looked at the same plot plan and that was it. He never went any farther than that. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Okay. Does anybody else have any further questions? Okay. Mr. Cullum, as I poll the Board, I guess my basic thing is there’s three for and three against the application. I guess that’s my understanding, which does not carry the motion. So you have two options, as I can see. You can present some remedy that might change a vote. That is one option, which would represent a compromise or I will allow you to table this motion, or this application, if you’d like, for a full Board of seven, which will allow another voting member. MR. CULLUM-Thank you for giving me that opportunity to present this possibility to (lost words). I have said, right from the beginning, that putting that stoop back there was not the right thing to do, without having (lost words). Would some type of fine with respect to that satisfy the Board? MR. ABBATE-I didn’t hear that. I’m sorry, sir. MR. CULLUM-With respect to the placement of that stoop, after the site plan review, the possibility, would it satisfy you to fine the Johnsons for doing that? MR. HAYES-First off, I should check to see if that’s even permissible, and we’ve never done that. That’s not within our power, I guess. MR. ABBATE-We don’t have the authority to do that. MR. CULLUM-I disagree with you. I think you can do it. MR. HAYES-As a reasonable condition. MR. CULLUM-But if it’s not something that you’re, if you could go with a table, I’d rather stay away from that. We would probably like to table it. Can I have a minute? MR. HAYES-Certainly. I guess I’m more or less agreeing to table it, because it’s a three to three vote. MR. ABBATE-Yes. That’s fair enough. They deserve the option, I agree. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) MR. HAYES-It’s not like a tabling is wasting time. MR. ABBATE-Again, standard of fairness. MR. HAYES-Mr. Cullum? MR. CULLUM-If we table it to come back with a full Board. MR. HAYES-Right, it won’t necessarily even be the exact same Board. MR. CULLUM-No, I understand, and it’s not one of these crisis situations. I mean, the building is there. Would we be allowed to submit additional documentation, such as consent whereby neighbors, for example, Mr. Freeburn, the only person in the world bothered, or effected by this, not bothered by this. MR. HAYES-Well, I think anything that’s factual, that has to do with the application would be entertained. I don’t think there’s any problem with that whatsoever. MR. CULLUM-Then I think our request would be to accept your offer to table this. MR. HAYES-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2002 DAVID & LINDA JOHNSON, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 347 Cleverdale Road. In lieu of a full compliment of Board members and any additional information that might be brought forward by the applicant. Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2002, by the following vote: th MR. BROWN-Do you want to table it to a meeting date? MR. HAYES-Yes. I guess, would you like to pick a meeting date and we’ll specifically table it to that? Or should I just table it for no more than 60 days? MR. BROWN-I’m sure they’ll probably want this done as fast as we do. So if you want to pick a March meeting date, the first or second meeting in March. MR. HAYES-It would be the third or fourth Wednesday in March. Do you want to pick one of those two? MR. CULLUM-The fourth, I think, would be better. MR. HAYES-Okay. AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Bryant MR. HAYES-The motion is tabled. MR. CULLUM-Thank you. USE VARIANCE NO. 12-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED ADIRONDACK GIRL SCOUT COUNCIL, INC. PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: THE LA GROUP, JOY MC COOLA & ZILCH, JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. LOCATION: 412 MEADOWBROOK ROAD ZONE: SFR-1A APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF EXISTING CAMP (ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITIES) AND SEEKS RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONPERMITTED USE IN THE SFR-1A ZONE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 2/13/02 OLD TAX MAP NO. 60-2-6 NEW TAX MAP NO. 296.16-1-10 LOT SIZE: 13.38 ACRES SECTION 179-20 JON LAPPER, HOLLY ELMER, BOB ZILCH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 12-2002, Adirondack Girl Scout Council, Inc., Meeting Date: February 27, 2002 Project Location: 412 Meadowbrook Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant seeks 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) relief to expand a non-conforming use on the property. Specifically, the applicant wishes to expand the office/administrative facilities at the site. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the allowable uses of the Single Family Residential, (SFR-1A) zone, § 179-20. The operation of a Group Camp is not listed as an allowable use in the SFR-1A zone. Criteria for considering a Use Variance according to Chapter 267of Town Law: 1. Can the applicant realize a reasonable return, provided that lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence? Information supplied by the applicant claims that the property is not suitable for single-family development, however, there is no supporting financial evidence to support this position. 2. Is the alleged hardship relating to the property in question unique, and does this hardship apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood? The constraint of wetlands appears to affect several parcels in the neighborhood, the majority of which are developed with residential uses. 3. Will the requested use variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the neighborhood? The Girl Scout camp currently exists on the site, therefore, an expansion of the use, at this scale, should not present more than moderate impacts. 4. Is the alleged hardship self-created: The Girl Scouts acquired the subject property in 1948. The use as a group camp appears to have progressed through the 1950’s & 60’s, and as such would establish the use on the property prior to any proscriptive zoning. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Use Variance 1226 res. 3/18/87 expand facilities Use Variance 44-92 res. 5/27/92 storage building and breeze way Freshwater Wetlands Permit 2-92 res. 5/14/92 storage building and breeze way Off Premises Sign res. 4/16/85 Located at Quaker & Meadowbrook Staff comments: Based on the information submitted with the application, it appears as though the applicant has, over time, invested approximately $450,000 in the property and the improvements thereto. Further, it appears as though the applicant has received some “return” on their investment via depreciation values totaling approximately $160,000. What appears to be missing are the “conventional” costs to operate the property; (utilities, maintenance, etc.) offset by an income statement. Assumptions can be made with regards to the potential costs for the conversions of the camp buildings to single-family dwellings; however, such a “dollars and cents” comparison does not appear within the application material. If considering this request based on the “balancing of public interest”, a position offered by the applicant, the test would appear to be as follows: 1. Nature and scope of instrumentality seeking immunity; Adirondack Girl Scout Council, non-profit, charitable and educational organization. 2. Kind of function or land use: Adirondack Girl Scout Council Group camp to promote the development and education of the community. 3. Extent of public interest to be served: See previous answer 4. Effect local land use regulation would have on project concerned: Local land use regulations prohibit such a use. 5. Impact on legitimate local interests: Minimal, if any, adverse impacts on legitimate local interests is anticipated. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form February 13, 2002 Project Name: Adirondack Girl Scout Council, Inc. Owner: Adirondack Girl Scout Council, Inc. ID Number: QBY-UV-12-2002 County Project #: Feb02-21 Current Zoning: SFR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes expansion of existing camp, administrative facilities and seeks relief for the expansion of a non-permitted use. Site Location: 412 Meadowbrook Road. Tax Map Number(s): 2296.16-1-10 Staff Notes: Staff believes it is in the best interest of Warren County residents to have scouting facilities and services available for its residents. Expansion of existing facilities allows for the least intrusive method for the provision of those services. Staff does not identify any issues significant to County Resources. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 2/14/02. MR. HAYES-Thank you very much. Before we get started, based on the notes that were read, and I’m sure Mr. Lapper will amplify this, to some extent, this balancing of public interest, is that a different test than the traditional, than the permitted test or recognized test? MR. BROWN-That’s my understanding. I haven’t got confirmation of that, but in the application, you’ll find a couple of memorandums of law that makes the case. It seems reasonable to me, but I don’t have that information in front of me. I’m sure Mr. Lapper can (lost words). MR. HAYES-Thank you. Please state your name for the record? MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper. With me tonight are Holly Elmer, with the LA Group, and Bob Zilch, architect from Joy, McCoola & Zilch. Kit Huggard is sitting behind us, the Executive Director of the Girl Scout Council, and a number of her Board members as well, and they’re going to want to address you about how important this project is for them and this facility. I guess I would like to just trouble Chuck to ask him to read my cover letter into the record, I know that you all have it, before we get started. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. January 30, this is a letter directed to a Mr. Paul J. Hayes, Vice Chairman, signed th by Jonathan Lapper, dated January 30, 2002. “On behalf of Adirondack Girl Scout Council Inc. I am hereby submitting a procedurally atypical application for a use variance in order for the Girl Scout Council to expand some of the pre-existing facilities located at its 13.53 acre parcel on Meadowbrook Road. The Girl Scout Council took title to the property in 1948. I am enclosing a copy of that deed. The buildings and improvements on the site predate zoning with the exception of the construction of a lodge building and the expansion of the office building, which were each approved by use variance and with exception of the construction of the recent sewer line which was required to replace a failing septic system. Initially, it is our 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) position that the proposed expansion of the administrative office building and upgrading of the parking area does not require an additional use variance. As indicated in the enclosed memorandum of law, New York courts have consistently held that once a use receives a use variance from a zoning board of appeals, the future expansion of such use does not require an additional use variance. The use of the property for a girl scout camp and administrative office building should now be considered “use variance approved uses” rather than “nonconforming uses”. I have also enclosed copies of the variance applications, minutes of the ZBA hearings and copies of the ZBA resolutions approving the two previously requested use variances in 1987 and 1992, respectively. I ask that the Board consider making a determination that an additional use variance is not required for the proposed expansion. Alternatively, we are hereby submitting an application for a use variance. The hardship in this case is based upon the site constraints which restrict the ability of the site to be developed for the permitted use of single family residential. The LA Group has prepared a detailed analysis describing these constraints with backup documentation and photos. To document the financial hardship I am enclosing a breakdown of the amount invested in the property by the applicant. Since we believe that the property has no value as zoned, it is not even necessary to increase the investment numbers based upon reasonable appreciation over time. We believe that the impact on the neighborhood of the proposed expansion will be very positive. The enclosed elevation drawing prepared by Joy, McCoola & Zilch shows a significant visual improvement to the building’s façade. Also, as indicated on the site plan, the existing parking lot along Meadowbrook Road will be changed to reduce the size of the curb cut and eliminate the existing condition of cars backing onto the road. The parking lot will be expanded along the south and rear of the building to provide additional parking which will be shielded from the road. Finally, I have included another memorandum of law which summarizes the New York cases which provide that traditional educational and community oriented not-for-profit institutions enjoy a reduced standard of review for use variances under New York Law. In this regard, I am enclosing a copy of the certificate of incorporation which sets forth the educational purposes of the organization. Please place this matter on the agenda for one of the February meetings. Very Truly Yours, Jonathan C. Lapper, Esq.” MR. LAPPER-Well, that’s a mouthful, and I apologize for the complexity. I guess, to begin with, we are prepared to make the standard use variance, financial hardship case, if the Board deems that necessary. You have the dollars and cents proof of why the site can’t be much developed, but basically what the dollars would be, to the extent it can be developed, and why that would still be a financial loss. We’ll go there if necessary. I guess the first question from me to the Board is how do you feel about the memo of law that I submitted that reflects the two use variances that were previously granted, and then how do you feel about the case law that talks about the balancing test when you’ve got a not-for-profit community association like this? And the question is how you want to proceed. MR. ABBATE-Are you asking the question? MR. LAPPER-I guess I am. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, he asked the question. Can I answer it? MR. HAYES-Yes, certainly. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Counsel out case law’d me. I find it difficult, now that you out case law’d me, to put up any valid argument. You did me in. MR. HIMES-Could I ask? MR. HAYES-Certainly, Norm. MR. HIMES-I must say that it could be complicated. You made an awfully nice presentation in your application file here. I mean, anything that I wanted to know about the situation is here, and the one thing that I was trying to formulate words to say, and you’ve done very nicely here, I wanted to ask you about it. the memorandum of law, the January 28, 2002, the bottom of the first page, are you paraphrasing, or like what’s in parenthesis? MR. LAPPER-That is paraphrasing. MR. HIMES-All right. Okay. So I think you were probably holding very closely to what has been determined in the case law that Chuck has referred to, that I think all of us here would have an interest in and may affect how we proceed in connection with taking a more direct course. Would you just explain, because I’m not sure, there was so much here, that we all remember or read this particular document? MR. LAPPER-The theory there is that when an applicant comes before the Board and asks for a use variance, that what the Board is passing on is that that site can be used for that use. The Zoning Administrator, when we discussed this a few months ago, was rightfully concerned, in terms of precedent, that sometimes a Board may be considering a small addition to an existing building for a use variance, and then we show up a year later and say we’re building a 10 story building because you approved the use, and I understand that, in terms of if that was somebody’s approach, that wouldn’t be fair, but what the case law 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) recognizes is that once the Zoning Board passes on the use, they’re saying that you’ve met the test for financial hardship and that that site can be improved in the future for that use. That use is now no longer a prior nonconforming use, it’s a use variance use. So that, if you come back in the future, you may be asked, you may have area variances, you may need site plan approval, under the circumstances, but you won’t need to establish the use variances. The cases don’t go into more detail than that, but I think part of the theory is that once you spend money, under a use variance, it just sort of changes the test, because that would have been self-imposed hardship, because you’re spending money on something that doesn’t comply, but it’s not because it does comply. So it sort of changes the economic analysis, and that’s why (lost words) if we do do the whole analysis, we (lost words) include what was invested based upon the valid Use Variances. So if we do that, we’re okay on the economic hardship because we can show that we can’t sell it for that, but the theory is just that once this Board, or its predecessor Board, passed on the Use Variance, then this becomes a use variance use, and we don’t need another use variance to expand it. MR. HIMES-Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I just wonder if we can consider the aspect that the normal mercantile or economic testing that we would normally go through might not be necessary here, and that we look at the application from the standpoint of is what is being done consistent with the certificate of incorporation or whatever that the body has and consistent with their, you know, what they’re authorized to do, as a body, and from that standpoint, in other words, that they are not stepping outside or going, like he mentioned, a ten story building or something outside of what would be normal, in connection with the use that was approved some time in the past, the use variance. I don’t know how the Board might feel. MR. HAYES-I have a question for Staff. I just want to clarify, make sure we’re going down the right path here. Mr. Lapper is arguing that potentially this Board could consider that a use variance analysis is not necessary, based on the argument he just made there. You’re saying the financial? Not the entire test, then? MR. LAPPER-I’m saying that, first position is that a use variance may not be needed at all, because two use variances were previously granted for the use for this site (lost words) administrative offices is an approved use by the zone, approved by granting the Use Variance. That’s the first argument. MR. HAYES-That’s the summary judgment argument. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. BROWN-That would be an appeal, which hasn’t been filed. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. LAPPER-I guess I think I’d characterize that more as a determination of this Board, rather than an appeal.. MR. BROWN-Yes. Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately for this Board, the Board doesn’t get to make determinations. They get to hear appeals, or they hear variances, unless you specifically ask them for an interpretation. MR. LAPPER-I guess I would say that my cover letter certainly laid that out, procedurally. To leave that alone for a second, not to confuse the second argument is that, because it is a Girl Scout Council, and a girl scout council meets the not-for-profit, charitable, educational. MR. HAYES-That’s like the turbo use variance, then? MR. LAPPER-Exactly. Then we’ve got a use variance that is more based upon area variance standards, if you will, that is balancing of the interest, the importance of this entity in the community, the services that are performed on the site, and the balancing of the impact on the neighborhood versus the benefit to the applicant. MR. HAYES-Let me stop you there. I want to ask Town Staff now about the abbreviated use variance. MR. BROWN-I think, if you consider the review process, public utility, it’s somewhat of a relaxed standard over a strict use variance application. The necessity of the use, you’re familiar with the test we’ve applied most often to cell towers. I think in this case where you have the lack of a standard, in this case what seems to be a reasonable standard that’s been offered, I think as long as you make a finding based on some reasonable analysis, I think what they’ve offered is a sound comparison, a parallel to the test, a different level of scrutiny. I don’t think that’s unreasonable. I think if your findings are based along those lines, I think that’s fine, and I don’t know if you’re asking if we agree with that, but I would agree that the test that has been offered by the applicant is a reasonable test. MR. HAYES-That’s, in effect, exactly my question. I mean, if the Town, theoretically, is comfortable, or at least thinks it’s colorable to examine this under the balancing of public interest test, then my sense is the Board, based on what they’ve already said, feels comfortable with that scenario as well. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) MR. ABBATE-Yes. We just use a different criteria. MR. HAYES-Right. MR. ABBATE-Right, yes. MR. HAYES-The criteria that’s been established. MR. ABBATE-Correct. MR. BROWN-I think it’s a common practice that, in the absence of a standard, if you find something that’s reasonable, a reasonable comparison (lost words). MR. HAYES-What I’m going to recommend to the Board, I guess, why don’t we take an immediate poll along those lines, and we can focus more on the issues of where we’re going with this application, possibly save some testimony, if it goes that direction. I guess the thing I’d like to poll each Board member here is whether you believe that we should be going with the full Use Variance test, okay, as we have done before, according to Chapter 267 of Town Law, or whether you would feel that it’s proper and equitable to use the balancing of public interest test as depicted in the second part of the Staff comments, notes. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that we can kind of meld the two together, to a degree, because I think there’s some side issues that have to be reflected upon, too, as far as what they’re proposing and where they’re proposing it, and I think that, you know, not in a derogatory manner in speaking, but I think that we all understand what you’re proposing, and where you’re coming from. I don’t have a problem with that at all, but I think at the same time, the site, you know, I think you need to reflect a little bit, and maybe you guys need to maybe even pause before you go forward and think about the 1940’s versus where we are now, and the pace, the accelerated pace of what’s going on in the immediate vicinity of where you’re located, and I think that that’s something to maybe reflect. This is a major undertaking on your part, and I understand that it’s a very good idea. It’s something that probably should have happened a long time ago, but I recall when I lived down in that neighborhood, like when you guys were having meetings, the cars parked up and down the road. Obviously it’s a good idea to procure more parking and things like that, but at the same time I think that, you know, your site there and where it’s located, you may want to give is some serious thought before you try and push it through in the direction you now appear to be heading with it, to think about an alternative site or, you know, maybe the possibility of an alternative site at some point, because very soon that area will be transformed before your eyes, and to put in all the infrastructure, as you’ve said you’ve invested a substantial amount already. I understand that, but to build, put in a building of this scope and size there, you know, when I first thought, I thought, wow, what a great idea, but then when I went down there and walked around the whole site and the parcel over on the other side of the creek, I said to myself, you know, possibly you might want to reconsider what you’re proposing, where you’re proposing it. MR. LAPPER-We’re very prepared, tonight, to go into those issues, to tell you why we think we’re making a major improvement to the site, at the same time we’re doing an expansion. MR. ABBATE-Yes, but we have to address your issue. MR. HAYES-Why don’t we determine what test we’re going to apply. MR. ABBATE-Right, exactly. MR. HAYES-And you can certainly make the case along those lines, and that would be fine. I have one question, and maybe it’s for Mr. Lapper, and I guess we’ll have to assume, on the record. This second test now, the traditional use variance requires a five of five criteria, you know, a sweep. This public interest test, is that a balancing test? MR. LAPPER-Yes, and Craig referred to that in his Staff notes, the five factors are in the second paragraph to my memo of January 24. th MR. HAYES-Okay. Does everyone understand what I was questioning there? Mr. Himes, how do you feel would be best to proceed, as far as the poll here? MR. HIMES-I think that the customary analysis that we give for a use variance, we do have plenty of information in here to do that, but I don’t think that we need to, for the reason that it’s not a use that we’re trying to determine for the first time. I think it’s an extension, or an expansion of it, and that we need to just be assured that it’s in conformance with the, I don’t know, the destiny or what have you of that organization, that, in other words, it’s in keeping with what, when the original use variance was done, I think you can kind of understand what that was, that this is in keeping with that. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) MR. HAYES-I guess, I’m not sure we have the support on the Board for a summary judgment, which kind of is not getting to a test at all, just determining that the use is okay, kind of what you were alluding to. So if we do get into a test analysis, which it appears like the Board is going to require, are you in favor? MR. HIMES-Yes. MR. HAYES-You’re in favor of the traditional test, or the public interest test? MR. HIMES-The public interest test. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Very good. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Cut it short. I’m in favor of the public interest test. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. URRICO-Me, too. MR. MC NULTY-I have no problem with that as long as Counsel is confident that that’s a solid basis, because the risk is to the applicant. MR. HAYES-Certainly. MR. MC NULTY-If it becomes not a solid basis, then the decision could be reversed. MR. ABBATE-Right. That has to be an option. MR. HAYES-Well, Craig has alluded, we’re dealing with it substantially now, and that’s probably good, but you alluded to the fact that, even under examination, if the results are determined in a manner that is based on the facts and some desire to logically get to a conclusion. Okay. MR. LAPPER-I agree with what Chuck said that certainly, we know that at our risk (lost words) that that is the appropriate test. MR. HAYES-Okay. I’m going to put it forward. We don’t need to make a motion along these lines, but I’m going to put it forward that we’ll examine this application through a use test, but the balancing of public interest test. So, at that point, I guess it’s Mr. Lapper’s job now to examine the criteria that’s associated with that test, if you would. MR. LAPPER-Yes. I guess in terms of the first crime, and the nature of the Girl Scouts, I’ve submitted their certificate of incorporation. It talks about what they are authorized to do. It’s in that memo of law from January 24. “The Adirondack Girl Scout Council (“Council”) is a not-for-profit organization and was th formed for exclusively charitable and educational purposes. The specific and primary purpose for which the Corporation was formed is to offer girls residing within its jurisdiction an opportunity to participate in the Girl Scout program, and to inspire girls with the highest ideals of character, conduct, patriotism, and service that they may become happy and resourceful citizens, and to that end to develop, manage, and maintain Girl Scouting throughout the area of its jurisdiction. As the charitable and educational purposes of the Council are identical to those of any other not-for-profit school or church, the standard of reviewing the Council’s variance application should be the “balancing of public interest” analysis as set forth above.” I’d like to start out with Holly and Barb, just to (lost words) site and touch on the issues that Jim mentioned, in terms of why we do think the site is appropriate for this type of use. Actually, I’d like to start off with, I live in the area also. My daughter has been a girl scout, when she was younger, and I know that, in the summer, when they have their summer day camp, on Thursday night, the girls sleepover, and the parents come at seven o’clock, six or seven, for an hour, and have a program with the kids, and that’s where everyone has parked on Meadowbrook Road. It’s not because of the office function, and (lost words) because of that summer program where the parents come and there hasn’t traditionally been enough parking, but what they’ve done recently is that they’ve cleared and graded out an area on the northeast corner of the site, which is now usually roped off, and that’s something that hasn’t been there until very recently. That’s the way that that’s been addressed, which doesn’t mean that there would never be cars on Meadowbrook, but it’s substantially different because of the parking area. Also, what we’re proposing here would be a better parking area than what’s there now. One of the real problems with this site, and Holly agrees with, but the way the parking lot is situated, the cars back onto Meadowbrook Road. That’s been a bad situation for years, and with the development on Meadowbrook Road, it’s going to be a worse situation. So we’re both helping (lost words) and helping the people that use this site. With that, Holly Elmer. MRS. ELMER-You have in your packages (lost words) summary of the environmental site constraints. (Lost words) Halfway Brook itself is real pretty, and the wetlands are rather extensive, and you can see that on the map we’ve provided. The wetlands are shown on, the bedrock outcropping is shown on it. (Lots words) official geology map which shows the bedrock. In terms of any future development, we’d have to take out 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) the bedrock (lost words) or the water line, or we’d have to go at least five feet below grade. If you look at the site plan, this is a large version of what it is. Here’s the existing office, in the southeast corner, Meadowbrook Road. The little (lost words) symbol is the wetland, and here’s the eastern edge of it. You can see that it covers about half, maybe a little more than half, and the bedrock outcrop pretty much covers the northwest corner. The outcrop, you can see that from Meadowbrook, and I took photographs in the package. (Lost words). You can see where the lodges are. The smaller ones to the north are the winter lodge, the nature lodge, and one or two sheds. The office itself has parking right in front of it, where people pull in from Meadowbrook, right straight in to the site. Where in the future condition, there will be a curb in front there to prevent that happening, with one or two entrances (lost words). This curbing here will prevent the random coming and going from the offices. There’s parallel parking here, and then one entrance to the north exit and one for the south. The parking is extended along the south edge of the existing edge (lost words). (Lost words), and we also took a look at the Town’s Comprehensive Master Plan, which says that they want to really preserve the natural features and future open spaces, and the golf course is immediately west of us, and the need to really maintain Halfway Brook and the wetlands, (lost words) and the plan is to some day replace this with little wooden bridges across (lost words). We have the soils maps in there from the County, showing what the shallow water table is most of the year. It’s a silt loam, it has mottling at seven inches, and (lost words) water table right at the surface, and between the wetland and the bedrock, it’s suited very well for a girl scout camp, but not for (lost words). MR. HAYES-Thank you. MR. ZILCH-When we first got involved in this project with the Girl Scouts, we did, to answer one of the questions about whether this is the proper place on the site to do it, and so on. We did look at another potential site on the property. Well, I probably better show it on this one. It shows the whole property. There is a kind of an overflow parking lot up here that is not striped. It’s not paved or anything, but during the summer when parents are dropping their children off and so on, it’s well utilized and actually keeps a lot of the traffic off of Meadowbrook during those pick up and delivery times, and we were instructed to take a look at that site. We did. We did a financial analysis, and we also looked at it from a future’s perspective, for the Girl Scouts, and the further development of their site, and the real focus of this property is not to build more offices for the administration, but to preserve the natural beauty of the site and also enhance the programs that go on here. So in our analysis, we recommended that they take a serious look at their existing building instead of pursuing this option up here, because we felt that that would just add another large building to the property. They could feasibly sell this building off here and gain some financial gain from that, but that was questionable because of the renovations that would need to take place to the house because of the current use. So, in terms of their resources, financial resources and also their future resources for programming, we recommended, and they agreed, that this would be the best option, and we knew that there were some problems with that site, and the parking and so on, and as Holly said, we took measures to resolve those parking issues, and we also knew that there was a floodplain issue there, and we are going to be raising this building, a little bit over a foot. We’re going to be actually lifting the building up and getting it out of that floodplain area there, not the area but the level. So that doesn’t get us out of the floodplain, but it does protect the building. So those are a couple of things that we’re going to be doing. There is a wetland there, and it was flagged by the DEC rep., and we are going to be encroaching very slightly into that with the parking lot, but it’s less than a tenth of an acre. It meets the criteria, and so on, for not doing any mitigation and so on and getting into other review processes. So maybe we ought to just focus on the building a little bit. The existing building is right here, and this is a little garage that was built about eight years ago or so, ten years ago, and they store some of their equipment in there and some of their cookies and so on. I’m giving away secrets here. If you look at the photographs here, I think you can see that, and please forgive me, but this is not the most attractive building on Meadowbrook, and it has two entrances, which don’t really work very well for them right now. It has a handicapped ramp on it that kind of works, but is sort of marginal, and we suggested that, to keep in scale with the neighborhood, that we go back with this building instead of going to either side. We felt that that would keep the scale of the building more in keeping with the neighborhood. So that is the approach that we took, and I think you can see here that this is the addition that we’re proposing. There would basically be a new roof on this. There’s not going to be a lot left of the existing building, when all is said and done. We’re saving the foundation, some of the structure and so on, but it’s really kind of getting rebuilt. The good thing about this is, like I said, is that we are going to be really maintaining the scale of the building by putting most of the addition behind it, and I think you can see that, with this little rendering of the elevation that faces the street, that this is going to, I think, be a big improvement to the building. I mean, we have what is sort of a 1960’s ranch building, ranch house looking building here now, and it’s going to be still having a residential type character to it, but it’s going to be, the materials are going to be much improved, and I think that the color scheme is also going to be more in keeping with kind of a camp, wooded type of environment, which is what we have here. So, this is a larger blow up of the plan, just so you get an idea. We’re not planning, here, for a lot of growth, in terms of the number of employees that we have here. Basically, what the problem is right now is that everybody is just crammed into very small spaces, and so what we’re doing is kind of just expanding each person’s space, and so the actual number of cars that will be parked here by employees is pretty much going to remain constant. So, there is, all of these functions in the building are basically the same as what’s there now. This multi- purpose room exists there now is just going to get larger, so that they could actually use it how they really had intended it to be used. Now it’s so, has so many multi-uses, that they really have a hard time even utilizing the room. So they currently have a little store in the building. So we don’t anticipate, you know, increased 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) traffic there by adding another use to it. They currently have a library in the building, and so on. I mean, it’s basically kind of making everything a lot more workable for the staff and people that are coming there to do business with the Girl Scouts. Maybe if I put this up here you can see a little bit better the existing versus the new. This is their current multi-purpose room here, and this is their new one up there. You can see it’s gotten larger, but more or less the same kind of space. This is their reception and store area right here. Any questions on the plans or site work there? Okay. MR. LAPPER-At this point I’d like to ask Kit Huggard to just tell you about the nature of what they do, administratively, and more importantly primarily what they do at the site, in terms of the camp, the number of kids that are served, and just what their services are. KIT HUGGARD MRS. HUGGARD-The office, as it stands now, we just have outgrown it in every way. Our board can no longer meet there. We used to be able to run a little bit of Girl program there, and we cannot. We’re turning girls away from our programs, and the new multi-purpose room, with the little bridge across, would allow us to run Part A of the program in the Friendship Lodge and Part B in the multi-purpose room, which would be wonderful for us. We’ve done density maps of our membership, and staying where we are just makes the most sense. The greatest number of our members can reach our facility most easily, and it’s central also when you look at the entire area that we cover. We’re in five counties. We have 3,500 girls, and 1100 adults. So it just is allowing us to use our property for the girls in a much better way. We have I think about 75 per week, through the summer. We run day camp. We just finished one up. When the kids are out of school we run day camp then, too, but we ran less. I think we had about 25 or 30 kids. MR. URRICO-I have a question. When you said five counties, which counties would those be? MRS. HUGGARD-That would be all of Warren, all of Washington, Northern Saratoga, from Saratoga City north and all the way across, southern Essex from Crown Point and all the way across, so that would be Newcomb, Minerva, Ti, Schroon Lake, and then that corner of Hamilton where the people live which is Indian Lake. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is this your only camp, like Wacapomani? MRS. HUGGARD-No. This is our only property. We’re entering into a strategic alliance with Camp Hebron in Washington County, to offer our girls some high end camping experiences. They have 450 acres there, but by in large the camp programming that we’re running, we’re running at Meadowbrook. Are there any other questions? MR. LAPPER-What’s unique and appropriate about this site, did you submit those new photos? They have that? You have pictures of the brook as it runs through. It just makes it wholly unsuitable, as Holly was saying, for other types of development, but a really lovely place for the girls, as a camp, and that’s what’s most important, in terms of the impact on the local community, because it’s really a very low intensive use. There are not a lot of people that are in the office, and compared to parking in front now, there’ll be parking on the side, so that neighbors won’t be looking at the cars. On the other hand, there’s an apartment complex across the street that has a parking lot. So even the parking lot is not out of character with the neighborhood, but by putting it in the back and adding more green space in the front, it’s going to just soften the appearance and certainly prevent people from backing out onto an increasingly busy Meadowbrook Road. The Planning Staff, in their notes, did the analysis and, in terms of impact on local interests, that minimal if any adverse impacts on legitimate local interests is anticipated, and we really believe that that’s the case, that it’s been a long established use since 1948, and this proposal wouldn’t be to increase the intensity of the use. It would just make it a lot more functional and a nicer place, and it really is prohibitive for the organization to move somewhere else, because they’re not going to be able to realize what they have invested in this, even if you take the $460,000 and less the depreciation, $300,000, we have more detail on that, but just assuming that the most you could get is four lots, and you’re going to have to spend a lot of money to bring in the utilities. You can’t do septic here. You’d have to bring in the sewer line. It’s already, they brought it in to one building, but you’d have to bring it across to four lots, remove the bedrock or not build foundation. You’re talking about expensive construction, but if you just assume what I think is a high price of $40,000 per lot, because of the amount you’d have to invest to develop, for $160,000, it doesn’t even come close to even the $300,000 after depreciation, but in terms of what it would be worth to them to replace all this, the fair market value is much more than that, in terms of the lodges and the facilities that are there. So they can’t afford to replace it and go somewhere else to provide these services to the community, and it really is not a suitable site for single family development. Staff pointed out, in terms of the one prong of uniqueness, that there are other wetlands, and that’s true, that there are other sites that are wet, and some of the new raised ranches that were built to the south of this are on sites that have high water tables, but it’s not like this where the stream is right here, running through the center of the site, and correspondingly there are significant wetlands associated with the stream. So this is a worse site than the sites that were developed, in terms of groundwater, and what Holly pointed out, in terms of the bedrock outcropping, that’s something that shows up on a regional map, that this is just one area where you’ve got this big rock outcropping that’s not anywhere else in the area. So 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) it’s just between a rock and a wetland, as she said. It’s just not an appropriately developable site for other uses, but it works really well for the Girl Scouts. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Are there any other questions for the applicant before I enter the public hearing portion of the application? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to speak in favor of the application that doesn’t have anything? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JIM PIPER MR. PIPER-First of all, I’ll give you this petition from the neighbors that are in support. My name is Jim Piper, and I’m kind of here in a dual role, in addition to being a member of the Board of Directors of the Girl Scouts of the Adirondack Council, and also Chairman of the Property Development Committee, I’m a resident, and I live diagonally across the street from the camp. I’ve been a resident of the Meadowbrook Road area since 1956. I grew up in that area with the camp. I think it’s only fair to point out that this Girl Scout camp has pre-existed all zoning in that area, and when you take into consideration that when they came through and they zoned that area single family residential, I don’t think they took into consideration the fact that you had a camp. I don’t think there was a designation at that time for a camp area, and I think it’s, the Girl Scouts have always been a very good neighbor, and I think, under the circumstances, when you look at the property, and where they want to put this addition, there’s no other place that they can actually go, without using space that’s already used or without incurring the rock ledge or dealing with the wetlands. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of the application? JOHN THOMAS MR. THOMAS-I’m John Thomas. I am second Vice President of the Adirondack Girl Scout Council. I’m also a professor of Geology at Skidmore College. I have been a volunteer for the Girl Scouts of the Adirondacks for, I’m in my 21 year. This is my second time on the Board. I have taken a good look, we st have all taken a good look, at this site in the course of our analysis, and I appreciated Jim Underwood’s questions, when we approached this. One of the things that is amazing is it’s been mentioned the area we cover. We go from Saratoga Springs in the south to Granville and the Vermont border in the east, to Crown Point in the north, to Indian Lake in the northwest. What is amazing to me is that the site in Queensbury turns out to be almost exactly the geographic center of that. This is one of the reasons that we feel so strongly about this site. It is one that, as Kit mentioned, all of our people are within reasonable distance to get here. One of my jobs is to consult with all of our delegates throughout this area, and last spring I had the chance to cover the entire district, the entire Council, and talk with them about plans. It’s interesting talking with them, you talk with someone in Indian Lake, you talk with someone in Granville, you talk with someone in Crown Point, and they love the present Queensbury site because when they come here, they’re coming to the big city, and it is a privilege to them to come here, to be able to stay overnight, to go to the malls. It is an absolutely unique experience for them. So the location turns out to be ideal for the area that we’re covering. The site itself is actually relatively large when you look at it. Aside from the Administrative building itself, most of the area is within the site, so we are not crowded by the development around us. It is actually incredibly isolated from the development around us. So we are in an area that is developing as an urban area, but the site, when you’re on it, is actually very rural, and is very attractive to us and attractive because of it’s location for us to stay where we are. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of the application? Is there anyone here who would like to speak in opposition to the application? Please come forward. JILL STEELE MRS. STEELE-I’m not really opposing. MR. HAYES-Could you just state your name for the record? MRS. STEELE-Okay. My name is Jill Steele. I live at 236 Meadowbrook Road, and I live directly across the street from the Girl Scout camp entrance. My husband and I are not against this project. I mean, we support the girls, and we would like to see them get whatever they want, but our biggest concern, at this particular point, is filling in the wetlands to accomplish their project. That could mean serious implications to our property. I mean, we’re under water as it is, and we just cannot take anymore water. MR. HAYES-Okay. It’s my understanding, based on Mr. Zilch’s presentation, that they don’t intend to take anything more than the statutory one tenth of an acre, as far as wetlands. MR. ZILCH-Actually it’s below that, right. 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) MRS. STEELE-Is your name Craig? MR. BROWN-Yes. MRS. STEELE-I noticed earlier that you put up some pictures of the camp. Well, can you put up the picture that’s directly behind the Girl Scout camp? MR. URRICO-Are you across from the Girl Scout camp, or across from the building? MRS. STEELE-No, I’m exactly, I’m directly across from the entrance of the camp. I live right on the brook. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. BROWN-Not to cut to the chase here, but this is the use variance part of it. There’s going to be at least a couple of more applications where they talk about area variances for setback from the wetlands and site plan issues, these exact things you want to talk about, just so, this is just the use variance part of it. MRS. STEELE-Okay. Now, the Department of Environmental Conservation comes down, when we get a day and a half’s or two days worth of rain, they will come down and they will close the road, because this just all back here is just flooded, and it is flooded, and by taking out that flood control is going to create more of an impact on my property. I mean, right now, our particular water level is about a foot and a half higher than it should be. I have lost approximately six inches of land off our property because of just horrible erosion, and if this somehow has an impact on that, you’re going to see my house floating down the stream, because I don’t really think it’s going to be able to take much more water, at this particular point. Our garage is completely gone. It’s held up just by a, just a beam in the center of it. We can’t do anything. We can’t build up our banks, because the Department of Environmental Conservation won’t let us do it because if we did that then it would flood out our neighbor Bob, and it’s against environmental law to flood someone else out to get what you want. MR. HAYES-Which begs the question that they wouldn’t be permitted to do either. MRS. STEELE-Right. So what we are really asking for is we think that everybody in this situation can’t be happy, but what we really want, and I don’t know even if this is your jurisdiction, but what we would like is a full investigation by the Department of Environmental Conservation and the Army Corps of Engineers to make sure that we will not be affected by this project. That is our main concern at this particular point. MR. HAYES-Let me say that we’re happy to have you here and it’s very good input, but that really is, you know, the jurisdiction of another Board, who have a higher level of expertise that we do. MRS. STEELE-But don’t you guys have to issue the variance, even before they can go to the second level? MR. HAYES-Absolutely, but our, the criteria that we’re supposed to examine is defined by the test, the legal tests that are involved, you know, the impact on the neighborhood of the use that’s being asked for, versus the benefit to the applicant, those type of things. It’s a very strict test. Certainly in a small way, we could consider that impact on you, but it’s more properly handled by the Planning Board, and also. MR. BROWN-I think the short answer is this approval that they’re seeking now is can I do the use on my property. MRS. STEELE-Right. MR. BROWN-The next approvals to come are where and how. MR. HAYES-And that’s what you really want to know. MRS. STEELE-But we would also like maybe them to examine another site. I mean, because they did say, they did clear out a section for cars and to get traffic off the road, and they did make the actual entrance to the camp wider. So the traffic itself, it has gotten better, but the truth of the matter is they do not use that parking lot on the north end. They built it. They put up a rope, and it hasn’t been used. I think it was used once, and that was it, and it hasn’t been used since. So maybe they can consider splitting the offices up and maybe building a smaller building down on the northern end of the camp. At least the water table wouldn’t be affected, and maybe I can get to my car without a boat. MR. HAYES-Thank you for coming. MRS. STEELE-Thank you. MR. HAYES-Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to the application? 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) MARK STEELE MR. STEELE-This is not in opposition. MR. HAYES-Please come forward and identify yourself. MR. STEELE-My name is Mark Steele. I’m the property owner, and it’s not so much a statement of opposition. We just want it on the record. MR. HAYES-Concern. MR. STEELE-Yes. That’s all this is. MR. HAYES-That’s fine. MR. STEELE-Like my wife stated, you know, we support the girls, and what they’re trying to do, I think, is a good thing, because the improvements, I talked with Board member Jim Piper there, and the improvements that they’re suggesting, you know, I agree with because that’s going to reduce the traffic on Meadowbrook Road and, to me, that’s a great thing. Especially being right across the entrance, my driveway is dead across from the Girl Scout’s entrance, and for years it’s been, as has been stated today, just a terrible situation with parking up and down the road, and Meadowbrook Road is notorious for the ACC travelers, now that the road is paved, two miles straight, and they just hammer on it, and a lot of them don’t even slow down for the parked cars and the people walking towards the activities for the girls. So really that’s all it is, just, you know, we want it as a matter of record that we have concerns. MR. HAYES-And my recommendation to you is, similarly, there’s a similar public input section on the Planning Board, which would directly impact the decisions that they’re making for those things, you know, curb cuts, stormwater management, all those issues, so it’s definitely a meeting that you’ll want to go to, but we have kind of a narrow examination here tonight, which is the use, but I think everybody has registered your concerns. MR. URRICO-Just for my clarification, your house has the brook running along side of it and behind it? MR. STEELE-Yes. As this map on here shows, where he’s got that pointer, that is my residence, and as you can see, the brook comes down, goes pretty much makes a 90 degree angle because of the erosion through the years, right behind the house, goes up to that next right turn, which is pretty much not such an easy turn. It’s more like a 90 degree. It goes down about another 100 yards, makes another double S turn and then continues on through out into more wetlands, as you know. So, I mean, we can only, my property can only hold so much water. So we rely on, hopefully what goes down stream most of the time, but there’s beaver out there, which you probably can imagine. They reek havoc, and water goes up stream, and really the only concern is, I mean, I realize that it’s less than a tenth of an acre, but, you know, in my situation, every spot that I can get, the water’s going to go, versus coming downstream and, you know, backing up on my property. It’s a concern to me, and I understand there’s another place to take this up. I just want it stated now. MR. HAYES-I think you’ve done that effectively. MR. STEELE-All right. Thank you for your time. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman. MR. HAYES-Let me just finish the public hearing portion, okay. MR. ABBATE-Sure, go right ahead. MR. HAYES-Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to the application? Is there any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-We do have one piece of correspondence, from Joan S. Stone, President of the Girl Scouts, she says, “I write in support of the application of Girl Scouts of the Adirondack Council, Inc. for a use variance to increase the size of the Council Service Center. I would normally have appeared in person; however, my husband and I are on an extended trip. The planned increase will allow for more space for our work supporting Girl Scout activities. The plans for the new building include an adequate meeting room as well as more storage space and increased office space for the staff. The current building is very crowded and inadequate. Only activities that provide support for Girl Scouting take place in the service center. The new, expanded building will make it easier for volunteers and girls to receive the support they need. Both program events and training will be accommodated in the new building; this cannot happen in the current facility. Girl Scouts of the Adirondack Council, Inc. furthers the development of the Girl Scout Movement in the United States; establishes local responsibility for leadership, administration and supervision of the program and 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) develops, manages and maintains Girl Scouting in accordance with the terms of our charter. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Joan S. Stone President” MR. HAYES-Thank you, Chuck. Any further correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No. MR. HAYES-If not, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. LAPPER-I guess we would like to just quickly respond to the neighbors’ comments. MR. HAYES-Certainly. MR. LAPPER-Just to clarify the record. I live right off of Haviland. So I’m in the neighborhood, and I drive by daily, and I feel for them, because I have seen, at times when there’s been serious flooding, that their house is partially under water. I know they’ve had serious damage, just from driving by, and it’s a terrible thing. When I look at the map that Craig had up, I see that part of the wetland encompasses their home. So I understand why that is, in terms of the flooding but what we’re proposing here, the up to or less than, as Bob said, a tenth of an acre, of disturbance to the wetlands is just, if you look, in the parking lot, the two or three spaces on that map. MR. HAYES-The upper right hand corner? MR. LAPPER-Yes. The diagonal line, it’s really very insignificant and wouldn’t reach the threshold, but the issue for them, in terms of the flooding, we had to study this in great detail when the Lowe’s was approved, because the issue there, and the issue that affects flooding, is whether you’re in the floodway, and that little area of wetland is not in the floodway of the stream, and it’s if you impact the floodway, which would be the area that the water will rush during a 50 year flood event, that, if you displace the water in the floodway by building structures that are of significant size, that will affect people downstream and when we did Lowe’s, we had to do a major floodway permit for that reason, and in that case, the design of the bridge to Applebee’s, over the stream had to change because that would have acted like a dam. We also learned that part of the flooding that happens here is because the bridge over Meadowbrook can act like a dam, but that’s something that would back up and it would affect the Girl Scout property. It wouldn’t affect people on the other side of it. It’s just an unfortunate situation that they’re in, but it’s not going to be made any worse by a less than tenth acre filling of the, or disturbance of the wetland, but certainly any wetland permit that we needed would require an analysis of that. So there are other forums to look at that, but that shouldn’t be an issue. MR. UNDERWOOD-A question I have for you is, what is the actual size of the parcel where this current building is located? Because it looks to me like you’re talking a pretty small area on that side of the creek. MR. LAPPER-The whole parcel is 13 and a half, but you’re asking for what’s? MR. UNDERWOOD-Just that side of the creek where the building will be, what is the size of that parcel on that side of the creek? The buildable area has got to be pretty small. MRS. ELMER-Well, the addition itself is 2800 square feet. The existing building is like 2,000 square feet. So it would probably triple that. MR. LAPPER-But he’s asking for everything on this. MR. UNDERWOOD-I just want to know everything on that side of the stream, where you’re proposing the building. Because I think that we need to focus on that area. MRS. ELMER-On this side of the wetland or this side of the creek? MR. LAPPER-The creek. MR. UNDERWOOD-On the south side of the creek where the building will be located. MRS. ELMER-Let me just give you an estimate. I’m looking at a map here. It looks to be about an acre. MR. UNDERWOOD-If it’s an acre lot, a substantial portion of that must be wetlands then, also. MR. LAPPER-Well, look where the yellow is. 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I can see the yellow, but I’m just wondering in reference to the size of the building and the size of the lot there, and the size of the building. I think it’s a little bit more in their favor to presume that it’s a 13 acre parcel, but I think that you have to think about the fact that that building is on like one little corner, which really isn’t contiguous with the creek bed. MR. LAPPER-Jim, what’s unique about this site, and what we’ve said before, is that we’ve got this vast wetland and this vast rock outcropping. So this is an area that they found that is neither of those, and that’s why it’s developable on a difficult site. MR. UNDERWOOD-My only suggestion would be, given the fact that you’re so restrained where that current building is, even though it would be a little bit onerous to have to build a complete new building, but down where your new parking area is down there, that you would have more area in which to expand if need be in the future, and it would alleviate some of that Meadowbrook problem that you have. You could even set it back off the road a little bit further. I don’t know if, that’s something to consider. MR. ZILCH-Jim, we did consider that, and you are building directly on rock, pretty much, back there. So there are some restraints there, let’s say, and they have some economic impacts, of course, but I think that the real test was when we really talked about any expansion of the program of the Girl Scouts, and when I say program, I don’t mean necessarily buildings. I mean, you know, what they do on the site, that we felt that that was one of the few areas that was remaining that they could expand to a little bit, and we just felt that why spread around, you know, the administrative use on the site when we really would like to preserve the beauty of the site, and having the existing building there already, and then adding to it, just seemed like the minimal impact, I think. MR. ABBATE-I’d like to address something. Both the application and the comments made by those in support have opened the door to the question of effecting parcels in the neighborhood, and the Chairman is absolutely correct. Those folks who came before us, there is another forum. However, since the door was opened, I just want to pursue this just for a second, to get it on the record. Am I correct in assuming that the Adirondack Girl Scout Council, Inc. has done sufficient research, reasonable research, that will pretty much “guarantee” that approval of this application would not have a devastating effect on the neighborhood? MR. LAPPER-I guess one answer to that is we submitted a petition from neighbors across the street up and down the street. The Steele’s are concerned because of their location along the brook, but the petition that Jim Piper submitted, as people directly adjacent to the site, the immediate neighbor to the south of where the office building is, so we’ve gone out and talked to them, or the Girl Scout Council has, and they are supportive of the project. The other impact is just, if you look at the building, compared to what’s there now, which is admittedly unattractive, that that will really spruce up the neighborhood by just having a more attractive building, and the neighbors support it by signing the petition. MR. ABBATE-What about the potential impact on the folks across the street, Mr. and Mrs. Steele? MR. LAPPER-And our answer to that is that their problems are because their house is directly next to the brook and probably in the floodway, but that this project is not going to disturb the floodway, and to the extent that it disturbs the wetland, it’s less than a tenth of an acre, very, very minimal. MR. ABBATE-So what you’re basically saying, and correct me if I’m wrong, that your project, upon completion, and if approved, would not have an adverse effect on their property? MR. LAPPER-Exactly. MR. ABBATE-Okay. As long as I’ve got it on the record, that’s all I care about. Thank you. MR. HIMES-The tenth of the acre, how is that going to be impacted, by the building construction itself? MR. HAYES-It looks like one little corner of the building, right? MR. LAPPER-(Lost words) in the parking lot. MR. HIMES-And part of the parking lot? MR. LAPPER-This is the wetland boundary, and it’s half of this space and half of this space, part of three parking spaces. MR. HIMES-It’s the parking lot that’s causing the problem, not the building? MR. HAYES-A little tiny piece of the building there, too. MR. URRICO-The building and the parking spaces will go over the brook at that point? 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) MR. LAPPER-It would be filled basically to the level. It’s not the brook. It’s the wetlands, and it’s just a very small area right there. MR. HIMES-So alternate construction, what I was leading up to was I thought that the building was right on it and they were going to somehow fill in part of the, what I thought the Steele’s said that they were going to fill in for the building construction, but it’s just parking lot. MR. LAPPER-And this very small sliver right under the corner right there. So this is very minimal. It was designed to stay out of the wetland. MR. HIMES-Yes. MR. HAYES-Okay. I’ve closed the public hearing. Before I poll the Board members, this is an Unlisted Action, I believe. MOTION THAT BASED ON A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM THE RESULTS OF THE ACTIONS CONTEMPLATED BY THIS APPLICATION DO NOT RESULT IN A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE IMMEDIATE ENVIRONMENT, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes NOES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Bryant MR. HAYES-So that motion is carried. Okay. Now, moving on to the merits of the application, I guess it’s time to talk about it, and we’re back starting with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I still have concerns of, you know, I understand what you’re trying to do, and I fully support what you’re trying to do, and I know that your mission in the community is very important, but I think that, at some point in time, you know, maybe it’s now, but realizing the scale of growth that’s going to occur and what’s already occurred just in the last couple of years along Meadowbrook, I mean, I lived there five years ago down in that neighborhood, and all those new single family homes that have gone in from the corner of Cronin down towards where you guys are, and the scope of Schermerhorn’s, and the one on the other side of the road, and, you know, it’s a fast growing area, and I understand your needs for what you’re trying to do, and what you’re trying to accomplish, but I still have concerns about it, and I would think that when you get to the Planning Board, they’re going to have some significant concerns that mirror those, that I think if you maybe need to, you know, I don’t know if we should go, have this go to the Planning Board, just to get a reflection from them as to what their concerns are, so that would better let us make our decision. If they don’t have any problem with it, I wouldn’t have any problem with it either, but I think that, given the fact. MR. LAPPER-The concern for us is just that without the Use Variance we don’t have a project. We know that we’ve got to comply with all of the other codes, and really, just in terms of the test that we’re asking you to apply is to give great weight to the fact that this is a community service organization, and that that, and it has been on the site since 1948. MR. UNDERWOOD-If you get to the Planning Board point, though, and they start to raise significant questions, I mean, I don’t know if that supercedes the variance that we would grant. MR. HAYES-They can’t get issued permits without Planning Board approval. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. MR. BROWN-Right, and I think what we’re doing here is, what we may do here, is give them permission to expand the use. How and where and why and how big and how small, that’s yet to be determined. They have offered a plan to help illustrate their expansion plans, but this approval does not approve the, if you choose to issue an approval, doesn’t address these plans. MR. HIMES-Craig, in connection with the folks here, the Steele’s, that would be the place for them to find the answer to whether or not this is going to make a difference. All right. So that would be the place for that. MR. BROWN-I’m not sure if you would find the answer, but it’s a better forum to express their concerns. MR. HAYES-Well, it’s a place that they can impact the decision, I mean, properly. 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) MR. ABBATE-Sure. MRS. ELMER-The Scouts and their Boards have looked extensively at what their options are, over the years, and what the best solutions are, and looking at the pocketbook as well. Now the golf course to the east, and the brook and the wetlands, those tend to isolate the property, and you’re not going to have development creeping right up against it. It really is an isolated camp in the middle of a populous. Like you said, there’s single family homes, coming up near by, the town homes, and those are the people that we would serve here. So the natural features and the existing golf course do, you know, provide open space around us, around the camp, that will keep it in the current condition. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you anticipate, at some point, that it probably would go to day use? MRS. ELMER-Well, there’s day use during the summer. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but I mean, as far as overnight use, that it would, I mean, I’m just thinking of your total experience for the girls. MRS. ELMER-Yes, there are overnights now during the summer, one night a week, every Thursday night. MR. UNDERWOOD-As it becomes more urban, I would think at some point in time that it would diminish the experience, if a bazillion cars coming down Meadowbrook from all that development that’s going on. MRS. ELMER-Well, the thing is, it’s set back behind the bedrock outcrop, and it’s several hundred feet away from the road, actually. So the rock tends to act as a buffer as well to noise and disturbance. You don’t notice it when you’re there, and the wetland and the brook are going to stay. The golf course is a long term feature, and it’s really a very isolated property. MR. HIMES-The golf course might not be there forever. It was up for sale some years ago, whether it changed hands or what happened, but, again, it’s the water tables and all that kind of. MR. ZILCH-I think you have to ask the question, you know, are we looking for a wilderness experience here? I don’t think so. I don’t think that that’s the whole point. This is not a wilderness experience, necessarily. This is helpful nature experience, and I think that that’s why the location has been actually, you know, supported by the membership. MR. HIMES-No. I agree. Just as far as the golf course being a cornerstone. I don’t buy that. MR. ZILCH-They’ll have to go through the same environmental issues for a development of that property, I’m sure. MR. UNDERWOOD-I guess then for me to make a decision, I would probably give tacit, you know, conditional approval, but I think that you should still consider, I mean, if the golf course ever did get sold, and the developers got a hold of it, I mean, it could be zoned for whatever. MRS. ELMER-There’s still a wooded buffer around the Scout property itself, that they want to maintain. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but I think it’s something for you to consider, I mean, to go to the trouble of building such a, you know, it’s a big undertaking to make this building, and to then suddenly be faced with, hey, we’re totally surrounded by suburbia. At that point in time, I suppose it could be used for doctor’s offices or something like that. You could bail out at some point, but. MRS. ELMER-Well, suburbia is encroaching pretty well as it is, and I think they know where they are, and they’ve been looking and planning for quite a long time now. MR. HAYES-Okay. So I’ll take that as, what should I write that down as, Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-You could, I guess I’m okay with it. MR. HAYES-So you’re a yes, reluctantly. All right. Mr. Himes? MR. HIMES-Thank you. Yes, I think, given the fact that the one, not complaint, but the one issue that’s a problem here can be taken up elsewhere more satisfactorily, that I seem to think that everything that’s been presented here is for the good of our community and the surrounding communities, and is a mild extension of the existing use, and in keeping with, you know, all the principles and objectives and goals of the organization. So it isn’t stepping outside of what has been approved in the past. So I’m for it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) MR. ABBATE-Well, I’ll interject some humor. The only experience that I’m seeking for is a use experience, and having said that, I will support the application. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Okay. I’m always truly astounded at the type of resources that Queensbury has. When you consider the Girl Scout camp, Camp Chingchagook, and a lot of the other experiences that we have in this area, I think we’re blessed. I think we really are, and I can only imagine what it must have looked like in 1948 when they put the camp up there, because I know I came up to this area in ’84, and that whole Meadowbrook Road wasn’t even paved at that point. There were no apartment houses across the street or multiple family dwellings. There were no assisted living centers going up. So I’m taking a little different approach on this. I feel that this is something that we need to preserve, because this still exists. It’s not maybe as pristine or it doesn’t have the wilderness experience it may have had, but it’s still an experience, and the fact that it serves 3500 girls in a five county area, to me, is testimony to the nature of this project, and I’m going to take the test right down the line here, one through five, and the nature and scope of the instrumentality seeking immunity, well, Adirondack Girl Scout Council is a not-for-profit, charitable and educational organization. You’ve, no doubt, proven that. The kind of function or land use, the Adirondack Girl Scout Council promotes the development and education of the community, and the community in this case extends far beyond the borders of Queensbury, and even though we’re only serving Queensbury here, I think that has to be mentioned, as to what the community at large that you represent is. The extent of the public interest to be served, well, that goes back to the community, again, at large, the five county area, and the effect local land use regulations have on the project concerned, that’s what we spent a lot of time on tonight and I’m satisfied that it will have no adverse effect. I do have some concern with the neighbors across the street, and ten percent is ten percent, and I don’t know what ten percent translates to. MR. LAPPER-A tenth of an acre. MR. URRICO-A tenth of an acre. Okay. I still don’t know what that translates to, in terms of what kind of impact it has. I’d just ask that you take special care to make sure that their property is not affected, and the impact on legitimate local interests, minimal, if any. I don’t see any adverse impact here. I don’t know, are you going to send the Girl Scouts out to the senior live centers there? I mean, it seems like a market waiting to happen. I don’t see any impacts, so I’d be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I can basically echo what Roy has said. I think they meet the criteria that we have laid out here for that balancing of public interest. I can’t see that it’s going to have any great effect on the neighborhood. I think that the benefit is clear, and I’d be in favor. MR. HAYES-Thank you. I, essentially, agree. My experience on the Board, in certain circumstances we’ve been presented with use variance cases where there was a result that might have been the best decision, but we couldn’t arrive there, based on the criteria that’s involved. Sometimes even a desirable use would be prohibited based on the criteria of that test, 267, but the idea here that we’re presented with a different test that’s based on a legitimate public interest, I think allows us to do what I think is the right thing in this circumstance, and that is to approve this application. I certainly agree with Roy’s examination of the test. I think he answered every part of it absolutely correct. I think that, you know, what is the impact on legitimate local interests and the land use regulations, I think very little in this particular case. I think the Board is sympathetic to Mr. and Mrs. Steele’s concerns, and Jim’s comments as well, as far as maybe the impact or the action that happens there at this camp, but I have a great deal of confidence that they will be addressed adequately at the Planning Board level. I think that, I’m sure that a lot of the facts that were brought out tonight will have to be re-brought out then and satisfied, the criteria of that Board, and I think that, you know, on balance, the continuation of this organization and the function that goes on at that camp is a heavy thing in favor of the applicant, if this is a balancing test, which, according to Staff, it is. I think it would be difficult to, it would have to be a very negative impact, in my mind, to find a balancing test that didn’t fall in favor of it. So I’m in favor of the application. I won’t say anymore. Having said that, is there a motion out there? MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 12-2002 ADIRONDACK GIRL SCOUT COUNCIL, INC., Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: 412 Meadowbrook Road. The applicant seeks relief to expand the nonconforming use on the property. Specifically, the applicant wishes to expand the office/administrative facilities at the site. At this point I’d like to refer to the consideration that’s being given. This request is based on the balancing of public interest, rather than the usual Use Variance test that we consider. As such, the test needs to satisfy the following: One, nature and scope of instrumentality seeking immunity, this being the Adirondack Girl Scout Council, a non-profit, charitable and educational organization. Two the kind of function or land uses, again, the Adirondack Girl Scout Council Group camp to promote the development and education of the community. Three, the extent of public interest to be served, this, as I stated earlier, refers to the community at large which serves a five county area, 3500 Girl Scouts, and the public interest being served is quite extensive. 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/02) Four, the Effect local land use regulation would have on the project concerned, we’ve reviewed it and found that there would be minimal or very little impact on the local land use regulations, and the impact on the legitimate local interests, minimal if any adverse impacts on legitimate local interests is anticipated. For these reasons, I’d like to set in motion passage of this application. Also, that Counsel has provided substantial documentation, as well as verbal information, to support approval of his request for a Use Variance. Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Bryant MR. HAYES-Thank you. The motion is carried. We have one set of minutes. CORRECTION OF MINUTES January 16, 2002: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE FIRST REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, JANUARY 16, 2002, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Hayes ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Bryant MR. HAYES-I will adjourn the meeting. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Paul Hayes, Acting Chairman 44