Loading...
2002-07-17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/17/02) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 17, 2002 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY PAUL HAYES ROY URRICO CHARLES ABBATE MEMBERS ABSENT NORMAN HIMES ALLAN BRYANT CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. STONE-Before we start, I want to make one statement. Unfortunately tonight, and I’m sure it’s the summer season, we only have five members here tonight, five because I won’t be involved in the first one. We will have, on the first application we will have five members. The law of the State of New York says that to approve a motion, we must have at least four positive votes. So I just want everybody to know that, because we usually have a Board of seven, and that is always our aim, but unfortunately tonight we do not. The first on the business tonight under Old Business is Area Variance No. 47-2002. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED GIRL SCOUTS OF THE ADIRONDACK COUNCIL, INC. PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: THE LA GROUP, PC AND JON LAPPER, ESQ. LOCATION: 213 MEADOWBROOK ROAD ZONE: SFR-1A APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,800 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE ADMINISTRATION/OFFICE BUILDING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM WETLAND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. SPR 30-2002; FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 1-2002 TAX MAP NO. 296.16-1-10 LOT SIZE: 13.38 ACRES SECTION 179-4-30 JON LAPPER, HOLLY ELMER & DEAN LONG, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STONE-Because of my relationship with a very important part of the Girl Scout Council, namely I am married to the President of the Council, I will recuse myself, and therefore I will turn the meeting over to Vice Chairman Jaime Hayes. MR. HAYES-Good evening. Okay. Chuck, I guess, do you want to read the tabling motion and then, we’ll talk it over with Mr. Lapper. We have your letter from the LA Group, which is in response to the Staff notes, and maybe you’d like to tell us, would you like that read into the public record or during your presentation or after? MR. LAPPER-We thought that, for Mr. McNulty’s sake, we would not ask that that letter be read in. We’d have the representatives of the LA Group who drafted it discuss it. It’s not necessary to have that read in separately. It’s part of the record. We would like to have the letter that was attached, from the Highway Superintendent, but we’ll cover the LA Group letter ourselves, if that’s okay with the Board. MR. HAYES-Very well. MR. LAPPER-Since it stays part of the record anyway, the written record. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Well, let’s start with the tabling motion. Meeting Date was Wednesday, June 19, 2002, “MOTION THAT WE SEND AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-2002, GIRL SCOUTS OF THE , ADIRONDACK COUNCIL, INC. FOR REFERRAL TO THE PLANNING BOARDIntroduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 213 Meadowbrook Road. Duly adopted this 19 day of June, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/17/02) NOES: NONE” MR. MC NULTY-We also have the response from the Planning Board. MR. HAYES-That’s fine. MR. MC NULTY-Motion from the Planning Board. It says, “ MOTION TO SUPPORT A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE APPLICANT’S, THE APPLICANT BEING THE GIRL SCOUTS OF THE ADIRONDACK COUNCIL, INC., AREA VARIANCE , REQUESTIntroduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: Duly adopted this 25 day of June 2002 by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger” MR. MC NULTY-We have new Staff notes, which I think are a little different, at least. MR. HAYES-The application itself hasn’t changed, I take it? MR. LAPPER-That’s right. MR. HAYES-Okay. So we’re just going to read the Staff notes, then. MR. LAPPER-Craig sent around the Staff notes from the last time, which were not effected by the Planning Board’s positive recommendation. We, then, sent in our detailed response to the Staff notes, and he issued another letter today which basically focuses on whether or not there’s a viable alternative on this site to flip flop the building and the parking lot. MR. MC NULTY-I’ve got that from Craig. The Staff notes are different on the current Staff notes from the previous Staff notes. MR. HAYES-All right. Let’s read in the Staff notes, then. MR. MC NULTY-I think some, most of the rest, I think, is the same, but to be safe, probably read in the Staff notes. MR. HAYES-That would be fine. STAFF INPUT Please see minutes from the Planning Board at which the attached advisor recommendation was issued. Discussed focused on alternative locations and wetland impacts. Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 47-2002, Girl Scouts of the Adirondack Council, Inc., Meeting Date: July 17, 2002 “Project Location: 213 Meadowbrook Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 2800 sq. ft. addition to the administration/office building. Relief Required: Applicant requests 84.5 feet of relief from the 75-foot minimum shoreline setback requirement of the Shoreline Setback Regulations for the SFR-1A Zone, § 179-4-070. 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 constructing the new administration/office building in a compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 84.5 feet of relief from the 75-foot minimum shoreline setback requirement may be interpreted as substantial, relative to the Ordinance (113%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Substantial effects on the neighborhood/community may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created; however, may also be attributed to the financial constraints of the not-for-profit organization. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 30-2002: to be reviewed 06/25/02 pending this application. Freshwater Wetlands Permit 1-2002: to be reviewed 6/25/02; pending this application. UV 12- 2002: 02/27/02; expansion of office/administration facilities. Use Variance 44-92: 05/27/92; storage building and breezeway. Freshwater Wetlands Permit 2-92: 05/14/92; storage building & breezeway. Off Premises Sign: 04/16/85; located at Quaker and Meadowbrook Road. UV 1226: 03/18/87; expand facilities. Staff comments: Substantial impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The cover letter submitted with the application states “….a mere 15 sq. ft. of the new building will be in the wetlands”. Also the proposed setback is minus two feet. Sheet L-3 of the plans locates the southernmost portion of the deck 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/17/02) and stairs approximately 9.5 feet into the wetlands, and the area of building/deck proposed to be constructed in the wetland is much greater than the 15 sq. ft. claimed in the cover letter. It appears ample area exists to construct an administrative/office building and develop the land as proposed in a cleared and graded area in the northeast section of the parcel. Sheet L-1 of the plans labels the area as parking. The plans don’t accurately depict the area that exists to the south of the entrance drive from the road. It is a duty of the applicant to demonstrate both the lack of feasible alternatives and then show that the adverse impacts, if any, associated with the proposal can and are being mitigated. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-And then we have the letter that Mr. Lapper would like read in. This is a letter from the Highway Department, signed by Richard Missita to Mrs. Holly Elmer of the LA Group. “This letter is written to put into writing the items we discussed at our meeting today at the Girl Scout office site on Meadowbrook Road. I am in favor of relocating the parking areas as shown on LA Group Drawing L-3, Layout Plan. This relocation of parking will improve the safety of the people driving vehicles on Meadowbrook Road and the safety of the people accessing the Girl Scout office. The construction of the bridge over Halfway Brook will improve the safety of the Girl Scout staff and others who must walk between the administration office and the camp ground by keeping them off the shoulder of Meadowbrook Road. I am in favor of using the two stormwater facilities proposed as this will manage the stormwater on the Girl Scout site and will not add to the local drainage issues. The planted island in the town road right-of-way is fine, provided that the island is not curbed and that no trees or shrubs are planted in this grass island. Vegetation taller than grass or flowers will impair the available sight distance from the office exit points. I understand that the Girl Scouts will maintain and re-seed this island if and when necessary. I approve of the two access points shown on the proposed plan. The stop sign shown in the Town right-of-way on the northern exit is fine, as long as the Girl Scouts own the sign and it is used for internal directional signage only. I am not in favor of constructing the office building in the northern part of the site because this would displace the seasonal overflow parking area. This overflow parking used to go onto Meadowbrook Road along both road shoulders, all along the road in the front of the Girl Scout property. The seasonal use parking area has alleviated a situation that has in the past compromised highway and pedestrian safety. The seasonal use of this parking area eliminates the need to pave this area and increase the drainage issues in this area of the town. Please contact me again if the plans change substantially from what we reviewed in the field today. Sincerely, Richard A. Missita Highway Superintendent” And then finally we have a memo from Craig Brown, Zoning Administrator, and he addresses that to the Chairman and Board members. “I have reviewed the July 15, 2002 letter from Holly Elmer of the LA Group in which she responds to the staff comments relative to the pending Girl Scouts applications. I would offer the following information for clarification of the issues addressed in the letter. The staff comments regarding the amount of relief is reflective of the applicant’s request to extend the structure not only into the 75 foot wetland setback, but also into the DEC delineated wetland area by 9.5 feet. The Planning Board resolution, adopted on June 25, 2002 in response to the ZBA request for an advisory recommendation, states that the Planning Board supports a favorable recommendation to approve the variance request. I do not believe that a recommendation to approve the variance was the direction that the ZBA was looking for, nor do I believe that the ZBA should take direction from the Planning Board with respect to the outcome of an application. An Advisory Recommendation should contain detailed items or specific topics that the Planning Board recommends additional information or review of, not whether to approve or deny. A review of both the vote on this resolution and the minutes of the meeting will show that there were many topics, which were apparently, unresolved in the eyes of some of the members. With respect to the alternate, northern location on the site, staff position is that the northern area is viable and that the “seasonal parking” area could be relocated to the southern area currently occupied by the parking and buildings. The existing footpath from the northern parking area to the main activity area on the site would serve to adequately connect the areas. The applicant’s position that the plan will meet the NYSDEC standards for wetlands permitting would be better bolstered with the same confirmation coming directly from the DEC. With regards to the design of the bridge across Halfway Brook, it would seem to be very difficult to approve that portion of the project without first knowing what the project entails. Typically, the most effective way to demonstrate a project is to provide descriptions and drawings of the plan. No such drawings have been submitted to this point. It appears as though the practical application of this project is to lift the existing building, after gutting the interior, construct a new foundation beneath it and then construct an addition to the same. Once the roof is removed to allow for the final roof structure, the “existing” building would consist of the floor system and the exterior walls, which will probably be rebuilt or extended and then refinished both on the exterior and the interior, effectively rebuilding the “existing” building under the guise of an “addition” in order to maintain the location. Staff agrees with the applicant with regards to the benefits of the use and the positive impacts that such an organization provides to the Town, however, the proposed development is planned for a location on the site that contains development constraints. It is the duty of the applicant to demonstrate that the project is reasonable and necessary and that the adverse impacts, if any, associated with the proposed plan can and will be effectively mitigated. Staff position, based on a review of the application and plans submitted to date is that there appears to be an area available on the site for the project that is less environmentally intrusive.” MR. HAYES-Thank you. I guess that’s all right now. If there’s anything else, we’ll address it in the public hearing, and public record. Mr. Lapper, would you like to proceed, then, with your presentation? MR. LAPPER-Yes. For the record, Jon Lapper with Holly Elmer and Dean Long from the LA Group. I’d like to make some general comments and then go through the standards under Town law for Area Variances, 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/17/02) and then ask Holly and Dean to address the Staff comments for the public, and then of course answer any questions from the Board, and then the public hearing. I guess, to begin with, I think that we all recognize that this is the first wetland variance that this Board has had before it, and, although we’re all familiar with lake variances and how serious they’re viewed, a wetland is very different, by its nature, and I’m surprised by the comments from the Zoning Administrator, that they’re so strong. I understand we listened carefully to what the members of the Zoning Board said last time. Everybody understands the significance of the function of a wetland and the eco system to clean and filter water. With that said, we have to look at the Town regulations in light of State and Federal regulations which have been involved with regulating wetlands since the 70’s, and under, certainly the record contains a lot of documentation from our last meeting with you, but I just want to summarize that the DEC, on a State level, has regulations for disturbances of wetlands. The Army Corps has regulations on the Federal level. The Army Corps, you can apply for what’s called a Nationwide permit, if you’re doing a tenth of an acre or less of disturbance, which, with an acre at 43,560 square feet, that would be 4356 square feet for a Nationwide permit for less than a tenth of an acre. We have requested a total disturbance of 3800 square feet, which is less than a tenth of an acre. So we are viewing this, certainly with the consultants that I have with me, that are in the business of doing projects that impact wetlands all the time, we view this as a very minor wetland disturbance project. When you look at a wetland, and you look at the function, I believe that you have to take the Town law requirements for looking at the impact on the neighborhood, talking about the function of the wetland and whether we’re going to be effecting that. All of the water would continue to be detained on site and recharged into the wetland. The water would not go off site. So we’re not impacting that at all, and we’re making up for the fact that we’re doing a disturbance by creating a detention basin to serve that function. That said, when you compare this to like the setback of a lake or river or stream, you have visual issues because people are, within that resource, swimming, boating, recreating. So that if you’re setback to a lake is compromised, you have to analyze that based upon the visual impact. Here, we just have critters in the wetland, which is a good thing, but we don’t have a visual issue. I think that the Zoning Administrator’s letters, with all due respect, are misplaced, just because of the strength of the, seriousness of the tone. We’re not trying to get away with something. We’re not trying to lift this up and appear that we’re refurbishing something that’s being constructed as a new building. The site has constraints, but those constraints are not self-created. The Girl Scout camp has been here since the 1940’s, and we documented that last time. The nature of the use of a girl scout camp is to educate girls on nature, and as a result of that, many of their programs involve wetland, wetland species flora and fauna. So it is an asset to the programs on the site that it is within the wetlands. At the same time, what they do on the site doesn’t negatively impact the wetland. Within the last couple of years, they did a very expensive project, expensive because of the rock outcroppings and the wetlands on the site, to bring sewer to the site. When you have a house that’s constructed near by a wetland, the issue usually is the proximity of the septic the proximity of the septic system leachfield, and here that’s not an issue at all because it’s now serviced by the Town sewer system. The only other impact would be if you’re throwing trash or something into the wetland and certainly something like that isn’t going to happen here. So I just think that, in general, you have to look at the fact that what we’re doing is actually 15 square feet of the building, and some of the associated site work, Holly will go into this in more detail. I know Craig was somewhat offended, in his letter, about the bridge, but the bridge you’re only doing pilings. So you’re not putting fill in at the bridge. All you’re doing is putting the posts for the bridge and the wetland remains, underneath the bridge. It doesn’t impact that. The same with the deck. We really view this as a relative minor request. Since we were here last time, this Board directed us to go to the Planning Board and to get a recommendation from the Planning Board. Now the Planning Board’s involvement in this project, after we, hopefully, have a successful vote by the Zoning Board, the Planning Board’s role is to issue a Freshwater Wetlands permit under the Town Freshwater Wetlands regulations, and just like the State and Federal authorities have regulations that govern the appropriateness of a wetland fill, the Town Freshwater Wetland regulations is about six pages of standards. So it is not a zero tolerance regulation that says that you can’t touch a wetland. It says that these are, you try to minimize. You try to justify it as being appropriate, and the Town Planning Board indicated, by their positive recommendation, after a detailed and lengthy discussion, that they recommended that this Board should grant the variance, and that was their indication to us that, weighing the Freshwater Wetland standards, that they are likely to grant the Freshwater Wetlands permit, and we looked at, the Planning Board gave a very detailed analysis, what went on for quite some time, at water recharge issues as well as many others, and then voted, as you’ve read, to ask, to recommend to you that you grant this, and we think that that is significant. Looking at the standards for the granting of the Area Variance that I know that you are all very familiar with, under 267B of the Town law. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall have the power, upon an appeal or decision or determination of an administrative official charged with enforcement of such ordinance to grant Area Variances defined herein, and making its determination, the Zoning Board of Appeals shall take into consideration the benefit to the applicant, if the variance is granted, as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant. In making such determination, the Board shall consider, One, whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby property will be created by the granting of the Area Variance. So, whether there will be a detriment. We had, last time, and didn’t ask them to come back because we just didn’t feel you needed to hear it again, the architects from Joy McCoola and Zilch, which went through their programmatic analysis of looking at the site and whether or not this was the appropriate area on the site to do the project, whether it should be a new build or a reconstruction, and as you saw from those detailed drawings, the existing ranch style building now, which looks like a residence which that’s been carved up, which is exactly what’s happened, would be replaced by what I think everyone agrees is a very appropriate, much more appropriate building in that zone that would be an enhancement to the neighborhood. Beyond 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/17/02) that, the other major enhancement to the neighborhood is to change the parking where people are backing out onto Meadowbrook Road. Since this facility was built, obviously, in the 40’s, but even in the last 10 years with all of the growth that, the Hiland Park Planned Unit Development and other growth on the east side of Queensbury, Meadowbrook Road has become a busy cut through street, and the letter from Rick Missita both documents both the safety aspects of what we’re doing at the office building, administrative building, to reduce the curb cut and to provide turnaround for cars so that they’re not backing on to Meadowbrook Road, and just as importantly, the letter from Mr. Missita indicated his opinion that the alternative that the Zoning Administrator is proposing, that the building be located on the north end of the site, is not appropriate, because that would force that overflow parking to be back out onto Meadowbrook. I can tell you from personal experience, when my oldest daughter was a Girl Scout a few years ago, that on these Thursday evenings that the Board members have talked about, or Holly has talked about, every Thursday evening in the summer when the girls at camp stay over for one night, the parents come and it used to be that you would have cars up and down Meadowbrook. Meadowbrook’s a pretty narrow road for a Town road to begin with, and much, much, much busier than it used to be. The fact that they have this overflow parking lot addresses a significant traffic issue. It was significant five years ago, in my experience, and is really significant now with all of this growth. So, if you displace that parking with the building, and you force the cars back out on Meadowbrook Road, it’s not a good thing. It is a safety issue, and we thought that the letter from Highway Superintendent Missita was very important to document that, and to give us his opinion that he agrees with us that the Zoning Administrator’s request that we seriously look at the alternative location is not appropriate because we really need that for parking. Moving on, Two, whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an Area Variance. We went through the analysis, at the time that we did the Use Variance, that it’s not feasible to abandon the site, to sell the site, and now, whether we could move the building. It would be the same analysis if we can’t. The land up in the back is the program area for the girls where they have their camp activities, far away from the road and on top of the rock outcropping. That’s important because if you can’t have a camp, there’s no reason to have the camp property. That leaves two areas, potentially the area where we’re proposing to build, and the area where we have the parking lot, the overflow parking lot, the overflow parking lot, and I’ve just explained that Mr. Missita has concurred with us as to why we can’t make that change. Three, whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. Now, in the Planning Staff notes, they say it’s substantial, and they’re looking at this in terms of, there’s the 75 foot building setback, which of course we’re pre-existing, and already encroach on, and the fact that we’re going into the wetland with a 15 square foot of building and the other site work into the wetland that this is so substantial because it’s more than a 100% variance, but I would argue with you that that is not an appropriate way to judge a wetland variance, because the wetland, as we documented last time, is part of a 397 acre wetland associated with the Halfway Brook corridor, and the fact that in one small location, wetland just doesn’t function with a border like a lake or a stream, or a river. What a wetland does, it has a function of cleansing the groundwater, and the fact that whether it’s within the wetland itself, by a certain number of feet, what you’re talking about is the total acreage of wetland that’s being displaced, and here the total acreage of wetland is the 3800 square feet that we’ve proposed. So I just think that it’s misplaced to say that it’s substantial because, in a very pointed location, you’re going into the wetland. Holly’s pointing out that the analysis that we provided last time was that this is twenty one thousandths of a percent of the wetland for the whole Halfway Brook corridor wetland, associated wetland, and that’s just downstream. So this is really minor in terms of the function of the wetland. Four, whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental condition of the neighborhood or district, and again, I mean, there’s the visual impact, which will be improved, and there’s the function of the wetland which will not be negatively impacted. I’m sure that Dean will talk a little more on that in a moment, and, five, whether the difficulty was self-created. The Staff notes pointed out that they feel it’s not self created because of the not for profit nature and limited resources of the Girl Scouts. I don’t think that that’s the reason at all. I think it’s not self-created because they have a site that they acquired long before wetlands regulations existed, that has been improved over the years, without impacting wetlands, and now they’re at the point where we’re regulated in a different way than we were, and that’s not self created, because they’ve been there. All that said, I think that’s important, as a matter of policy, that this Board understands that 3800 square feet of fill in a 400 acre wetland area is not significant, but nevertheless, in an effort to gain this Board’s approval, at a time when you’re looking at wetland impacts for the first time, we’ve gone back to the Girl Scouts, and we do have a proposal which would reduce the impact to 1200 square feet, and we eliminate seven spaces, which is something that is being offered reluctantly, because the Girl Scouts feel that those spaces are needed, and if they need it for the administration building, people would have to park in the overflow area and walk, which is an inconvenience and you’d have people out on Meadowbrook, but at least that’s adults rather than children. Holly will go through this in her discussion in a moment, but by eliminating seven parking spaces from the thirty that are proposed, we can get the total wetland impact down from 3800 square feet to approximately 1200 square feet, and we would hope that you would see that as certainly less of a variance than we want to ask for. If you add it up it’s 1477, excuse me, but it’s less than half of what we requested, and we hope that you would see, as a compromise, that that is a minor request. I’ll hand it over to the LA Group reps. MRS. ELMER-I think at this point I’ll pull up the plan that shows this alternative. MR. HAYES-Could you please identify yourself for the record. MRS. ELMER-Holly Elmer from LA Group. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/17/02) MR. HAYES-Thank you. MRS. ELMER-Okay. You’ve previously shown the existing site plan. It shows where the wetland boundaries are on the site. These were flagged by the DEC, and you can see it occupies about seven acres of the thirteen and a half acre site. This is where the existing office is here. This second sheet is the previously approved plan that has 30 parking spaces. Six are in front of the garage, and the rest are along to the south of the office. The red line here shows where Al Koechline flagged this wetland, and you can see that there’s three parking spaces that are within the wetland, and there’s some grading for vehicles to back out of these spaces that would put some more of this parking area in the wetlands. So we looked at reducing the amount of parking. The wetland line is shown here still, the heavy dashed line, and the parking, now, is shown outside of the wetland, and it still leaves room up here for storm basin we had proposed, there’s still two handicapped spots, and this gives them, I think it’s 21 spaces now, 23 spaces total, because there’s two handicaps. The two handicap accessible spaces stay. So, we left the island alone, based on Rick’s letter, there is a stop sign shown that we would use only for internal directional signage only. This one little edge of this building is 15 square foot into the wetland. The deck itself is on posts and piles, just as the bridge is proposed to be, so that the total square footage of the deck in the wetland is 158 square feet, just the posts. The walkway itself is shown in here. We do want this to be handicap accessible. We would like to be able to let handicap children access the campgrounds as well, or adults go back and forth. So this is the proposed plan, to bring this down to 1,000, actually 1,144, that’s the new number. We did our calculations and we put it right on this plan here. So it’s 1144, which is well less than half of what the previous impact was. This is very difficult for Kit and the other Staff to give up, this parking area. They’ve been hindered for years, and we thought they were going to have a very good improvement here. This is still an improvement. They were willing to make this compromise, and we hope that you’ll find this to be a good plan. I’m going to hand the mic to Dean. He can discuss how we feel this project does comply with the Town reg’s. MR. LONG-I’m Dean Long, Director of Environmental Planning at the LA Group. After the last meeting, and then as part of our responses to the various staff letters, as well as working with C.T. Male, we went through and reviewed the Queensbury wetlands rules. As I said last month when I was here, the State and Federal rules are very similar, and when you really look at the Area Variance rules, they end up being quite similar to the typical tests that are found in wetlands regulations, as far as proving a social benefit, showing that you avoided and minimized wetland impacts to the extent practical, and, of course, looking at alternatives. When you get down into the nitty gritty of the Queensbury rules, many of these same concepts are buried within the same questions that are in the local zoning ordinance. So I’ll quickly go through these so that it is in the record, and this is going to be a summary of our July 15 letter to the ZBA, and as a th response to the Staff notes, but it really does focus on compliance with the wetland rule. Jon’s already summarized our compliance with the Area Variance requirements. The first criteria under the Queensbury wetland ordinance, is the proposed regulated activity is consistent with the wetland policy and is consist with the general welfare and benefits and economic and social developments of the community. Even in the text of the question itself, it brings in the factors of balancing of looking at your wetland impacts and as well as looking at the community and social development. Everybody has agreed already here tonight that the Girl Scouts certainly provide significant social benefits and benefits to the community by the services they provide and character growth of the uses that are involved in that. So certainly we meet the social development. In the past, we have discussed extensively and last month the architect, Bob Zilch, was here and discussed the relevant economic issues of the alternative site and the feasibility of redeveloping the existing office, where, because we’re capturing already preexisting space, there is a considerable. The other issues here, as far as relevant to this question is that we are protecting the wetlands, and even though we are filling some adjacent area, and that’s the number of the 1,144 square feet is the adjacent area of disturbance. The reason we’re protecting wetlands is that we are able, as Holly showed on the site plan, is we are able to retain the stormwater basins, which will control the runoff from this re-development, control the runoff from the existing site. So it’s a 100% plan here for stormwater control, 100% stormwater retention control for both the existing building as well as the existing parking lot, as well as all the new development. So it actually is an improvement. The second item in the wetland ordinance is the proposed activity, regulated activity, is consistent with the land use regulations per Article 24 of the Environmental Conservation Law. This caused us a little bit of confusion when we first read it. Article 24, the Environmental Conservation Law, is the New York State DEC’s sets of rules that actually control wetland development, this little blue book here, okay, and buried in part of Article 24 is provisions for the towns to enact their own rules and for those enacted rules to get approved by DEC. So anyhow, all those things happened way in the past, because it was a little confusing for us. So we believe that the Queensbury Ordinance is consistent, and, therefore, once we comply with the Queensbury Ordinance, and as we go through the compliance with DEC, we believe that we will have adequately satisfied this portion of the rule. So the next substantive criteria is proposed regulated activity is compatible with public health and welfare. We’re raising the building up out of the floodplain, which is a public health and safety benefit by decreasing the structure that’s currently somewhat at risk. The other thing is all the pedestrian improvements, as well as the traffic improvements that we have described tonight, as far as reducing the potential for people backing out onto Meadowbrook Road, reducing the possibility of individuals parking on Meadowbrook Road, and by having the wetland bridge crossing into the program area, reducing and eliminating the potential of youth walking along Meadowbrook Road. So we’ve got significant things here that will protect the public health and welfare. Proposed regulated activity is reasonable and necessary. This essentially gets down to the alternatives analysis. If we were to go and utilize the northern 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/17/02) site, we’d lose that for the event parking for when the program activities are actually on the campsite camp itself. That would cause parking on Meadowbrook Road to reoccur because, again, we would not be able to redevelop, you know, as the Staff believe, redevelop the existing office site, to accommodate the same number of parking spaces that we’re losing by placing the building up at the northern site. So there is not a zero switch or a net decrease, or a net increase in parking by placing the building up on the north, because we cannot park as many cars down in this location, because it would be more difficult both under your wetland rules, to justify tearing down a building and building parking as 100% wetland fill, and as we’ve demonstrated here tonight, we’re going down to a proposal that even further reduces any wetland fills and greatly reduces the amount of adjacent area fills. So given that, and the past demonstration of the economics, certainly we believe that we meet the test of having a reasonable and necessary project. Second, the next question, there’s no reasonable alternative for the proposed regulated activity on the site, which is not a freshwater wetlands or an adjacent area. Again, we’re improving a pre-existing building on a facility that’s been in operation since 1942. So certainly we have a long term record of a facility that has been adjacent to the wetland areas, and these areas are, of course, you know, regulated, you know, since the 70’s. So certainly it is dealing with a whole series of pre-existing issues and such. I think, you know, in the last part of our letters, we again went back through and again clarified our numbers. We have 15 square feet of wetland fill for building support. Part of the building foundation does protrude into the wetland areas. We will have the post piling supports for the pedestrian bridge out across a wetland, and the deck that’s immediately adjacent to the building. Those are our direct impacts. The remaining impact that total up to the 1,144 square feet are your 75 foot adjacent area impacts, which primarily is the building and such. So, at this point, I think we’re prepared to answer any questions. Jon, do you have anything else? MR. HAYES-I have a question for you. The national permit, can you just give a summary of what that, the practical intent of that? MR. LONG-Yes. The nationwide permit system was set up in order for the Army Corps of Engineers to have a process by which small projects can be rapidly approved or not even require approvals. The nationwide permit system is a system of pre-authorized wetland disturbances, provided that you conform to some very, very specific criteria. Some of the criteria deals with the quality of fill. Some of the criteria deals with whether or not you’re going to impact endangered species. So there’s about 20 some odd criteria that have to be conformed to in order to be pre-authorized under the nationwide permit system, and, you know, in simple terms, it’s the Federal government’s way of allowing folks to utilize their properties in fashions and forms that seem to be reasonable in a nationwide scale. The most important thing to understand is the huge changes in the nationwide permit system that has occurred since 1989. In 1989, under the Nationwide Permit 26, which is now Nationwide Permit 39, you used to be able to fill up to 10 acres of wetlands without contacting the Federal government. Now it’s to the point where, when you fill over 4,356 square feet of wetlands, when you fill over that amount, you have to contact the Federal government. So it’s a program that has evolved hugely in the last 14 years. So, it’s a program that’s evolved in order to become significantly more protective and it’s a program that its core purposes are to reduce the paperwork and to allow the Federal government to look at the big projects, and look at the major items that really need closer examination. MR. HAYES-Are there any further questions? MR. URRICO-Yes. Number One, in terms of the actual variance, actual relief, what is that doing to the number? You said the reduction was going to be 1,144 square feet, but what is that going to do to the 84.5 feet of relief? MR. LAPPER-Well, you see, that doesn’t change, because that, in terms of the building setback, we still have no other place to put the building other than at that edge of the wetland, but in terms of the buffer area, the associated area next to the wetland, that’s where we’re reducing it. So the entire disturbance is being reduced from 3800 down by 2/3’s. rd MR. URRICO-Okay. Secondly, in terms of the benefit to the applicant, and I’m talking about not the building itself, but what, how many more people will be able to work there? What will that enable the Girl Scouts to do as a result of having those people there? MR. LAPPER-We’re going to ask the Executive Director to address that. KIT HUGGARD MRS. HUGGARD-I’m Kit Huggard, the Executive Director of the Girl Scouts. Currently, we’re turning girls away from almost every program that we run, and you’ll notice that at one end of the building is going to be a program and training room. The bridge will connect the camp to that particular room, and the rest of the building. We feel that we can increase the numbers of the girls that we can serve in all of those programs by running Part A of a program in the program and training room, Part B at the Friendship Lodge, and then having the kids switch, by going across the bridge. Then we also have, we now restrict our older girls. They can only come to two weeks of summer camp, because we can’t accommodate them. We just don’t have enough room. We could have an older girl unit, that would be our junior counselor unit, in the program and 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/17/02) training room in the summer, and then they could go out and work with the younger girls, which is their function at summer camp, at different times during the day. So we expect that we can really increase the service to our girls, and also to our adults. We can use that room for training. We can use that room for leader’s meetings. We can use that room for all kinds of purposes for our volunteers. Currently, even our Board can’t meet in the office anymore, in the service center. We’re now meeting in camp, and when we’re in camp, then that means other volunteers or girls can’t be there, because you can’t have those two functions going on in the same room at the same time. MR. URRICO-And with the expanded facility, you would be able to do that? MRS. HUGGARD-Yes, we will. Yes, we will. The program and training room would seat, theater style, we think about 70 people around tables 35. So that that’s just a tremendous and important addition for us. The building is so small. It was built as a house. It doesn’t have any mechanicals at all for an office. About 2/3’s of the heat in the building is in the ceiling. So that there’s no circulation whatever in the winter. rd There’s no air conditioning, and you’ll notice that it’s just one long corridor. So there’s no way to get any air circulating through there. Our staff is doubled up in almost all of those offices, and we’ve redesigned the inside so that we’ve taken all the desks out and built counters around, using spaces as well as we could, but we’re just cramped. MR. URRICO-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Yes, I have a question, if I may, please. To get one thing cleared up in my mind anyway, the dissertation by Mr. Long, you indicated, at least I may have misinterpreted this, that towns and villages, etc., would be allowed to enact their own rules dealing with the subject we’re talking about this evening. However, that did not, unless I misread it, that did not imply that there would be selective enforcement of the zoning regulations, but merely stated, I believe, that there should be consideration for such unique circumstances as non profit organizations. MR. LAPPER-Let me take a shot at it. MR. ABBATE-Sure, be my guest. MR. LAPPER-There are now three layers of regulations, the local, state and federal, and they’re all authorized, but their goals are all similar. So there’s a lot more experience, a lot more case law on the state and federal, and that’s why we’re making analogy, rather than the Queensbury, which has had very little. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-In general, you know as well as I do, that your job is the relief valve for the Town, when it’s justified, to grant relief from the area requirements, and that’s why we’re here. So you have the regulations. We have the standards under the Freshwater Wetlands regs of the Town, as to when filling in a wetland area is appropriate, and here, because we’ve got the building setback issue, we’re asking for a variance, for an Area Variance. MR. ABBATE-That cleared it up. Thank you, Counselor. Now, let me address my questions here, statements. I want the folks here to know that, in my opinion, the Girl Scouts have set admirable values of loyalty, integrity, morals, as more or less an agenda, and I might also add that my two girls were Brownies as well as Girl Scouts, but I don’t know what happened to them, but anyway, the Girl Scouts of America are to be congratulated and I applaud them. However, there appears to be an, I think this is the way someone said it this evening, eyes of the beholder impact between the applicant, the Zoning Administrator, as well as some member of this Board. Now, with a standard of fairness in mind, I would like to address three issues that I feel are important, and Counselor is absolutely correct. This is the first wetland intrusion case heard by this Board. Now, Question One, why is there a conflict between the LA Group, in Staff notes, in their Paragraph Number Two, in which they state Staff notes concerning a request of 84.5 feet of relief from a 75 foot setback are inexplicable? Could someone clear that up for me, please? MR. LONG-Our intent here was simply that it makes very little sense to say that you have an 84 foot variance in a 75 foot buffer. It makes very little sense to say you have a 113% variance here. We will all agree that we are 100% in the wetland adjacent area, and I think that’s the relevant fact that should have been always stated here, rather than creating confusion of how do you get an 84 foot variance in a 75 foot buffer. MR. ABBATE-So there’s disagreement, then, as to an 84.5 feet of relief from the 75 foot setback, is that correct, between yourselves and the Zoning Administrator? MR. LONG-We don’t like the characterization. It makes very little sense to have 84 foot of variance in a 75 foot buffer. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now, are you suggesting that the Zoning Administrator is incorrect in that there is no 84.5 feet of relief from a 75 foot setback? 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/17/02) MR. LONG-The proposal is to utilize 100% of the adjacent area. MR. ABBATE-That wasn’t my question. MR. LONG-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Are you suggesting that the Zoning Administrator is incorrect in his assumption that there is, that 84.5 feet of relief from the 75 foot setback is incorrect? MR. LONG-No, it’s one of the ways of characterizing it. MR. ABBATE-They are not incorrect. MR. LONG-No, no. Because we have said that there’s 15 square feet inside of the wetlands, and until we analyze, you know, frankly, it took me since last month to finally figure out how you get 84 feet inside of a 75 foot adjacent area, and what it is, is it’s the eight feet, it’s the nine feet, the nine and a half feet of the building that’s inside of the wetland. MR. ABBATE-So then are you stating that you are not requesting 84.5 feet of relief from the 75 foot setback? This applicant, your application is not requesting that? MR. LONG-Yes, we are doing that. MR. ABBATE-You are requesting that? MR. LONG-Yes, we are. MR. ABBATE-So, in effect, going back to what I said five minutes ago, so in effect, the Administrator is right. You are requesting an 84.5 foot of relief from the 75 foot setback. MR. LONG-That’s correct. MR. ABBATE-Okay. That’s all I wanted to know. Number One, okay, thank you. MR. FRANK-Could I interject for a second here? As in all the notes, when you look at the criteria, you’ll see at the very end of the sentence, it says relative to the Ordinance. So, if you were to grant this variance, I mean, it’s a technical thing, if you look at it from that perspective. That’s what actually goes beyond and into and we’ve run across this before with Sign Variances that are outside of the setback and it’s a negative part of it which you add on. So it’s more technical than anything else. I mean, it’s the deck that is protruding into the wetlands. So it’s relative to the Ordinance. So it’s a technical thing. I mean, if you were going to grant this variance, you’ve got to give them the relief they need according to the Code. MR. LAPPER-If I could just address that. If you had a 100 foot long section of a building that was 10 feet into the wetland, that might be significant, but when you have a corner of a building, I think, so it’s a matter of, it’s the size of it. It’s the length of the building. It’s the fact that, yes, it’s a few feet of the building, 15 square feet, but a few feet are into the wetland, but because it’s just the corner, when you read it in the comments, it sounds like, wow, the whole building is 10 feet. So that’s our point. MR. ABBATE-No, I understand. All right. Let me try it this way. Let me rephrase the whole thing. Is the applicant going to intrude in any portion of the wetlands? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-The answer is yes. Okay. Thank you. Now my second part, now Paragraph Four of Craig’s letter, the Zoning Administrator’s letter, states, “Substantial effect may be anticipated”. Now, again, here is an eyes of the beholder type of thing, I guess, but wouldn’t it not make sense, at least to me, to take your application, table the darn thing, go to the DEC and ask them to review your application? And then come back to us with facts, instead of eyes of the beholder, and say, see, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. That’s a question to you. The other question was, let’s see if I can find the other question here. You answered it for me. You answered the other question. So I guess that’s what the bottom line is. There seems to be, at least in my opinion, and I’m not taking sides, some very strong disagreement between the applicant and the Zoning Board of Appeals, where the applicant is saying there will be no substantial impact with the Zoning Administrator saying, yes, there will be, and I get confused, and in several instances they refer to DEC, and it seems to me it would make a lot of sense to go to DEC and say now, look, how about reviewing this thing for us, will you, please, and then present their facts to us, and then none of these questions would have to be raised. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/17/02) MRS. ELMER-It’s a very good comment. We did meet with DEC on the site. Al Koechline came to the site and met with Dean, and Kit Huggard and the others, about three weeks ago. The DEC won’t assess an application for a project until you’ve got your local approvals. As you can see tonight, the project has already changed. So they won’t look at it until it’s been approved by the local. MR. LAPPER-We have to get a Zoning Board variance, then go to the Planning Board, and then go to DEC. MRS. ELMER-But we would not prepare something that we didn’t think was approvable. MR. ABBATE-Well, see, then I could have saved all this conversation, if you had said to us that you had already spoken to the DEC. MRS. ELMER-I think we said it in our letter, but I’m glad we got it out there. MR. ABBATE-But thank you very much. MRS. ELMER-You’re welcome. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? MR. URRICO-I still have a couple. MR. HAYES-Sure. Fire away, that’s what we’re here for. MR. URRICO-We talked about the type of fill that you would be using under that building. Could you explain what it would be? MR. LONG-Certainly for this location, you know, the majority of the building itself, of course, will have a concrete foundation and necessary stone and gravel to stabilize that area. There will have to be some temporary dewatering, even to, you know, place the stone and gravel for the footings and foundations themselves. The fills for, and basically the same process will be used, somewhat similar process will be used for the parking area, in that, you know, the top soils and materials will be removed. There will probably be a geo grid mat put down, which is basically like a heavy duty plastic screen. On top of that there will be a fabric layer put down, and then conventional stone and gravel, in order to build this parking lot so that essentially it floats, and on the soils at this site. So it’ll all be basically stones and gravels. MR. URRICO-And the bridge, the pedestrian bridge that was referred to, is this, I don’t know if you are familiar with the one by Gurney Lane or up by the Lake George Elementary School in the back, it sort of just sits on the pilings and is just inches off the ground. Is that what we’re talking about? MR. LONG-This bridge has to do two things. Well, it has to do a lot of things, but one of the challenges of this location is that we need to have the bottom girders of the bridge itself above the 100 year floodplain. So we have to gain, you know, a couple of feet of elevation. So this thing will probably end up in the center span of the area over Halfway Brook will probably be six or eight feet off the ground. Additionally, we need to be high in order to get the span between the posts, because we have to allow 100% of the flood flows to go in between the posts without the risk, or without a significant risk, of debris plugging between the posts. So, you know, typically, on most of this pedestrian bridge, there will be posts every 10 feet, but when we’re right at the stream, we’ll probably have to stretch that out to 20 or 30 feet, so that we have good flood flow characteristics underneath there. Because, you know, you always see the pictures of the bridges and posts catching debris. Well, when it catches debris, then it becomes a dam and then it causes the flood flows to elevate elsewhere. So those are the kinds of design details that, you know, have to get worked out, and this is one of the things that’s, understandably, a frustration of the staff. We have not done that level of engineering. To do that level of engineering, we’ve got to do test bores and all those kinds of things. We’re not going to commit to have the Girl Scouts commit all the funds that are going to be necessary for highly, highly detailed engineering, when in conceptual. MR. ABBATE-Now that was, I found my third question. That was exactly it, and the Zoning Administrator said it well. It would seem very difficult to approve that portion of the project without first knowing what the project entails. MR. LAPPER-The simple answer there is that, for this Zoning Board, we’re talking about the amount of fill, which is just those posts here. You don’t need to know what the thing’s going to look like, in terms of, you need to know, because we’re talking about wetlands. We’re in the middle of the woods, in the middle by the stream, surrounded by our own property. So what you need to know is, are we bringing in a lot of dirt? And the answer is, no. We’re just putting posts down. MR. ABBATE-The most effective way to demonstrate a project is to provide a description and the drawings of the plan, and as of the 16 of July 2002, no such drawings have been submitted to this point. th 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/17/02) MR. LAPPER-And that’s not out of disrespect. It’s just that we know, conceptually, that it’s going to be the type of bridge that Dean just described that’ll have pilings outside of the stream itself, and it’ll be raised up to six to eight feet in the center, but in terms of the actual design of that, that’s a whole engineering design that would be done at site plan. MR. ABBATE-Why would you not want to submit those project and plans to this Board? MR. LAPPER-Because that part of this project may not get done for a year. So to hire the engineers. MR. ABBATE-But that would be included our approval. MR. LAPPER-But you’re not approving the site plan. You’re just approving the fill, which means how much dirt the posts would upset. MR. ABBATE-I understand, but don’t you think it would be nice? MR. LAPPER-Well, it’s just, it’s a matter of, again, we have a not for profit, and to spend serious money on engineer, we don’t feel you need that, but if you’re going to say that you can’t address this without that, then obviously we have to go hire an engineer. MR. ABBATE-Counselor, you know me. I’m a reasonable person. MR. LAPPER-Yes, I do. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. HAYES-Yes. Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of this application? Please come forward. Please state your name for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DONNA GELDER MS. GELDER-Yes. I’m Donna Gelder, and I live in South Glens Falls. I think you wanted to know where people lived. I am First Vice President, and I think the main thing that I want to say is that I’ve been in Girl Scouting over 50 years, and Meadowbrook was my first camping experience as a very, very young Girl Scout, and I know that a lot of very hard planning has gone into this, and I really support what we are hoping to do, and to make the jewel that we have even brighter for the girls in the future. MR. HAYES-Thank you very much. JOAN STONE MRS. STONE-I am Joan Stone. I am the President of the Board of the Girl Scout Council of the Adirondacks. We are chartered by the Girl Scouts of the USA to provide programs for girls, and an important piece of that program is respect for the environment for the Girl Scouts of the USA programs. We work very hard to provide that respect, and we are certainly using our own ability to respect the environment in making these plans, because they are to help the girls have a program of many aspects, including the environment. The purpose of our Staff is to serve girls for the Girl Scout program, and we are trying to make more space to make it better and more fun for the girls, while we are teaching them respect for the environment. We are trying very hard to provide what we can afford in order to make programs better for the girls. MR. HAYES-Thank you. JOHN THOMAS MR. THOMAS-I’m John Thomas. I’m Second Vice President of the Girl Scout Council of the Adirondacks. I reside in Saratoga Springs. Considering the site where the office building is now, the Administration Building is now, and considering the entire campus, one of the things we’ve been considering, in terms of developing this, is what we are calling the Meadowbrook campus. The present site of the present Administration building turns out to be ideal, both from the point of view that it is separate from the girls camping site, and that it is part of the girls camping site. If you go on to the site now, it is difficult to see the present Administration building from the site. Indeed, I’ve spent years. I’ve been working with the Girl Scouts for 20 years, and I have never seen the campsite from the Administration building, which is fascinating to me because they are so close together. What we are doing is developing a site in the best way that we can to keep a camping experience within the camp, and yet to link it, in a way, to the Administration building, separating the two and yet linking the two. I’m also a retired professor of Geology from Skidmore College, 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/17/02) and within that program, I taught within the Geology program and in the Environmental Studies program. I am known to my students as a weird old hippy environmentalist. I have been active in environmental concerns for years. I do know, from my experience, that there are tradeoffs that one has to make. One of the great advantages of the building that is being proposed, the entire system that is being proposed, is that we are going to now capture the water that is being not controlled, coming off the building and the parking lots and going into the wetland, and with a series of retention basins, we’re going to retain those, put them through the groundwater system, which will clean those waters up better than they are now, and indeed with a very small intrusion into the wetlands area we are going to be improving the water quality of that creek. MR. HAYES-Thank you. JIM PIPER MR. PIPER-My name is Jim Piper. I live at 206 Meadowbrook Road, which is directly across from the Girl Scout camp. I am also a member of the Board of Directors, Chairman of the Property Development Committee. I have lived in that neighborhood on Meadowbrook Road since 1956. I think I know that camp as well or better than most people, having gone through to steal golf balls at night from Bay Meadows Golf Course, and also to fish the stream. There’s been an awful lot of development on Meadowbrook Road, and I’ve heard the Zoning Administrator’s comments tonight that this could have significant impact on the neighbors. I didn’t see significant impact when they approved an apartment building right across the street from this building, where they filled hundreds of feet of the wetlands. I didn’t see significant impact when they built four residential houses within the floodplain on the southern end of Meadowbrook Road. I think that by retaining the services of the LA Group, where we are getting good advice, as far as the best way to handle runoff and dealing with the wetlands, this camp has existed since the 40’s, pre-existing of any of the zoning ordinances, and the only thing we’re asking to do is to be able to construct or to reconstruct, if you will, that building in an area that has been existing for years. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to come forward and speak in favor of the application? PAM ROBERTS MRS. ROBERTS-Pam Roberts, member of the Girl Scout Board, just for a year they’ve invited me on. I’m on the Development Committee. When I first came for my first meeting, I was quite shocked how crowded they were in there and how they serviced everybody is magnificent, how they go about it all. I would like to see them have more room so they could service more girls. I wouldn’t like to see the Administration building anywhere else. It would be kind of hard to drop your child off and, now I have to go sign them up or where is that. It’s nice to have it all on the same site, and I think it would be a big improvement to Meadowbrook, and I’d hate to see anyone have an accident there because it’s not approved. I just hope you go ahead with it. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of the application? Would anyone like to speak in opposition to the application? Another one to speak in favor? Certainly. KIT HUGGARD MRS. HUGGARD-May I speak again? MR. HAYES-Certainly. MRS. HUGGARD-We were talking about the children and their safety. I want you to know that many of our volunteers come in during the day, our volunteer leaders, for various sundry things. I can’t tell you how often they bring their stay at home youngsters. So when we’re talking about the children that are involved in the parking lot and parking on the street, we’re not just talking about girls that are aged five to seventeen, our members. We’re talking about their little brothers and sisters who come along, too. The parking is really dangerous. We did what we could to get them off the street with the north parking lot, but walking between the building and camp, or even parking in the lot as it is now, we’re often double parked, one car in and one car behind it. The only way out of that lot is to back out onto Meadowbrook Road. We’ve had some screeches and near misses, and this is becoming a safety problem for us that’s really a worry to us all. So we ask your help for this. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition to the application? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. HAYES-If not, I’ll close the public hearing. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/17/02) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-And begin the Board discussion about it. Are there any further questions of the applicant by the Board? MR. URRICO-Just one for Mr. Lapper. Would you just review briefly the difference between the application in February, when you first came before us, and the more recent one. MR. LAPPER-Yes. Although the use is a use that pre-existed zoning in the Town. I think it’s the SFR district that we’re in doesn’t permit a Girl Scout camp as a permitted use. So in order to expand a pre- existing use that’s not a permitted use in the zone, we needed a Use Variance which, of course, is a tougher standard than the Area Variance. So at that point we came with the same conceptual plans and presented that. It was after that that we were told by the Zoning Administrator that we also need a Area Variance for the wetland. It wasn’t something that we were aware of when we came before you in February. So that was the Use Variance for whether or not it could be expanded, and that was approved by the Board, and now we’re back for the Area issue. MR. URRICO-Thank you. MR. HAYES-Are there any further questions for the applicant at this time? If not, I’ll begin to poll the Board. At this time I’ll start with Roy. MR. URRICO-This being first is difficult. Especially in this instance, and I think the danger here is that because we’re seeing the first one, that we imply an unreasonable, take an unreasonable position, just because they are first. I think in fairness, the reason the ZBA exists is to judge what is reasonable and what isn’t. What is reasonable today may not be reasonable next year or the year after, and I don’t think we’re here to put unnecessary constraints on the application. As I look at it, I see the criteria and the benefit to the applicant, and when I looked at this, the most obvious benefit to the applicant is putting the building where it is, but it also means expanding the facility and providing better service, which to me combines it with the effects on the neighborhood or community overall. There are two types of effects, the wetland effect and the effect with the wider community at large, and by being able to expand the facility of this nonprofit organization, which does a lot of great work for children, girls, I think we’re giving them the opportunity to benefit greatly, and at the same time expand their impact on the community, which is a double win, in my opinion. In terms of the feasible alternatives, I know a lot’s been discussed about putting it elsewhere and where it should be placed. I have a hard time telling an applicant put a building somewhere else. I just, I know yes, probably if you had unlimited funds, it would be a possibility, but I don’t know if I’m here to judge that. So I really don’t come down either in favor or against. I understand there are feasible alternatives, but I’m not sure that I’m ready to make a decision based on what should be considered feasible and what shouldn’t. It comes down to the, and then there’s the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance, and, yes, it is substantial relief, but we’re talking about a corner of the building and a wetland setback, and a new Ordinance, and again, here I’m looking at, what is the purpose and intent of the Ordinance, and to me it’s to stop unnecessary building of a wetland, primarily impacting lakes and rivers, but I think, in this case here, there is substantial possibilities of the wetlands being abused, not necessarily by the Girl Scouts, but in the Town, but I don’t see this as being one of those cases. I see a corner of a building. There has been some pull back by the applicant, cutting the wetland, the expansion into the wetland down substantially, eliminating seven spaces. I think you’ve shown a lot of willingness to work with the Town. I’ve spoken about the effects on the neighborhood or community, and I think another impact is the educational, environmental impact that the Girl Scouts present, in terms of what they do, and I think where you’re located makes it possible for that to happen. So I do think the substantial effects on the community are anticipated, but I see them as a positive impact. I see the neighborhood benefiting from it. I see Queensbury benefiting from it, and I think there’s a lot of good to come from that, and again, I don’t see the building protruding, a corner of it protruding into the wetlands as having a detrimental effect, and it’s certainly outweighed by the benefits of having the rest of the building located where it is, and then as far as the difficulty self-created, I think the building, well, obviously the building was there before the wetlands were even noted in regulations, and where the building is located has certainly made it difficult for you to operate, and I guess, overall, I’m in favor of the application. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-What my colleague had to say was very interesting, but on Page 82 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury, A, Section A, Declaration of Policy, “It is declared to be the public policy of the Town of Queensbury to preserve, protect and conserve freshwater wetlands and the benefits derived there from, to prevent any despoliation and destruction of freshwater wetlands and to regulate the development of such wetlands in order to secure the natural benefits of freshwater wetlands, consistent with the general welfare and beneficial economic, social and agricultural development of the town. It is further declared to be the policy of the Town of Queensbury to exercise its authority, pursuant to Article 24 of the State Environmental Conservation Law, as such Article may from time to time be amended.” And then it goes on to say, Statement of Findings, that, “The freshwater wetlands located in the Town of Queensbury are invaluable resources for flood protection, wildlife habitat, open space and water resources.” Now, having 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/17/02) said that, Mr. Piper struck a nerve. Any individuals who have been here before have heard me on the Board stating that there should be one standard of fairness of all individuals. Unfortunately, there has not been. Mr. Piper’s remarks are well made, well taken. In spite of the fact that I’ve read this, there have been approvals of piling into wet water lands. There’s been approval of a number of things which in most instances I have disapproved of, and this evening I would have disapproved this application except Mr. Piper struck a nerve with me, and he threw back in my face, without saying it, standard of fairness, and while I don’t particularly agree with the fact that the Girl Scouts of the Adirondacks, Inc. want to intrude on wetlands, I think that, in the standard of fairness, I have no choice but to approve the application, with reservation. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Mr. McNulty? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I guess the first thought comes to my mind with that last remark is just because the guy on each side of your house beats his wife doesn’t mean that you can. So just because somebody has gotten an approval before to build in a wetland doesn’t mean we should continue to issue those kind of permits, just because of that reason. Two or three thoughts, somewhat a little disjointed, but much has been made of the Thursday event and the need for parking and such. I think there’s some alternatives. One has been partially discussed and partially countered, the idea of putting the office in the current Thursday night parking area and putting the parking where the office is, and you’ve indicated that wouldn’t be quite adequate, but that’s one possibility. However, it strikes me that that whole problem is a self-created problem. It’s because of your program. Now next year or the year after your programming may change and you may decide not to have that Thursday night, but I think there’s some alternatives to the parking problem. One is finding a way to put it where the current office building is. Another is to modify the programming so the problem is not created. Beyond that, I think, as I mentioned before, I have a problem with encroachment into wetlands. The reason DEC has a 100 foot buffer around their wetlands is it’s been established that anything that occurs within that buffer zone effects the wetland, and so they had a 100 foot buffer put around DEC classified wetlands to protect them. The same thing is true here. Anything that occurs within the buffer zone is going to affect the wetland. Granted that the office is currently fully within the buffer zone that Town of Queensbury has established, but I don’t think that that necessarily means that we should allow intrusion further into the wetlands. A lot’s been said tonight about the environmental stewardship of the Girl Scouts, and it strikes me that what you’re doing is saying, do as we say, don’t do as we do. Environmental stewardship, good citizenship, is not done just when it’s easy. It’s also done, and more importantly done, when it’s difficult, and it strikes me that this entire project is sending the wrong message to Girl Scouts and saying, well, it’s convenient for us and cheaper for us to build in the wetlands. So this time it’s okay, but you really shouldn’t affect wetlands. MR. LAPPER-I just have a couple of quick responses I’d just like you to consider on that. You heard the testimony that because we’re going to be treating the water, in terms of the function of the wetland as to purify the water before it goes back into the drainage system, hat we’re actually going to be treating the water that comes off the roof and the parking lot that are now going in untreated. So that, in terms of the function issue, we can make the argument that this project is actually having a beneficial effect on that wetland, even though a little bit, there’s a little bit of fill, we’re now creating these detention basins that didn’t exist because those are more recent designs than what was done when this was built. So I think that that’s important, in terms of that stewardship issue, that we’re really going to be creating cleaner water than what we have now, and I think that that’s really significant here. Beyond that, if you take the position that there’s a zero tolerance, that you just don’t feel that there should ever be any wetland encroachment, that’s, in terms of the science of that and the law, that’s not what, the freshwater wetlands regulations of the Town are justifications for when it’s appropriate to grant a permit, and that’s what the Article 24 of the DEC and the Federal government, too, and I don’t think that you gave us credit for the fact that we reluctantly are willing to eliminate the seven spaces and to go from the 3800 square feet, less than a tenth of an acre, which we think is justifiable, to this 1144, approximately a third of that, that we’ve really made an effort here, and if you can’t, if you don’t want to allow 1144 square feet, you’re really saying zero tolerance, that there can’t be any, and in which case, just in terms of the role of the Zoning Board, to balance this, that just does seem harsh to me, so I hope that you’d reconsider, with obviously only four members of the Board here tonight. MR. MC NULTY-I know it puts you and puts me in a difficult position. Nevertheless, I think that’s where I’m at at this point, that something occurring just in the buffer zone, I might be able to tolerate, but the intrusion into the wetland, I don’t see the justification for it. MR. LAPPER-Let me ask this question. In terms of the benefit analysis. MR. URRICO-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I thought when we polled the members that we should be allowed to say our thoughts before we’re. MR. HAYES-Yes. I allowed a question, but Mr. McNulty has set forth his position, and I’m going to have to respect that at this time. So I will abbreviate my comments because I think it’s fairly obvious, you know, at this time that there’s not four votes. So I’ll save a little bit of everyone’s time. I should go on the record with my direction on this, and I will. I think as far as the benefit to the applicant, I don’t think anyone has really doubted that the work that the Girl Scouts do is admirable, and having a building they consider necessary and 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/17/02) proper, I think the benefit to the applicant is clear. Feasible alternatives, I think in this case the feasible alternatives have been explored, based on the testimony of Mr. Zilch and geologists from the LA Group so far that we’ve heard. I think that there is, that their proposal is well thought, and that the placement of the building, which only kind of asks the question, is this proposed disturbance reasonable and necessary to put this building here and to go into the wetlands in the sense that you propose, and I think that it’s been factually established that the facility needs an upgrade, and that this location is the best. It’s the least expensive. The neighbors have expressed their desire to have it remain where it is, even if it’s improved or slightly enlarged. So, as far as feasible alternatives, I think they’ve been explored and to my satisfaction, and I think that, in this particular case, the current proposal is probably the best proposal, as far as the location of the building, and the change in the parking, which was a safety issue there. It’s been put forth that there’s a safety issue there. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I think, you know, Chuck hit on a point that we were all contemplating in our mind, because it certainly seemed to be a difference in the characterization of the relief required. So I think, in all fairness, I think the relief is substantial, in this particular case. I think, going actually into the wetlands itself is something to be seriously contemplated in any circumstance, and our regulations therefore characterize it as a substantial relief, and I think that it is, in this particular case. Effects on the neighborhood or community is this disturbance, and that’s really what we’re all concerned about is the disturbance of the wetland. Is it compatible with the public health and welfare, and that’s kind of meshing these two tests, I know, but I think it is compatible, in this case, with the public health and welfare, and I guess that’s taking into account all of the ideas that have been entertained by the rest of the Board members, you know, we want to protect these Critical Environmental Areas, but are they compromised by the filling of what is one thirtieth of an acre by my calculations in this case, on a thirteen acre campus? I don’t think the public good is compromised by that disturbance. I really don’t. I think it’s minimal, and that’s why I asked the question about the nationwide permit. I mean, my read on that, or my understanding of that, and it could be flawed, is that a minimal disturbance, which this certainly seems to be to me, there has to be some expediency that’s provided to applicants, and if the people that are experts at this, outside of the applicant’s representatives, feel that that is a minimal intrusion or disturbance that when properly done with the right fills and such is not a necessarily endangering the important wetland, I think in this case, I can accept that too. So, is the difficulty self-created? I think that’s a mixed bag. I think certainly this camp has been here since 1946, pre-dated Queensbury Zoning Code. So, you know, it’s proximity to the wetlands and the regulations that didn’t exist then was not created by the Girl Scouts. Their desire to expand this facility and improve it, that’s self-created, I guess. So I guess that’s a mixed bag, but on the two main issues to me, you know, as far as reasonable and necessary and compatibility with the public health and welfare, I think that in both cases, particularly considering the compromise that’s been put forth to reduce this intrusion to one thirtieth of an acre, which to me is, I mean, one thirtieth of an acre, on a campus this size, I think, makes the balance fall in favor of the applicant, in my mind. So my position hasn’t changed, but it probably has been fortified, if you will, by the fact that the disturbance has been dramatically reduced by your most recent proposal, a proposal that I would hold you to, personally, at this point, because I think that it’s been put forth. I think it was an effort by the applicant to, again, meet with the requirements as much as possible, to practicality, and therefore, I’m in favor of the application with the new proposal. Having said that. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, I think you’re right, and I would just like to emphasize something else if I may, please. I think it is noteworthy, and I think we should make this a part of the minutes of the meeting, it’s noteworthy that the Girl Scouts did, in fact, make serious changes to their application which suggest that they’re willing to work within the spirit of cooperation with the Town, and I applaud them for that. Thank you. MR. HAYES-I’d just like to add to my comments, in one sense, is that obviously there is not a four vote count here that would be required for an approval. Mr. McNulty said that put him in a difficult circumstance. Perhaps it did, but I do want to note that in the previous Board meeting, he was not the only dissenter. So I’m not sure that’s entirely true. His viewpoint is not just his own, based on prior votes, but I guess Mr. Lapper, based on the fact that we only have four Board members, at this point I guess it’s slightly the prerogative of the Board, but I think in due fairness, I’ll allow you to make a recommendation or set forth a direction, not necessarily require for a mandatory vote. MR. LAPPER-The Girl Scouts are certainly hoping to get this project underway because of their serious need for improvement, but I think, reluctantly, we have no choice but to request that this be tabled again, just because of the four member vote of the Board, and hopefully there’ll be a full Board next month. MR. HAYES-How does the Board feel about that? MR. ABBATE-I have no problems with that at all. The applicant has that as a prerogative and he’s certainly entitled to do that. MR. HAYES-Well, it’s our prerogative, but you feel okay? MR. ABBATE-Yes, I’m comfortable with that. MR. URRICO-I’m comfortable with that also. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/17/02) MR. MC NULTY-I’ll go along with it. MR. HAYES-Okay. At this time, I would like to make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-2002 GIRL SCOUTS OF THE ADIRONDACK COUNCIL, INC., Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Until either of the August meetings, tabled for up to 60 days. Duly adopted this 17 day of July, 2002, by the following vote: th MR. HAYES-Table until the first meeting in August, as far as re-advertising. MR. LAPPER-I guess if you could just say in August. I know we’ve got a lot of vacation schedules. MR. HAYES-Okay. AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HAYES-Thank you. I guess I will call for a five minute recess before the next application begins. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED SANDRI REALTY, INC. FOR SUNOCO PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: HEIDI E. RUSHWAY ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: 658 GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A GAS ISLAND AND A 48 FT. BY 36 FT. SERVICE STATION CANOPY AND TO REPLACE THE OLD GASOLINE/DIESEL DISPENSERS AND ASSOCIATED UNDERGROUND PRODUCT DISTRIBUTION PIPING OF THE EXISTING FUEL ISLAND. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE FRONT AND REAR SETBACK AND TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. CROSS REFERENCE: SV 58-2002, SPR 34-2002 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/10/02 TAX MAP NO. 302.07-1-32 LOT SIZE: 0.14 ACRES SECTION: ART. 4, 179-4-030, 179-4-060 HEIDI RUSHWAY & RICHARD BARNES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 57-2002, Sandri Realty, Inc., Meeting Date: July 17, 2002 “Project Location: 658 Glen Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a gas island and a 1728 sf canopy. Relief Required: Applicant requests 74.15 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum setback requirement of the Travel Corridor Overlay zone per § 179-4-60. Additionally, the applicant seeks 49.15 feet of relief from the 50 foot front setback requirement and 3.63 feet of relief from the 25 foot rear setback requirement of the Highway Commercial, Intensive district regulations. 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 canopy in the preferred location. The proposed canopy location would serve to shelter the gas island as well as offer the “wall” space desired for signage. Such signage is the topic of current Sign Variance application. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a smaller, single island arrangement. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: Both requests for front setback relief can be interpreted as extreme and the rear setback request may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: If approved, the neighborhood and community would gain a covered gasoline island. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Sign Variance 58-2002 resolved – pending additional wall signs Site Plan Review 34-2002 resolved – pending new canopy & site improvements Staff comments: This section of Route 9 is currently a divided four-lane highway with two lanes in each direction and an eastbound turning lane for traffic onto Glenwood Ave. Further, the State right of way appears to be quite wide at this point. The project appears to include the replacement of the dispensers, tanks and piping along with the installation of a canopy. As such, reconfiguration of the island arrangement may be explored. Staff has identified the potential for closure of the southerly access point on Route 9. This issue will be discussed during the Planning Board review. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted” 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/17/02) MR. STONE-Okay. Introduce yourself and tell us what you want us to know in addition to what was just read in, if anything. MS. RUSHWAY-Okay. My name is Heidi Rushway, representing Sandri Realty. MR. BARNES-My name is Richard Barnes. I’m Chief Operating Officer of (lost words), Inc. and Sandri Realty. MS. RUSHWAY-A couple of comments on the Staff notes, and also the notice on the agenda, I think. They’re referring to the area of our property as .14 acres, and I went back and looked on the tax bill, and that’s what we’re being billed for, which I really hate to bring up, but we actually are half an acre, and I’m not sure where that has come from, but that’s just a bit of a question. MR. STONE-Well, as the Chairman of the Board of Assessment Review, I’ll be sure to make the Assessor aware of that. MS. RUSHWAY-Thanks. The other thing that I wanted to bring up, in the last part of the Staff review, is that we are not intending to replace the underground tanks. That is an investment of about $50,000 additional, and they are in compliance with the environmental regulations. MR. STONE-But that’s really not our call anyway, in terms of, it’s where you put it, and as far as we’re concerned, how far and so on at this moment. Can you, I know we get to this when we get to the sign thing, but what are the plans for this particular piece of property? You’re talking about putting a canopy. What else is going to be on the property? MS. RUSHWAY-At this point, we are planning to be a gasoline station, retail gasoline and automotive service. We don’t have a plan to convert the station to a store, in this particular location. We’ve done that in a number of our locations, though. We have also been approached by Stewarts. They were interested in buying the location, but the size of the lot is relatively small for the kind of development that Stewarts would do. We do have, have had some discussion with the current tenant and they are leaving or are probably leaving, Warren Tire. In which case, we would be leasing the business to another similar operation. MR. STONE-Yes, because I do know, I know we’re getting ahead of ourselves, but in our Sign Variance, one of the exhibits had Warren Tire over the building. MS. RUSHWAY-Right, and at the time that we prepared all of these documents, they had not given us any sort of notice that they would not be there. What we would do in the case, you know, if they were to leave before this was approved or actually implemented, whoever the lessee of the building itself, or the name of the operation in the building, we would like to have their name on the front, on the building. MR. STONE-So you are making this application on behalf of you, the owner of the property, but also for Sunoco, which will be leasing the property and operating a gas station, and using the bays that are currently there for whatever they can use the bays for, in terms of automotive service. MS. RUSHWAY-We are a distributor for Sunoco gasoline. Sandri Realty is the owner of the facility. Sandri Realty might even operate the facility directly until they got a lessee in there, but there’s no plan to do anything but sell gas and service. MR. STONE-And Sunoco gas. MS. RUSHWAY-Yes, Sunoco gas. Unless we were to sell it, which we probably won’t do. MR. STONE-Yes, I understand. MS. RUSHWAY-But I wanted to make one other comment on the self-induced hardship. The actual location of the existing building and the location of the existing fueling islands was the result of a land taking that was done in 1969. We actually had to demolish the building at that time, and demolish the islands and move them because there was a land taking by the State for US Route 9, or State Route 9. MR. STONE-Just, because it brings a question. Does this land extend over the infamous Halfway Brook? I can’t tell from the drawing. There’s a cross hatched area. MS. RUSHWAY-Halfway Brook extends over the land. MR. STONE-On this drawing there’s a cross hatched area. MS. RUSHWAY-I actually have a survey, a separate survey which probably shows that more clearly. There are, I think, three culverts. That’s Halfway Brook. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/17/02) MR. STONE-Where’s the Brook? MS. RUSHWAY-The Brook is right here. MR. STONE-So it goes through this, what you say permanent easement. Okay. So that is not part of this property? MS. RUSHWAY-The property line is right here. This is where the edge of the area. MR. STONE-So the property that George Ryan is using over here is on this easement, the flower area? MR. FRANK-That land is on the Enterprise parcel. It’s owned by someone totally different. MR. STONE-It is, but it looks as if this goes across the Brook. That’s the only question I have, this little bit here. Because I know the flower thing is somewhere in here. MS. RUSHWAY-This is about, the easement is 66.51 feet across there. MR. STONE-Okay. MS. RUSHWAY-And this is actually the area that you see as. MR. STONE-As the gas station, yes. Okay, but the island’s in the right of way, the curbed island out on Glen Street? MS. RUSHWAY-Yes. MR. BARNES-That’s correct. MS. RUSHWAY-That was actually part of the last land taking that they did. MR. STONE-And also the one at the corner, too? MS. RUSHWAY-Yes. MR. STONE-So are there, you didn’t say it, but let me ask. Is there any requirements that you be canopied, in terms of fire protection and so on? MS. RUSHWAY-Not that we know of, no. MR. STONE-You have to have extinguishers around somehow, but they don’t have to be overhead? MS. RUSHWAY-Right. Just a regular fire extinguisher. MR. BARNES-You’d have to have a regular fire extinguisher then in New York you would have to put up the framework to have fire suppression. Fire Suppression is now, we’re grandfathered on this particular location, but if we change out the dispensers, and do any of that kind of stuff, then we have to put in fire suppression and you will have to put in a framework, an H framework, which covers those dispensers and it’s a design and would be hung off your light poles or something like that. MS. RUSHWAY-Fairly unattractive. MR. STONE-It sounds terribly unattractive, but right now, if you don’t do anything, you don’t have to put in the canopy. MS. RUSHWAY-Right, but actually one of the reasons that Warren Tire has considered going somewhere else is, or is going somewhere else is that they have the oldest mechanical dispensers that exist right now. They are not at all reliable. We’re sending service people up from Greenfield at least monthly, sometimes more than that, to repair them. So they are desperately in need of replacement. MR. STONE-Any questions, gentlemen? MR. URRICO-Have you considered some other type of configuration for the pumps? MS. RUSHWAY-We have considered it, and actually we also considered maybe removing the diesel because the service of providing diesel has created a little bit of a problem in terms of the traffic flow in the lot, because in the summertime we get a lot of the campers. If we are to continue to have diesel, which is a big part of the business there, at least a (lost word) of the business there, then you really need to be able to 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/17/02) provide an area so that if a camper comes in, you can also fuel a car at the same time, because the camper basically fills up that whole area. MR. URRICO-Where’s the diesel pump located now? I know you have a self-serve and a full-serve island. MS. RUSHWAY-There’s one on each. MR. BARNES-There’s one on each. MR. URRICO-Okay. Now you said the current plans are to have a service area in there, but is that still open to whoever leases the property, that there might be a convenient store or some type of quick mart? MS. RUSHWAY-Not without coming back to the Board. At this point the application is to remain the current use. MR. STONE-Anything else? Well, let me go through the formalities of opening the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor of? Anybody opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions? If not, let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Chuck Abbate. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I did take a look at the place, and it’s my opinion that this is a pretty straight forward application, an application which requests certain relief to perform the duties of a business in the Town of Queensbury, and, quite frankly, after reviewing the site and what have you and looking at what you’re requesting, I have no problems with it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I agree with Chuck. Based on the criteria, I think there is substantial reason to grant the variance, and I also think it will be an upgrade to the property. I use it occasionally, and those pumps old. I agree. They do need some upgrading, and I really don’t see any feasible alternatives to this because of the configuration of the land, the setback required by the State has really painted them into a corner, so to speak, and while the setback may be interpreted as extreme, I think the extreme case here is because of the land configuration. I don’t think there’ll be any negative impacts on the neighborhood. If anything it’ll be better for the neighborhood because it’ll be easier to access and again, the difficulty I don’t think is self-created. So, based on the criteria, I’m in favor of it. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I guess I’m going to go against the grain on this one in this particular case. As I look at the station now, it does not comply. I know it’s grandfathered, but it does not comply with setbacks in the rear or the side, and now we’re being asked to have it not comply in the front, and I think that in a cumulative sense, approving that would amount to a level of relief, coupled with the level of relief that’s involved with the, less than a foot setback from the front property line, to me, it’s just too much relief, on balance, compared to what’s going to be obtained in this particular circumstance. I think that we’ve talked in the past that I’m also troubled by the fact that the signage on the canopy does not count as signage. MR. STONE-Well, we’ll get to that in the next one. MR. HAYES-Well, I’m kind of putting this, as far as the impact on the neighborhood is where I’m going with that, is that, to me, having a structure that close to the property line that could, in fact, have signage on it, would have a presence and a viewpoint that would, not even talking about the pylon sign, that would be negative, in that it would almost be hanging over the road directly, and I think it would have a negative impact on that strip of commercialism in my opinion. I guess I understand the benefit to the applicant, and I realize in this case that feasible alternatives are limited, but on balance, I think that the relatively extreme amount of relief that’s being requested calls to mind a reduced application to possibly one island with the canopy, that I guess I would be in favor of that, but as it’s proposed now, I believe that, cumulatively, the relief is dramatic, in this particular case. Actually, it shouldn’t matter, but I guess it does. It’s impossible for me to ignore the fact that a Sign Variance is following this which will also, in my mind, further impact whatever intrusiveness into the Travel Corridor Overlay that we allow in this particular case. So I’m not in favor of the application. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/17/02) MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I have to agree with Jaime. I’ve been kicking around in my mind what could be done. This is a difficult piece of property. There’s an existing station there. If it were a brand new piece of property and the request was to put a gas station there, I’d probably say no. There being one there, I don’t have a problem with continuing it. I do have a problem with the canopy being that close to the road. As Jaime says, it’s basically on the road. There isn’t a huge amount of space between the property line and the paved travel lanes. I don’t know what else could be done for configuration. One thought that comes to mind is putting the pumps more in a linear run, but I know years ago that station did have pumps in front of the building and they were moved, I think because of traffic congestion and traffic problems. So that may not be an answer. Whether there’s some other way for you to maybe take one pump out and put the rest of them in a row or whatever, I don’t know, but I’d like to see something that moved the canopy a bit further from the front lot line. I wouldn’t demand it comply with setbacks or anything, because as was pointed out, that would mean you wouldn’t have anything there, but it’s just too close to the road for me. So I’m going to be opposed also. MR. STONE-Before I state where I’m coming from, are you familiar with our new Zoning Code, as of April 1? st MS. RUSHWAY-I have a copy of it. MR. STONE-Okay. I mean, what it says, on Page 98, in describing the Route 9 corridor, “Currently the Lower Route 9 Corridor”, this is in that, Mr. Frank, is that not correct? MR. FRANK-I believe so. MR. STONE-“is characterized by an overabundance of asphalt, smaller shopping plazas, with one (1) row of front parking, and large stores with poorly landscaped parking lots, variable setbacks, limited plantings and no continuity.” The aim of this new Code was, in fact, to bring a better sense of beauty within a commercial zone for the Town of Queensbury. I happened to be on the committee that helped write this thing, and when you look at all the variances you’re asking for, particularly the fact, I think Mr. Hayes said it very well, that this canopy is literally going to be over, almost over the property line, very evident from any car driving, particularly north. It’s going to be hanging over the impression, obviously not literally, but hanging over the roadway, and I just would like to see the applicant take into consideration the aim of the new Zoning Ordinance and come back with something that better conforms to what I think we were trying to do when the Town Board recently approved this Zoning Ordinance. I mean, I recognize all of the problems. I recognize the benefit to the applicant will be you could upgrade the station, but I’m afraid in upgrading the station, because of the location of this thing, that it’s actually going to degrade the property, as far as the Town of Queensbury is concerned. This is one of the first opportunities that we as the Zoning Board, and certainly the Planning Board, if it gets that far, is going to have on that corridor to make an impact to conform with our new zoning, which we are very hopeful of upgrading a number of our travel corridors. Main Street over at the south end of town is one that is strongly being considered for improvement, and this is our first opportunity, and therefore I would like you, if you want to upgrade the station, to consider the new Code and come back with something that isn’t quite as intrusive as this would be if we granted the variance that you’re asking. So, it seems to me, looking at the numbers, that we’ve got two people who are in favor of it, three against. If I call for a motion to deny, I suspect that wouldn’t pass either. I don’t know that, but we could try, unless you want to table it and come back with some alternate that better conforms to this, the zoning code. MS. RUSHWAY-I guess we’d like to table it. I’d like to ask a question. MR. STONE-Sure. MS. RUSHWAY-In some of our locations where we’ve had front setback issues like this, we have agreed to cut off the front portion of the canopy so that it doesn’t actually extend over. MR. STONE-That would help. MS. RUSHWAY-I’m wondering, would five feet off the front make a big difference? MR. STONE-I, personally, would like to see you, that’s a good suggestion. That’s a good start. I would like you to look at the zoning code, because we’ve got drawings in here, in terms of how landscaping, how we’d like landscaping to be, and I just think that it’s worthwhile considering what you can do to make it more like the aim of the Code. MS. RUSHWAY-We have actually, we had a request from the Planning Board to provide a landscaping plan. We had not initially planned to do anything with the landscaping because we don’t have a lot of free space. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/17/02) We did include a landscaping plan now with the site plan. I didn’t give it to the Zoning Board because I didn’t think that they were concerned. MR. STONE-Well, it isn’t something that we consider, but what you’re asking is an overhang that is going to be way out toward the highway and I personally, am looking for some mitigation, whether it’s a landscaping plan. I mean, landscaping is what we’d like it to be, but I recognize your limitations, but nevertheless, I think, and certainly the three of us aren’t willing to grant you the relief that you’ve requested. MS. RUSHWAY-Okay. Now on the landscaping plan that we submitted, our landscaping was basically in the only area that it could be, which is kind of toward the easement side, toward the left rear side of the property, because we don’t own the islands out front. I don’t know if there is a possibility of us doing anything. When I look at the site I think probably the ugliest thing I see is the fact that those two curbed islands are covered with asphalt, not even grass or mulch or a few shrubs, but that’s not our land. Is there any kind of option for doing something in that? MR. STONE-I can suggest that you could talk to the State. I don’t really know. Bruce, do you give any guidance there? They’re on State land right now. MR. FRANK-Yes. I believe they have the option to ask the State can we do this. It seems like a good move in my own opinion. MS. RUSHWAY-That’s one of the things I noticed, on both sides of the road down in that area, is that all of the landscaped, or all of the islands that could be landscaped, even with grass, you know, which are probably State property, I’m sure there’s a maintenance. MR. STONE-That’s why we’ve got the new Code. We recognize that. There was a lot of thought went into this because there was particularly a number of citizens who are very upset, in terms of how Route 9 looks, and a number of them appeared before the code committee trying to get us to do what we did, and this is our first opportunity at it. MS. RUSHWAY-Well, we’d be willing to be the first to get a hold of the State and find out if that’s an option for them. MR. STONE-Yes. Well, why don’t we table for a couple of months and you can come back to us, because I think we would like to see your best guess, or your best. MR. HAYES-Best foot forward. MR. STONE-Best foot forward, yes. Thank you. MS. RUSHWAY-Now my other question, in terms of making this palatable to this Board, the signs on the canopy are kind of an issue. MR. STONE-Not as much to me. We’ve certainly allowed signs on canopies, but I think it depends where the canopy is more than anything else. I, personally, if you want to talk about the signs, was more disturbed by that sign at the bottom of the pylon, the extra sign that was sort of wired to the bottom of the pylon, and then the same sign appeared on the side of the building. Those were more offensive to me than a couple of signs on top of the canopy, but I can’t comment until I know where the canopies are going to be. So, I will move that we table. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-2002 SANDRI REALTY, INC. FOR SUNOCO, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: For up to 60 days, for the applicant to return with a plan that reduces the impact and takes into consideration the new zoning code and its desires for lower Route 9. Duly adopted this 17 day of July, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-And we’ll also table the, do you just want to pull the sign ordinance for the moment? We’ll just take that back and we’ll resubmit it at the time, or we could table it. MR. URRICO-Could I just suggest, they also did the property up on Route 9 in Queensbury, up towards where the outlet stores are. That’s sort of an example, I guess, of what we’re looking for on the signs. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/17/02) MR. STONE-Well, that’s their station. MR. URRICO-I know. So I’m saying they might want to look to that as something that we fought for, in terms of what we’d like to see as far as signs. MR. STONE-Well, certainly Ms. Rushway knows that. She was here for that one. We gave her a hard time then, too. MR. BARNES-I think that that’s almost an identical layout, for signage, except smaller. MR. STONE-Well, the thing that we did there, as I remember, is we worked about the diesel pump. We were concerned about that, and I mean, I have the notes here, if anybody, if you guys are interested, but I would also, let me just table Sign Variance No. 58-2002. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 58-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED SANDRI REALTY, INC. FOR SUNOCO PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: HEIDI E. RUSHWAY ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: 658 GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING FREESTANDING SIGN AND THE BUILDING SIGNS, AS WELL AS TWO NEW CANOPY SIGNS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIGN SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS THE NUMBER OF SIGNS ALLOWED BY THE SIGN ORDINANCE. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 57-2002, SPR 34-2002 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 7/10/02 TAX MAP NO. 302.07-1-32 LOT SIZE: 0.14 ACRES SECTION: CHAPTER 140 MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 58-2002 SANDRI REALTY, INC. FOR SUNOCO, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Until such time as the Area Variance application is considered. Duly adopted this 17 day of July, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-Thank you. Sorry you had to wait so long. Do we have any minutes, Maria, that we’re supposed to be going through? MS. GAGLIARDI-I think there’s March 20 and 27 and May 15. ththth MR. STONE-Yes. I didn’t bring them. I’ve got a couple of them, no, that’s June. MR. HAYES-What are we looking for, Maria? MR. STONE-March and May. MS. GAGLIARDI-Yes, March and May. MR. STONE-We’ll have to do it next time. Adjourn the meeting. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 22