The URL can be used to link to this page

2002-06-26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/02) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 26, 2002 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY NORMAN HIMES ROY URRICO CHARLES ABBATE ALLAN BRYANT PAUL HAYES CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 50-2002 TYPE II TIMOTHY DONBEK PROPERTY OWNER: WARREN DEDRICK AGENT: TIMOTHY DONBEK LOCATION: 261 BAY ROAD ZONE: SFR-1A APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 6/12/02 TAX MAP NO. 302.8-1-1 LOT SIZE: 9.85 ACRES SECTION 179-4-90 TIMOTHY DONBEK, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 50-2002, Timothy Donbek, Meeting Date: June 26, 2002 “Project Location: 261 Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,680 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. Relief Required: Applicant requests 16.46 feet of relief from the 40-foot minimum required road frontage per § 179-4-090(A). Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired home on a parcel that does not meet the minimum road frontage requirements. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives seem to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 16.46 feet of relief from the 40-foot minimum required road frontage may be interpreted as moderate relative to the ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be attributed to the pre-existing, nonconforming lot. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable. Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Even though the parcel does not meet the minimum road frontage requirements, the private drive is wide enough to accommodate emergency vehicles. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-We have a “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form June 12, 2002 Project Name: Donbek, Timothy Owner: Warren Dedrick ID Number: QBY-02-AV-50 County Project#: Jun02-36 Current Zoning: residential Community: Queensbury Project Description: The applicant proposes to construct a home on a parcel that does not meet the required road frontage. Site Location: 261 Bay Road Tax Map Number(s): 302.8-1-1 Staff Notes: The applicant requests a variance from the construction of a single family dwelling on parcel that does not meet the required road frontage requirements. The minimum road frontage requirement is 40 ft. where the applicant proposes 23.54 ft. The plans show the location of the road access and the proposed house location. The property is adjacent to the Warren County bike trail. Staff does not identify an impact on County resources. Staff recommends NCI. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 6/17/02. MR. STONE-Before you begin, I want to make a slight correction in the Staff notes, or at least an addition to them. This piece of property has been before this Board a previous time, and the same variance was being sought. The use was going to be considerably different. Some of you may remember there was a church that wanted to go into this piece of property, and the same problem existed that exists with this application, 25 foot wide opening on Bay Road, versus the required 40, and I have to apologize. I did have those minutes. I know, I think the application was withdrawn because it was obvious that the Board was not going to grant that particular relief for that particular use. Having said that, put you on notice, sir, would you introduce yourself and tell us what you want about the application. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/02) MR. DONBEK-Okay. My name’s Timothy Donbek. I’m the contractor who’s been involved, so far, with the project, and with the construction of the home on Bay Road. The property we’re concerned about is right next to the bike path, and what we’re talking about putting there now is a single family dwelling. It actually would be a home for the housekeeper of Warren Dedrick who owns the adjacent lot in front of this property. The house will sit back approximately 300 feet from the highway and should not be visible from any neighboring homes or from the road. There is an existing driveway there now that goes onto Bay Road. I don’t know how long it’s been there or if it was put in as a logging road for someone did go in there and make an awful mess out of that property. MR. STONE-Well, that’s fairly new. That’s a question I was going to ask. MR. DONBEK-Yes. I’m not sure when they originally logged that property. Whoever did it should be shot, but it was done, and we went in there and we spent most of this winter in there cleaning it up, trying to get all the blown down trees out of there, the stumps that they’ve left, and we cleaned up all the old brush and got it all cleaned up. So we have been using that road, and that’s approximately where the driveway would go, but the driveway would be considerably smaller. They only want a 10 foot wide driveway, as close to the property line as possible, to keep it away from the bike trail. It would be a blacktop driveway. It will curve so that you cannot see into the road from the home. The road will only go in approximately 50 feet and will curve off to the left side and then back to the right, which would stop any visibility from Bay Road to the home. We are going to plant more trees down at that end to keep this road as secluded as possible. They want their privacy, and they don’t want people coming into this road, and especially along the bike trail, all those trees will remain. None of them are being cut, and along Bard’s property line right now there is a 100 foot stipulation on cutting trees so none of those trees will be removed. That’s about all I have. MR. STONE-Can you, do you know the history of the ownership of this property at all? MR. DONBEK-A little bit about the ownership and quite a bit about the dispute over how big this piece of property is at Bay Road. On the original deed I think it calls for eight foot of width, but on that deed at the time I believe Bay Road was only 26 feet wide. MR. STONE-So it came out further? MR. DONBEK-Yes. It’s at quite an angle, so when Bay Road was widened out to what it is now, the existing pins right now are 23 foot 6 inches wide, and there’s a right of way in there for a sewer project for Warren County. If you go back to the right of way for the sewer project, it actually widens quite a way from the property out to about 28 foot, but we’re going by the pins that are there now by the surveyors that have been there and all our measurements that we’re giving to you tonight. MR. STONE-Mr. Dedrick bought this property after the previous application by the church? MR. DONBEK-I believe that application was in process at the time, and he wasn’t real favorable at having the church out behind him. So he bought the property, while negotiations were still going on, and everything was withdrawn because the property was sold to him. He bought it all. MR. STONE-But this property goes right up to his property on North Lane, or North Road? MR. DONBEK-It adjoins his property now, and there is going to be a property line change on his property to incorporate a little bit of this land into his land. I don’t know if any of you have been out there recently, but we took about 200 foot of the property behind him and graded it all, the façade out there and everything, and added it on to his property, and he wants to add that long section to his property and will be doing a property line change and there’s another small section that he’s thinking about adding to it. MR. STONE-So you’re saying on the west side it’s going to be, the boundary line is going to be moved to the east? MR. DONBEK-Approximately 180 feet. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. DONBEK-And the location of this house on that property, I believe that’s zoned one acre lots, but with this house sitting where it is and with him taking his property line change, it’s pretty much going to eliminate this property every going to be able to be developed as a housing development or anything. He has no plans, in the future, of ever doing anything like this, but he would like to put the one residence onto it. MR. STONE-Okay. I mean, it is interesting, in reviewing the notes, he, of course, was opposed to the previous application when it appeared before us, but as I recall it was primarily because of the heavy amount of traffic that would be periodic, but this is going to be two people living in this house? 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/02) MR. DONBEK-It’s only going to be one woman living in it, and it’s going to only be approximately seven months a year, because they go to their residence in Florida from, usually January 1 until June 1. So there’ll stst be nobody in the home at that time. MR. STONE-And if she’s taking care of the house, she’s not going to be driving in and out all day long. MR. DONBEK-No. It would be a golf cart up the back trail most of the time. MR. STONE-Any questions, gentlemen? MR. HIMES-Yes. I have one, Mr. Chairman. I think your comments have pretty much answered my questions. I just want to make sure, confirm it. From the looks of the residence, my question was going to be, it’s rather modest for nine acres, and so I was concerned about the aspect of some possibly in the future ever being developed by another owner or what have you. In the event that such were to come to pass, would there be any, would it be acceptable if there were a condition made on the variance that the land not be further developed than the one house that’s being built on it now? MR DONBEK-The only other development I could see him, he may want to put a garage onto this house in the future. MR. HIMES-From his end, yes. MR. DONBEK-But just to this one house. MR. HIMES-As far as subdividing the property further. MR. DONBEK-There’d be absolutely no subdividing of that property. MR. STONE-Okay. So you would be willing to agree to that condition? MR. DONBEK-Yes. MR. HIMES-All right. Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you, Norm. Anybody else? MR. URRICO-Can you tell me what the width of that driveway will be? MR. DONBEK-He only wants to make it 10 foot. I’m trying to talk him into going at least 11, give him a little bit of room to plow in the winter, you know, so he can keep it open for emergency vehicles, but his wife’s very concerned with her privacy, and they want it as small as possible so it’s not very noticeable from Bay Road. MR. URRICO-So out of the 23 feet, 10 feet or 13 feet would be devoted to the driveway, and then you’ll have like four feet on each side? MR. DONBEK-It’ll probably be about two feet on one side, and then towards Muller & Muller’s law offices. The driveway would be kept that way, as far from the bike trail as possible. MR. URRICO-Now you have mentioned that the housekeeper will be accessing her house from the Dedrick house via a golf cart through the back entrance. Why can’t a driveway be set up from his house to that house? MR. DONBEK-There’s no room for a driveway there right now, the way the property is laid out. You have to keep 100 foot from the commercial property of Bard, and there’s not room to put a road through there all the way, that would be passable for a car, but a golf cart could go over the lawn, around. It really wouldn’t hurt anything, but the new area that we sodded and everything would make it impossible to put a road through. MR. URRICO-So if she wanted to take her car to the house, she’d have to come out that driveway and go around the block and go in through the other driveway? MR. DONBEK-Yes. MR. STONE-Any other questions? Well, hearing none, let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to this application? Opposed? Do we have any correspondence? 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/02) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-We have one piece of correspondence, a note from Mr. Merritt Scoville, that he wrote on the bottom of the announcement that he received. He says, let’s see, his address is 51 Garrison Road, and he says “No objection to granting above relief request.” MR. STONE-That’s it? MR. MC NULTY-That’s it. MR. STONE-I remember the last time Judge Muller had some comments. He was in favor of it, I remember, the last time. Okay. Then I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions? That being the case, let’s talk about it. Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, my first reaction is you have a pre-existing lot that something’s going to happen with eventually and, to me, this is a great solution. We’re talking about a very low impact development on a rather large piece of property. The controlling party, I guess Mr. Dedrick in this case, has a vested interest on limiting the impact on the surrounding properties, one of which is his own. So I have a great deal of confidence that we’re going to have a project here that’s as minimal as it can be. So I think everybody’s interest, including the immediate neighborhood, is one in the same in this particular circumstance. Obviously, the little drive and the little access to the property is a concern, but it’s not a concern, to me, for one residence at all. I mean, that is as small as you can get, as far as an impact. So, I’m in favor. I think, on all five counts, it passes. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-I basically agree. Certainly a single family residential use is more appropriate to this piece of property than the one we were entertaining before, and as the applicant’s pointed out, if this relief isn’t granted, this basically becomes a landlocked piece of property, as far as any ability to use it for anything other than vegetation. I think it’s a reasonable use. I think the benefit clearly falls in favor of the applicant. I can’t really see any detriments to the neighborhood, and in fact there may be an advantage because it puts a definite use on that property instead of leaving it in limbo. So I’d be in favor. MR. STONE-Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I agree with Jaime’s sentiments entirely, and I would only add that we would put the condition in about no further subdivision of the land or additional dwelling structures on there. So I would be in support of the application. Thank you. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Yes. Based upon all the comments and the best interest of time, I think it’s a reasonable request and I would support the application. MR. STONE-Al? MR. BRYANT-I agree with the other Board members. This is a pre-existing, nonconforming lot, and you really have no other alternative, and I would support the application. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in basic agreement with everybody else. I do agree with Norm about the subdivision status, and the only other concern I have, and I don’t know if it’s in our purview, but the juxtaposition of the road with the bike trail, they seem to sort of merge, and I would hope that sort of keep the sight line clear there so that some unsuspecting bikers don’t get slammed. MR. DONBEK-We’re approximately 45 feet from the edge of the property lines, before the blacktop, and the driveway would be over a little further than that. So there’d probably be 50 feet between the blacktop of the driveway and the blacktop of the bike trail. MR. URRICO-That’s another condition we can make, but I was just concerned about bikers. MR. DONBEK-And you can see up the bike trail probably 150 feet the way the visibility goes back. MR. URRICO-Otherwise, I’m in favor of it. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/02) MR. STONE-I concur with the rest of my fellow Board members. I think Mr. Hayes said it well. We have a big piece of property and a fairly congested area of Town, and this is going to minimize the impact of this nine acre parcel, and I think it’s very good. So I concur, certainly, with the rest of the Board. Norm, since you’re the one who brought up the condition, do the motion, please. MR. HIMES-Sure. Okay. Thank you. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 50-2002 TIMOTHY DONBEK, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 261 Bay Road. Applicant proposes construction of a 1680 square foot single family dwelling. Applicant requests 16.46 feet of relief from the 40 foot minimum required road frontage per 179-4-090A. Benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to construct the desired home on a parcel that does not meet the minimum road frontage requirements. Feasible alternatives seem to be limited. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Well, 16.46 feet of relief from the 40 foot minimum required road frontage may be interpreted as moderate relative to the old ordinance. Effects on the neighborhood or community, minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. Additionally, I think, as we’ve mentioned, that this appears to be a very satisfactory disposition of this property considering the intensity of use is going to be just about at an absolute minimum. Is the difficulty self-created? Well, it’s a pre-existing nonconforming lot. So that’s probably not the case. I’d like to add that there be a condition here, in connection with this approval, that the lot not be further subdivided, nor there be any additional residential dwelling units constructed on the lot. I recommend that it be approved under those circumstances. Duly adopted this 26 day of June, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE MR. STONE-There you go, sir. MR. DONBEK-I have one question. That subdivision won’t affect the property line change on his property? MR. STONE-No. MR. DONBEK-That’s the only thing. MR. HAYES-You’re not creating any additional lots. MR. DONBEK-No. Thanks very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-2002 TYPE II CHRISTOPHER CONNELLY PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: N/A LOCATION: 42 BURCH ROAD ZONE: SR-1A APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 2.31 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS. REAR LOT WILL HAVE PRE-EXISTING MOBILE HOME; FRONT LOT WILL SHARE A DRIVEWAY. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS LOT WIDTH AND LOT AREA RELIEF. TAX MAP NO. 308.6-1-72 LOT SIZE: 2.31 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-30; 179-4-90 CHRISTOPHER CONNELLY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 51-2002, Christopher Connelly, Meeting Date: June 26, 2002 “Project Location: 42 Burch Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 2.01-acre parcel into two lots (0.725 and 1.285-acres) and construction of a 1,680 sq. ft. single-family dwelling on the smaller lot. Relief Required: Applicant requests 38.97 feet of relief for Lot One and 21.3 feet of relief for Lot Two from the 150-foot minimum lot width requirement, and requests for Lot One 11,963 sq. ft. of relief from the 1-acre minimum lot size requirement of the Schedule of Area and Bulk Requirements for the SR-1A zone, § 170-4-030. Additionally, the applicant requests 20 feet of relief from the 40-foot minimum required road frontage per § 179-4-090(A). Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to subdivide the parcel as proposed and construct the preferred home on one of the newly created lots. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives seem to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 38.97 and 21.3 feet of relief from the 150-foot minimum lot width requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate (26% and 14.2% respectively), and 11,963 sq. ft. of relief from the 1-acre minimum lot size requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate (27.5%) relative to the Ordinance. Additionally, 20 feet of relief from the 40-foot minimum required road frontage may be interpreted as moderate relative to the 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/02) Ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be attributed to the pre-existing, nonconforming lot. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2000-571: 187 sq. ft. porch. BP 97-549: mobile home. Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The applicant claims he and his immediate family will move into the larger proposed home should this application be approved. Other family members will occupy the existing mobile home. The applicant desires to live next to his parent’s home in order to help them with daily chores due to his father’s medical condition. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Any County? MR. MC NULTY-I don’t believe there’s any County. MR. STONE-Okay. Sir, identify yourself and tell us anything you want us to know in addition to what you wrote. MR. CONNELLY-Okay. My name’s Christopher Connelly. I live at 42 Burch Road. Basically I think you covered most everything I really wanted to say. My father actually was going to be here tonight but he just got admitted to the hospital, and like I say, he has cancer, and he has a hard time breathing. So basically by living next door I can help him with the daily duties, mowing the lawn and what not. We did purchase the lot, a few years back, and it was originally five acres, but as you can see it was long and narrow and kind of blocked in there, and I was under the understanding, I talked, I think it was with Jim Martin, was he? MR. STONE-Right. MR. CONNELLY-Okay. My father did, actually. MR. STONE-That was several years ago. MR. CONNELLY-Right, and when we first bought the lot and we were just under the understanding that in SR-1 you could put as many as homes as you want, as long as they were on an acre, and somehow we got misconstrued, and we thought the home that was there was on the second acre, and the other one would be able to come in the front without a problem, and when I went to get the money from the bank for a loan they said you have to subdivide, and that’s when I called up to the Town, and they were like, you can’t do anything unless you subdivide and now you need a variance and whatnot, and there were a few other things. Like we were originally going to bury some of the stumps down in back, and the building inspector at the time, I don’t know if he’s still there, John O’Brien. MR. FRANK-Yes. He’s still employed with the Town. MR. CONNELLY-Okay. Well, he had us dig everything up because he knew the intention was to subdivide. He said you couldn’t do that when you were going to subdivide. So that was sort of another, I guess, I don’t know if it created a hardship or not, but I would have (lost word) leave it there if I had known that we couldn’t do this. MR. STONE-So this lot was even further to the east? MR. CONNELLY-It was even further. MR. STONE-Three more acres? MR. CONNELLY-Yes. What I did is I sold, Mr. LeBlanc, he’s kind of cut off on that map, but I have him here on this one, if you’d like to see this. It was actually much longer and narrower. Could I bring it up? MR. STONE-Yes, sure. MR. CONNELLY-I’ve got a couple of copies, if you want me to just pass them out. MR. STONE-The original five you bought went all the way down Burch lane? MR. CONNELLY-Right. MR. STONE-Not Burch, whatever, I’m sorry, Warren. MR. CONNELLY-Warren, and it was all kind of landlocked, I believe. It was basically right here, and when I purchased the lot, I really didn’t know that it was that large when I surveyed, I had a deposit on it. We had it surveyed, and there was a lot of people on the lot, and the one gentleman down on the end, Steves, was going to be hard to get off, and the lawyer explained to me that we really can’t borrow money on land if somebody’s encroached or what not. So basically Mr. Levott came to me and said could I buy that parcel, 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/02) and I said, sure, because it’s pretty much dead land. I didn’t want any five residents there. I was hoping for the two. So I sold him that, and he just has it as a big back yard. So now you see where the line is now. MR. STONE-Right. MR. CONNELLY-Right, and then my parents live on the corner of Burch and Warren. That’s their home. MR. STONE-And where do you live? MR. CONNELLY-I live in the mobile home, which, when I put it on there, the contractor was supposed to have been on the second acre, and when we surveyed, it’s about dead center. So, after a few meetings with Mr. Brown, Craig, that was the cleanest way to divide the lot was the way we have on the proposed subdivision. Like the surveyor had it, so I could do this odd shaped flagpole and actually meet most of the requirements, if I put the new house behind the mobile home, but that wouldn’t really look right. MR. STONE-Do you know how this lot, the five acre lot, came into existence? I mean, because it’s nonconforming. MR. CONNELLY-I have no idea, and even like the one acre nonconforming, I don’t know how long it’s been like that, but my parents, I know their home they bought was like a bank repossessed deal, and it wasn’t that long, I mean, it was awhile before I bought this, but that lot was like that, and they’re on like a 100 by 150, and all the lots down that whole side. MR. STONE-That can happen. I don’t, but I was thinking of the long lot, too narrow. MR. CONNELLY-I have no idea. I know when they put Warren Lane in originally, it was like they put it in the wrong spot somehow, and this was just hearing from neighbors. It was actually supposed to be 25 feet north from where it is. I don’t know how. MR. STONE-So now I’m finding out we have a Warren Street, and a Warren something else and a Warren Lane. MR. CONNELLY-And there’s two Burch Roads, too. So anyhow, and when I talked with Craig, he said the one driveway would be better off to the one side. I talked to a couple of neighbors and they didn’t seem to have a problem with it. There wouldn’t be another driveway onto this street. Fire trucks, I guess, if they can get to the trailer now, which is no problem, they have no problem going down. The driveway would be moved over. MR. STONE-And you would give yourself an easement? MR. CONNELLY-Right. Basically. I don’t really ever have any intentions of selling the lot down back, and God forbid, I don’t know right now, but like when my parents, he’s on Social Security disability. He’s been fighting cancer for about five, six years now, the insurance, he has like a million dollar cap. It doesn’t take too long to start eating that up, and they need a place to live. The trailer’s there for them, too. MR. STONE-The only, one of the concerns that I wrote down is that a variance is goes with the land. It lasts forever. MR. CONNELLY-Yes. MR. STONE-I recognize your desire to be there for your parents, but it’ll be that way forever, and that’s one of the concerns that I have. Anybody else questions? MR. BRYANT-Yes, I have a question. MR. STONE-Sure. MR. BRYANT-Your parents now live on Warren and Burch, this corner lot? MR. CONNELLY-Right. MR. BRYANT-And you’re basically going to build this new house and move them 100 feet into this new house? MR. CONNELLY-No, no, no. They’re staying there. They’re staying there. I’m going to move into the new home. MR. BRYANT-And then what are you going to do with the trailer? 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/02) MR. CONNELLY-I wanted to leave it there. MR. BRYANT-It’s a rental property? MR. CONNELLY-For my sister and then eventually if my parents need a place to move into, then they can move there. The other thing is, like I said in the note, I have two children and the bedrooms, the mobile home is only two bedrooms, and it’s really cramped. So it’s kind of, you know, I guess you could say pull that off and put another mobile home there. No matter what, it can only be 14 by 70. It’s cramped, and to remove that, and like I said, my original intent when I talked with everybody was to do this, and then somehow we just misunderstood each other. MR. STONE-Question, Bruce, I’m looking at this thing. I see the building permits for the mobile home in ’97. The lot was nonconforming then. Didn’t they need a variance to put the house on it, put the mobile home? MR. CONNELLY-It’s not 150 feet wide. That’s what I’m saying, and the way they spoke of it, I could put five places there without ever subdividing. I was like, wow. MR. STONE-I mean, it just sounds that a variance should have been requested to put the mobile home. MR. HIMES-Is it an overlay? MR. FRANK-That could very well be. I’m not sure, but I think it is in a mobile home overlay district. MR. HIMES-There’s one very close to it. MR. CONNELLY-Right. They said it was an overlay, because one of my neighbors, I mentioned it to him, I have Tops Furniture. I was delivering to, he’s on the opposite side of my parents. I can’t think of his name right now, but he’s like, no, you don’t need that. It’s an overlay. MR. STONE-You’re in the overlay? Well, if you are then I guess the building permit, although the lot size still should be. I don’t know. MR. FRANK-There was no record of it in history, when I did the search. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s what it says. Okay. MR. CONNELLY-When I put the mobile home on there, I specifically called up here, I don’t know who I spoke with. I said, do I have to do this or have to do that, and they were like, no, as long as you’re on separate acres, you can do it, and I went to a surveyor and I said, how far do I have to be from the road to be on the second acre. He told me and then the contractor measured it, but he didn’t figure the, I guess from the center of the road over so much the Town owns, and then when it went back, it’s off by like 10 feet, but he didn’t figure in the front setback. MR. STONE-These lots are divided now? MR. CONNELLY-No, that’s proposed. I have to go to the Planning Board. Their surveyor, like I said, we went a couple of different ways. One way was to do the 40 foot in the front and to come like down the driveway and then around behind the trailer, and that actually makes an acre lot with 40 feet of road frontage, but it doesn’t meet the 150 foot width, no matter what you can’t do that, and to me it would look kind of silly just to have that front just open like that, with a house down behind it. It’s more money for water lines. More money for power, and harder to get to for emergency vehicles. MR. STONE-Any other questions, gentlemen? Hearing none, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to this application? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-I don’t find any correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Let’s talk about it, since I don’t hear any other questions. Chuck, let’s start with you. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Well, I think the benefit to the applicant is obvious in this. He could do what he wants. I have to agree with the Staff that feasible alternatives are kind of limited, other than just not building. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/02) The relief to the Ordinance, I think the big one here is obviously the narrow lot, but it is, at this point, pre- existing. The effects on the neighborhood or community, I again agree with Staff. I think it’s going to be minimal, and I think as the applicant says, it may actually improve the appearance of the street. Certainly it would be consistent to put a home up further towards the road, and the difficulty is basically because of the pre-existing, nonconforming lot. So, my feeling is that I think the test here falls in favor of the applicant. I don’t see any big detriments. We haven’t heard from anybody that sees any problem with it. I’d definitely be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Okay. Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I feel somewhat the same as what Chuck has said. I would like to clarify, though, whether the, you know, the property is in the mobile home overlay zone. Because to my way of thinking, we’re looking at all these requirements for a Suburban Residential One Acre, where if it really is in an overlay, and I’m looking at our map, I never can find anything on that anyway, but it looks like there’s one very close. I’m trying to uphold all the Suburban Residential, I think the overlay would negate my feeling any remorse at all for kind of letting that go, and in that event, I think I would like to ask one thing, and maybe Staff should answer this, too. If they widen that driveway as it meets the road, you know, coming in on where the new house is going to go a few feet, could they reach the requirement, the Town requirement for the? MR. FRANK-Well, this land is proposed to be subdivided, and the way it’s being proposed to be subdivided is, as you see on your plans, at the road, Lot Number Two will have a 20 foot frontage. MR. HIMES-I see the two. It’s the one in back that’s got the, okay, all right. MR. FRANK-That’s correct. MR. HIMES-Okay. All right, but if we could determine that, about the overlay. Is there anyway we can do that tonight? MR. FRANK-Our new Zoning Ordinance does not have descriptions of the different overlay districts. It’s on the zoning map. I could run down and confirm it for you very quickly, if you’d like. MR. HIMES-Well, I’ve got a map here. MR. FRANK-Well, if you have a map. I can, but I bet you I could do it quicker just by looking at someone else’s map. MR. HIMES-I don’t know what good that does you. It’s never done me any good. I mean, you can see Lake George. MR. STONE-While you’re doing that, I do have one question, Mr. Connelly. What construction do you propose for your house? MR. CONNELLY-It’s basically just a single floor house with a basement, a ranch. MR. STONE-Stick built? MR. CONNELLY-It was a modular, not a doublewide, but a regular modular. MR. STONE-No, not the old one. MR. CONNELLY-The new one. It’s a new modular. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. CONNELLY-It won’t have any steel frame or anything. It’ll just be like a regular home once it’s there, but it’s not one that will be built at the site. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. CONNELLY-I think, I didn’t’ bring up the exact plans for the one, but there were copies, I think they went in there, of what it was going to look like, and towards the back, or they were supposed to have added them in. Maybe they didn’t. MR. STONE-No, they did. MR. CONNELLY-Okay. It’s just a basic ranch, vinyl sided, shingled. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/02) MR. STONE-Okay. I’m sorry. I should have looked. MR. CONNELLY-Yes. MR. STONE-Are we still looking? MR. HIMES-Yes. He’s going to check something on the GIS. It looks very much like it is covered by the overlay. MR. CONNELLY-What does that mean? MR. FRANK-It’s most definitely within the overlay district. MR. STONE-Okay. So does that mean the variance wasn’t required at the time? MR. FRANK-I believe so. MR. STONE-Okay. All right. MR. HIMES-So with that information, I would support the application. Thank you. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Over the years, it’s never amazed me about the disparity between the written word and the human word spoken. My initial reaction to this application was no, but I have the flexibility to change my mind after listening to what you have to say, and what you had to say made much more sense than what was brought out in the written word. So, based on what you’ve had to say, and again in the interest of time, I would support your application. MR. STONE-Has he got somewhere to go? Al? MR. BRYANT-Unfortunately my mind was not changed. I think there are too many, too much relief as for too many conditions, and I wouldn’t be in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m going to come down on the positive side on this one, going down the test as Chuck did, I’m in agreement with his reasoning, and I concur with it. MR. STONE-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree. When I initially looked at this particular application, the fact that it was 2.01 acres and you were looking for two lots, that was controlling to me. It wasn’t that you were trying to gain additional lots at the Code’s expense, in this particular circumstance. It just has to do with the nature of the lot and also the, as you say, the placement of the trailer where it was. So, I think, basically, it’s a reasonable request. I don’t see a great detriment in the lots, even as they are going to be configured, as you proposed, are not out of character with the other lots in the neighborhood. They’re, if anything, they’re still generous by total size. So, I guess this is an accommodation to you, based on the reasons you’ve given, but I think it’s an accommodation that I’d be willing to, it falls in your favor when tested. So, I’m in favor. MR. STONE-Well, first of all, let me say I concur with the majority of the Board. I do have some concerns, which I want to say for the record. We have, right now we have one nonconforming lot, and we’re going to make two nonconforming lots. That, normally, would trouble me a great deal. I think as Mr. Hayes said, however, that they are large lots. You’re only going to have two in two acres, and the way we’re going to break them up doesn’t trouble me that much. I’m still not totally happy with it. I’m not happy with the total amount of relief, but the explanation and the lay of the land here says to me that your benefit, the benefit to the applicant, greatly outweighs the detriment to the community, and therefore, I would vote in favor. Having said that, I need a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-2002 CHRISTOPHER CONNELLY, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 42 Burch Road. Applicant proposes to subdivide a 2.01 acre parcel into two lots, 0.725 and 1.285 acres, and construction of a 1680 square foot single family dwelling on the smaller lot. The applicant requests 38.97 feet of relief for Lot One and 21.3 feet relief for Lot Two from the 150 foot minimum lot width requirement, and requests for Lot One 11,963 square feet of relief from the one acre minimum lot size requirement of the Schedule of Area and Bulk requirements for the SR-1A zone, Paragraph 179-4-030. Additionally, the applicant requests 20 feet of relief from the 40 foot minimum required road frontage per 179-4-090A. The benefit to the applicant in approving this is the applicant would be permitted to subdivide the parcel as 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/02) proposed and construct the preferred home on one of the newly created lots. Feasible alternatives, the feasible alternatives are that he doesn’t get to subdivide and build, and that’s about the only choice in here. Is the relief substantial to the Ordinance? 38.97 and 21.3 feet of relief from the 150 foot minimum lot width requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate (26% and 14.2% respectively) and 11,963 square feet of relief from the one acre minimum lot size requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate (27.5% relative to the Ordinance). Additionally, 20 feet of relief from the 40 foot minimum required road frontage may be interpreted as moderate relative to the Ordinance. Effects on the neighborhood or community, minimal effects. It must be understood that this is the, the principal zoning category is Suburban Residential. There are a lot of what you might expect requirements in that kind of environment. In actuality, this comes under a Mobile Home Overlay, which I think changes the way the requirements might be interpreted anyway, at least in my opinion, and you mentioned that there’s going to be an easement or something made when the lots are subdivided, so that the rear lot is guaranteed access to the front road, and I think there is something to be said, again, for having one curb cut rather than two. So there is some benefit back to the community on that also. With that, I move that we approve this application as submitted. I think one of the points, in talking about dividing it, is that this parcel is two acres where it’s one acre zoning, and there will never be more than two lots, and the applicant is willing to condition it on that. Two acre parcel, two lots, no more. It will not be further subdivided. Duly adopted this 26 day of June, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-There you go. MR. CONNELLY-Okay. Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2002 TYPE II KEVIN AND ALEXIS WHITE PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: N/A LOCATION: 8 PEACHTREE LANE, SHERMAN PINES SUBDIVISION YEAR 1982 ZONING ORDINANCE: SR-1A CURRENT ZONING: YEAR 2002 ZONING ORDINANCE: SR-20 APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF AN ABOVE- GROUND POOL AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE SETBACK FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. TAX MAP NO. 301.17-3-33 LOT SIZE: 0.26 ACRES SECTION 179-5-20 KEVIN WHITE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 52-2002, Kevin and Alexis White, Meeting Date: June 26, 2002 “Project Location: 8 Peachtree Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 15-foot by 30-foot above ground swimming pool. Relief Required: Applicant requests 15 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum rear yard requirement of the Accessory Structures regulations; § 179-5-020C. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to install the desired porch in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives seem to be limited due to the placement of the house and septic system on the parcel. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 15 foot of relief from the 20-foot minimum requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial relative to the Ordinance (75%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be attributed to the placement of the house and septic system on the parcel. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 95-261: single-family dwelling Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The pool would not be out of character with the neighborhood being the applicant’s next-door neighbor has an in-ground pool. Additionally, the applicant’s rear yard borders a forever-wild common area in the Sherman Pines subdivision. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-No County? MR. MC NULTY-No County. MR. STONE-Mr. White, I assume? Speak into the microphone, tell us who you are. MR. WHITE-All right. My name is Kevin White. I am the owner of 8 Peachtree Lane, Queensbury. MR. STONE-Anything you want to add to your application? MR. WHITE-I do have a communication from the Homeowners Association. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/02) MR. STONE-Okay. MR. WHITE-Is that on file with you folks? MR. STONE-Have you got that in there? We’ll read that in. MR. WHITE-Okay. I just wanted to make sure. I think the request is pretty simple. Basically, the property itself doesn’t lend itself to a round pool because we’d even be closer to that, to the setback. So we decided to go with an oval pool. It doesn’t impact either side on the west or the east, and behind us, as you can see, no one can build there. It’s a closed in area with no access. I asked the neighbors. Everybody seemed to be in agreement with it, and basically that’s where we stand, I guess. MR. STONE-Okay. The phrase “forever-wild” has been bandied about by Staff and other places. What does that mean to the people who live there? Is it forever wild? MR. WHITE-It’s called a common area, and what it’s used for is that everybody can have access to it if your property abuts it, but you can’t build or put a permanent structure on it. MR. STONE-Right. MR. WHITE-There is an access through the yards for them to go back. There’s some septic, holding tanks buried about in back there, and I think you can see it on some of plans. MR. STONE-So it’s not really forever wild? MR. WHITE-No, because I don’t think anything’s really forever wild. MR. STONE-Well, okay. MR. WHITE-But it is a common area, and no one can build a structure there. MR. STONE-Okay. Any questions, or should we open the public hearing? I don’t mean to push. All right. Let me open the public hearing because I want to hear the letter from the Homeowners Association. All right. Anybody in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed? Correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-We have one piece of correspondence, a fax from the Homeowners Association, signed by Ruth V. DeRoo, Managing Agent for the Sherman Pines Homeowners Association, and she says “This is to advise you that the Board of Directors of t he Sherman Pines Homeowners’ Association has approved Kevin White’s request to be able to have the common area abutting his lot considered in his request for relief of the rear property line limitations to enable him to install an above ground swimming pool providing that the pool remains within his property boundary lines. If there is any question regarding this, please give me a call or fax me.” MR. STONE-Anything else? MR. MC NULTY-Nothing else. MR. STONE-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-I kind of wish, I heard you say that the neighbors have all told you. MR. WHITE-Yes. MR. STONE-We’d love to have the neighbors tell us. We get enough people, as evidenced by what we may get to later, concerned by a lot of people. It is nice to hear people who say, we think it’s a good project, but I don’t think you’re going to have any problem, looking at the Board around me. Any other questions? If not, let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Norm. MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I think that there’s, this is a reasonable application. There isn’t, given the support from the Homeowners’ Association, and I guess the neighbors from what you’ve said, and the way your lot is situated, as you see from the picture here, even with reference to the neighbors on either side, and the trees which I hope most will stay. MR. WHITE-Yes. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/02) MR. HIMES-It’s quite a nice little spot, and I would feel that there is no negative impact to the neighborhood or the community at large for allowing this. So I would be in favor of it. Thank you. MR. STONE-Mr. Abbate? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I agree. I think that the application is well within reason. The individual, I assume, merely is attempting to provide his family with some recreation. MR. WHITE-Yes. MR. ABBATE-The pool, I would make the stipulation that, unless the applicant tells me differently, that the pool will stay within the boundaries of your property. MR. WHITE-Without a doubt. MR. ABBATE-Well, you know why I raised that issue. MR. STONE-That’s the relief we’re grating. MR. ABBATE-Yes, and I would hope, I don’t believe that it’s out of character with the neighborhood. I haven’t heard any objections from his immediate neighbors. There is, apparently, correspondence sent to us by the Homeowners’ Association which has no objections to your pool, and I would support the application. MR. STONE-Al? MR. BRYANT-I’m also in favor of the application. The fact that that’s a common area behind you, I mean, if you had a neighbor, I would be hard pressed to approve the, or be in favor of the application, but the fact that that’s a common area, it’s not going to be a used area, and it’s quite in character with your development. There are a number of pools and large second story decks and what have you. So I would be in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in agreement. I think you withstand the test that we’re asked to look at in determining whether to grant the variance, and the two areas I was concerned about were the relief being substantial and the effects on the community, and in both cases I think the common area sort of mitigate the circumstances and make it a winning situation. So I’m in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Like my good friend Chuck would say, in the interest of time, I will agree with my fellow Board members and say this is a very reasonable proposal, and we’ve certainly granted these in the past. So I’m in favor. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I’ll echo Jaime. There’s no point in going on, and as he says, we’ve approved similar requests before in this neighborhood with the common area behind it. So I have no problem with it. MR. STONE-And I certainly concur. I think the balancing test that we’re required to put on this property certainly comes down in favor of granting the variance, and having said that, I want a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2002 KEVIN AND ALEXIS WHITE, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: 8 Peachtree Lane, Sherman Pines subdivision. The applicant proposes construction of a 15 foot by 30 foot above ground swimming pool. The applicant requests 15 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum rear setback requirement of the Accessory Structure regulation 179-5-020C. The benefit to the applicant, that they would be permitted to install the desired pool in that location. Feasible alternatives seem to be limited due to the placement of the house and the septic system on the parcel. There’s 15 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum requirement, and that may be interpreted as moderate to substantive relative to the Ordinance, but that’s mitigated by the common area that’s directly behind it. The effects on the neighborhood or community are minimal, and a letter from the Homeowners Association testifies to that fact, and as far as the relief being self-created, the difficulty may be attributed to the placement of the house and the septic system on the parcel. Duly adopted this 26 day of June, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/02) MR. STONE-Go get your permit and put the pool in. MR. WHITE-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 53-2002 GLENS FALLS AREA HABITAT FOR HUMANITY PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: STEPHEN MC CORKELL LOCATION: 466 MUD POND ROAD ZONE: LC-10A APPLICANT PROPOSES A 407 SQ. FT. ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, AND THE PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. TAX MAP NO. 279.15-1-11 LOT SIZE: 0.34 ACRES SECTION 179-4-30, 179-4-090 DAVE CARR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, I have received a letter, I don’t know why, but I received a letter notifying me of this project, and so, in the interest of justice and to prevent any type of characterization of impropriety, I probably should recuse myself. I don’t object, by recusing myself, I don’t mean to imply that I object to this application. MR. STONE-I understand. MR. ABBATE-I’m going to recuse myself to prevent any appearance of impropriety. MR. STONE-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. STONE-So, Mr. Underwood, you’re obviously going to push him out of that chair. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 53-2002, Glens Falls Area Habitat for Humanity, Meeting Date: June 26, 2002 “Project Location: 466 Mud Pond Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 407 sq. ft. addition to a single-family dwelling. Relief Required: Applicant requests 88.61 feet from the 100-foot minimum front setback requirement, 18 feet from the 100-foot rear setback requirements, 56.12 and 69.89 feet from the 100-foot minimum side setback requirements, and 8.5% from the 95% minimum permeability requirement of the Schedule of Area and Bulk Requirements for the LC-10A Zone, § 179-4-030. Additionally, the applicant requests relief from the requirements of the § 179-4-090(A), Frontage on a Public Street, as the physical access to and from the lot to be built upon will not be provided from the lot’s frontage on a town road. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired home in the preferred location, and permitted to access the home from the neighboring parcel’s frontage on a town road. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives seem to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 88.61 feet of relief from the 100-foot minimum front setback requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial relative to the Ordinance. 56.12 and 69.89 feet of relief from the 100-foot minimum side setback requirement may be interpreted as moderate relative to the Ordinance, and 18 feet of relief from the 100-foot minimum rear setback requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate relative to the Ordinance. 8.5% relief from the 95% minimum permeability requirement may be interpreted as substantial relative to the Ordinance (170%). Relief from the requirements of Frontage on a Public Streets, as the physical access to and from the lot to be built upon will not be provided from the lot’s frontage on a town road may be interpreted as substantial relative to the Ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be attributed to the pre-existing, nonconforming lot. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 98-425: 680 sq. ft. residential alteration. Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The difficulty may be attributed to the pre-existing, nonconforming lot in the LC-10A zone, which has the maximum setback requirements in the Town of Queensbury. The proposed addition would be an improvement and would not be out of character with the neighborhood. The neighbor to the east (Robert Cutter) will allow access to the new home across his parcel, which will result in one less access drive on a rather narrow and curvy section of Mud Pond Road. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-No County? MR. MC NULTY-No County. MR. STONE-Gentlemen. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/02) MR. CARR-Good evening. My name is Dave Carr. I’m with the LA Group, and I am standing in for Steve McCorkell who is on vacation this week, and he is a Board member for Habitat for Humanity, and he asked me to sit in for him. With me is Kiren Zibota, who I believe is the Vice President of the Local Chapter of Habitat for Humanity, and he can answer any questions concerning their organization, and hopefully I can answer any questions concerning the technical nature of the proposal. Listening to it, it seems like we’re asking for a lot of relief, but if you really look at the actual plan and the existing structure that’s on it, many of those relief areas that we are looking for are pre-existing. The ones that we are creating or the couple that we are creating, really have to do with the small addition that really is required to make the structure livable and to meet current Codes, by adding a bathroom and two bedrooms. The addition, obviously, brings the building farther to the rear, which cuts into that rear setback approximately 18 feet, and the relief we’re seeking to the side, the addition matches the current condition. So it is no closer than the existing structure. Also, we are developing a new well and a new septic system. Those tests have been done and have been included in the building permit application which has been prepared, and is ready to be submitted to the Town. So, I guess we’ll open it up to any questions. MR. STONE-I’ve got a couple. One, health considerations. I mean, obviously this is a difficult area. This is a nonconforming building, and yet by requesting a variance, that says we’re going to put our impetiture on that, and say, okay, it’s a place you can live, at least as far as we’re concerned. Are there any concerns on the part of Habitat for Humanity? KIREN ZIBOTA MR. ZIBOTA-The only concerns we had, as far as health concerns, could you be more specific maybe? MR. STONE-Well, the fact that, what’s over the hill. MR. ZIBOTA-Yes. The gravel pit. That did come up at several meetings, and was the brunt of a few jokes, but the fact is that we feel, you know, we’re not doctors. We’re not environmentalists, and we feel that, obviously, by looking at the pictures, the area around it is pretty green. It’s pretty livable. There are a number of residents around there, and we’re not familiar with any adverse health effects in that area from those people living in those communities. MR. STONE-Okay. What about, do you have a piece of paper from Mr. Cutter for an easement for permission to use his driveway? I mean, it says that he says, will allow access. Do we have anything that documents that? MR. ZIBOTA-We have not received anything, as part of the Board of Habitat, on those lines. We would have to make a note of that for Steven McCorkell to get a hold of him and take care of that. Rodney Woodard is the potential owner of the home. He has put in many hours towards volunteering with Habitat at this point, and his wife and two children are going to be the inhabitants of the residence. He has, in fact, talked to Mr. Cutter several times. I believe Steve did talk to Mr. Cutter about it and also Rodney is involved with landscaping. He is going to obviously improve the area. He has made some stipulations with Mr. Cutter that there will be improvements made along that roadway, which he has been more than favorable of. Myself, personally, I have not met Mr. Cutter yet, but I will be, as soon as we are up there on the site. MR. STONE-Bruce, you wrote it in there. Did you do it on the basis of what they told you, that Mr. Cutter says it’s okay? MR. FRANK-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Okay. I would ask that we condition it on, that we get something in writing, because otherwise we’re creating a landlocked piece of land. MR. FRANK-I agree. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions, gentlemen? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I would like to hear some more about your organization and how you go about selecting who’s going to occupy the place and what kind of understanding or agreement or mortgage or whatever might exist, and the whole story. I’d like to know a little more about it. MR. ZIBOTA-Very good. Habitat for Humanity has been in existence since 1976. It was founded by Linda Millard Fuller from out in Georgia, and you’re probably more familiar with them through Jimmy Carter who was a huge advocate, and actually is a very close and personal friend of Mr. Fuller’s. I’ve had the opportunity to meet Mr. Fuller. He’s an absolutely wonderful man. As far as our local affiliate, we’re one of almost 1900 affiliates across the Country. We’ve been in existence for, this is our 11 year of doing business in his area. th In fact, I think this is our fifth house that we’re going to be building in the Queensbury area, and we’ve built houses in North Umberland. We’ve built houses in the City of Saratoga. We also are currently getting a project started out in Argyle this week. So we’re out there building homes for basically needy families, 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/02) families who are less fortunate than ourselves who have substandard housing conditions that they already exist. They are required to meet certain financial standards. We just don’t give these things away. Habitat for Humanity International actually holds the mortgage for them. It’s a zero percent mortgage, and basically it’s a matched funds type situation. Traditionally the houses that we build for Glens Falls Area Habitat for Humanity run about $70,000 on the average, and we depend a lot of getting the cost down on the building of our residences based on donations from builders, our volunteers, building supply shops, things like that, anything that can help us out, and traditionally the family ends up financing about $35,000. This will be, is proposed to be our 13 house in the 10 years. Last year was the first year we took on the challenge of th building two houses, having two projects going simultaneously, and we’re going to try to do it again this year, again, here in Queensbury as well as over in Argyle. We are a very large organization. We have a Board of Directors of 12 members. Everybody from President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer, as well as the 12 other active members on the Board, and then numerous volunteers. Currently our active volunteer list runs in the number of about 800 and 900 persons at this point. So we’ve spread our influences around the neighborhood. We’ve got a lot of really good people that are actively involved, and we try to do the right thing for the right people. MR. HIMES-Is there anything, do you do anything in connection with once property is occupied and seeing that certain maintenance levels and so on and so forth are, do you have certain standards that you expect to see fulfilled? MR. ZIBOTA-Yes. We have a building code standard of guidelines that we follow, and oftentimes they are designed in conjunction with the guidelines in the respective communities that we build. Along with that, we offer the standard warranties on the residences after the family moves in, and in most instances, we’ve, just because of the agency and the relationships that we establish with our families that occupy our residences, we, oftentimes, will go beyond what the warranty requires us to do, and make ourselves, our volunteers, available to the family to help them in various situations in maintaining the home. MR. HIMES-So like painting it and the lawn, and, you know, general appearance and so forth. MR. ZIBOTA-General appearance, we try to leave that up to the family. This is their home. They’re paying for it. They’re holding a mortgage. So we obviously would want them to be viable homeowners. That’s all part of the selection process and backgrounds that we do with them, but like I said, after that there’s other issues as far as structurally within the residents, we will stand behind our houses. MR. HIMES-Thank you. MR. URRICO-Just following that line of questioning a little bit, at what point do you, or does the title transfer to the owner, or does it stay with Habitat? MR. ZIBOTA-No. We have a standard closing, and the title is transferred to the owner at that time, and basically what there is is what they call a duplicate title that is held down in Georgia with Habitat for Humanity International, because of the fact that the money is put up with them. Once the, so basically they’re holding the mortgage at that point. Once that is completed, then they get full title to the house, and then they’re allowed to sell it, you know, any way they want, just like as a normal homeowner would be able to do. MR. URRICO-And the second question along those lines is how did you select this house? Why did you select this? MR. ZIBOTA-Basically, we look, first, for donations of property or residences. Basically, we don’t just always build new houses. We obviously do refurbishing. We’ve done, this will only be, I believe, our affiliates third renovation project, and so we look for donations, things that we can get. We have a limited, very limited budget, based on donations, and what Habitat is willing to give us, and so we try to find things like this that we can work with and work with the communities, try to improve the communities as a whole, and provide a decent housing and living condition for a family that needs it. MR. URRICO-Thank you. MR. STONE-Anything else? All right. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? Please come forward, sir. State your name and where you’re from. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PAUL LAMBERT MR. LAMBERT-How are you doing? I’m Paul Lambert from The Michaels Group. I’ll be acting as the general contractor for this project. I worked with Habitat on House Number 10. Certainly nobody should have the idea that because the house is sold for $35,000 that the specs of the house are anywhere, certainly they meet Michaels Group specifications, and they build a good home, and certainly that’s all I had to say, 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/02) and we’d appreciate it if you would approve this. Certainly, approval of this tonight would improve on that property and surrounding properties on Mud Pond Road. MR. STONE-Thank you. MR. LAMBERT-Thank you. MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak in favor of? Anybody opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. STONE-Then I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any further questions? Hearing none, let’s talk about it. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I’m basically in favor of this application. I think that it’s, you know, it’s a feather in the cap for Habitat for Humanity, and I think that we need to reflect upon what it does for the community. As you pointed out, it creates a situation where someone who might not be able to afford their own home gets out of paying rent for the rest of their life and having nothing to show for it, and gets the pride and, you know, American values of owning their own home and being part of their community. So, I have no problem with the relief. I think much of the relief that we’re going to have to grant is based upon the widths of that substandard lot, but I think that we need to consider the fact that it is off the beaten path. It’s not on Mud Pond Road, and it’s a nice kind of secluded location, despite the trucks coming by. MR. HIMES-Mr. Chairman, could I insert something before you go on down the line? MR. STONE-Sure. You insert whatever you want. MR. HIMES-I think that the, and I wanted to interject before the others spoke, that we need to add yet even another variance to this, because being a, the structure now doesn’t come up to the standard 800 square feet, and the amount that they’re adding on I think exceeds 50% of the square footage of the existing structure, I believe. MR. STONE-Very good. Good catch. MR. HIMES-And Bruce has checked it. MR. STONE-We’ll put that in when we. MR. FRANK-Yes. It must have been an oversight. It is an expansion of a nonconforming structure. MR. HAYES-What’s the Section number on that, just so we get it right? MR. FRANK-It’s 179-13-10. MR. STONE-Okay. Let’s continue then. MR. HIMES-Thank you. MR. STONE-Al? MR. BRYANT-I agree with Mr. Underwood. I think it’ll be a good project. The fact that it’s a nonconforming lot makes it difficult. You have no choice but to affect the ordinances, so I’d be in favor of it, but I do disagree with Mr. Underwood. Renting is not a bad thing. There are millions of Americans who rent. MR. HIMES-He’s got some vacancies. MR. STONE-Well, we have a gentlemen down here who would agree with that. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m also in agreement. At first glance it looked a little overwhelming, in terms of it was kind of variance intensive, but it’s an upgrade of this property to improve the neighborhood, and I’m in favor of it. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/02) MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, in other circumstances on this Board, we have the privilege, I think, to apply a more benign balancing test when there’s a public good that’s definable to the test we’re analyzing, and I think in this case, I don’t think it’s beyond our reach to do a little bit of that, as the other Board members have said. The Habitat’s got a good reputation. Certainly what they do is a good thing in our community. The very properties that they typically get involved with, from my experience, are less than perfect lots because that’s how they get them, and that’s partially why they’re before us here. So the expansion that they’re proposing to do, as Norm has brought out, is going to bring the house into compliance with our minimum house size. That’s certainly a good thing in this particular case, and also makes practical sense, and as has already been pointed out, much of the relief that’s associated with this application, and the new relief, if you will, is really closely related to the stringent requirements of LC, you know, the LC-10A zone, which has got generous setbacks, and that’s good, but I’m not sure that it was designed for houses, so, I think, on balance, I don’t think there’s any negative impact on the neighborhood or community. In fact, I think it’s probably positive, and I’m in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I basically agree. I was and am a little bit bothered by allowing something that doesn’t meet the LC-10 requirements, but this certainly would be in keeping with the current neighborhood. It is a pre-existing lot, and the proposed action is going to improve the dwelling that’s on there. Should we deny this, then we’re likely to have someone living in a small, substandard dwelling instead. So I think on balance the balance falls towards the applicant, and I’d be in favor. MR. STONE-Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I had some concern at a point here, you know, you have a postage stamp size lot in a Land Conservation 10 Acre. All right, so you’re going to have all these huge variances, but then I thought, well, two bedrooms and all, wow, you’re really putting on something that may be is a little more than maybe should be done here, but then I hear, all right, you’ve got somebody picked out, a family, so I’ll stop my huffing and puffing, and I, for the reasons indicated by my fellow Board members, I will support the application. Thank you. MR. STONE-Well, I certainly concur with that, and I, first of all, I think it’s great that, I gather Chris and Kathleen Crandall donated this to Habitat, and they should be congratulated for their generosity. The only reason that we have all these variances, all these requests, is because it is LC-10. Why is it LC-10? Don’t ask me, but it is LC-10 was certainly there. The house next door, Mr. Cutter’s house, is certainly a very nice house, and it’s got the same zone. So I want the motion that I’m going to ask for to reflect that while this is out of character with this Board to grant this much individual variances on an application, it is because of the LC-10, which is a very restrictive zone, and this is a conforming piece of property, I’m sorry, a pre-existing piece of property. So, yes, I’m in favor of it, and I would like a motion to the effect, and the one thing that should be in that motion, in addition to what I just said, is the condition that they do get the easement, or whatever you want to call, it in writing, and file it with the Town. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 53-2002 GLENS FALLS AREA HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 466 Mud Pond Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 407 square foot addition to a single family dwelling. We would grant relief, the applicant requests 88.61 feet from the 100 foot minimum front setback requirement, 18 feet from the 100 foot rear setback requirement, 56.12 and 69.89 feet from the 100 foot minimum side setback requirements, and 8.5% from the 95% minimum permeability requirement of Schedule of Area and Bulk requirements for the LC-10A zone, Section 179-4-030. Additionally, the applicant requests relief from the requirements of Section 179-4-090A, Frontage on Public Streets, as a physical access to and from the lot to be built upon will not be provided from the lot’s frontage on the Town road. This would be contingent upon obtaining an easement from Mr. Cutter. Also, I think Norm pointed out that they would be exceeding the aggregate of 50% of the Gross Floor Area for the size there. So we would have to grant that also. Benefit to the applicant, they’d be permitted to increase the size of this home to make it a more habitable dwelling by adding needed living space, and the feasible alternatives seem to be limited. Much of this relief is, again, as a result of the pre-existing nature of the lot that’s there. The relief is substantial, but I think it’s a worthwhile cause. Duly adopted this 26 day of June, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Abbate 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/02) MR. STONE-There you go, gentlemen. MR. ZIBOTA-Thank you. MR. CARR-Thanks very much. MR. ZIBOTA-Hope to see you on the site volunteering. MR. STONE-I heard that. AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED HOME DEPOT USA, INC. PROPERTY OWNER: NORTHWAY PLAZA ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER, ESQ. AND THE LA GROUP, P.C. LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 9 AND QUAKER ROAD ZONE: HC-INT APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A HOME DEPOT STORE INCLUDING A GARDEN CENTER. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM PERMEABILITY AND THE ONSITE PARKING REGULATIONS. CROSS REF. SUBDIVISION NO. 12-2002; SPR 12-2002; PZ 1-2002 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/12/02 TAX MAP NO. 296.18-1-47; 296.17-1-51; 296.18-1-46 LOT SIZES: 25.22 ACRES; 4.13 ACRES; 5.32 ACRES SECTION 179-4-090A; 179-4-040B; 179-4-030 (TABLE 4) JOHN LAPPER & DAVE CARR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STONE-Is that not the northeast corner? MR. LAPPER-I would consider that the northeast corner. MR. STONE-Thank you very much. MR. MC NULTY-This is the cover letter from Mr. Lapper, addressed to Lew Stone, Chairman of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, “On behalf of Home Depot USA, Inc. I am hereby submitting an application for three area variances necessary for the redevelopment of the Northway Plaza to accommodate the proposed Home Depot. The project involves the demolition of approximately 85,000 square feet of existing commercial space and the construction of approximately a 116,000 square foot Home Depot store including a garden center. The Town of Queensbury Planning Board has previously received lead agency status and has issued a negative declaration under SEQR after a thorough environmental review process. Subsequent to the Planning Board’s issuance of the Negative Declaration, the Town Board rezoned the rear portion of the project site along Montray Road to Highway Commercial-Intensive. At the time that the applications were submitted and throughout the review process until just last week, it was never contemplated that any variances would be required from the ZBA. However, as the result of the requirements of the Northway Plaza’s current lender, it is not possible to add the parcels to be acquired to the existing parcels. Therefore, a new entity must be formed to own the property upon which the Home Depot building will be constructed. This new entity will be a limited liability company with the identical members as the limited liability company which owns the existing Northway Plaza. As a result of this separate ownership three minor area variances are required. I characterize these variances as minor because, taken as a whole, the proposed redevelopment of the site would not require any area variances. It is only because of the separate ownership that three area variances are required. Moreover, as a condition of the approval, the applicant will agree that when the current mortgage on the Northway Plaza can be refinanced in approximately six years, the two parcels containing Northway Plaza can then be merged. The requested variances are as follows: Lot 1, which contains the existing Miller Hill Plaza located on Route 9 will not require any area variances. The rear portion of the lot is being merged with an existing parcel owned by Northway Plaza Associates, LLC and the rear building on the site will be demolished. Lot 2 will contain the new Home Depot building. An area variance is required from Section 179-4-090A because, while the road frontage exists for this parcel on Montray Road, both the Town Board and the Town Planning Board have required that the access be through Northway Plaza and not to Montray Road. Therefore, actual physical access to the parcel will not be on the Town road frontage and an area variance is required. An area variance is also required from Section 179-4- 040B because parking for the Home Depot parcel will be on an existing Northway Plaza parcel. There will be a reciprocal easement agreement providing for the sharing of the parking lot, the access driveway and the utility lines as required under this section of the Zoning Code. However, while all other requirements of 179- 4-040B(2) will be met, as described above, the two lots will be under separate but related ownership. Lot 3 – Section 179-4-030 (Table 4) requires thirty percent (30%) lot permeability while this lot will only have nineteen percent (19%) permeability. The required permeability exists, but it is on the adjacent Lot 2 which is fifty-two percent (52%) permeable. I am hopeful that the Zoning Board will recognize that these variances are minimal. The site plan will not change in any respect as a result of the granting of these variances. Both the Town Board and the Planning Board have been very supportive of this proposed redevelopment and drastic improvement of the Northway Plaza. Please place this matter on the agenda for your first Zoning Board meeting in June so that we will be able to hopefully receive final site plan approval at the Planning Board at the second Planning Board meeting in June. In addition to the variance plan, I am enclosing copies 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/02) of the full site plan, long environmental assessment form and copy of the Negative Declaration resolution issued by the Town of Queensbury Planning Board for your use. Very truly yours, Jonathan C. Lapper” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No.54-2002, Home Depot, USA, Inc., Meeting Date: June 26, 2002 “Project Location: State Route 9 and Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 116,000 sq. ft. Home Depot store including a garden center. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the requirements of § 179-4-090(A), Frontage on Public Streets, as the physical access to and from the lot to be built upon will not be provided from the lot’s frontage on a town road. The applicant requests relief from the requirements of the Parking and Loading Regulations for parking to be provided on a separate lot, per § 179-4-040(B2). Additionally, the applicant requests 11% of relief from the 30% minimum lot permeability requirement from the Schedule of Area and Bulk Requirements for the HC-Int Zone, § 179- 4-030. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired structure in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives seem to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: Relief from the requirements of Frontage on Public Streets, as the physical access to and from the lot to be built upon will not be provided from the lot’s frontage on a town road may be interpreted as substantial relative to the Ordinance. Relief for parking to be provided on a separate lot may be interpreted as substantial relative to the Ordinance being none of the parking will be on the same lot as that of the store. 11% less than the minimum allowable permeability requirement of 30% may be interpreted as moderate relative to the Ordinance (36.7%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be attributed to the pre-existing conditions of the Northway Plaza. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SB 12-2002: 06/27/02; subdivision to be reviewed SP 12-2002: 06/27/02; construction of home improvement store SP 12-2002: 06/20/02; reaffirming SEQR determination. SP 12-2002: 04/11/02; SEQR determination. Note: numerous other BP, SP, and Variances for this site, but unrelated to this application. Staff comments: Moderate effects may be anticipated as a result of this action. Consideration might be given to the anticipated increase in traffic volume. All of the relief being requested is due to an ownership issue. Taken as a whole (Lots 1 and 3), the proposed redevelopment of the site would not require any area variances. The applicant also agrees as a condition to the approval, to combine the two parcels in approximately six years when the current mortgage on the Northway Plaza can be refinanced. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted” MR. MC NULTY-We do have a “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form June 12, 2002 Project Name: Home Depot USA, Inc. Owner: Northway Plaza Associates, LLC ID Number: QBY-02-AV-54 County Project#: Jun02-41 Current Zoning: HC-INT Community: Queensbury Project Description: The applicant proposes the construction of a Home Depot store with a garden center that does not meet setback and permeability requirements. The project involves the demolishing of an existing portion of the Northway Plaza and the construction of the Home Depot within a similar area. Site Location: NYS Route 9 Tax Map Number(s): 296.17-1-51 296.18-1-46 296.18-1-47 Staff Notes: The applicant requests a variance for the demolishing of a portion of the Northway Plaza for the construction of a Home Depot store that does not meet the permeability or setback requirements, see drawing. The plans indicate a new construction will take place in a similar location as the existing building and parking area. The applicant indicates the variance requests are due to utilizing three parcels for the construction. Staff recommends discussion to review the location of the building compared to the parcel. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve” Signed by Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 6/17/02. MR. STONE-Okay. In reference to the SEQR status that was read in, I’m in receipt of a letter from Marilyn Ryba, Senior Planner, Town of Queensbury, to Home Depot, “Please find attached a copy of the resolution Re-Affirming a SEQRA determination of Non-Significance concerning the proposed Home Depot/Home Improvement Store as approved by the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on June 18, 2002.” And that resolution ends up, and this is a re-affirmation a previous one in April, “Be It Resolved, that the Planning Board reaffirms its SEQRA determination of non-significance and authorizes and directs the Planning Board Chairman and the Director of Community Development to take any necessary action to effectuate this resolution.” Gentlemen. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper and Dave Carr, Landscape Architect from the LA Group. Well, to begin with, Chuck just read the Staff notes which said that this was an Unlisted Action, and that was incorrect. This is a Type I. MR. STONE-Well, that’s what I just read that for. MR. LAPPER-Yes. We have been presenting this to the Planning Board since I think January, and until May, we didn’t anticipate that we would be requesting this variance. We were going to merge the parcels together, but we’ve gone through substantial review with the Town, redesign of the project at the Planning Board’s request, the rezoning of the back piece, as was mentioned, and come up with a lot of mitigation that the Town requested, in terms of stormwater issues. We’ve gone through detailed traffic review, and detailed landscaping changes. Right now the site is a 1970’s, 1960’s design with a field of asphalt, although it’s been 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/02) updated in the 80’s. It’s not a particularly attractive plaza. It doesn’t meet the landscaping requirements for a large parking field, and all those aspects are going to be changed, lighting, architecture. We’re taking down some tired buildings and replacing them with a Home Depot which is very much advanced from their standard proto-type that you might be familiar with in Wilton, which is the closest one, the orange building. This is something dramatically different because Queensbury now has architectural review, and the Home Depot’s architects came up with basically four levels of changes before the Planning Board and the Planning Department were satisfied, and it’s something that everyone’s been pretty proud of, at the Town level, to get to this point. So we were ready to march in and anticipated final site plan review in May when this issue came up with the lenders where we have three parcels that exist now, and we were planning to merge them and now we’re going to have to keep them as separate parcels for the time being. My main argument here why I think that this is not substantial is that everything that’s going to be built on this site would be absolutely the same, with or without this variance, in terms of what you see, and the only difference is to keep this as a separate parcel for the time being because the lender, for their own reasons, will not allow the back piece to be merged with the front piece. The fact that we’re not using the Montray Road portion for access, it allows us to have a parcel because we have road frontage, but both the Town Board and the Town Planning Board were very specific that because it’s residential back there, they had no problem with the rezoning because the vast majority of that parcel will be used as stormwater management and the trees on the northeast side will be kept the way they are. So it doesn’t impact the neighbors, but they didn’t want the Plaza to use that as access, so you’d have commercial traffic on a residential street, and it’s because we agreed to that condition that we’re asking for that variance. Because we’re not using the frontage that’s there. Green space, ordinarily, would be a big deal, that we’re asking for a green space on one of these parcels, but when you drive in and you look at the Plaza, it’s one Plaza, and Dave was able to design the center so that we do comply with the green space overall. We never needed that variance until we came up with the subdivision. So the subdivision sort of arbitrary where we’re drawing the lines, but the parcel complies with the green space requirement, and most importantly, we’re vastly increasing the stormwater management plan for the project. The system right now, it drains directly into Halfway creek, and Dave has created a large basin, detention basin, for filtration, that is going to treat the northern two-thirds of the site, and on the southern third of the site, which was the pre- existing part of the site and the pre-existing part of the parking lot that we’re not making major changes to because the buildings are there, we were asked by the Planning Board to come up with some way to treat that water, and we came up with a swirl chamber, a vortex swirl chamber, that is something that catches sediment and would be cleaned out. MR. STONE-I was just going to say, hopefully it would be cleaned out very often. MR. LAPPER-And that’s part of the Planning Board requirements, the maintenance plan as well. So we have gone through intense scrutiny with this. It’s been well received because we’re cleaning up a tired plaza, but nevertheless, we think it’s a very good plan, and it’s just, we would have been with this Board all along if we thought that these variances were going to be required. It sort of blindsided us. So when the Town Planning Board last week reaffirmed SEQRA, it was because we’re asking for these variances and the subdivision, and they wanted to put on record, as the Chairman read, that that doesn’t change their detailed SEQRA review. So before you pass a resolution for our request tonight for the variance, we would ask you to just accept their SEQRA review, that there’s no significant environmental impact. MR. STONE-Would you, just for the record, and for some of the people here, give a thumbnail sketch of what’s going to be done, I mean, that the public is going to see. MR. CARR-Sure. Hopefully you can all see this board. The site is approximately 35 acres, and basically what exists there today is this existing office building, which runs along 9, Travelers, Monroe Muffler, and then this area that has a lot of vacant stores in it, Steinbachs and the Post Office at the end, and I can bring it a little closer, but there’s a black line here that shows the existing building, which runs right here. That will be demolished. That’s approximately 85,000 square feet. That’ll make room for the proposed Home Depot, which will be built in the rear of that, which is approximately 115,000 square feet with the garden center, which brings us to an additional, if you take away the 85,000, add the Home Depot, there’s about 35,000 more square feet than exists there today, including the garden center. Some people include the garden center in the building, some don’t, but we do because it’s the worst case scenario. The reason why this building has to be located here, it’s pretty much shoehorned in. We have parking requirements. We have an existing wetlands that was mapped. It’s Federally jurisdictional. It’s an Army Corps wetland which runs back here through the cemetery, and as I mentioned the parking which needs to be in front. So that pretty much located where our building had to be. As far as improvements that Jon mentioned, if you go in that center today, I believe one of the major problems is access. We have two very wide accesses that are close to the intersection. Those will be removed. There’ll be green space brought in with shrubbery, and in their place, farther to the north, will be a right in, right out only intersection, and then at the existing main intersection which we’d like to call it at the light, this will be improved, because at this point now you can pretty much come into the site and probably within the first 50 or 60 feet, cars are able to cross in front of you. There really isn’t that much traffic control there, and it’s fairly steep. So what we’ve created is a long throat, over 300 feet, with landscaped islands on both sides to control traffic. This is a much shallower grade, approximately two percent, to control all the traffic in this location, make the site much safer. The traffic report, which was done by Creighton Manning, was approved by DOT. They are now looking at just the details of this intersection, but as far as traffic counts, and any mitigation, they have approved that. No 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/02) mitigation actually was required. As Jon mentioned, we are introducing a lot of greenery into the parking areas. The lighting is all going to be new throughout the entire center, brought down to the 20 feet, which is the new Town standard. Drainage was a major issue on this site. Currently, all the drainage pretty much flows to a couple of points, comes underneath the building and outlets directly into the wetlands. Basically we’ve taken all the new center and probably a third of the old center, brought it to a proposed stormwater management area here, which will allow it to settle out before going into the wetland. The area that we could not get through that system by grade will be brought, we are putting in what’s called a vortex swirl chamber which will help take out an impurities, any trash, before out letting to the wetland. Beyond that, sewer is on site, water is on site. I know a lot of people have questions about the Post Office which is currently located here. The new Post Office will be located now pretty much right in the center of the site, will have its own dedicated parking lot, which I believe will be easier to access, and that’s pretty much it. This black line here signifies the limit of clearing, as Jon mentioned in his presentation, and which is part of the approval process with the Planning Board and the Town Board, as he mentioned, we will have no access on Montray Road, but also this will be, for lack of a better word, you’ve discussed already forever wild or a non cut area, an area we can’t develop, an area we do not desire nor need to develop, and that really borders the residential area over here. So that’s pretty much our proposal, and I’ve got on this side the variance plan, but underneath that, as Jon also mentioned architecture. This kind of shows the sequence of how the architecture evolved. This here is the Home Depot’s basic store that they normally propose. I believe this is the store that’s probably located in Wilton Mall. Pretty standard, tan façade, orange roof. Basically the Planning Board sent them back to the drawing board. This was the second rendition, working with Staff they came to a third rendition, and finally this is the fourth rendition, which really represents a lot of changes in texture, changes in scale, changes in color. Tried to bring a long façade down to more a pedestrian scale, and what I’ll do is I’ll bring this up so you can see it. It’s probably hard to see from a distance, but that’s the architectural changes that Jon had mentioned, and that’s pretty much it. MR. STONE-What about Miller Hill? What’s happening with the retaining wall above that? Is that part of this project? MR. LAPPER-The rear portion of the Miller Hill property which is a large piece of property is being purchased for this property, for this project. MR. STONE-Right. MR. LAPPER-At first some of the private details are that it was under contract to purchase and redevelop the whole Miller Hill property with the intention that in the front something like a bank or a restaurant could replace what’s there. Right now the drive aisle is very close to Route 9. It’s not really safe for traffic, but because that contract required the seller to vacate the existing tenancies, and they were not able to do that, it wasn’t able to be purchased, but it’s still possible, if that happens in the next few years, that that may happen, but it’s not part of the project at this point. MR. STONE-So Subway, the Glass Shop, Northway, whatever it is up there, will stay, for the moment? MR. LAPPER-For the time being, yes. MR. STONE-Okay. Any questions, gentlemen? MR. HIMES-Yes. I think I understand the implications of the financing the lots. For the record could you, or one of you, give us an Economics 101 on what is going on here. The bank is getting into some specifics and the zoning code has some specifics. So why shouldn’t we stand up and say, well, let the bank (lost word), you know? MR. LAPPER-When I was here a number of months ago for Staples, we did a zero lot line subdivision so that the Staples parcel could be purchased as a freestanding parcel. It would look, all appearances, part of the Plaza. There would be reciprocal easements which means that the customers and employees and deliveries of one would use, everyone would use each other’s property, would operate as one center, and that would all be in recorded easement agreements, just the same as this Plaza here. The difference is here is this is not, the subdivision of the Home Depot lot is not being done for the specific purpose that Home Depot can own their own building. It’s being done because of the requirements of the existing Plaza lender. In order for this project to be redeveloped right now, the Northway Plaza Associates who own the existing Plaza and who have signed a long-term lease agreement with Home Depot USA have what’s called a securitized financing, which means that they did a note in mortgage like any bank financing, but here the note or the bond was sold on the securities markets to institutional investors or wealthy individuals, and the result of that is that it has a lot of requirements, and one of the requirements is that you can’t add collateral to the mortgage. Usually a lender only cares about losing collateral. So if you wanted to ask them for a partial release to give, free and clear, a piece of property so it can be sold or developed, that’s usually where you go to the bank and banks have an issue with you, and they have to go and look at the loan devalue and make sure that they will release a piece, but when it’s a securitized financing, the deal is that when they, I think part of it is for environmental reasons because if you buy in, you’ve got all the environmental reports, and you know what you know what you’re getting, and all these institutional investors that are out there are not going to accept the risk of some 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/02) new piece of property that they don’t know about. So the requirements are that you can’t add property to it. When this project, and this has been negotiated over a couple of years, you know, a year before we got before the Town, probably, and since then, the Home Depot and the Plaza owner has always envisioned that they would be able to negotiate that provision away with their lender, with the Plaza lenders, and unfortunately we found out in May that that was not going to be the case. So we had a project that the Town was very supportive of, that positively impacts the Plaza, is good for the Plaza owners, but we weren’t able to combine the parcels. So as a result, the entity that’s going to be formed to own the back, which we’ll call for this discussion Northway Plaza Two, has the same individual members as the members of this Plaza. So they’re just, it’s the same group of people, but they have to be in a separate entity, and these two, so they have an agreement between themselves, as Entity One and Entity Two, that you can park on the property, you can drive on the property, you can have deliveries on the property, your utilities come through the property. It operates as one center, but it’s separate ownership, and that was, it’s an unfortunately convoluted solution to a legal problem, but again, from the sake of land use, it doesn’t change anything from what the Planning Board has been ready to approve. MR. HIMES-Thank you. MR. BRYANT-Are you glad you asked, Norm? MR. HIMES-I took notes. No, thank you. It was very good, and I appreciate it. MR. STONE-Any other questions? MR. BRYANT-You mentioned about the Planning Board, and you’ve been before the Planning Board a number of times and on a number of issues, and I’m sure they studied the traffic flow and all this other stuff, which really doesn’t relate to this application. Why don’t we get, in our notes, any of that information, just out of curiosity? This has nothing to do with your application, grant you, but this is a clear case when there may be questions relative, you know, a lot of times you have these applications and, you know, spectators come in, citizens, and they say, well, what about the traffic and what about the storm drainage and what about these other issues, and we’re in the dark. We’ve got a SEQR doohicky here, and that’s it. MR. STONE-Normally, it progresses from us to the Planning Board. This is different. Since they’ve been, yes, we should have had their opinion. MR. BRYANT-We should have had some documentation. I know we can always call on the Planning Board, but. MR. STONE-Well, we can always ask Mr. Strough over there if he wants to come forward. MR. LAPPER-I was going to suggest that as well. MR. BRYANT-That’s my only question. MR. LAPPER-Dave can tell you a little bit just about the traffic, in terms of the level of scrutiny. MR. CARR-Yes. As I had mentioned, Creighton Manning transportation engineers was contracted by Home Depot to do a traffic study, looking at the major intersections surrounding the site, as far as levels of service, taking into account the existing center, what would be removed, the square footage that would be replaced in the center, and basically, the long and the short of it is that it was shown that the traffic is not going to be that different than what exists out there today. DOT looked on the removal of the two access points close to Quaker Road and the introduction of the right in, right out as a positive for safety, more than anything else, a more controlled intersection. They looked at the timing of that light at the entrance on Route 9, and basically they saw this project as no impact to the existing system out there, and we have a letter. MR. BRYANT-And did the Planning Board concur with that or? MR. CARR-Yes, they did. The Town’s consultant on this job was C.T. Male, and they have a gentlemen, Jim Edwards, who is familiar with traffic. He also reviewed the traffic study, and he concurred with DOT, and they, C.T. Male also signed off on the traffic study. MR. STONE-And I don’t want to put a burden on Mr. Strough, but would you, if he was willing, would you like to ask, as a member of the Planning Board any questions? MR. BRYANT-I’m just curious as to what criteria. MR. STONE-John, would you be willing to, not speak for the Board, but tell what you think you did. Why don’t you come up. The guys have got a couple of questions, if it’s all right with you. MR. CARR-Absolutely. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/02) MR. FRANK-And just for the record, for the public, since you did bring up the question, as you know, we were overwhelmed last month, and you realize that it takes time to do what Maria does. She listens to the tapes and meeting minutes don’t just pop up like that. The meeting was last Tuesday, and we were bombarded this month. MR. BRYANT-I’m sure, but, you know, you have the Town Board minutes on the Internet, and they’re relatively current. You have none of our minutes. You have none of the Planning Board minutes. Just the agenda, and my question is, she does it in a word processor. It’s not any extra work to put it on the Internet so that we have some kind of reference before we come to a meeting that we can allude to and not have to impose on Mr. Strough. MR. FRANK-Again, you can always request this information and it is, we do try to supply whatever to the Board when we can. Again, you have to take into account we were bombarded this month. We had eighteen some Planning Board applications, and we’ve been short Staffed besides. So, in fairness to the Staff, I mean, we can only do so much. MR. STONE-Okay. We have a member of the Planning Board, Mr. John Strough, who is willing to answer any questions that you might have from his own personal situation. He is not speaking for the Planning Board, but knowing Mr. Strough is one of the more thorough members of the Planning Board, and has pretty good knowledge of what they agreed to. MR. BRYANT-I’m basically curious on the criteria. How did they determine, I mean, you’re talking about two different engineering firms determining that there’s no impact, and from a layman’s point of view, where you have a bunch of empty stores, and then you have a Home Depot, and if you compare it to a Lowe’s down the street, and you look in their parking lot, and the traffic that exists now on those thoroughfares, how they could come to that conclusion. I want to know what the criteria is and how they came there. JOHN STROUGH MR. STROUGH-Well, first of all, I look at it as I have to. If all the stores were occupied, and most of them are retail in nature, we looked at the traffic count there, and compared that to the type of traffic that would be induced by this project, the Home Depot, and, yes, this is going to create some more traffic than what normally would be there, but not enough so that it drew a lot of attention. MR. BRYANT-Even though you’re adding, you’re probably adding, what, almost 50% in square footage. You’re adding another 30,000. Is that it? MR. STROUGH-Yes. We’re adding 31,000, yes, because this is 116,000 square feet. They’re taking out 85,000 square feet. So the net gain, but it’s only a singular source versus a group of different stores. MR. BRYANT-And that criteria is different? MR. STROUGH-Well, when they do the traffic report, they consider all of that criteria, and the traffic report was reviewed by C.T. Male, and it was reviewed by the State. It was reviewed by the County, and it was reviewed by the Planning Board, and nowhere did I see any extreme concern over the fact that the extra numbers that this application would produce would produce any further serious traffic problems. MR. ABBATE-So what you’re basically saying, let me make sure I’m right on this now, is that even with the Home Depot occupying the area which they are requesting, that still would not exceed the maximum potential of traffic. Am I correct in that assumption? MR. STROUGH-Correct. MR. ABBATE-Yes. Okay. I just wanted to make sure I was right. MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. MR. STONE-Any other questions? MR. STROUGH-In other words, it was all manageable. MR. STONE-I mean, keep in mind what Mr. Strough is saying, and what Mr. Carr is saying. There was an independent person who did a traffic survey, and submitted it to the developer, and then to the Planning Board. C.T. Male was functioning as the Town’s engineer and confirming those results, independently. MR. ABBATE-Independently. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/02) MR. STROUGH-So it was given a good hard look. It was given a good hard look, and the applicants were very cooperative in the whole process, and we started this back in December, and several months later, here we are, and they’ve met with us several times, and it’s been grueling. It’s been intensive, but it’s gone fairly well, and they’ve been very cooperative in ours and meeting the Town Board’s suggestions, and I haven’t had too many complaints. I mean, they’ve even gone the extra measure. I had some concern about some stormwater runoff on a part of the lot they’re not even located on and what they’re doing is kind of novel for this area of Queensbury. Lake George has a couple of them, are the CDS systems, Continuous Deflective Separators, and they’re going to be using sorbents in it and the Deflector takes out the solid trash and the floatables and things like that, and the sorbents will absorb up to 80% of automobile pollutants, be it oil, gas, hydraulic fluid or whatever, so that the overall net result is we’re getting a lot cleaner water being deposited into Halfway Brook than we did before, and the upper part of the stormwater is going to a detention basin where it’ll get filtered out. It’ll get absorbed in the ground before it goes back into the system, visa vie the wetland area, into the Pineview Cemetery pond, and then that runs into Halfway Brook. So what they’ve come up with, I think, is a very satisfactory plan. Now there’s a couple of odd, other loose odds and ends that we’ll take care of as the Plaza develops, but they’ve been very cooperative. MR. STONE-The other thing that we keep in mind, I think Mr. Lapper made it very clear, this is a technical thing that we’re dealing with. MR. BRYANT-Right, really the traffic and the discussion of the drainage has nothing at all to do with the approval. MR. STONE-Right, and I understand our interest, though, because we are citizens. MR. BRYANT-Sure, well, and I think that there should be some kind of information that flows back and forth between the committees, because I’m sure, you being on the other side of the fence, when an applicant comes to us first for a variance, you’d like to not only see how we voted, but what we said. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, this particular project has, in my opinion, been a very good project, and in all aspects, and as I said, the presenters and the applicant have been very cooperative, and if it was otherwise, I’d say so. MR. STONE-Anything else? Okay. Well, thank you, Mr. Strough. MR. STROUGH-Thank you. MR. STONE-Who, keep in mind, for the record, was speaking for himself. MR. STROUGH-Right. MR. STONE-Not the Planning Board, but we appreciate your thoughts. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. MR. STONE-All right. Any other questions? MR. URRICO-Just, in terms of the parking on that site, if I recall correctly, the section that is under the auspices of Travelers is slightly different than the rest of the Plaza, and I was just wondering how this transfer of property would affect the parking requirements. MR. LAPPER-Just explain what you mean by slightly different. You’re talking? MR. URRICO-Well, I attended one of the meetings, and it seemed to me that the section where Travelers is located, the parking is a little bit different than what the rest of the Plaza would have, in terms of what’s needed. MR. LAPPER-What that was, that was a calculation of how many parking spaces there should be on the whole site, and the issue there, the Town, after the K-Mart project, which had to have seven places per thousand square feet of retail space, which was deemed a sea of asphalt because it’s mostly vacant and probably always vacant, even at Christmas, some parts of it, the Town reduced the standards that the larger the Plaza you have, that you can have less than five, five per thousand, which is the standard, and for the Home Depot part of this, we’re meeting those standards, but Travelers has their own internal requirements, which is six per thousand, which in their case is based upon actual practice, their actual use because of however many square feet of space they have per cubicle per person. They feel that they need the six per thousand. So we had to justify to the Planning Board that the overall parking is slightly higher than what the minimum would be under the Town to comply with the Town Code, and we did that by having the Plaza developers come in and talk about the Travelers lease and those requirements. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/02) MR. URRICO-Well, will this impact that in any way? MR. LAPPER-Our variance? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. LAPPER-No. The only parking variance, the field in front of Travelers, and because of what Dave was saying about how he redesigned the entrance road to change the grade, because now it’s pretty dangerous, pretty steep, that acts as pretty much of a separator, not that somebody couldn’t park on one side and walk across it, but it’s not likely that somebody would want to. So the field in front of the Home Depot is just, it’s on the lot with Northway Plaza in front of the office building, but obviously it’s going to be parked for Home Depot. So they have a reciprocal easement that gives their customers the right to park there and walk, just as if it was all one parcel. So there would be no difference in how it’s used, but it’s technically on the other piece with an easement, and that requires a variance because the parking is not on the same lot. MR. STONE-So everybody, all the tenants, are happy, because we had, was it a year ago, two years ago, the Northway Plaza came to us because of the Travelers contract. MR. LAPPER-They wanted narrower spaces. MR. STONE-Yes, and they went away. I mean, we didn’t grant and they went away, but everybody’s happy now, copasetic? As they used to say when I was child. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. All right. Everybody happy? I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Do we have anymore questions? If not, we’ll start with Allan. What do you think? MR. BRYANT-Well, I want to apologize for bringing the other issues into it. It has nothing to do with you. I understand this is cut and dry. MR. LAPPER-No, those were good questions. MR. BRYANT-Similar to the Staples, and it’s a technical issue. I have no problem with the application because, if you didn’t have to have that subdivision you could build it anyway. So, in reality, it really makes no difference at this point. So I’d be in favor of the application. Thank you for putting up with me. MR. LAPPER-Of course. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in agreement. I think everything’s pretty clear and cut and dry, and I’m in favor of it. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I certainly agree. It certainly is clear to me that the Planning Board has reviewed this whole project very extensively. In fact, even part of the relief that we’re being asked to give has to do with the Planning Board’s goal of not having commercial traffic on Montray Road, which I, personally, think is a great idea, and I wouldn’t like it if I was there. So I see that as a benefit to the neighborhood, substantially, in that particular case. Therefore, the rest of the relief is the function of the two separate lots, and I have had some personal experience with the securitized transactions, and I can assure you that Mr. Lapper’s depiction of the difficulties that can be associated with those things is accurate. Unfortunately, people on Wall Street might not even know where Glens Falls is if they were asked for an accommodation or a change. So I think, on balance, that the benefit to the applicant would be that they would be permitted to construct this new structure. I don’t think the relief is substantial, when it’s considered, versus the Ordinance. I don’t think that there is any doubt in my mind whatsoever that this new project and the recycling of the Northway Plaza has a positive effect on the neighborhood or community, and I think that the difficulty, it largely has to do with the 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/02) change in economic conditions and the emergence of big boxes and its effect on the Northway Plaza. So I don’t think the difficulty is self-created. So, on balance, I would be in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I can basically agree with what’s been said. If they were looking for narrower parking spaces or fewer number of parking spaces than what was required, I’d have a major problem, but in this case, with it strictly being this technical item to accommodate the financing, as long as effectively, when taken all together, they meet the requirements, I have no problem with granting these variances. MR. STONE-Mr. Himes? MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. In short, I agree. I support the application. Again, as well explained by Mr. Lapper the reasons for their even being here, of course, makes some sense, but I look at it, overall, as it seems that this project is saving the day for the Northway Plaza, and that area of Town, where something like this fits in very nicely in terms of what’s going on around it, so I would tend to think that this is pretty good, and I support the application. Thank you. MR. STONE-Mr. Abbate? MR. ABBATE-Yes. Thank you. It’s obvious to me that Home Depot has surrounded themselves with very capable folks who have presented a really good, excellent presentation, request for an Area Variance. In addition, it seems to me, it’s my opinion, that what they are recommending can only improve the area and can only contribute favorably to the Town of Queensbury, and based upon what my other Board members said, and what little I have just said, I would certainly support the application. MR. STONE-Before I make my statement, Mr. Frank, we’ve taken care of your Staff notes about SEQR, right? MR. FRANK-I believe Mr. Lapper asked. MR. HAYES-We need to make a motion. MR. STONE-Do you want to make a motion that we accept? MR. LAPPER-The Planning Board SEQR. MR. STONE-Okay. Let me make my statement first, and then we can do that. I’m in total agreement with this thing. I know we’ve taken a long time, but I really think it’s because we all care, and we really want to make sure that we understand what’s going on with the Town of Queensbury, and when I do call for a motion to approve, I would like the last sentence under Staff comments to be included, the condition about recombining in six years, that we get that into the motion, but before that. MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THE SEQRA DETERMINATION AS MADE BY THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD AS REAFFIRMED ON JUNE 18, Introduced by Lewis TH Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 26 day of June, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE MR. STONE-All right. Now I need a motion to approve. MR. LAPPER-If you could say in approximately six years when the mortgages are refinanced, it would probably be better. MR. STONE-Approximately six years, you’d like it to say? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, it says approximately six years. MR. ABBATE-Watch it, Mr. Chairman, that’s a legal term. MR. STONE-Well, Mr. Abbate, since it’s a legal term, would you do the motion, please. MR. ABBATE-What stipulations do we have, Mr. Chairman? 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/02) MR. STONE-That’s the only one, in approximately six years, when the current mortgage can be refinanced. It’s the last sentence of Staff notes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-2002 HOME DEPOT USA, INC., Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: State Route 9 and Quaker Road. Home Depot proposes construction of a 116,000 square foot Home Depot store including a garden center. They are requesting relief from the requirements of Section 179-4-090(A), Frontage on Public Streets, as the physical access to and from the lot to be built upon will not be provided from the lot’s frontage on a Town road. The applicant further requests relief from the requirements of the Parking and Loading regulations. The parking to be provided on a separate lot per Section 179-4-040(B2). Additionally, the applicant requests 11% of relief from the 30% minimum of lot permeability requirement from the Schedule of Area and Bulk requirements for the HC-INT zone, Section 179-4-030. Benefit to the applicant, Home Depot would be permitted, if we approve, to construct the desired structure in the preferred location. Feasible alternatives, feasible alternatives appear to be somewhat limited. Is this relief substantial to the Ordinance? Relief from the requirement of frontage on public streets as the physical access to and from the lot to be built upon will not be provided from lot’s frontage on a Town road may be interpreted as substantial relative to the Ordinance. Relief from parking to be provided on a separate lot may be interpreted as substantial relative to the Ordinance being none of the parking will be on the same lot as that of the store. 11% less than the minimum allowable permeability requirement of 30% may be interpreted as moderate relative to the Ordinance (36.7%). Effects on the neighborhood and community, Based on our conversation and comments of the Board members this evening, Mr. Chairman, and the fact that there were no objections to this, there would be little or moderate effects on the neighborhood, and I believe, in my opinion, it will contribute significantly to the improvement of the neighborhood. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be attributable to the pre-existing conditions of the Northway Plaza, and Mr. Chairman, as you requested, I would like to also stipulate that approximately six years, there will be a stipulation that the financing will be completed within approximately six years, and to be reaffirmed, the two lots in the Plaza will be combined within approximately six years when the financing is refinanced. Duly adopted this 26 day of June, 2002, by the following vote: th MR. ABBATE- I would like to also stipulate that approximately six years, there will be a stipulation that the financing will be completed within approximately six years, and to be reaffirmed. MR. STONE-And that all the properties will be combined. MR. LAPPER-It would be the two lots that would be combined because the Miller Hill may be separate. The two lots in the Plaza would be combined when the financing is refinanced. MR. ABBATE-The two lots in the Plaza would be combined within approximately six years when the financing is completed. Fair enough? MR. LAPPER-Is refinanced. MR. ABBATE-Is refinanced. MR. STONE-Refinanced. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I don’t understand the significance of that qualification. MR. HAYES-It’s forcing them to combine them. MR. STONE-It’s forcing them to combine them. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but you see they could end up with the corporate decision to do the same thing that Staples did, for the purpose of ownership of the building. MR. HAYES-Not without coming and getting variances to do it. MR. BRYANT-Well, I know that, but why are we putting that limitation on it? MR. ABBATE-Because I don’t think Mr. Lapper would dare to come back to this Board. MR. STONE-I think, yes, the applicant offered, I mean, this is a technical variance that we’re granted. MR. HAYES-Which would be eliminated when those parcels are combined. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/02) MR. BRYANT-What is the purpose of the condition? MR. FRANK-The applicant offered to do so, so that’s all the Staff commented. MR. BRYANT-The applicant can offer to give you a new garage door every six months, but that doesn’t mean we’re going to take it. MR. FRANK-That’s correct, but you did consider it, and you’re including it in your motion at the request of the Chairman. MR. BRYANT-But I don’t understand the reasoning behind the acceptance or the consideration? What’s the reasoning? MR. HAYES-Because, I mean, we’re charged with having the minimal amount of relief possible, and if they merge the properties, then the relief will be entirely eliminated, essentially. MR. ABBATE-Right, and, further, it’s no longer a request. MR. HAYES-It’s not now, but it is in the future. MR. ABBATE-And it’s no longer a request, now, it is a demand by the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. URRICO-So can’t we say that we’re granting them relief until the properties are merged? MR. LAPPER-I like it better the way he said it. MR. ABBATE-Who said it? Please use my name, I like the attention. MR. LAPPER-Mr. Abbate said it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-If Home Depot decides, in 10 years, that they want to own their site, I will come back. I mean, that could always happen. I don’t anticipate that. I tried to make, ask for the minimum relief to get done. So that’s why that was in as a condition, but, you know. MR. BRYANT-Twenty years from now, Home Depot may not be in that building, and it may be another Office Max or Staples, and it may make it more attractive to them to acquire that property, if it were in the correct configuration. MR. STONE-In a sense what we’re doing is limiting the variance. Normally, a variance goes forever. We’re saying that the variance will die when they are combined because there won’t be any need with the present configuration. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Am I safe? MR. STONE-Yes, you’re safe. Okay. Is there a second? MR. URRICO-I second. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thank you very much. MR. STONE-Okay. AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED AFTAB (SAM) BHATTI PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS, PLLC LOCATION: 543 AVIATION ROAD ZONE: HC-INT APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING MOTEL AND PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW MOTEL ONTO THE ADJOINING PROPERTY. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, THE PARKING REGULATIONS, THE BUFFER ZONE REQUIREMENTS, AND THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. WARREN COUNTY 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/02) PLANNING: 6/12/02 TAX MAP NO. 302.05-1-51; 302.05-1-52.13 LOT SIZES: 1 ACRE; 0.39 ACRES SECTION 179-4-90; 179-4-30; 179-4-40 MICHAEL BORGOS & TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HAYES-Mr. Chairman, I’m going to recuse myself from this particular application based on my prior attempt to put a hotel on the immediate site adjacent to this one, my unsuccessful attempt, I should say. So I don’t want that to be perceived as being involved with the decision that’s involved here today. MR. ABBATE-You’re to be congratulated, Jaime, thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you, Mr. Hayes. You are to be congratulated. So, Mr. Underwood, you’re back. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 55-2002, Aftab (Sam) Bhatti, Meeting Date: June 26, 2002 “Project Location: 543 Aviation Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 46- unit motel building and additions to the existing Econo Lodge Motel. Relief Required: Relief requested for the existing motel: *28 feet from the 50-foot minimum front setback requirement. *11 feet from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement. *11% in addition to the required maximum allowable FAR of 30%. *9.4% less than the minimum allowable permeability requirement of 30% (an increase of 0.5% from existing). (As per the requirements of the Schedule of Area and Bulk Requirements for the HC-Int Zone, §179-4-030.) Relief requested for the proposed motel: *44 feet from the 50-foot minimum front setback requirement. *11 feet from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement. *8% in addition to the required maximum allowable FAR of 30%. (As per the requirements of the Schedule of Area and Bulk Requirements for the HC-Int Zone, §179-4-030.) *The applicant requests relief from the requirements of §179-4-090(A), Frontage on Public Streets, as the physical access to and from the lot to be built upon will not be provided from the lot’s frontage on a town road, as the application proposes eliminating the curb cut that exists for the old house. *The applicant requests relief from the requirements of the Parking and Loading Regulations for parking to be provided on a separate lot, per §179-4-040. Note: the applicant has not requested any relief from the minimum buffering requirements between zones; however, it appears some relief from the 50-foot “Type C” buffering requirement between adjacent commercial/residential zones will be needed, per §179-8-060 (the amount of relief needed can’t be determined from the submitted landscape plan). 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 might include placement of the structure in a more compliant location further back in the parcel. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: 28 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum front setback requirement and 11 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement may be interpreted as moderate. 44 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum front setback requirement may be interpreted as substantial. 11% and 8% in addition to the required maximum allowable FAR of 30% may be interpreted as minimal to moderate (36.7% and 26.7% respectively). 9.4% less than the minimum allowable permeability requirement of 30% may be interpreted as moderate relative to the ordinance (31.3%). Relief from the requirements of Frontage on Public Streets, as the physical access to and from the lot to be built upon will not be provided from the lot’s frontage on a town road may be interpreted as substantial relative to the ordinance. Relief for parking to be provided on a separate lot may be interpreted as minimal and may not even be necessary as the code allows for parking provided on a separate lot or tax parcel that is within 300 feet of the principal use, provided that the two lots are under the same ownership and there are covenants which tie the two lots together, per the Parking and Loading Regulations, §179-4-040 (B2). No comment can be made on the relief from the buffering requirement that appears to be needed. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/02) 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate to substantial effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? Some of the difficulty may be attributed to the width of the lot combined with the 50-foot buffer between zones requirement. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 90-009: 01/25/90; construct 21’ x 145’ motel. BP 90-010: 01/23/90; demolish 18’ x 120’ motel. SV 22-1990: 03/28/90; Imperial Motel. SP 66-89: 12/19/89; expansion from 31 to 48 motel rooms. AV 136-1989: 11/15/89; relief of permeability requirements. AV 86-1989: 07/26/89; density increase and side setback. Variance #1241: 04/22/87; to construct 12 additional units. Variance #1087: 06/18/86; setback relief for addition of swimming pool. Variance #1045: 12/18/85; setback relief for addition to motel. Variance #263: 10/27/72; relocate a motel in R-5 Zone, various setback and sign requirements. SV 85 & 86: 03/19/69; move of signage due to road widening. Staff comments: Moderate to substantial effects may be anticipated as a result of this action. Consideration might be given to the increase in traffic volume, increased lighting, and increased noise levels should the addition of a three- story, 46-unit motel on the edge of a single-family residential zone be approved. The applicant states the existing vegetation is not an adequate buffer, and has submitted a landscaping plan for the buffer areas, which will be allowed to mature from the initial plantings. However, the landscaping would have to be of a very large caliper with a high density to serve as an adequate buffer, and conform to the standards of a Type “C” Buffer Yard. Additionally, the visual impact of a three-story tall structure as observed from the residential zone would not be mitigated for many years until the landscaping matured. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted” MR. MC NULTY-And we do have a “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form June 12, 2002 Project Name: Bhatti, Sam Aftab Owner: Sam Bhatti Aftab ID Number: QBY-02-AV-55 County Project#: Jun02-32 Current Zoning: HC Community: Queensbury Project Description: The applicant proposes to construct an addition to an existing motel and proposes to construct a new motel on adjoining property. The site is known as the Econolodge. Site Location: 543 Aviation Road Tax Map Number(s): 302.05-1-51 302.05-1-52.13 Staff Notes: The applicant requests a variance for the construction of an addition that does not meet the required setbacks and the construction of a new motel that does not meet the required setbacks. The addition to an existing motel is the reconfiguration of the existing entrance- way in the same location. The front setback requires 50’ where the applicant proposes 22’. See drawing. The new motel does not meet the front setback where 50’ is required the applicant proposes 6’, and the side setback requires 20’ and the applicant proposes 9’. The proposed motel parcel is adjacent to a residential neighborhood. The plans note the area adjacent to the residential area is to be a buffer area. Staff recommends discussion. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 6/17/02 MR. STONE-Gentlemen. MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, before you let the applicants have the floor, the Director of Community Development and myself had a discussion this morning about the possible relief for the buffer zone requirement, and it was determined that none is needed. So you can disregard any relief. MR. STONE-You’re talking the buffer between the lot that’s on Aviation, Lot One and Lot Two, is that what you’re saying? MR. FRANK-The buffer zone that sits between the two different zones. MR. STONE-Yes, I know, but I mean, that’s Lot One and Lot Two, as I? MR. FRANK-Due east of Lot One. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/02) MR. STONE-Well, due whatever direction that is. It’s north. Yes, he’s talking this here, this buffer zone here. MR. FRANK-The buffer zone due east of Lot One, running along the east property line of Lot One. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. FRANK-That’s the buffer between the commercial and the residential zone. Again, the Planning Board is going to thoroughly review the buffer zone requirements and there are certain specifications, and the landscaping plan that was submitted does not meet the requirements, and I spoke with the applicants this morning, and they will be resubmitting something else to the Planning Board, but, again, they do not need any relief from the buffer zone requirement. MR. STONE-Well, does that mean that the proposed motel location could be moved east? Is that what the Director is saying? MR. FRANK-No, it’s not needed. What they have. MR. STONE-This could be moved over here then. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, this is 50 foot wide now. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-So we don’t have to grant any relief. MR. STONE-We don’t have to grant any relief, but I’m saying, if there is no buffer needed, then they could, anyway. MR. FRANK-Well, they need a buffer. They just don’t need any relief from the buffer. MR. STONE-Go ahead. You need the 50 foot. Okay. Go ahead. MR. JARRETT-If we walk through it, then I think it’ll clarify a lot of things for you. MR. STONE-Go ahead please. MR. JARRETT-All right. For the record, Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Martin Engineers, and Mike Borgos of Muller and Muller, and with us tonight is Sam Bhatti, the owner of the parcels, and the applicant. I can walk through the proposal and maybe I can address some of the variances we’re requesting at the same time. You can all see this plan we have on the Board, Mr. Bhatti owns both parcels, both the existing Econo Lodge Motel, which was the westerly parcel, as well as two parcels that abut it to the east. This parcel is where the new motel is proposed, and the rear parcel is proposed strictly as a buffer. The new proposal is a 46 unit motel, three-story. We’ve situated it on the southwest corner of the parcel, purposely, to provide a 50 foot buffer to the east, and to the north, as well as to facilitate traffic flow from both motels. We’ve planned reciprocal easements, so both motels can use the common parking areas, and we’ve provided 96, 98 parking spaces at this point, two more than is the absolute minimum. Right now there’s an existing curb cut serving the existing house that you see in this photograph. We propose to eliminate that one curb cut, make that existing driveway green space, and utilize the existing entrance for both motels. Again, it would be a reciprocal easement for access for both motels. We’re going to widen the existing entrance to the Town standards of 40 feet, provide one entrance lane, two exit lanes, with a median, a four foot median. The buffer zone, there’s a lot of controversy regarding the buffer zone. All we’ve shown here is, conceptually, that we’re going to provide a buffer zone 50 foot wide and it’ll meet the Type C standards that the Town requires. We have not submitted a detailed landscaping plan for that buffer. We plan to do that. Traffic flow would be, as I mentioned, through the one curb cut, and would be a counterclockwise flow through the site. Both motels would utilize that. Now most of the variances we’re seeking are setback variances. You can see, obviously, on the new parcel they are to the front and to the side. The reason we’ve moved the building to the front as close to the line as we have is obviously to facilitate parking and buffer. We’re also in line with existing buildings. You’ll note that Old Aviation Road is here, and the parcel boundaries deviate, they deflect away from the new Aviation Road and create this hardship that we’re dealing with. So we’re really not creating any building frontages closer to Aviation Road than is now present and the commercial properties currently live with. Stormwater management would be improved on actually both lots. We’re providing stormwater management in the parking area, primarily. There is a portion of this rear buffer that does not fall within the 50 foot buffer zones to the adjoining zones, and we may propose to the Planning Board utilizing some of that for some drip irrigation of the landscaping. The existing motel is proposed to be modified through the addition of the north, excuse me, the southwest corner of the building to provide handicapped accessible bathrooms, and the carport is to be modified here. Right now it’s supported by columns, and we plan on making that a cantilevered carport to facilitate better traffic flow through the parking lot. Just to reiterate, regarding our variances, the buffer, we’re not requesting any relief from the buffer. We plan on providing 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/02) what the Town standards require. As far as the access, we’re providing one curb cut meeting Town standards. We’re eliminating an existing curb cut, and we believe that explains that variance request favorably, and the other variances are for the existing building, as well as the configuration of the new building to meet the lot dimensional requirements and the existing lot dimensions. MR. BRYANT-Are you saying that the new motel is going to be in line with the existing Econo Lodge? MR. JARRETT-Essentially it is. There’s the building line. Here’s Aviation Road, deviating away from the site. So there’s the building lines between the existing Econo Lodge and the new building. MR. BRYANT-It just appears that it’s. MR. JARRETT-It’s, depending on how you draw the line, on this diagram, it’s a little bit further to the south, you’re correct, but it’s actually further from Aviation Road than the existing motel. MR. HIMES-Would you, I’m looking at all the relief required for the existing motel, but I understand it was just to change the carport and add. MR. JARRETT-Add a handicap accessible bathroom, yes. MR. HIMES-Access to handicapped bathrooms, and that’s all that’s being done on the existing? MR. JARRETT-On the existing, right, just filling in that corner for a new bathroom, and the carport. MR. HIMES-Okay. MR. JARRETT-The building itself is a pre-existing building that was nonconforming. MR. HIMES-Okay. MR. BRYANT-What happens if you move that new motel back, away from Aviation Road? MR. JARRETT-Well, we can’t get the parking we need. MR. BRYANT-You can park in the front of the motel. MR. JARRETT-Well, we can’t get traffic flow in there, really, to do it. We looked at that alternative. MR. BRYANT-I don’t understand. If that building were in the back, instead of the front, it would have the same condition in the front that you now currently have in the back. How far back can you go? MR. JARRETT-We could go back, theoretically, to this 50 foot buffer line. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So assuming that you did that, you’d have the same condition in the front as you have in the back. There wouldn’t be any difference in traffic flow. MR. JARRETT-No. We could actually do that. The traffic flow on this situation I like slightly better. It could work the other way. We felt, aesthetically, this site made a lot more sense for the Town, for the frontage on Aviation Road. MR. BRYANT-Is this going to be a separate motel, or is it just going to be another building for the Econo Lodge? MR. JARRETT-A separate motel, separate name, separate motel, same ownership. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? MR. ABBATE-I don’t have a question, but I have a comment. Is it appropriate, Mr. Chairman? MR. STONE-Go ahead, try it. MR. ABBATE-Of course it impacts the statement. I wrote some fast notes here, and I mentioned earlier in the evening, on another application, that at times the written record really doesn’t accurately portray the intentions of the applicant, but I read the application, and I read with amazement that an applicant, after the introduction of the new Town of Queensbury Ordinances, would have the courage to even appear before this Board with a request for a minimum of nine Area Variances, particularly when it impacts a residential area. Also, you indicated that you mentioned hardship, but yet you indicate, and you admit that you have not even submitted details for a buffer zone plan. There doesn’t seem to be any consideration, other than for the applicant, the impact that it might have on the local residences. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/02) MR. STONE-Thank you. Any other comments? MR. URRICO-What are the current plans for the buffer zone, in terms of landscaping? MR. JARRETT-Well, the Town requirements are a minimum of five full grown trees per one hundred feet, along with shrubbery and annuals and perennials for color, and that, those minimum standards would be met. We’d provide a detailed landscaping plan to the Planning Board for their review. MR. URRICO-So your plan is just to provide the minimum? MR. JARRETT-No, actually not, but that’s the minimum that’s required. MR. URRICO-But your plan is just to provide the minimum at this point? MR. JARRETT-No. We’re planning to provide a detailed plan that probably exceeds the minimum, but I’m not a landscape architect. We plan to have one prepare a landscape plan. MR. STONE-Question. Have you had any contact, yet, with the Planning Board on this sketch plan or anything? MR. JARRETT-No. MR. STONE-You’ve had none. Do you expect that your design will emerge unscathed? MR. JARRETT-Design of? MR. STONE-What you’re asking to do MR. JARRETT-The site in general? MR. STONE-The site in general, what you’re asking for. I mean, do you think that plan will be totally accepted by the Planning Board, if we gave all the reliefs? MR. JARRETT-The flip answer is if I knew that, I would certainly. MR. STONE-I understand. MR. JARRETT-I think we have a reasonable plan for this site, considering the conditions and the configuration of this existing lot which is zoned commercial. It would be arrogant of me to think that it’s going to come back from the Planning Board unscathed. MR. STONE-Well, that’s one of the things that I’ve been thinking about when I looked at this thing, and I haven’t, obviously have not had any discussion with the Board members, but I’m inclined, in my own mind, to think that we would be best served, before we struggle with, I don’t know what the number was, eight, nine, ten, eleven. MR. ABBATE-I count a minimum of nine. MR. STONE-Okay. Before we struggle with that, that this be shown to the Planning Board, and that we get some idea from the Planning Board what they might be comfortable with, to see what variances we really have to grant. MR. BRYANT-I agree with you, Mr. Chairman. I think this is, it’s too complex. There’s too many issues, and I think it should go to the Planning Board before we even look at it. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HIMES-Well, I don’t know if we should discuss it a little bit. I mean, I’d have to say that the density, there’s so many different kinds of variances required, sitting here trying to assess the impact, but the variances are in our domain, and I don’t know whether, if any of us feel, as I do right at this point, we haven’t gone through the whole hearing here yet, but I am very disturbed by things, referring to what Chuck had mentioned, that it’s hard to assess, look at the magnitude of these things. I consider the motel up the street a little bit a rather large motel vacant across the street, and how busy this is going to be, without even hearing the impact on the neighbors yet, that I would have to hear, I think, something that would show the real hardship impact of. MR. STONE-Norm, I don’t disagree with what you’re saying. What I am proposing, what I am thinking of doing is opening the public hearing. These people have been here very patiently, let them state their case, see 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/02) where it goes after that, but then I’m inclined to ask that this be referred for guidance, like you did last week, to the Planning Board, so that we get some idea. I mean, if they come back and say, there isn’t a chance in the world that they’re going to grant this thing, then I don’t want to struggle granting all these variances. MR. ABBATE-And I think your position is a reasonable one, Mr. Chairman. MR. HIMES-I’d like to have another word when we get through with the public meeting, before we take that vote. MR. STONE-Sure. Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Before we go to the public hearing, too, I would like the public to also reflect a little bit, because I think it’s important for us, we’ve been here before with the previous motel application out on Greenway North on the green parcel out there, and I think rather than make it a big contentious issue, I think that the neighborhood, I think, too, should contemplate a little bit about what you’re getting here, or, you know, maybe what other proposals you might end up with. I think, you know, we’ve had, previously we’ve spoken about fast food places, gas stations, motels, and I think that, you know, you guys have to reflect a little bit upon what is the most benign of those. In other words, which one is going to affect you the least, because at some point, something gets built out there on that parcel, and I think that what they’ve attempted to do here, I mean, I’m not agreeing that this is maybe the greatest idea in the world. You guys, as the proponents, may have to decide, you know, in reflection to what the neighborhood says, as to whether you’re three stories or maybe downsized to two stories, that might be a better fit with the neighborhood. That’s something to consider also. At the same time, I think that, you know, when we look at where you’ve proposed to put it out front there, some of the reasons I know many of my Board members don’t feel that’s a good idea, but I think that you guys need to think a little bit about the new standards that we put into effect on Main Street, and we tried to put these things out front, put the parking behind, because it gives it less of that tarmac feel that we have, you know, in so many other parts of Town previously. So that’s something for everybody to consider, as you go through this tonight. MR. ABBATE-Well, you know, Jim, you opened the door, so let me ask the question. Has the applicant touched base with the local residents? MR. JARRETT-Yes, we have. We had one preliminary meeting with the neighbors, essentially abutting the site, and we told them that we would meet with them again if we get through this hurdle, and we get into design, we’ll meet with them again to show them what we’re actually proposing in detailed design, and rather than reflect on what they said, I’ll let them report on it. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, that’s fine. MR. STONE-All right. Well, I’m going to open the public hearing. The one thing I will remind the public is what I said at the beginning of the meeting. You may speak as often as you want, if you have something new, but if you’re going to get up and say exactly what somebody before you said, merely say you agree, so that we don’t hear the same thing over and over again. I don’t want to take away your right to make your stand, but just consider that if you would. So, I’ll open the public hearing, and I’ll ask for anybody who’s in favor of this application. In favor of? Okay. Opposed? Anybody opposed? State your name. Where you live, and if you can be as attentive as possible in terms of where your property is. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED KATHARINE KELLY MS. KELLY-I’m Katharine Kelly. I live on Carlton Drive. I’m six houses in from behind, from the Hess station. MR. STONE-Okay. MS. KELLY-We’re all one story buildings. To have a three story monstrosity built in our neighborhood, what will that do to our peace and quiet, to have a swimming pool, I’m sure will be open until nine o’clock or later. We have a lot of seniors, retired seniors, I’m a senior myself, for a number of years, we’ve been coming here to preserve our neighborhood. This is what we worked for. I’ve lived there since 1975. Even with the Hess station now, you cannot believe the noise. Four o’clock in the morning the big dumpsters get emptied, clunk, clunk, clunk. Would you like to be woken up at four o’clock in the morning? And a lot of other disturbances in the neighborhood, big tractor, huge tractor trailers come in opposite from Friendly’s from the light, if they want to make a delivery to the Hess station. They cannot come in through Aviation Road. They go through our, 12 wheelers are coming through our neighborhood. We also have some young people living back further with little children. There doesn’t seem to be a speed limit in the neighborhood either. Sixty miles an hour they run through there, and we’ve very concerned, we all try to keep our neighborhood nice 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/02) and quiet and clean. We plant flowers. We keep the lawns nice. I don’t think we should be burdened with more problems, especially a three story. We have so many motels in the area already. That beautiful entrance when you come in, where it says “Welcome to Queensbury”, we fought for that little piece of property before, years ago. It looks beautiful coming in to the Town of Queensbury. Let’s keep Queensbury a beautiful community, an protect the neighborhood, protect the citizens. Thank you. That’s all I have to say. MR. STONE-You made a comment about a pool. Is there a pool there now? MS. KELLY-No, but there was. MR. STONE-Is there plans to be a pool? MS. KELLY-There was mention about a pool. MR. JARRETT-Interior. MR. STONE-Interior pool. Okay. So that’s why it’s not reflected on this. Okay. I just wanted, thank you. MS. KELLY-But then I’m sure the windows would be open. Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. I just wanted to be sure that we, who’s next? BRAD PATCH MR. PATCH-My name’s Brad Patch. I live at 20 Greenway North. I’m like in the middle here. I’ve seen the plan and it’s not bad, compared to what could go there. I don’t like the three stories, the building, it’s just too high, and where they have to bring it up to grade level with the parking lot, it’s going to go right over those trees that are there now, and they’re pretty tall. They’ll take a two story, but a three story’s going to, you can’t plant a tree that big, and a fence that big would fall over. He says he’s not going to use the lot in the back for anything other than green space or have to use it for, just keep it green, you know, that’s a good idea, and I don’t mind the placement of the motel. It’s, aesthetically, it looks good, and they have a nice plan. It’s just three stories is quite a bit to ask to put in there. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Sir? CHRIS VANDERZEE MR. VANDERZEE-My name is Chris Vanderzee. I live at 7 Greenway North, which would be next to the parking lot, and I’ll do the abridged version of what I wrote down, page after page, because this is, we’re in a hurry. First of all, he says it’s three stories, but I believe it’s actually four stories on our side, because there is a full basement, and due to the grade level, the people on Greenway North will be looking at four stories, as the basement will be exposed. There are not rooms in the basement. It’s utility, but it’s still what we’re looking at. I do like, if you’re going to put something there, he’s done a good job, he’s moved it to the forward part where you have to put it there, I think, to make more of the neighbors happy, but I’d rather see nothing. First of all, my concern is financially. If we put a hotel that close, with a parking lot and everything that close to my house, I’ve been told that the value of my house could go down as much as $20,000. That’ll put me, I can’t sell my house for another seven years before I even break even on it, that way. I can’t take that much of a hit. Second of all, if we put this big parking lot there, we already have a problem, I know some of my neighbors do, I have a problem with drainage, and the springtime, we get all the water coming down. My basement and my garage tend to collect water more than my pool will hold water right now. We put this big parking lot in, and where he’s going to plow snow, where it’s all going to drain, is coming right into several of our yards, which is, and then it’s going to end up more in our house, more in our basement. The dumpster is probably going to end up about 30 feet away from my pool, and that’s something that I don’t want to look at when I’m going out to swim or my kids and having, you know, whatever follows and ends up near the dumpster, nothing about the noise of them emptying the dumpster at four o’clock in the morning. See, I’m moving right along here. Again, it’s noise and lights. It’s been this on every issue around the Greenway neighborhood, what they’re going to do. It seems that some of the less fortunate people end up at this hotel, the less affluent, the money, whatever, and you do get some late night parties. Some of them pretty good parties. I wanted to join them, a couple of them, but it’s just loud at night. Now we’re going to put another hotel. Granted it’s indoors, the hallways are indoors, as opposed to the other one that’s already there. It’s outside with balconies and they’re all on them partying all night long. It’s just more noise. The parking lot being above level, everyone who pulls in, all those lights are going to be shining in our house, and there’s no way that you can put a fence up tall enough to block all this because we’re going down grade and the way the whole thing is set. There’s a concern of human traffic that’s walking, the picture’s not there again, but that buffer zone, that empty lot, right now, it’s Grand Central Station for a lot of hotel employees and people walking through that corridor there, which was supposed to be, for Greenway North, was supposed to be a park originally, in the plan. Now there’s a ton of people walking through. In the summertime, you get a lot more people that cut through on the way to Wal-Mart and everything. You’ve got guests who find, I don’t know where they’re going, but there’s a ton of people going back and forth through 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/02) that green space, and it’s just going to add more people. I’ll just cut it there for now, because I’m sure we’ll be here again. Thank you. MR. STONE-Anybody else? AUDIENCE MEMBER-I have a letter. MR. STONE-We’ll read it in if you want, when we get through with any human activity here. Anybody else wishing to speak opposed? Okay. Do you want to read the correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-Sure. One piece of correspondence, from Mrs. Helen Rymkewicz, and Mrs. Helen Braden, who is Mrs. Rymkewicz’s daughter. “As a former resident of 5 Greenway North and whose mother continues to reside at this same address, we would like to voice some concerns regarding the proposed expansion by Mr. Sam Bhatti on Aviation Road. A new motel with an addition of 46 units would bring added noise, the need for additional parking spaces, and more traffic coming in and leaving from the proposed motel. Even though a 50 foot wide strip of vegetation is proposed it will take a number of years for this vegetation to mature and act as both a noise and visual buffer between the motel and the residents of Greenway North. Vehicles coming and leaving at various times of the day and night will add to the existing noise. Trash and snow removal are yet another concern. The size and location of the trash receptacle(s) may deter from the homeowners’ landscape. Having had some previous water damage to the house basement due to melting snow in the past, this may be a future concern for homeowners’ of the neighborhood. The piling up of snow along the vegetative buffer may cause some water run off early spring into the basements of residents near the motel. Due to these concerns we would like to strongly voice our opposition to the proposed expansion of Mr. Bhatti’s property and encourage the Zoning Board to deny his request for this expansion of his present business located on Aviation Road. Sincerely, Mrs. Helen Rymkewicz (resident of 5 Greenway North) Mrs. Helen Braden (daughter of Mrs. Rymkewicz)” MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody else wish to speak? Sure, come back up. I said if you have something new you can always speak. MR. VANDERZEE-One thing that should be noted is that 50 foot buffer, or whatever that is, between the hotel and coming east to Greenway North, that’s also a right of way to Niagara Mohawk. I don’t know how t that’s treated or whatever, if that can be incorporated into that, but that should be duly noted. MR. STONE-Anybody else? Well, I’m going to see what the Board wants to do, but I’m going to leave the public hearing open for the moment, just in case we do decide to refer this to the Planning Board. Well, let’s talk about what we want to do. Let’s just start. I’ll close the public hearing for this purpose, and I can always re-open it. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Let me start with Roy, or do you have anything you want to say? I’m sorry, I’m being discourteous. Anything you want to add on the basis of what you’ve heard? MR. JARRETT-No. I think the comments are, I understand the comments. The one comment regarding the four stories I think may be misleading to the Board, however I understand why the comment was made . There is a lower story, a basement that would be for mechanical rooms, that kind of thing. It’s not a full basement. We don’t plan on having anything exposed, however, I understand why the comment was made. I think the detailed designs that the Planning Board would see later will show that that’s not really an exposed story. MR. STONE-Okay. All right. Roy? You’ve got a couple of options, and I’d like to hear. MR. URRICO-Well, first of all, I do think this needs to be referred to the Planning Board first, for some guidance, but as long as I have the floor, I’d like to at least say that when I first saw this application, my immediate reaction was you’ve got to be kidding, and that hasn’t changed. I understand the variances. I think they’re intensive. I think their purpose is intensive. I understand the buffer zone is sort of off the table, but I think the point of a buffer zone is to separate the land uses, in fact, it says so in the zoning guide, to offer visual screening between uses that may not be compatible, and I think you have two very incompatible types of uses here, and the screening that’s being offered, you know, is minimal from what I can see, and may not even be adequate to screen the residents from this, and I think the encroachment on the residences in this area is a serious consideration of mine, and I think, you know, I think this has to be addressed, quite seriously, and as far as the other variances, I think the Planning Board has to take a closer look at it. MR. STONE-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-As far as myself, I think I’m not really concerned so much with where you’re placing this thing. I think it’s a good idea where you’re placing it. I think that some of your variances that you’re 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/02) requesting out there are diminimus. I don’t think that they’re really going to affect the neighborhood. The one thing I think you need to really clue in on is if you want to have a chance for this is, as Roy pointed out here, your vegetative buffer there, and if you do have any mature trees that are there now, and I know you do have some, those ought to be preserved at all costs, and I think that that’s key, as far as starting from Square One and taking everything out, you know, just planting a few five foot or six foot trees, because that’s not going to be really adequate for the neighbors to screen them. I think that you’re, you know, when it goes to Planning, I think the stormwater runoff is going to be very important, too, as was pointed out. I mean, those are major considerations that I think are your major stumbling blocks with the neighborhood, and that back parcel there, I think is not a problem, if that’s going to remain as green space, but I think that we would condition probably what we do, that that would remain as green space undisturbed, other than some runoff possibilities. MR. STONE-Do you want to comment about referring it to the Planning Board? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think this is a good one to refer. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it makes a lot of good sense to do that. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I think, like some of the other members, my initial reaction on this was, no way, too many variances, too much request. Looking at some of them now, I can agree that some of them are minimal. One thing that bothered me initially was the new proposed motel being so close to Aviation Road, the front end of the lot, but on the other hand, I think, as has been pointed out, if it’s got to be there, that’s probably the better location as far as the residents are concerned. I think there’s a lot of other issues like that that need to be thought and kicked back and forth. So for that reason I would be in favor of it going to the Planning Board, and then hopefully coming back maybe even before the Planning Board makes a final decision, but to get some other thoughts and things going on here, I think the point that was made earlier, too, for the residents to think about is, that’s a vacant parcel. It’s probably unrealistic to expect that something isn’t going to happen there. Something is going there. So the question is, what can we do to limit the damage as far as the residents are concerned. Certainly the more buffer we can get in there the better. It may not be realistic to expect that the owner is going to go to a two story motel versus a three, because I’m sure that the third story has got a number of rooms in it that factor into his financing, and if he goes to a two, then he’s probably going to spread the thing out further, but these are things to be talked about I think. I can sympathize. I live in a similar situation up in Twicwood, and I’ve got Route 9 behind me, and we’ve got the dumpsters that get dumped at five a.m. or four a.m. and the whole same thing that you’ve got, but I think it’s worth a lot more discussion and thinking about the options and ideas. I’d like to see what the Planning Board’s going to suggest about stormwater, because that also factors in with snow melt, and maybe there’s some solutions there that we can at least set some of these issues aside and say, take a look at it. So, I guess short answer to that long spiel is that I’d like to see it go to the Planning Board and then come back. MR. STONE-Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. Two things. One, if this were something that we were going to be voting on, I’d like to have some assistance from Staff in determining whether or not any of the variances for the existing motel, the work being done on it, are previous nonconforming situations, and whether they’re all new because of what little work is being done in that building, but I feel that given the scope and magnitude of these reliefs are something that I don’t know that I could bring myself to vote for, and I’d hate to see the applicant and the Planning Board, I presume this would take some resources to go through all this stuff and do that, you know, and come back and still be faced, perhaps, with so many variances, which I believe that I wouldn’t be able to support after all that work on your part and the Planning Board’s part. I would much rather see this application withdrawn, and you go back and try to figure out some ways to reduce these significantly, I mean significantly, and then see what happens, whether it go to the Planning Board or what have you, but I feel that we could bite the bullet right now and as this application stands, I would not be able to support it, and I could do that now. I don’t need to wait for the Planning Board. Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I made it sound a little harsh initially. Perhaps it was harsh, but let me clarify something. I do believe that the Town of Queensbury should encourage new businesses. I think it’s healthy for the community, and I don’t object to that. However, at the same time, the application, as it was proposed, at least as I read it, was clear to me that it was an encroachment on the local residences. As Norm indicated, I counted a minimum of nine variances, and we, the Town of Queensbury, have just enacted new Ordinances for the Town, and there have been some rather interesting comments made this evening that perhaps I didn’t think of, such as stormwater, drainage, runoff, then there was also dumpster placement, noise, odor, and I say to myself, how would I react if I owned a property, and I say this all the time, adjacent to the proposed application? Well, I would object. Now, what I’m a little concerned with is that there was an 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/02) indication that you really never submitted a detailed 50 foot buffer zone, and additionally, if you do implement, if this is ever approved, a buffer zone, it would take, I would imagine, years for that buffer zone to mature to a point where perhaps there might be, provide a little buffer for the local residences. Additionally, someone brings an issue this evening which I, didn’t dawn on me, is that this buffer zone is on the right of way for NiMo. Now, I don’t know what the implications are for that, but I think that might be a legal question, if it’s accurate, if this statement was accurate. Mr. Chairman, I also agree that this application should be passed on to the Planning Board for their infinite wisdom recommendations and what have you. Because at the present time, I wouldn’t even consider this application for approval. Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. Al? MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also agree that I would like to hear what the Planning Board has to say about, you know, the layout, the design, the traffic, the water flow and that sort of thing, but I have to agree with a couple of things that Mr. Himes said, relative to the magnitude of all the variances that you’re requesting, and I think that there’s going to be, and I’m sure that the Planning Department, in their infinite wisdom, are going to say, you need to redesign this a little bit, and I think that there should be a way where you could come up with a plan that doesn’t require this much relief, but to touch on something that Mr. McNulty said, which I agree with 100%, and this is basically to the neighbors, I mean, Aviation Road is a prime commercial piece of property, and it’s unrealistic to think that they’ll never build something on that lot. I mean, eventually, it’s his property. We can’t deny him the use of his property, and something’s going to be built there. Now it’s not up to us to decide, is a motel better than a Hess station, or a Hess station better than a McDonald’s. That’s for you to decide. It’s only for us to decide the amount of relief that they’re requesting in their application. So, something’s going to be built there, whether it’s a motel or whatever, and I think that you should come to grips with that, but, in any event, I think it should go to the Planning Board. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, I certainly agree, since I suggested it. This is just, what I’m hoping, and I will, tried to write a motion while you were talking. What I would hope to get from the Planning Board is not a full blown approval because you’re not there yet, and I wouldn’t want you to be there, but I would like them to look at the same kind of materials you provided us for our use in granting variances, and to get them to tell us what a final approved design might look like so that we know exactly what kind of variances are going to be requested, because there are so many here, that it’s, I think it’s been said by a couple of people, it’s almost staggering the number of specific pieces of relief. So I would hope that the Planning Board can just give us a feel for what it is they might approve in the future, without approving it, obviously. So, having said that, and listening to you, I’m going to make a motion. MOTION THAT AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-2002, AFTAB (SAM) BHATTI BE REFERRED TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR COMMENT ABOUT THE DESIGN THAT MIGHT EVENTUALLY BE APPROVED BY THEM SO THAT WE WILL BE BETTER EQUIPPED TO DETERMINE THE EXACT VARIANCES REQUIRED, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 543 Aviation Road. As part of this motion, we would like to get some clarification as to the status of the easterly right of way re: NiMo. Duly adopted this 26 day of June, 2002, by the following vote: th MR. ABBATE-Could we put in there, too, the question was raised as to the right of way. I think that might raise a serious issue with us, the NiMo right of way. MR. STONE-They would get that from Staff, though. MR. ABBATE-Yes, well, that’s what I meant, somewhere, somebody is going to have to address this issue, because if, in fact, it is a right of way, then they have no authority to build a buffer zone there. MR. FRANK-They don’t show the right of way on their plans, but I’m not sure that that right of way is on Mr. Bhatti’s property. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. STONE-Well, I recall that there was something in there, when we did discuss these lots. MR. ABBATE-Originally. MR. STONE-Originally. Anyway, as part of this motion, we would like to get some clarification as to the status of the easterly right of way re: NiMo. MR. ABBATE-Right. MR. STONE-Okay. Everybody happy with that? Do I have a second? 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/26/02) MR. ABBATE-Second. AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Himes ABSENT: Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-Do you understand what we’re going to do? We will try to get to the Planning Board, get this to the Planning Board and we’ll see what we can do, and I would say to the public, and I don’t know, I’d say to Mr. Strough, you wouldn’t have a public hearing for that? You would merely discuss that among yourselves, wouldn’t you? Okay. Well, then I would just tell the residents to check when this will be discussed at the Planning Board. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Will we be notified by letter or anything? MR. STONE-I guess they would. If it’s on the agenda, they would be notified. MR. FRANK-It will be re-advertised for the Planning Board. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you for being so patient. That’s it, gentlemen. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 40