Loading...
2002-10-16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 16, 2002 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY PAUL HAYES CHARLES ABBATE NORMAN HIMES ALLAN BRYANT ROY URRICO CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-2002 TYPE II ROLF AHLERS PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: JAMES MILLER, NORTHFIELD DESIGNS ZONE: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: 105 KNOX ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH EXISTING CAMP AND CONSTRUCT A 2,495 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SHORELINE AND SIDELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 48-96, SP 58-96, AV 81-1996, AV 60-1996, BP 96-657 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/14/02 TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-18 LOT SIZE: 0.50 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030 JAMES MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MC NULTY-Read the tabling motion? MR. STONE-Yes, read the tabling motion. MR. MC NULTY-The tabling motion, “MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-2002 ROLF AHLERS, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 105 Knox Road. For up to 62 days so that the applicant can respond with a modified application reflecting the comments made by the Board as contained in the transcript that will be available to the applicant for their use in drafting a revised plan. Duly adopted this 21 day of August, 2002, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE” MR. STONE-Sir, go. MR. MILLER-Good evening. I’m James Miller from Northfield Design Architects representing Rolf and Luisa Ahlers. Since the last time we met, we have streamlined our proposal somewhat. The structure currently meets the height requirements. We meet the BAR requirements, and the reason for the variance still remains the side yard setbacks to the existing foundation. MR. STONE-Okay. It just dawned on me that the Staff notes are somewhat different, and we probably should read those in. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. MR. STONE-Since the application has been markedly changed and that’s my goof. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 64-2002, Rolf Ahlers, Meeting Date: October 16, 2002 “Project Location: 105 Knox Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of an existing camp and construction of a 2,495 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. Relief Required: Applicant requests 1.67 feet of shoreline setback relief from the 50-foot minimum requirement, 13.4 and 11.02 feet of side 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) setback relief from the 20-foot minimum requirement for both sides, of the Schedule of Area and Bulk Requirements for the WR-1A Zone, § 179-4-030. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: The applicant would be permitted to construct the desired home in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives seem to be limited as the applicants propose to rebuild on the existing foundation. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 1.67 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum shoreline setback requirement may be interpreted as minimal relative to the Ordinance (3.3%), 13.4 and 11.02 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement may be interpreted as substantial relative to the Ordinance (67% and 55.1% respectively) considering the relief is being requested for both sides. 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 narrow pre-existing nonconforming parcel. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 64-2002: 08/21/02; tabled to October 16, 2002. AV 81-96: 09/18/96; relief for greater than 50% expansion for second-floor addition (812 sq. ft.). SP 58-96: 09/24/96; renovations and additions to existing residence. AV 60-96: 07/24/96: side setback relief for proposed garage. SP 48-96: 08/27/96; remove existing garage and construct a two-car garage. BP 96-657: 10/28/96; garage demolition BP 96-656: 10/22/96; two-car garage. BP 96-659: 10/22/96; septic alteration (withdrawn). Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The applicant’s new proposal requires substantially less relief from that proposed on August 21, 2002. Additionally, the applicant has addressed concerns by the Board and public regarding the septic system, stormwater management, and vegetative screening between the lake and the dwelling. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Just for openness, so that the public is aware, included in the Staff notes that are on the table if you want a copy, are the minutes of the meeting. We had an extensive, as Mr. Miller’s about to comment, we had an extensive meeting, a month ago. The Board expressed some serious reservations. So much so that Mr. Ahlers asked that it be tabled so he could bring back an amended application, which we’re hearing tonight. Go ahead. I’m sorry I broke into your conversation. MR. MILLER-No problem at all. I was speaking to the setbacks. The front, or lake side setback, we have moved the face of the proposed building two feet farther away from the lake. So we have lessened the requests for that setback by two feet. The side yard setbacks are to the existing foundation, and basically we’re not proposing to tear down anything that’s existing, in terms of the foundation work. We have met the criteria for the height requirement. We have met the BAR requirement, and the stormwater has been addressed on the drawings, and the, we had a professional engineer, Dennis MacElroy, come out, take a look at our septic situation. He’s made some recommendations of what should be done. Basically, to add on, I believe it’s five or six feet onto one of the laterals, but in general, the septic system was in good shape, and there’s a little bit of remedial work to be done, but we feel that certainly we can address that in construction. MR. STONE-Okay. So the closeness to the lake of the entire structure is not changing. It’s still, the deck is still going to be where it is, but that’s there, and it’s the new construction that you’ve moved back two feet. So rather than being 46 feet from the lake, you’re about 48? MR. MILLER-Correct. MR. STONE-Okay. Any questions, gentlemen? MR. ABBATE-Did I hear you indicate that you met the height requirements now, I was half listening, by 3.8, three feet eight inches? MR. MILLER-No, you didn’t hear that. We met the height requirements by six inches. MR. ABBATE-By six inches? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thanks. Thank you. MR. STONE-Less than 28. MR. MILLER-Less than 28. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. STONE-Well, first of all, I want to applaud the applicant and you, Mr. Miller, for listening to our concerns. I mean, I don’t know where we’re going tonight, but certainly you have made some marked changes. Hearing no further questions, I will open the public hearing. All those wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to this application? Opposed? Any correspondence? 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-We have two pieces of correspondence, both of which are, well, we have one from the Lake George Association, one from the Lake George Waterkeeper. From the Lake George Association, signed by Heather K. Shoudy Brechko, the Land Use Management Coordinator, she says, “I’m writing on behalf of the Lake George Association to provide additional input in relation to the above subject matter. I regret that I am unable to attend tonight’s meeting. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing camp and build a year-round home on the existing footprint. The LGA is pleased to see that the applicant has had research done and plans drawn up for the septic system by a Professional Engineer. This analysis has shown that the septic system should be adequate for a three-bedroom home if the recommendations by the applicant’s engineer are implemented. In addition, it is encouraging that the applicant has reduced the height of the building to be in compliance with the Zoning Code. Furthermore, the LGA is encouraged by the plans including measures for stormwater control for the roof runoff. The LGA just has a few questions and suggestions regarding this application: 1. From review of the project file there are two studies on the first floor in addition to the three bedrooms on the second floor. Many times studies are used for sleeping accommodations for guests. Therefore, the LGA suggests that the septic system be upgraded to handle two additional rooms. 2. Also, are earth toned colored materials being used for the house? Could additional tree and shrub plantings be made to further filter and screen the view of the structure from the lake? If the project is approved, please incorporate the points the LGA has raised and the recommendations that the applicant’s engineer has made in reference to the septic system as conditions of approval. Thank you for your continued consideration of our comments and questions in the interest of protecting the water quality and aesthetic resources of Lake George. Respectfully submitted, Heather K. Shoudy Brechko Land Use Management Coordinator” And the letter from the Lake George Waterkeeper, which is signed by Christopher Navitsky, he says, “I have reviewed the on-site wastewater system report submitted by Rolf Ahlers and prepared by Dennis MacElroy, PE for the above referenced application. I would like to compliment the effort by Mr. Ahlers and his consultant in preparing this report and the detail contained within. I feel this would be a fine standard for future applicants to follow for projects of this nature within the watershed. It will be efforts like these that will continue to protect and preserve Lake George and its surroundings for the future. My compliments to the Board and applicant for a fine job. Sincerely, Christopher Navitsky, PE Lake George Waterkeeper” MR. STONE-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-May I ask, is Mr. MacElroy available to answer a question? Would you come forward, sir? I mean, I see him here. I don’t want to put him on the clock if he’s not, or maybe I do. Question that the LGA raised about the studies. Did you do any kind of, take any consideration of other sleeping accommodations? DENNIS MAC ELROY MR. MAC ELROY-In terms of the capacity of the system? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MAC ELROY-No. I mean, off the top of my head, a five bedroom design would, first of all, would require a 1500 gallon septic tank. Currently 1,000 gallon tank exists, and the additional footage of laterals, it might require another 40 feet or so. I would have to double check that, and that would be, I suppose that’s possible if you added the fourth lateral, but not by the extension of the existing. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, for the record, New York State Building Code does not even consider studies bedroom space because they don’t have closets in them. MR. STONE-I understand, but we had an application last month where that subject came up, and it’s still on the table on another application. So I just want to be sure that we’re considering. MR. FRANK-It’s not even proposed to have any closets whatsoever. I know what application you’re referring to, but that has closet space. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. MR. MILLER-Can I speak? MR. STONE-Sure, absolutely. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) MR. MILLER-Mr. and Mrs. Ahlers are both academics. That’s why Mr. Ahlers isn’t here this evening. He’s teaching a class at Russell Sage College, and that’s what they do. They require a study. MR. STONE-Okay. No, I had no problem. I was, it was a question that was raised by the public, and I just wanted to at least ask the question and get it on the record. That’s all. Anything else? Any other questions? Anything else you want to comment about, Mr. Miller, to these two letters? MR. MILLER-No. I think that was really the outstanding issue was about the bedroom. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions, gentlemen? Well, let’s talk about it. Jaime, let’s start with you. I’m going to skip around this time. I know you guys hate it, but I’m going to do it anyway, just see if it works. MR. HAYES-Well, you gave me an easy one, I think. So, thanks. As I look at the application, as compared to the one that was originally presented, the Board expressed a number of concerns to you, and to Mr. Ahlers, and it appears to me that a great amount of effort has been made, successfully, to reduce the relief, just about in every direction. Certainly I’m not troubled by the basically two feet of shoreline setback relief, and really I’m not troubled by the side setback relief either, based on the fact that it’s an existing footprint and we’re not proposing to encroach any further to the neighbor’s property on either side than we already are. So, I don’t think we want to discourage applicants from updating their camps or doing what they want to to have nice camps, in the sense if they’re not doing any damage to the neighborhood or the greater community. So, on balance, I think that the relief has been substantially reduced. The height relief is off the table. There’s just a lot of things that have changed in my mind favorably for this application, and I’m in favor. MR. STONE-Mr. Abbate? MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. I agree with Jaime. I think that the applicant, in the spirit of cooperation, has really listened to the major concerns, not only from this Board, but from other organizations and agencies as well. The fact that they do now meet the 28 foot height requirement in itself is significant, in that, if I’m not mistaken, there was a three foot eight inch drop in height requirement, and there’s an indication that they have, indeed addressed concerns, not only by the Board, but by the public, regarding the septic system and the stormwater management, vegetative screening, etc., etc., and I think this is a good instance in which the applicant has, indeed, acted in good faith. Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Urrico? MR. URRICO-Yes. I agree with my fellow Board members. You’ve made some significant changes in less than two months, and I think we have a better project, and I’d be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Mr. Himes? MR. HIMES-I really have nothing to add. I agree with what my fellow Board members have said, and I would support the application. Thank you. MR. STONE-Mr. McNulty? MR. MC NULTY-I can basically say ditto. I think the changes that have been made have minimized the necessary relief. It’s pretty difficult to do anything about the side setbacks. A little over a foot relief on the shoreline doesn’t bother me. I think that’s very reasonable, and having the height in compliance is fine, and I’ll agree with other comments that have been made. I think it’s a good job that’s been done on examining the septic situation, and I think the recommendations in there are good, too, including the idea of doing some of the modification after the major construction’s been done, so there’s little chance of additional damage being done to the drainage field. So, all told, I’d be in favor. MR. STONE-Mr. Bryant? MR. BRYANT-Well, I don’t want to be a ditto head, but I’ve got to agree with what everybody else has said. The applicant has made an extraordinary effort to answer all of the Board’s questions and concerns, and we do appreciate that. I’d be in favor of the application. MR. STONE-And I certainly will be a ditto head. The only comment I will make, I will make it in praise of the applicant, and in praise of the process. I think this shows the process works. This Board, in its wisdom, had some serious concerns. The applicant recognized those concerns, and his agent also, recognized these concerns, and I think you’ve come up with a good project, and I’m certainly in favor of granting the variances requested. I need a motion to that. Before I go there, on this thing of the study, are the Ahlers willing to say that they would not regularly use these studies for anything but study? MR. MILLER-Yes. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) MR. STONE-Okay. So, if someone would give me a motion, Norm, go ahead, put that in there. MR. HIMES-Thank you. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-2002 ROLF AHLERS, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 105 Knox Road. The applicant proposes demolition of an existing camp and construction of a 2,490 square foot single family dwelling. The relief required, the applicant requests 1.67 feet of shoreline setback relief from the 50 foot minimum requirement, 13.4 and 11.02 feet of side setback relief from the 20 foot minimum requirement for both sides of the Schedule of Area and Bulk Requirements for the WR-1A zone, Section 179-4-030. The benefit to the applicant, of course, that he’d be able to go on with construction of the new residence in the desired location and configuration. Feasible alternatives are very limited, due to the configuration of the lot, which is a pre-existing nonconforming lot in the first place, and it would be very expensive to, just for example, to move the required distance away from the lake, in view of the fact that some years ago the applicant undertook some significant construction on the foundation, in anticipation of, that someday in the future remodeling or rebuilding the residence. Is the relief substantial to the Ordinance? Well, the 1.67 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline amounts to very little, 3.3%. The 13.4 and 11.02 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirements could be interpreted as substantial relative to the Ordinance, 67% and 55.1%. However, we recognize that the building that is there now falls into these dimensions. So there’s really nothing that is going to encroach further than what has been there for a very long time. Will there be any effects on the neighborhood or the community? Certainly, I don’t think that we see any that would be negative, and as a matter of fact, the effects would probably be positive, certainly to the neighborhood involved, and on the basis of this information, I move that we approve the application as submitted. That condition is imposed, that the studies will not be used as sleeping or bedroom quarters. Duly adopted this 16 day of October, 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-There you go. MR. MILLER-Thank you, gentlemen. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 85-2002 TYPE: N/A AFTAB (SAM) BHATTI PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS, PLLC PROPERTY LOCATION: 543 AVIATION ROAD ZONE: HC-INT APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 36-UNIT TWO-STORY MOTEL BUILDING AND SEEKS A DETERMINATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. THE DETERMINATION REQUESTED IS WHETHER OR NOT THE CURRENT PROPOSAL IS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROM THE PREVIOUSLY DENIED VARIANCE APPLICATION. CROSS REF. AV 55-2002 DENIED ON AUG. 21, 2002; AV 25-2002 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING TAX MAP NO. 302.05-1-51, 52.12, 53.13 LOT SIZE: 1 ACRE, 0.83 ACRE, 0.39 ACRES SECTION 179-4- 030 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STONE-And gentlemen, that’s all we’re talking about tonight. We’re not going to have next month’s meeting, if we are so inclined, tonight. It is our, we have to determine whether this application is significantly different from the application that we denied whenever we did that. MR. HAYES-Mr. Chairman, I’ve recused myself on this application previously, based on the fact that I had a rather bruising similar application in front of the Planning Board a year ago for this similar accommodation facility. So I’ll recuse myself again. MR. STONE-Okay. Joyce, whoever wants to come up of you to. It’s Joyce’s turn, I believe. Read the Staff notes, just for the basis of what we’re talking about. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 82-2002 (Note: A review of application to determine if a significant change exists from the previously denied application.), Aftab (Sam) Bhatti, Meeting Date: October 16, 2002 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) “Project Location: 543 Aviation Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 36-unit motel building. Relief Required: Applicant requests 44 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum front setback requirement, and 5% in addition to the required maximum allowable FAR of 30% of the requirements of the Schedule of Area and Bulk Requirements for 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 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?: 44 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum front setback requirement may be interpreted as substantial (88%). 5% in addition to the required maximum allowable FAR of 30% may be interpreted as minimal to moderate (16.7%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? Some of the difficulty may be attributed to the width of the 50-foot buffer between zones requirement, and the desire to hide some of the required parking behind the proposed building. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 55-2002: denied 08/21/02; construction of a 46-unit motel building and additions to the existing Econo Lodge Motel. AV 25-2002: withdrawn in April 2002 and resubmitted as AV 55-2002 on 06/26/02. 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: Minimal to moderate effects may be anticipated as a result of this action. Even though the structure could be built in a compliant location setback further in the parcel, the proposed location would allow for some of the additional required parking to be screened from the road by the building. In the opinion of Staff, the current application is significantly different from that previously denied. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted” MR. STONE-Okay. That’s basically the question that we to vote on, and just to remind the Board, that we have to be unanimous. That is all seven of us have to say it is significantly different, and basically what I’m going to do, unless you have something you want to say, I’m going to ask the Board, do they concur with Staff notes. If anybody doesn’t concur with Staff notes, speak up. MR. ABBATE-Question first. Will there be a public hearing on this this evening? MR. STONE-No. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. STONE-No, this is, there will be one next month. MR. ABBATE-Yes, okay. MR. STONE-This is only for us to say we think it’s significantly different, and that is in the minds of each and every one of us. MR. BRYANT-I just have a question for the applicant. MR. STONE-Go ahead. Sure. MR. BRYANT-One of the setbacks on the existing motel, the front setback, you’re not doing anything to the existing motel, other than the carport? MR. JARRETT-That’s correct. MR. BRYANT-Does that still require the front setback, at that point? MR. JARRETT-I’m not sure I understand the question. MR. FRANK-The previous application, which was denied, they were proposing some construction on the existing structure. That’s no longer this current application. So they don’t need any relief for the current structure. MR. BRYANT-So, in other words, there’s no relief required for the carport with this thing? MR. FRANK-That carport is planned to be removed. MR. JARRETT-It’s going to be removed only. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. FRANK-So there’s nothing else that’s going to be done to the existing structure. MR. JARRETT-We feel that removing that carport will improve traffic flow on the property. So it’s just being removed. MR. BRYANT-Okay, and refresh my memory. There was an addition on the original application to the existing structure? MR. JARRETT-Correct. MR. BRYANT-And now that’s not going to occur? MR. JARRETT-There was a proposal to construct handicap accessible bathrooms in the existing motel, and that’s no longer on the table. That’s not going to be part of this. There’s not going to be any modifications to the existing motel. MR. BRYANT-So there’s no modification to the existing. MR. ABBATE-I have a question, too. MR. STONE-Go ahead, Chuck. MR. ABBATE-Significant change. I know the last time we met, you indicated that you would provide some type of a buffer zone between your property and the homeowner’s property. Has there been a significant change in that? MR. JARRETT-Dimensionally, no. Exactly the same buffer is being proposed. The 50 foot minimum to the east, to the residences, and the 50 foot plus that entire second parcel to the north. MR. STONE-But that’s, again, I mean, what we’re doing is this application, in its entirety, significantly different from the other one in its entirety. MR. ABBATE-Right. MR. STONE-We may still have four. That’s why we’re going to have a meeting next month, if we agree that this should be heard. I don’t want to put you under pressure. MR. ABBATE-No, and I agree with you, you’re right. Significantly different. MR. STONE-Not in all aspects. MR. ABBATE-Not in all aspects, yes. MR. JARRETT-Mr. Chairman, may I clarify? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. JARRETT-The changes that we have made to the application? Is that clear? MR. STONE-Sure. MR. JARRETT-In hearing the Board comments and the concerns of the Board, and hearing the concerns of the neighbors, what the owner, Sam Bhatti, who is with me tonight, has decided to do is reduce the scope of the proposed motel from 48 rooms to 36. In doing so, he reduces the height considerably from three floors to two floors. We can show you a profile of that change. I think there’s one in your application. Of necessity, the footprint of the motel increases somewhat. It increases to the north, to the rear. Parking is decreased. The requirements for parking are decreased. The two lots would be combined. So there would be one motel, not two separate franchises, and in doing so, the setbacks, the side yard setbacks on the two parcels are eliminated. So we go from eight variance requests to two variance requests, many of them albeit it minor. It still reduces it from eight to two. The only variances we need now are Floor Area Ratio and front setback, which we feel is reasonable, because it maintains a consistent building line along Aviation Road. I think that summarizes what we have done. MR. STONE-Any other questions or comments? All right. Let’s just talk about it. I remind you that we have to be unanimous in this thing. Let me start with Chuck McNulty. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) MR. MC NULTY-Okay. My general feeling is it is sufficiently significantly different to hear the proposal. I think the reduction in the number of rooms, certainly cutting the size by one third, taking a floor off the top of the proposed building is significant, and eliminating the additions and modifications to the existing building that required variances. I think they’ve made a number of changes, and it warrants a rehearing. MR. STONE-Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes. I agree. I believe this application is significantly different. Thank you. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Well, you know, standard of fairness and what have you, although I say this with a great deal of hesitation, it would appear to me that there has been significant changes with reluctance. MR. STONE-No, that’s perfectly fine. We’ll all get a chance to talk about it next month, if we agree. Allan? MR. BRYANT-I think it was a significant change. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I also did think it was a significant change. MR. STONE-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I agree. It’s significant. MR. STONE-And so do I. I think the applicant has made a good faith effort to reduce the project such that it is worthy of our consideration again, and we will see it on the agenda next month. MOTION THAT WE AGREE THAT A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE HAS BEEN MADE IN THIS APPLICATION, AREA VARIANCE NO. 85-2002 AFTAB (SAM) BHATTI, COMPARED TO THE ONE THAT WAS DENIED IN JUNE, SPECIFICALLY AREA VARIANCE 55-2002, AND THAT, AGAIN, AREA VARIANCE NO. 85-2002 IS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes: Duly adopted this 16 day of October, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE MR. STONE-See you next month. MR. JARRETT-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 79-2002 TYPE II RON BRIGGS PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: N/A PROPERTY LOCATION: 49 BARDIN DRIVE ZONE: WR-1A APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING HOUSE AND REBUILD A 2,396 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF THE WR-1A ZONE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 10/9/02 TAX MAP NO. 316.13-1-15 LOT SIZE: 0.20 ACRES SECTION 179-4-030 RON BRIGGS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 79-2002, Ron Briggs, Meeting Date: October 16, 2002 “Project Location: 49 Bardin Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of an existing 1,042 sq. ft. single-family dwelling and construction of a new 1,915 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. Relief Required: Applicant requests 7 and 1.6 feet of side setback relief for both sides from the 12-foot minimum side setback requirement of the Schedule of Area and Bulk Requirements for the WR-1A Zone, § 179-4-030. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: The applicant would be permitted to construct the desired home in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include constructing the new dwelling centered between the side property lines, which would require minimal relief from the 12-foot requirement. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 7 feet and 1.6 feet of relief from the 12-foot side setback requirement may be interpreted as moderate relative to the ordinance, considering relief is being requested for both sides (58.3 and 13.3%). 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 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) may be attributed to the desire by the applicant to align the proposed dwelling with the neighboring dwellings. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None. Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. If the applicant centered the proposed dwelling between the side property lines, 0.5 feet of relief from the 12-foot requirement would be needed for both sides (minimal relief). However, the applicant wishes to align the new dwelling with the neighboring dwellings, which would maximize the separation distance between them. Also, the new structure would have more compliant side setbacks than the existing structure. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form October 9, 2002 Project Name: Briggs, Ron Owner: Ron Briggs ID Number: QBY-02-AV-79 County Project#: Oct02-28 Current Zoning: Residential Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to demolish an existing house and rebuild a 2,396 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. Applicant seeks relief from the minimum side yard setback requirements of the WR-1A zone. Site Location: 49 Bardin Drive Tax Map Number(s): 316.13-1-15 Staff Notes: The applicant requests a variance for the construction of a 1,196 sq. ft. that does not meet the setback requirements. The applicant proposes to demolish an existing home that did not meet the required setbacks either on the 50 foot wide parcel. The applicant has indicated the house would be aligned with the other home on Bardin Drive. The setback requirement is 20 ft. where the applicant proposes 5 ft. on the north side and 10.4 on the south side. Staff does not identify an impact on County resources. Staff recommends the no county impact with the stipulation that erosion and stormwater control methods be implemented during and after construction. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact with Stipulation The Board recommends No County Impact with the Stipulation that erosion and stormwater control methods be implemented during and after construction.” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, 10/10/02. MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. and Mrs. Briggs, I assume? MR. BRIGGS-Good evening. Yes. I’m Ron Briggs. This is my wife, Sally. We reside at 49 Bardin Drive, and the proposal, as has been read, is to tear that structure down. It’s a 34 year old structure, and renew it with a newly built house. Going back to April of this year, I met with Mr. Hatin and also Mr. Brown, and asked them what steps must be taken for me to demolish the structure and build a new house. He’s indicated, do a survey. Get a survey done showing the existing and the proposed structure, which I’ve done, and also I believe I had a Mr. Hatin come to my house and he inspected the septic field. He indicated at that time it would have to be upgraded. So I met with Jarrett and Martin. I had them come over, inspect the lot, and inspect the septic system, and their recommended improvement of the septic system is on the survey, by which the laterals are going to be, I think it’s three laterals, 12 and a half feet wide, 43 and three quarters foot lot, and that will take care of a three bedroom structure. So we have done that, and that’s about it. If you have any questions, I’d be more than happy to answer them and do what I can to move this process forward. MR. STONE-Go ahead. MR. BRYANT-I have a question of Staff. They’re building a 26 foot house. The property is 50 feet wide, and you say they’re still going to require six inches on each side if they line it up with the property. Is that what you’re saying? How do you come to that? MR. FRANK-If they were to center it on the parcel. MR. BRYANT-Center it. MR. STONE-And clock it. MR. FRANK-Make the sides of the building parallel to the side property lines, if they were to that. MR. BRYANT-Well, how does that add up? Because 26 and 12 and 12 is 50. I mean, I don’t even have my calculator out. I just want to make sure, because the question I’m really asking is, even the design of your house, if you just built it according to your property lines, you wouldn’t need a variance. MR. BRIGGS-That’s correct. The only reason I have done that is the property lines are on a slight angle. MR. BRYANT-Right. I realize that. I know you want to bring it in line with the other two houses. MR. BRIGGS-Correct. MR. BRYANT-But their properties are considerably wider than yours. MR. BRIGGS-Yes. MR. BRYANT-Is that correct? MR. BRIGGS-That’s correct. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) MR. BRYANT-So they have that flexibility to twist the building around to whatever configuration. I don’t understand why it would be, you’d lose the aesthetic of just lining your building up with the property line. MR. BRIGGS-Well, my only thought was that they would all be perpendicular to the street. Granted, if you put it parallel to the side lines, there would be no need for a side yard variance, and I was just trying to line them up with the existing houses on my left and right hand side. MR. FRANK-Actually, to make things crystal clear, the requirements for the WR-1A zone are anything less than 50 feet wide, a lot, the requirement is 12 feet. His lot is not 50 feet wide. He would need more relief if it was. It’s a greater requirement. MR. BRIGGS-The lot is 50 foot wide. MR. FRANK-The shoreline is 50 feet. If you actually measure, drop a scale on your plan, you’ll see that, I mean, if you want to go that. MR. STONE-Well, Bardin Drive says 50, on the survey, 50.00. MR. FRANK-That’s correct, and at the shore, but that’s not a rectangle. If you look at the parcel, the survey, if you were to draw a right angle to that, that would be the hypotenuse of the triangle. So obviously it’s going to be a greater distance than a perpendicular line drawn anywhere along the two parallel side property lines. That’s why he only needs, that’s why the requirement is only 12 feet. The requirement would be more if you’re claiming your lot is 50 feet or greater in width. MR. BRIGGS-Okay. I follow you. MR. STONE-I understand, but I would argue with Staff that the property line appears to be, from this survey, parallel to the right of way, and that line says 50 feet. MR. FRANK-I would disagree. I’m talking perpendicular. MR. STONE-Well, I know, but the property line on the road is 50. MR. FRANK-Drop a scale on the plans, you’ll see what I’m saying. MR. HAYES-So it’s a parallelogram. MR. MC NULTY-What he’s saying is. MR. STONE-I know what he’s saying. He’s saying this. MR. MC NULTY-The property is a trapezoid. It’s not a rectangle. MR. BRYANT-Okay. My only question is this. MR. FRANK-Well, you also made a point, if you add 12 and 12 together, it’s 24 and 26 makes 50. So I don’t know, what I stated in my notes is correct. MR. BRYANT-Well, 50, you’re saying, I want to see, now I understand what you’re saying. Okay. So, it’s a lot more gullible, the six inches on each side, than the seven feet and the, you know what I’m saying? I don’t understand why you don’t try to build it a little bit more compliant. MR. BRIGGS-That’s a possibility too, but this was my proposal, and I would like to get your input on it. Because I’m certainly flexible. MR. ABBATE-Don’t be too flexible on this. Rectangle, square, triangle, to me, what Mr. and Mrs. Briggs are proposing makes a commonsense approach. It’s what a reasonable person would want to do. They would want their home, the home they expect to live in, to align with and to be a part of the community. I think their application is a commonsense approach, whether it’s a rectangle, square, triangle or any other way you want to look at it, quite frankly. MR. BRIGGS-Thank you. MR. STONE-I do have a question for Staff, in terms of the survey. Because one of the arguments that Mr. Briggs is making is that, by putting the house where it is, he’s maximizing the distance to the southerly neighbor, which I kind of agree with, but I kind of, can a surveyor put those in, even though it’s not on the property that he’s being paid to survey? 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) MR. HAYES-He might have to get permission to go on the property. MR. STONE-Yes. It would be helpful to me, in a situation like this, to know exactly where that house, to the south and to the north, is, even though it’s not the property in question. MR. FRANK-Well, I’m sure that the surveyor could, but it would cost the applicant more money to do so. MR. STONE-I understand. I’d even go for a sketch, but okay. Any other questions? Okay. Hearing none, I don’t have any, let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed? Any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-One piece of correspondence. This letter is from Denise and Bill McLaughlin at 45 Bardin Drive, and they say, “We strongly support the application of Ron and Sally Briggs for an area variance. As adjoining neighbors for over 18 years, they have been excellent neighbors who are respectful of the environment and the neighborhood. Allowing them to build a year round home on their existing lot will improve the tax base in the neighborhood and will undoubtedly enhance the value of other properties in the neighborhood. We sincerely hope you will consider their application favorably. Sincerely, Denise and Bill McLaughlin 45 Bardin Drive Queensbury, New York” MR. STONE-That’s it? MR. MC NULTY-That’s it. MR. STONE-Let me close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions? If not, let’s talk about it. Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m in agreement with my esteemed colleague, Mr. Abbate. I think this is a commonsense approach to this property. Taking a look at the test, I see a benefit to the applicant. I think he does have a feasible alternative. However, I agree with him. I think it would be, with Bardin Drive it makes a lot of sense, and with the properties alongside of it makes a lot of sense. Whether this relief is substantial to the Ordinance, I would say it’s probably a moderate relief. It is somewhat of an improvement of what was there prior to this, and as far as the effects on the neighborhood or community, I don’t see any effects, other than the positive effect, and one of his neighbors has attested to that with a letter, and whether this difficulty is self-created, I don’t think so. I think the property itself has helped create the problem, and I think the both of you have done a great job in trying to make this work. I think the weight of the test comes down in favor of them. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I essentially agree. In these Area Variances, our test is essentially the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the neighborhood, and the benefit to the applicant is that they would be allowed to align the house as they desire and also in accordance with taste and style in the neighborhood, and that’s certainly an admirable thing to try and do, and I don’t see any detriment to the neighborhood in this particular case. I think that the new house is probably going to be a compliment to, in a sense as far as an asset, and lining this up to be in compliance with the other houses might even be a positive for the neighborhood. So, I see the benefit to the applicant in this particular case, and I can’t see any real detriment to the neighborhood, the greater neighborhood in this case. So I would be in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Mr. McNulty? MR. MC NULTY-They didn’t leave me much to say. I agree. It makes sense what the proposal is. It’s going to look better if it’s built the way it’s proposed, and I don’t see any real negative impact resulting. So I’d definitely be in favor. MR. STONE-Okay. Allan? MR. BRYANT-Well, I understand the benefit to the applicant and I understand that it’s not really going to affect the neighborhood, but I think that there really is a feasible alternative, and that alternative, if you look at the drawing of the new house, and even the placement of the old house, and compare it to the Bardin Drive line, it’s still cocked. If that house were parallel to the Bardin Drive line, it would be more compliant than the application. So, with that in mind, I have to disagree with my esteemed Board members, colleagues, simply because there is a feasible alternative. MR. STONE-Mr. Abbate? 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) MR. ABBATE-I have a question, first, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-Go ahead. MR. ABBATE-Do I have to be influenced by any kind of derogatory notes I receive from my fellow Board members? He wants his cigar back. No? If none, let me say that I think it’s a commonsense approach. I think it’s a balancing act which would provide positive effects on the neighborhood, and this is evident by one of the neighbors who have endorsed your request, and, quite frankly, I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Before we call on Mr. Himes, I feel that I should explain that remark. The two gentlemen who sit there are cigar aficionados. We don’t allow them to smoke them here, but they talk about them all the time, and what goes on them about cigar smoking I won’t go into, but Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I certainly can appreciate the sentiments of most of the members of the Board. However, I’m looking at it from the standpoint that this thing can be constructed, possibly with no variance required, or less variance, and I feel this way, that the Code is there for some reasons. Now, to me to disregard the Code should be based upon some substantive, very substantive inconvenience on your part or deprivation of use because of some unique situation, and I don’t see that here. So I would not be in favor of the application. Thank you. MR. STONE-Well, I agree with the majority of the Board. I think, yes, there’s a feasible alternative, but I do think the benefit to the applicant outweighs that. I think the benefit to the neighborhood, because this is a neighborhood that is unknown to most of the people in the Town of Queensbury. They have no idea what’s down there along the river, and some of the houses along the river need work, and I think this will help the neighborhood by putting a new house in there and upgrading, helping to upgrade the neighborhood, and I think on the balancing test, yes, there is a feasible alternative, but the relief is minimal. I think the only concern that I had when I looked at the property was, what do the neighbors think, and we did hear from one. We didn’t hear it from the man on the north, but we did hear it from the man on the south, and he’s all in favor of it. So that certainly makes me feel that the neighborhood, the neighbors are in favor of this thing, at least one of them, and I am willing to grant this relief. So, having said that, I need a motion to approve. Chuck, are you ready over here? MR. MC NULTY-I can do it. MR. STONE-Good. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 79-2002 RON BRIGGS, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 49 Bardin Drive. The applicant is proposing the demolition of an existing 1,042 square foot single family dwelling and construction of a new 1,915 square foot single family dwelling. Specifically, the applicant is requesting 7 feet and 1.6 feet of side setback relief for both sides from the 12 foot minimum side setback requirement of the Schedule of Area and Bulk Requirements for the WR-1A zone, Section 179-4-030. In proposing approval of this request, we’re considering the benefit to the applicant, which is the benefit, the applicant would be permitted to construct the desired home in the location that he prefers. There are feasible alternatives, which may include constructing the new dwelling centered between the property lines, which would require minimum relief from the setbacks on the sides, but which would also mean that the house was, in effect, crooked or cocked in relation to the other homes on Bardin Drive. Considering whether the relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance, 7 feet and 1.6 feet of relief from the 12 foot side setback requirement probably could be considered as moderate to the Ordinance, considering the relief is requested on both sides. Considering the effects on the neighborhood or community, there certainly is going to be minimal effects on the neighborhood as far as detrimental effects, and actually there may be, compared to compliant or near compliant construction, there’s probably moderate beneficial effects in granting this variance. Is the difficulty self-created? The difficulty can be attributed partly to the applicant desiring to align the proposed dwelling with neighborhood dwellings. So in that sense I guess it’s somewhat self-created, but it’s also caused by the shape and configuration of the lot, and the locations of the other homes on the road. Considering the pluses and the minuses, I think that in this case the benefit to the applicant and the benefit to the neighborhood clearly indicates that this application should be approved. Duly adopted this 16 day of October, 2002, by the following vote: th MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, should we put in there the stipulation about stormwater control and what have you? MR. STONE-No, that’s the Planning Board. MR. ABBATE-Okay. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) MR. STONE-It’s not our call to do, I don’t think so, in this particular case. Do you think so, Bruce? MR. FRANK-As part of his building permit, he’s going to require a stormwater management plan. MR. STONE-Right. Yes. MR. BRIGGS-Excuse me. What I did today, I went up to the County and I’m getting a copy of a regulation, if they have a regulation or guidelines, so we can practice the control of erosion. MR. STONE-You definitely need barriers for the river and all that sort of stuff. MR. BRIGGS-We’ll put up a screen. MR. STONE-All right. Do I hear a second? MR. ABBATE-Second. AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-There you go. MR. BRIGGS-Okay. Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 78-2002 TYPE II KAREN A. CARPENTER PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: DAN SPRAGUE PROPERTY LOCATION: 16 FAWN LAWN, SHERMAN PINES SUBD. ZONE: SR-20 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 14 FT BY 28 FT. IONGROUND SWIMMING POOL AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. BP 99-193 (SFD) TAX MAP NO. 301.18-1-65 LOT SIZE: 0.26 ACRES SECTION 179-5-020 DAN SPRAGUE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; KAREN CARPENTER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 78-2002, Karen A. Carpenter, Meeting Date: October 16, 2002 “Project Location: 16 Fawn Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 14-foot by 28-foot inground swimming pool. Relief Required: Applicant requests 10 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum rear setback requirement of the Accessory Structures regulations; § 179-5-020 C. 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 pool in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives seem to be limited due to the placement of the house on the parcel. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 10 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum requirement may be interpreted as moderate relative to the Ordinance (50%). 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 on the parcel. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 99-193: issued 05/05/99, 1,700 sq. ft. single family dwelling with two-car attached garage. Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipate as a result of this action. The pool would not be out of character with the neighborhood being other pools exist in Sherman Pines. Additionally, the back yard faces a forever-wild common area with a dense stand of mature evergreens. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-County? MR. MC NULTY-No County. MR. STONE-Go. Introduce yourself. MS. CARPENTER-I’m Karen Carpenter. I’m the owner of the property at 16 Fawn Lane, and I would like to put in a pool, and I need a setback variance. MR. STONE-The gentleman next to you? MS. CARPENTER-Is Dan Sprague from Sprague Pools. He’s the pool contractor. MR. STONE-Okay. He will speak if necessary. Okay. Is the area behind, you talk about forever wild. Is that controlled? 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) MS. CARPENTER-It’s a common ground owned by Sherman Pines, Association. MR. STONE-It’s common ground controlled by the homeowners? MS. CARPENTER-Yes. MR. STONE-And have they commented on this pool, that you know of? MS. CARPENTER-No, sir, they have not. I have no knowledge of that. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? MR. HIMES-Yes, one here. MR. STONE-Go ahead. MR. HIMES-How far is the pool from the dwelling? MS. CARPENTER-Ten feet. MR. HIMES-Ten feet from the house? MS. CARPENTER-Yes. MR. HIMES-Is that what’s required, Bruce? MR. FRANK-There’s no minimal separation distance for accessory structures to the house, in the new Zoning Ordinance. In the previous Zoning Ordinance, there was. No longer. MR. HIMES-I thought so. I knew there was in the old one. So the pool actually could be brought closer to the house. MS. CARPENTER-Yes, except for the snow would fall off the roof and into the pool. It would cause damage to the pool, structure. MR. HIMES-Thank you. MR. SPRAGUE-There’s also a liability of, we have problems with kids jumping from the roof into the pool. MR. STONE-Kids would do that? MS. CARPENTER-Not my children. MR. ABBATE-Jumping from the roof of a house? MR. HAYES-Sure. MR. STONE-Absolutely. You give them a chance, they definitely. MR. ABBATE-I’ve been sheltered too long, I guess. MR. BRYANT-The notes in the Staff notes call on this forever wild space behind, but now Staff just had a tax map up there, and basically, that forever wild, there’s only like half of your property. MR. FRANK-The Association owns this parcel here also. MR. MC NULTY-Yes. That parcel there is Association and the two long strips are. I checked that this afternoon. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-So all three are Association. MR. SPRAGUE-One of the problems up there is the septics are on community septics, and that’s where everything is in the back. That’s why the lots are so small. Every pool that’s gone in up there, you’ve had to apply for a variance. MR. STONE-Right. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) MR. SPRAGUE-And the area she’s talking about can never be cleaned out, because the septic systems and everything are in that area. MR. STONE-So the community septic is in that elongated three parcels? MR. SPRAGUE-Correct, and that’s why the pool can’t be moved either, because you cannot move the septic, because the septic is tied in to two or three other houses. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but according to the sketch, it shows the septic on your. MR. SPRAGUE-It shows the septic tank. MS. CARPENTER-Tank. MR. FRANK-It shows the leachfield to the south of the parcel. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. STONE-So, in other words, the distribution goes onto the common ground? MR. SPRAGUE-Correct. MR. STONE-All right. Any other questions? MR. URRICO-Was consideration given to any other locations and a smaller pool? MR. SPRAGUE-Yes, and the septic system is what’s stopped that from happening, and also she has picked the smallest pool there is. I mean, we could custom build something, but your standard pools are 16 x 32. We’ve opted to 14 by 28, which is one of the smallest pools you can get. MR. STONE-Any other questions before I open the public hearing? All right. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BRUCE LIPINSKI MR. LIPINSKI-Good evening. My name is Bruce Lipinski. I live at 3 Fawn Lane, which is right up the street from Ms. Carpenter, and I can actually see her house from my house, and I just wanted to state for the record that I’m in favor of the project. There’s a number of pools in the neighborhood, and I agree with all the comments that there is a community septic system in the middle of the wild, forever wild area. So there’s a very limited amount of room where she can put this pool, and I just wanted to let the Board know I’m in favor of it. MR. STONE-Thank you. MS. CARPENTER-That’s because his kids are going to get to use my pool now. 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? If not, let’s talk about it. Norman, we’ll start with you. MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. Basically I’m in favor of the application. Although 10 feet seems like a lot, there is the barrier there, and I guess the barrier might serve some purpose, other than, you know, the open, the community joint properties there, some purpose besides septic. So this would be it. I think the setback then is not any offense to any other neighbor in back. So, in short, I’d be in favor of the application. Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck Abbate? 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I basically agree. I think it’s a reasonable approach, and if you take a look at the benefit to the applicant versus perhaps any negative impacts to the immediate community, I don’t really see any negative impacts, and quite frankly I think it’s a reasonable request, and I would support it. MR. STONE-Al? MR. BRYANT-I’m also in favor of the application. I don’t see, there’s no real place that you can put a pool on the lot, and that is about the smallest reasonable pool that you could purchase. So I’d be in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Next, Mr. McNulty. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. This is almost a standard problem for this neighborhood. We’ve granted several other approvals for pools, and I’ll agree, the proposed location is the logical location. There’s going to be no real impact on neighbors because of the forever wild common owned area behind the house. I think it’s a reasonable proposal, and I’d be in favor. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in agreement. I think it’s a common problem for this area, and points to the overall problem of approving subdivisions that have substandard lots on occasion. That this lends itself to these types of variances down the road, but I think this application is straightforward, and, I’m in favor of it. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree. Essentially, we’ve approved similar requests in similar circumstances, in this neighborhood and similar neighborhoods. Mr. Sprague put a pool in our yard when I was 15 years old, and that was very popular with the neighborhood. So this is a family neighborhood, and pools, I think, are going to be found in family neighborhoods. So I think that aren’t a lot of feasible alternatives, based on the location of the septic system. I think this is probably placed where it should be. So I’m in favor. MR. STONE-Well, I agree. I had some notes when I looked at them, and I said, what was I thinking when I wrote my notes. We recently granted a variance without the forever wild, a very similar distance, and this application obviously benefits from the forever wild nature of the property to which you’re too close, and certainly, if that’s, we’re talking really a technical thing here when we say it should be 20 feet. You want to make it 10 because of the nature of your lot, where your house is located, and I think, as the Board has said, we’ve granted a number of these in this kind of neighborhood, and while I don’t regret forcing you to come before this Board, because I do believe that we have to look at each application separately, I think the fact that this one benefits, as I said, from the forever wild nature, makes it an easy call. So, having said that, I would like a motion to approve. MR. ABBATE-All right. I’ll take it, Mr. Chairman. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 78-2002 KAREN A. CARPENTER, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: 16 Fawn Lane, Sherman Pines Subd. Miss Carpenter proposes construction of a 14 by 28 foot in-ground swimming pool. The relief required, the applicant requests 10 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum rear setback requirement of the Accessory Structures Regulation Section 179-5-020C. Benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to install the desired pool in the preferred location. Feasible alternatives, the feasible alternatives seem to be limited due to the placement of the house on the parcel. Is this relief substantial relief to the Ordinance? 10 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum requirement may be interpreted as moderate relative to the Ordinance, which is 50%. However, in view of the lot structure and in view of the structure of the home in relationship to the boundary lines, I think it’s a reasonable request. Effects on the neighborhood or community? Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated. As a matter of fact, we had one individual this evening who happened to be a neighbor who approves of the requirements, and I did not hear any negative comments, publicly or any letters written to the contrary opposing the application. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be attributed to the placement of the house on the parcel, and in view of this, Mr. Chairman and Board members, I move that we approve Area Variance No. 78-2002. Duly adopted this 16 day of October, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE MR. STONE-There you go. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) MS. CARPENTER-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 80-2002 TYPE II MICHAEL AND PAUL HAYES PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: N/A PROPERTY LOCATION: COUNTRY CLUB ROAD ZONE: SFR-1A APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,772 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE SFR-1A ZONE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 10/9/02 TAX MAP NO. 296.15-1-8 LOT SIZE: 0.50 ACRES SECTION 179-4-030 BRUCE LIPINSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MICHAEL HAYES, PRESENT MR. HAYES-Mr. Chairman, I’d like to recuse myself from consideration of this application. MR. STONE-Okay. Joyce. Before we start, I understand from a member of this Board that one of the two applicants is to be congratulated on the birth of a child last night. MR. M. HAYES-Thank you. MR. STONE-And you’re awake still? MR. M. HAYES-Yes. Barely, but hanging in there. MR. STONE-Congratulations. MR. M. HAYES-Thank you very much. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 80-2002, Michael and Paul Hayes, Meeting Date: October 16, 2002 “Project Location: Country Club Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,731 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. Relief Required: Applicant requests 10 and 9 feet of relief for both sides from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement of the Schedule of Area and Bulk Requirements for the SFR-1A Zone, § 179-4-030. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired structure in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include constructing a longer and narrower dwelling requiring less relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 10 and 9 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement may be interpreted as substantial relative to the Ordinance, considering relief is being requested for both sides. 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 narrow pre-existing nonconforming lot. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None. Staff comments: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. The applicant has proposed to set the dwelling 150 feet back from the front property line to offset the side setback relief needed. Additionally, the applicant claims the neighbors are in support of the application. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form October 9, 2002 Project Name: Hayes, Michael and Paul Owner: Michael and Paul Hayes ID Number: QBY-02-AV-80 County Project#: Oct02-33 Current Zoning: SFR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,772 sq. ft. single-family dwelling and seeks relief from the minimum side setback requirement. Side yard (1) 20’ is required; 11’ is proposed: Side yard (2) 20’ is required; 10’ is proposed. Site Location: Country Club Road Tax Map Number(s): 296.15-1-8 Staff Notes: The applicant requests an area variance to construct a 1,106 sq. ft. home that does not meet the setback requirements. The parcel is 0.53 acres and is 50 ft. wide. The required side setbacks are 20 ft. where the applicant proposes 10 ft. on one side and 11 ft. on the other. The applicant has indicated the home will be two story and be built to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources. Staff recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact.” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 10/10/02. MR. STONE-Gentlemen? MR. LIPINSKI-Good evening. As I stated earlier, my name is Bruce Lipinski. I’m with the law firm of Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart and Rhodes, and I’m here to give you a break from Jon Lapper. The first point I’d like to make is I want to emphasize that this is a pre-existing, nonconforming lot. We have a 50 foot wide lot here, it’s been in existence for a long time. Eventually something is going to be built on this lot, and the question is, is it going to be a 10 foot wide building or is it going to be something that’s going to improve the character of the neighborhood. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) MR. STONE-Do you know the history of how this lot came into existence? Is this where two subdivisions came together or what? MR. LIPINSKI-I’m not familiar with the history of this parcel, except I do know that it’s shown as a separate tax map parcel, and it was indicated in the application it’s been in existence since ’46. MR. STONE-’46. MR. LIPINSKI-But I haven’t reviewed the abstract. I’m not sure how it came about. MR. STONE-Okay. I’m just curious, because obviously you’ve got fairly wide lots, and then you come along with this 50 foot. It’s like it was residual or something. MR. LIPINSKI-Right. It appears that nearly all the other lots are about 100 feet wide, except for one or two, which is about 120, 150. So, yes, it does look like an anomaly, but now we a have an owner coming along and they want to get some return on their parcel here, and the question’s going to be is what can we build on here? You’ve seen the proposal, the layout of the building that they propose to put on here. It’s 29 feet wide, which necessitates the need for this variance. As you can see, it’s not a very wide house. I would say that it would actually improve the character of the neighborhood, considering what’s out there on this side of the road. If you’re familiar with the neighborhood, across the road are some very nice expensive homes, and what I think this would do is kind of start the improvement on the other side, and this could maybe be the standard for other homes on the other side of the road. MR. STONE-Has any effort been made to buy it, either lot on either side? Because the one, certainly to the north is vacant, as I notice, isn’t it? MR. LIPINSKI-My client can speak to that. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. M. HAYES-Hello. My name is Michael Hayes. We’ve, the lot to the right of us, which I guess to the south, was just purchased, and there’s a house on that lot. We thought of maybe taking part, seeing if we could buy a slice of land from that particular parcel, but that would make that nonconforming, too. So they’d have to appear, because all these lots do not meet the criteria of the zoning today. I think it’s a minimum of 150 feet of road frontage on Country Club Road, I believe, Bruce. Is that right? MR. FRANK-To create a new lot. I mean, you have a buildable lot. It’s more than 40 feet of frontage. So it’s a buildable lot. MR. STONE-I know. I realize it’s a buildable lot. MR. FRANK-To create a new parcel in that zone. MR. STONE-That’s what Mr. Hayes just asked you. MR. FRANK-That’s correct. MR. STONE-What is it, 150? MR. BRYANT-It’s 150. MR. ABBATE-150. MR. FRANK-150. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LIPINSKI-I think it would be difficult for an adjoining owner to come in, after he conveyed off a slice of his to our client and then say I’ve got a nonconforming lot. So it’s a Catch-22 situation here. Because he could be shooting himself in the foot by doing that. MR. ABBATE-But it’s classified as a Single Family residence-1, correct? Even though it’s a building lot, a Single Family Residential One Acre requires one acre. MR. LIPINSKI-Correct. MR. ABBATE-And this is half an acre. MR. LIPINSKI-Right. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) MR. ABBATE-But it’s a buildable lot. MR. LIPINSKI-Correct. MR. STONE-By, because it was laid out before the zoning restrictions. In other words, this subdivision, as Staff notes says, goes back to 1946. MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. LIPINSKI-My client proposes to, trying to alleviate any problems with the neighbors by pushing the house back further so you don’t have windows from this house, you know, right next door to windows of the adjoining house, and that’s how they propose to mitigate any harm to any other neighbors. MR. ABBATE-So the house won’t be aligned with the other homes in the area, it will not be aligned? MR. LIPINSKI-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Any other questions? Well, let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-We have several pieces of correspondence. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-First is a letter from Steve Bassin, and he says, “I am the owner of 4.60 acres of property on the corner of Country Club and Sweet Roads in Queensbury. It has come to my attention that the applicant before you tonight has proposed construction of a new, single family home on an existing lot on the east of the road down from me. I am in favor of granting the applicant side set-back variances for the following reasons: 1) The new homes that have been constructed on the west of the road down from me are a compliment to the neighborhood and have increased property values for myself and others on Country Club Road. 2) The area in which this lot exists on Country Club Road is badly in need of recycling, clean-up, and positive development. The homes and lots in that area of the road are not, in my opinion, up to the standards that many of us would hope for. A beautiful , new home might actually start to get the rest of these lots going with necessary upgrades. 3) Based on what I have been told, the house design will fit in very nicely with the growing unique character of Country Club Road. Thank you for your attention on this matter. Sincerely, Steve Bassin” MR. STONE-Where was he again? He was on the west? MR. MC NULTY-He said he was on the west side. MR. STONE-West side, okay. MR. MC NULTY-And on the corner of Sweet and Country Club. MR. STONE-Yes, but the west side, though. MR. MC NULTY-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Then we have a letter from Tina Marshall. She says, “Hello, my name is Tina Marshall and I reside at 107 Country Club Road, Queensbury. As an active member of our community I like to see positive things happen within that community. I feel that Mickey and Jamie’s proposed home will be a positive event within our community. Country Club Road is a beautiful road and an excellent location to live. I hope the new owners of this home will enjoy living here as much as I do. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Tina Marshall” And we have a letter from Michael Cantiello, he says, “Hello, my name is Michael Cantiello. I have recently purchased the property next door to the Hayes property on Country Club Road. My intention is to rehab the small house on my property. I have seen the house plan the Hayes’ are proposing and I think it looks great! This nice home should certainly raise the value of my property significantly. I just wanted the Board to know I am strongly in favor of the proposed home. Thank you for taking the time to listen to me. Sincerely, Michael Cantiello” And we have a letter from Chris VamValis. He says, “Good people of the Board, my name is Chris VamValis. I reside at 92 Country Club Road in Queensbury. I have lived on Country Club Road for many years and I consider it a great place to live. The road has seemed to improve before my eyes as the years have gone by. Very nice homes have been constructed, homes have been renovated and spruced up, and basically some fantastic changes have occurred 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) over the years. In my opinion, the proposed house will continue the trend of improvement on Country Club Road. It’s exciting to see properties recycled and used for positive and attractive means. Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion to the Board. I think it is an example of good government. Sincerely, Chris VamValis” And finally we have a letter from Frederick Hardt. He says, “This letter is to record my objection to the Town’s granting a variance to “Michael and Paul Hayes” for relief from the minimum side setback requirement of 20-feet to construct a single-family dwelling on the above referenced 0.5-acre lot, located on Country Club Road, Town of Queensbury. I own the adjacent, 1.03-acre lot to the north of this parcel (lot#7), and strongly object to the Town allowing a house to be constructed with only 11 feet of side setback from my property line along the northerly bound of lot No. 296.15-1.8. I am concerned on what effect this structure will have on my property in relation to: 1) stormwater runoff from the proposed dwelling onto my property; 2) subsurface disposal system plan and proximity to my property, 3) placement of 150-feet of paved driveway directly adjacent to my lot; and 4) the visual appearance of the proposed 1,102 sq. ft. 29-feet wide, two-story structure, placed onto a lot that has only 50-feet of road frontage along Country Club Road. I also challenge some of the statements that are made by the “Owner/Builder” that the addition of the proposed, single-family dwelling would “improve the immediate neighborhood.” It is difficult to comprehend this assumption with a house crammed onto this lot, the property to the south of this lot with an existing dwelling that has deteriorated drastically over the years, and newer homes across Country Club Road that are many times higher in value than the proposed structure on the 0.5-acre. I also question who is the actual owner of this property. I have been contacted by another party, who stated he is the owner of the 0.5-acre lot and the adjacent 1.0-acre lot (tax map no. 296.15-1.9) to the south of the 0.50-acre lot. At this contact, I was told that the plan was to tear down the existing dwelling on the parcel to the south of the 0.5- acre lot (lot#8), and build a “new” residence on the combined total of 1.50 acres (lot #’s 8 and 9). What has changed – and what is the true reason for the proposed dwelling on the 0.5-acre lot? Respectfully yours, Frederick W. Hardt Neighboring Property Owner” MR. STONE-Anything else? MR. MC NULTY-That’s it. MR. STONE-All right. Let me close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Do you gentlemen wish to comment on anything you heard? MR. M. HAYES-Not really. MR. STONE-Well, obviously it’s four to one in favor of this thing. The only thing in my mind is that the neighbor most affected, one of the neighbors most affected, you’ve heard from either side, I take that back, raises some questions. Is there any validity to his questions? MR. M. HAYES-Which questions would you like? MR. STONE-Well, like, he talked about combining 8 and 9, I mean, he heard all these wonderful things that you’ve got. MR. M. HAYES-Well, the property is not owned by us, to the south, it’s another owner. We talked to him in the past. We tried to make a deal with him to purchase that piece of property in the past ourselves, and he marketed the property to us very actively, and we couldn’t come to terms on a price. So, I think, take that for whatever it means. MR. STONE-Okay, and the Town has said, or you’re aware, that you can put an legal septic system in. MR. M. HAYES-Absolutely. MR. STONE-Okay, and stormwater, you recognize that you’re responsible for your stormwater. MR. M. HAYES-Yes. I mean, the lot is still 22,000 square feet, and it has a footprint of 900 square feet. MR. STONE-I understand. I just wanted to get it on the record. That’s all. MR. M. HAYES-Okay. MR. ABBATE-And there’s no problem with the well location? MR. M. HAYES-No. We did the design on that, and with the neighbor next door with his wells close to our line, as you may know that, but I guess he’s considering going to Town water, the gentleman to the south, and we’re going to be on Town water as well. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) MR. URRICO-What about his questions about stormwater runoff. Do you know if there are any existing problems with any of the other? MR. M. HAYES-We’ve done some test sampling of the soils to get an idea of our septic needs and the soils are very cobbly and stuff. So the drainage on that particular, it’s kind of a mound area, and it slopes back to the, there’s a wetland in the back of the property, DEC wetland, so a lot of the water naturally channels to the back to the wetland, and so you actually have a very natural runoff system. We really don’t have to recreate much drainage, so that’s the nice part about the site. MR. STONE-Is the proposed structure going to be over the crest of that slight rise? MR. M. HAYES-We’re going to try to put it right on the, set it back from the road to try to achieve, so we don’t have a line of houses. Also to get back away from a busy road, and to achieve a walkout basement over that crest. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Is there, I don’t know whether it’s our business or Planning Board. I’m thinking about the neighbor who strenuously objects to this, in terms of runoff. Would that be something we could ask about? MR. STONE-We can put it in our motion that we’re concerned about it. It’s in the minutes. That’s what we’re talking about. We certainly can express our concern, but that’s why I asked Mr. Hayes, I mean, we know the basic rule that you’re responsible for your own stormwater, and to get a building permit, you have to show that you’re going to be. MR. ABBATE-And the building permit would indicate, see, I’m concerned, I don’t really object to the project, but I’m very concerned with the fact that there is a neighbor, the next door neighbor is very concerned and has raised a number of issues, and 10 and 11 feet, and if I were living next door, I would have major concerns about runoff, particularly in the wintertime rain running off onto my property, then freezing, six, ten, twelve inches of ice there or something or another. So I take into consideration who has the greatest negative impact, and obviously it would be the next door neighbor. So I’m concerned about his comments. MR. STONE-Is the truck where the house is going to be? Any idea? MR. M. HAYES-The truck is close to the borderline of the neighbor to the north. MR. STONE-That, I understand that. Yes. MR. M. HAYES-The house will be shifted more toward the right. MR. STONE-But that far back, or further? MR. M. HAYES-Maybe a little bit further back than that. That’s probably about 120 feet. MR. STONE-Okay, and where is the house on the lot to the north? There is not house on there, is there? MR. M. HAYES-There is no, it’s a vacant lot. MR. STONE-It’s a vacant lot. I thought it was. MR. M. HAYES-I have a thing from the Town that shows the residences from the satellite, if you would like to take a look. MR. STONE-Yes, I would like to see that. Yes. Okay. This shows something on that lot, though. Is that something that was there, or a trailer, or something? MR. M. HAYES-I’m not quite sure what, there was a basketball hoop stuck in the middle of it, but is it still there? MR. STONE-It’s still there. MR. M. HAYES-But there’s a lot of like, I think there were some like farm like shed structures there, because there’s a lot of cement footings. I don’t know if anybody walked the site, but still in place there, and they’re patch-worked around. So I’m not really, in my recollection, I really don’t know what was there, but there was a structure, whenever this was done. Bruce, do you have any idea when this was done? MR. FRANK-I don’t. I know there was a structure on there that burned to the ground several years ago, but I don’t know the exact timeframe. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) MR. STONE-But, in a sense, you’re saying that you’re proposing to put this 150 feet back. We were asking for relief, and right next to you, to the lot to the north, there is nothing on it. So that, if somebody wants to build on that lot, they’re going to know that you’re there. MR. M. HAYES-Absolutely, unless they started before we do. MR. STONE-Well, I understand that. MR. LIPINSKI-And I’d also like to point out that the lot to the north is twice the size as the lot at issue here, and he’s going to have much more flexibility in developing his lot than we do, and I think that’s an important thing to note, and also I want to point out that certainly he raised issues in his letter, but he’s also not here this evening, either, you know, to further state his case. MR. STONE-But we always say that you can write just as well as you can come, and we put just as much weight, obviously we can’t question it, and that may enter into our own thinking. MR. URRICO-Excuse me. I’m a little confused over which neighbor is which here. MR. STONE-The one who liked it, the one to the south who liked it. MR. URRICO-And he already has a house? MR. STONE-And he has a house on it. He’s going to fix it up, according to something we heard tonight. The man who complained, the last letter, is to the immediate north, the next lot, to the north, on which there is no structure at the moment. What is the line on the tax map that you gave us, what is that line on Lot Six? MR. LIPINSKI-I think sometimes that means an easement. MR. STONE-That’s what I think it means, yes. Does anybody know? MR. FRANK-That could well be, unless there was a, I shouldn’t state this. MR. STONE-Probably that’s what I was thinking, but, okay. All right. Any other comments you want to make? Any other questions that we have? MR. BRYANT-You say there’s wetlands behind your property. Are there any wetlands on the back of your property? MR. M. HAYES-On the satellite you can see how it touches the property. We had the DEC, a representative of the DEC flag that and we have to stay 100 feet away from that. MR. BRYANT-How far are you going to be away from there? MR. M. HAYES-Over 100 feet. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. M. HAYES-Over 100 feet. We’re not even going to be close to even where the setback. MR. BRYANT-Okay. The house to the south, now where the little box is on your property, that’s an old building. That’s not going to be the new building. MR. M. HAYES-That’s gone. There’s just like a cement footing still there. That’s all. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So you’re going to basically push back from there? MR. M. HAYES-Yes, so it’s not in line with the other houses, probably 40, 50 feet beyond where those homes are. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So you’re going to basically clear that house? MR. M. HAYES-Yes. It’s probably, the back edge of their house will probably be the front edge of ours. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. URRICO-I’m just curious. You mentioned the footing from the older structure. How wide was that? MR. M. HAYES-It’s very irregular. It’s like a rough pour. So I assumed it, I assumed it was a farm thing, because the floor was like finished roughly, and it was irregular shaped, and there’s farm stuff there. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) MR. STONE-Okay. Let’s talk about it, unless you have anymore questions. Let’s talk start with Al. MR. BRYANT-How deep is the lot, altogether? MR. STONE-Four hundred and? MR. M. HAYES-Four hundred and forty or four hundred and fifty feet. It’s quite a ways. It’s very narrow. MR. STONE-So you’ve got to be 340 to get away from the wetlands. MR. M. HAYES-Yes. We have lots of room to spare, and the depth is no problem. MR. BRYANT-Okay. Well, this is not really at all alike. It’s just opposite of the other case that we just heard a couple of cases back where the owner cocked the building and had the opportunity to straighten the building out and you show a matter of necessity. You really can’t build a compliant building on the lot that you have. So we can’t, as a Board, deny you the use of your property. That’s one thing that we can’t do. So with that in mind, I don’t find the application unreasonable. I think the fact that you’re pushing it back from the road is a plus. I don’t really understand, completely, the comments that the neighbor to the north made, relative to the property, but you have four neighbors that I agree with the project, and I would be in favor of the project. MR. STONE-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Well, I have to say, I live on Dorlon Drive, and I watched the fire, several years ago. I don’t have any problem. I was just wondering. What was the question that the gentleman had about this driveway? MR. STONE-Just that it’s going to be a long driveway. MR. MC NULTY-Yes, I think what he was driving at. MR. STONE-The stormwater. MR. MC NULTY-Yes, the stormwater runoff from a long blacktopped driveway. MRS. HUNT-The stormwater. Well, if you pitch it toward the street, you wouldn’t have any problem. MR. M. HAYES-Yes. It’s a pretty good pitch up to it, and I believe the property to the, I’m not sure about this, to the north is out, is higher than our property, too. MR. STONE-Yes. Okay. MRS. HUNT-Yes. I don’t see that you could do much else on it. Certainly 29 feet is not very wide for a house. MR. M. HAYES-Yes. The average house would be about 50 to 60 feet. We tried to find the narrowest house that still was decent looking, didn’t look like a Tower of Pisa. MR. STONE-All right. Chuck, McNulty? MR. MC NULTY-I’ll agree with what’s been said. I think, given the lot and the conditions, the proposal is probably the most reasonable that you can get for that area. Setting the house back a little further certainly mitigates the problem of being close to the lot lines, and unless you’re going to put something equivalent to a single-wide trailer in there, you’re probably going to have some kind of relief. So I think this is a reasonable proposal, and I agree with a lot of the public comments that I think it’s going to enhance the neighborhood. I’d be in favor. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in agreement. When you take the five criteria, I think the only one that really comes into question, only one, but the feasible alternatives and the relief substantial to the Ordinance, and there really isn’t much more you can do with that. I think you have a right to put a structure on there. I think you’ve given a lot of thought, other than having a 10 foot wide house, I don’t see what more you can do to it to put something that’s compliant, and also that would be in line with the rest of the neighborhood. We’ve heard from some neighbors. Only one strenuously objected, and I’m really not totally following what his objections were. Since he has some room, some maneuverability, but I’m in favor of this application. I think it’s a good plan. MR. STONE-Norm? 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I agree with my fellow Board members. I don’t think there’s a better idea that’s likely to come along, in connection with the disposition of this property. So I’m in support of the application. Thank you. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Yes. I agree. I don’t have a problem with the application. A flag went up when I heard that one letter objecting to the application, but Counsel made an interesting point, and, I was concerned. If I felt that strong about something, I think I would have been here. So, having said that, I will support the application. MR. STONE-The only question I have is why isn’t it nine and a half and nine and a half? Then you could treat each neighbor equally. Having said that, I couldn’t resist it, looking at, you want nine and ten, I’d make it nine and a half and nine and a half. MR. ABBATE-You don’t want me to pursue that? MR. STONE-No, that’s all right. MR. ABBATE-All right. MR. STONE-I’m disturbed, not by the application, not by the applicant, not by the desire to put a house on. I’m disturbed that we have a lot of such a size in an area such as Country Club Road which, as the neighbors all talk about, is a very nice neighborhood, and unfortunately, a 50 foot wide lot, well, I think one of the neighbors talked about it. They didn’t like the appearance of the house to the south. Sometimes an inexpensive piece of property lends itself to mistreatment, and that would be my only concern in this particular case. Why a 50 foot lot with all these that are 100 or 150, you don’t have an answer. I don’t have an answer, and I only have a question, but that’s all right, but certainly this application, considering it is a buildable lot, is as good a compromise as you can make. So, having said that, I would like a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 80-2002 MICHAEL AND PAUL HAYES, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Country Club Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 1,731 square foot single family dwelling. The applicant requests 10 feet and 9 feet of relief on both sides from the 20 foot minimum side setback of the Schedule of Area and Bulk Requirements for the SFR-1A zone, Section 179-40-030. The benefit to the applicant, they would be permitted to construct this structure in this location. Feasible alternatives might include a longer and narrower dwelling, requiring less relief. That would probably make a 10 foot wide structure, which seems less feasible than what they are proposing, and whether this relief is substantial to the Ordinance, on the face of it, 10 and 9 feet might be considered substantial relative to the Ordinance, but when you consider the property is only 50 feet wide, it’s actually the best of a bad situation in terms of the lot size. Effects on the neighborhood or community, there would be minimal effects and is this difficulty self- created? No. It’s created by the uniqueness of this small lot. Duly adopted this 16 day of October, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE MR. STONE-There you go, gentlemen. MR. M. HAYES-Thanks very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 87-2002 TYPE II PROSPECT CHILD AND FAMILY CENTER PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: N/A PROPERTY LOCATION: 220 DIXON ROAD ZONE: SR-1A APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 6 FT. HIGH FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD TO FURTHER SCREEN THE NEIGHBORS FROM THE PARKING AREA. RELIEF SOUGHT FROM HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS FOR FENCES. CROSS REF. BP 2002-757; SPR 26-2002; SPR 2-88 TAX MAP NO. 302.13-1-3 AND 302.13-1-4 LOT SIZE: 2.60 ACRES, 1.97 ACRES SECTION 179-5-060 LARRY GOUGE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STONE-I have a question. I thought the stockade fence was also a question here, in the architectural front yard? It’s not just the height. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) MR. FRANK-They need relief not only for a six foot high fence in an architectural front yard, but also for a stockade type fence. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 87-2002, Prospect Child and Family Center, Meeting Date: October 16, 2002 “Project Location: 220 Dixon Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 6-foot high stockade fence along the North property line that extends 44 feet into the architectural front yard. Relief Required: Applicant requests 2 feet of height relief for a 44-foot section of fence in an architectural front yard per the Fence Ordinance, § 179-5-060 (C2). In addition to the height relief requested, the applicant will also need relief for a stockade fence in an architectural front yard for the same 44-foot section of fence per the Fence Ordinance, § 179-5-060 (C4). 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 fence at the desired height in the architectural front yard. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives seem to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 44 feet of relief from the requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial relative to the Ordinance being the fence extends 44 feet into a 57-foot front yard (77.2%). Additionally, the relief to allow a stockade-type fence in an architectural front yard, when none are allowed, 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 applicant appeasing the neighbors to the North (Tom and June Burke) who requested the fence be raised to a height of 6 feet (see Burke letter submitted with the application). Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 26-2002 Modification: to be reviewed 10/22/02, 6- foot high, 44-foot long stockade fence. BP 2002-757: issued 09/10/02, 4,780 sq. ft. commercial building. SP 26-2002: approved 5/23/02, construction of a new 4,780 sq. ft. Individual Residence Alternative duplex residence. Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action being the construction of the fence is proposed to appease the neighbors to the North. The applicant has requested relief for a 6-foot fence in an architectural front yard. Even though the Planning Board approved SP 26- 2002, which included the approval of a 4-foot stockade fence in the architectural front yard, relief for a stockade fence of any height in an architectural front yard must be granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Therefore, the applicant needs relief for a stockade fence in an architectural front yard in addition to the height relief requested. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Mr. Strough, as a member of the Planning Board, we’re going to hit you with a wet noodle. No, we’ll pass on it. Come forward, sir. MR. GOUGE-My name’s Larry Gouge. I’m the Director of Prospect Child & Family Center. MR. STONE-You’re all by yourself tonight. MR. GOUGE-All by myself. MR. STONE-I’ve never seen you all by yourself. MR. GOUGE-No, I’m all by myself. MR. STONE-Anything that you want to add to this thing? MR. GOUGE-No, other than, and I was unaware, until we received this correspondence, that the Planning Board had recommended something that actually required other officials, or whatever. MR. STONE-They obviously didn’t know it, either. MR. GOUGE-But at any rate, the fence, the 120 foot fence, was a part of the requirements when we met to get approve through the Planning Board. After that meeting, I met with the neighbors to the north. We walked the property, and based on the slope of the land and their desire to continue their lifestyle and to have as much privacy as possible, they requested that we consider building a six foot fence, and I do think that the request was valid, from my perspective, in the sense that the layout of the house, which is really the only way it could be laid out on that parcel, required a driveway somewhat near their living space, and so I agreed to come before the Board and ask for a six foot fence, and would be happy to build it. We want to be good neighbors and it seemed the appropriate thing to do. Their request seemed valid. MR. STONE-Did you offer any other method of screening? MR. GOUGE-Well, there is some visual screening on the property already, as part of the Planning Board requirements, in terms of some vegetation. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) MR. STONE-And that is not deemed sufficient by the neighbors? MR. GOUGE-Correct. MR. STONE-Who I’m sure we’ll hear from. MR. GOUGE-Right. They thought the fence would be more effective than the screening. MR. STONE-Has any consideration been given to mandatory back in parking along that fence, so that, I understand one of the concerns is that when staff leaves, some of the later shifts leave, that headlights are going to go on. Has there been any consideration given to only back in parking? MR. GOUGE-That actually hasn’t come up, but it certainly seems like a reasonable thing that we can do without a problem. MR. STONE-You’ve got to either back in or back out. MR. GOUGE-Right. So, I mean, there would still be, obviously, people pulling in and there would be some issue with headlights, but backing in would be preferable, and I would be willing to do that. MR. FRANK-Enforcing that would be next to impossible, if you want to impose that condition. MR. STONE-Well, you could put signage up to his employees, and I’m not saying that, we can make it a condition. I’m only throwing it out as a possible help, volunteer. That’s all. MR. GOUGE-Right. Well, if they pulled in, I wouldn’t fire them, but I think we could definitely work with our staff and help them understand that issue, and get compliance. Obviously, there would be people who would come in who weren’t aware of that rule, or that guideline, and that could be an issue from time to time. MR. ABBATE-The Town of Queensbury has devoted an enormous amount of time and money and manpower over several years to come up with new zoning ordinances, and this application, by your own statement, (lost words) is attributable to the fact that the applicant, you’re attempting to appease the neighbors to the north who requested the fence be raised to a height of six feet. MR. STONE-He’s also requesting that a stockade fence be allowed. Keep that in mind. MR. ABBATE-Right. Okay. I’m going to keep that in mind. MR. STONE-Four feet, two feet. MR. ABBATE-Now my question, basically, is this. Are we to yield, if we approve this application, based on your own facts here, are we to yield to every request of a neighbor who requests that a next door neighbor raise his fence or put up a fence to a height of six foot, which, of course, is in violation of the local ordinances. It seems to me that if Tom and June Burke didn’t request this fence be erected, up to six feet, you would not be here this evening. Is that correct? MR. GOUGE-That’s probably correct. However, I guess you can only know what you know. MR. ABBATE-I understand. MR. GOUGE-And I didn’t use the word “appease”. That was someone else’s language. My feeling was after meeting with them, at their request, walking the property, and looking at the lay of the land and seeing how little protection a four foot fence would actually provide them, I felt that their request was reasonable. MR. ABBATE-Okay. So we have a set of zoning ordinances, and now there’s a request from a neighbor to have another neighbor put up a six foot fence which is in direct violation of the local ordinances. I guess my concern is this. Do we yield to every request of perhaps every neighbor in the Town of Queensbury who desires a six foot fence? I guess that’s my question, and based upon this, if, by your own words, if there were not an attempt, I’m not going to use the word “appease”, but appease is in here, if this was not an attempt to work with a neighbor, is that better words, work with a neighbor? MR. GOUGE-Sure, that’s fine. MR. ABBATE-Please the neighbor, okay, maintain good relationships with the neighbor, you wouldn’t be sitting here right now. MR. GOUGE-Right. Well, I guess it’s my understanding, in terms of, that the purpose of this Board is to look at special circumstances and see if they qualify for some flexibility, depending on the circumstances. So 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) that’s why I came before you. As far addressing the bigger issue of every neighbor and that sort of thing, I don’t attend many of these meetings. I’m not really qualified to answer that. MR. ABBATE-I understand that. See, that’s what happens when you come by yourself. You’re the only one that takes a beating. MR. STONE-No, I don’t think we’re giving you a beating. MR. ABBATE-No, not at all. MR. STONE-You have come before us, as a good neighbor, recognizing that it’s your property, and you’re the applicant, and you’re asking us to do something that would help the neighbor, for long term harmony in the area, and I understand your particular point of view. I also understand Mr. Abbate’s point of view, that we’re in an interesting situation, and we’re obviously going to deal with it as we go ahead. MR. URRICO-When the Prospect School renovated up on Aviation Road, there were similar complaints registered by neighbors at that time, and part of the way that was mitigated was a combination of the fence and some vegetation, arborvitae, I think it was, put in there. Has that been considered in this situation? MR. GOUGE-Well, there are plantings here. The entire length of the fence, there is vegetation. It certainly is, it wouldn’t provide the same amount of protection that the fence would. MR. MC NULTY-I’d like to hear a little bit about what kind of activities are going to go on at this facility that makes you such an objectionable neighbor that a fence is needed. MR. STONE-That’s a tough question. MR. ABBATE-Good question. MR. MC NULTY-My first reaction was, you know, six foot fence could be objectionable in itself, and if it’s going to be a mitigating instrument, what is it mitigating? MR. GOUGE-Right. Well, I guess there’s kind of two points. One is the way the house is set up, instead of the front of the house facing Dixon Road, it technically borders. MR. STONE-Your house. MR. GOUGE-Our house. So it’s, kind of from a layperson’s perspective is the side of the house, ends up being the front of the house, and that seems to be a particular problem here, in terms of that. MR. HAYES-Activity wise, even. MR. STONE-Yes, well, it’s the architectural front yard according to our definition. MR. GOUGE-Exactly. It is a, one side of the house will be four young men, all four in wheelchairs. They’re going to require 24 hour care and a significant number of people are going to be coming in and out of there, in terms of providing that, and they have their own lives, too, and they’re going to be leaving, and the other side of the house has four young women who don’t require quite as much care, but it is a 24 hour a day facility. So there will be some comings and goings. We’ve worked hard to try to keep that at a reasonable level in terms of the number of people who would live in each unit, which would be four. However, we will be still providing that level of care, which would be not a typical family of four. MR. STONE-Did the Planning Board put any restrictions on hours of delivery? Because I know that was one of the concerns that Burkes had. MR. GOUGE-I don’t recall any specific restrictions, other than we would try to use commonsense, in terms of how we live in that environment, in terms of expecting most of the comings and goings to be during the day, which it would. MR. ABBATE-Let me ask you this. May the 23 of this year, you came, there was an approval for rd construction. Yet the six foot fence was never mentioned. August the 10 of this year, 4780 square foot th commercial building, yet there was no mention of a six foot fence. Modification to SP 26-2002, October 22 of this year, was the first time the six foot fence, and quite frankly, I’m going to be very frank with you. nd I’m not so sure who wants the fence more, Tom and June Burke or you. MR. GOUGE-Well, I can’t answer for them. I mean, I think I’ve been fairly clear in terms of, they gave me their perspective and, I mean, I have to pay for this fence, and I took it seriously, and, you know, in terms of the fact that, to make that kind of a commitment it would have to be a reasonable request, and I just thought it was. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) MR. ABBATE-Well, the Chairman raised, made an interesting point earlier. Nobody picked up on it. There are alternatives to a six foot fence, yet it’s not addressed in this. Have you considered alternatives? And if you have, what are the alternatives that you have considered? MR. GOUGE-Maybe you could tell me what the alternatives are. MR. ABBATE-You’re the applicant. MR. GOUGE-Okay. The alternatives, from my perspective, would be increased plantings, perhaps. I don’t know. MR. BRYANT-Hedges? MR. GOUGE-Hedges. MR. STONE-Well, alternatives are do nothing. That’s an alternative, in this particular case. I mean, I can tick them off. I mean, I don’t want to jump in because I think that I think we want to hear from the Burkes. It’s kind of a special situation. I think Mr. Gouge, you know, is in a difficult situation. He is trying to be a good neighbor. One of the things that has been proposed is a six foot high fence. Let’s forget the four foot high fence because that was never approved by this Board. So we’re talking either nothing or a six foot high stockade fence. That’s what’s before us. MR. BRYANT-I think I understand what Chuck is trying to say, and I listened, Mr. Gouge, to your explanation of the facility. I mean, it’s a residence for a number of people who are physically challenged. When you say it’s a 24 hour facility, it’s really not unlike any other residence. I mean, are you talking about intensive care that people, you have nurses and all that coming every couple of hours to give them medication or are you just talking about people that live in a facility because they’re physically challenged, and they may have someone there to oversee their activity to make sure they’re okay? I mean, my house, we’re going to get out of here at two o’clock in the morning some nights, and I go home at two o’clock in the morning, and my neighbor doesn’t want me to put up a fence. I think that’s what Mr. Abbate is really trying to say. I mean, it’s a residence. It’s not a hospital. It’s not a facility like your other facility. So unless you can explain to my why this is different than a regular residence, I’m not convinced that, really, the fence is the real solution to the problem. MR. STONE-Well, let me ask a very basic question. If we turned this down, would you be terribly bothered? MR. GOUGE-Terribly bothered? MR. STONE-Be honest. MR. GOUGE-It wouldn’t affect our project. It would move on. There’s no doubt about that. It’s not something that would deter the quality of services that we provide, and we would continue to do everything that we possibly could to be good neighbors. MR. STONE-Okay. I would propose that we open the public hearing, because I’m going to put some restrictions on the Burkes, when we do that. I mean, unless there’s anything that’s really. MR. HAYES-I’d like to hear the answer to his question. MR. ABBATE-I think Allan has a good question. MR. BRYANT-I mean, I would like to know. MR. HAYES-What is the level of service (lost words). MR. GOUGE-Yes, I do want to address that. At nighttime, when the folks are sleeping, there will be an awake and an asleep person on one side, and there will be an asleep person on the other side. So there’ll be three full-time staff, in the night, when the folks are there. That’s necessary for proper evacuation. So when, especially the men, if there were a fire in that house, two of them literally cannot move their bodies, independently. MR. MC NULTY-But these people would be in the home. They wouldn’t be coming and going? MR. GOUGE-They would be in the home for an eight hour shift, and they wouldn’t be outside playing basketball or doing anything, you know, unusual. MR. URRICO-What are the shifts? 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) MR. GOUGE-Actually, I don’t know exactly how the shifts will be set up, but the most intensive times of staffing would be in the six to eight, okay, and getting the folks ready and then it would be very low during the day, and then from three up until nine or so it would be the most intense, again, when the folks are home and requiring their meals and they’re going out and doing things and that sort of thing. MR. STONE-The food’s going to be prepared? MR. GOUGE-On the site. MR. STONE-On the site. One kitchen? MR. GOUGE-Both units are totally independent. So two kitchens, two. MR. STONE-Okay. They do their own, or? MR. GOUGE-On the men’s side they’ll be doing none of their own preparation. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Let me go back to Mr. McNulty’s question, which I thought was an outstanding one. I won’t use the word what activity. What services do you currently provide that would require a six foot fence? MR. GOUGE-None of the services that we provide would require a six foot fence. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. MC NULTY-Along the same kind of line, have you plans yet how you’re going to handle your trash disposal? Are you going to use a dumpster or trash cans? MR. GOUGE-I think we plan to use a small dumpster, in an enclosed area. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. That’s one potential area of a problem, I know, that’s been a problem with other group homes, depending on when the trash company picks up the dumpsters. So that’s something else that’s under your control that might not need the six foot fence or a six foot fence wouldn’t solve it anyway. MR. GOUGE-We’ve actually changed companies, for those that insisted on coming at five, six in the morning. That’s pretty unreasonable. MR. MC NULTY-Right. So as long as you don’t have someone coming in at 4:05 in the morning, that solves that problem. MR. STONE-Okay. I’m going to open the public hearing, and I’m going to ask, first of all, as I normally do, anybody in favor of this application? In favor of? And I guess you would be in favor of. So why don’t you come forward, introduce yourself, and what I’m going to ask you to do, since we all have your letter, and it’s part of the record, we have all read your letter, I’m not going to hold you to five minutes, but I’m not going to let you go much longer than that. So don’t rehash the whole letter. Just hit the high points, in terms of what your concerns are. Introduce yourself. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TOM BURKE MR. BURKE-My name is Tom Burke, and I live a 226 Dixon Road, and this is my wife June. MR. STONE-Okay. JUNE BURKE MRS. BURKE-My name is June Burke. I’m going to talk, and then Tom is going to speak for a couple of minutes. MR. STONE-That’s fine. MRS. BURKE-This is the first time I’ve ever been to a Zoning Board meeting, and I understood everything you’ve been doing, up until now. The one part, I do understand what you’re doing is I know this is an unusual request, compared to the others I’ve been watching, in that, the person asking for the request is not the recipient of the benefit, and I understood that quite clearly from your comments. At the Planning Board meeting, when we went to it, when Mr. Gouge and his architect laid out the plan for the duplex that is currently under construction next to us, we raised some concerns, not about the services, which you seem to 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) be curious about, not about the, but it’s about the activity on our side, because, as we watched the plans unfold, with lights and, don’t hold me to exact details, I haven’t looked at anything in a long time, but our house is like 20, 30 feet. It’s been there 65 years. MR. BURKE-Twenty-one feet from the road. MRS. BURKE-Twenty-one feet from the road. MR. BURKE-It’s very close. MRS. BURKE-So don’t hold me to detail, but our architectural side yard is all of their front yard, practically, and I don’t know how far this parking lot is going to come, but I think there’s like eight spaces, and so we have a big bay window in our den, and a big bow window in our living room, and we don’t know what the elevation of the property is going to be when it’s finished, because I don’t think anybody, you know, you kind of plan, but you’re not sure. So we worried about that. It’s just the lights, because, you know, it has to be lit on the outside for safety and along the driveway, but I don’t think they’re going to be very high, and 13 years ago we planted, and it was, the Planning Board talked about it a lot, is, I think it’s 13 arborvitaes along our southern property, because we have about an acre, not quite an acre and a half, but we’re on the southern side. All the rest is garage, and then like empty. We planted these arborvitaes, and they’re substantial, and until the woods came down, and I’ll tell you when it was, it was the week before Labor Day, we didn’t realize its ecology. Half our arborvitaes on the other side, the southern side, didn’t get lots of leaves. Only on our side, because, I mean, this forest was big. So now that other side has to flesh out. I mean, we learned this after the Planning Board, but somehow the Planning Board decided, with our concerns, never, we asked for this. We expressed our concerns. Our request at the Planning Board meeting was would you just please flip the building and have the recreation area on our side, and septic, because that’s what’s on the other side, and the green area, and all the activity area, you know, with the cars and everything, on the other side. It seemed reasonable, to me and Tom, and to some of the Planning Board members, but I guess architecturally it couldn’t be done, and so the Planning Board came up with the fence, and I heard up there. MR. BURKE-Due to the commercial nature of the facility. MRS. BURKE-Of the activity with the lights and stuff, and I heard them mention six foot, and then they said, I heard another one say, but that’ll make them go to get a variance, and they didn’t want to hold anything up, and didn’t want to make Prospect School come here to you, so they wrote in four foot the whole length. MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. BURKE-I’m just telling the history of how we happened to be here, and so we went home and thought, what could we do. Well, we could come in and ask you for a variance on a six foot fence, and build it on our property, inside the four foot fence that they’re going to build. I mean, that’s stupid. So I think I’m out of steam. I worked at the Glens Falls High School. Chris, one of the representatives, I’m sorry, I’m getting nervous, one of the young men who’s going to live there, I personally know him. I’m good friends with the Chairman of the Building Committee for this building, and when I saw you men here sitting here saying, what did I think was wrong with this building, I’m insulted. All I want is a little piece of mind, that after 24 years of living in my home, I won’t be bothered by a parking lot. That’s the only reason I‘m here. MR. BURKE-The fence we were supposed to get is 140 feet. The parking lot’s a little longer than that because the fence doesn’t go all the way down to Dixon Road. We’re talking about 160 foot long driveway that extends the whole length of our property line, with this cul de sac turn around, and eight parking spots, with coming and going and proceedings. You’re going to have laundry. You’re going to have trash pick up. You’re going to have visitors, and lights, and it’s right in our back yard. Because the building faces us, this is a huge facility. We could smell cement drying for three days from it. It’s big, and all the trees have been taken down. Everything, there is no buffer left. What you see is ours, and every bit of that, except for that one big pine tree, we planted. There is no buffer. MR. STONE-Where is your property? MR. BURKE-Do you see the black fence? MR. STONE-Yes. MRS. BURKE-That’s ours. MR. BURKE-That’s us. Everything to the right. MRS. BURKE-And the arborvitaes, like I said, aren’t as full as they (lost words). 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) MR. BURKE-One very important factor I must mention. When I walk from my property line over to that fence, because there’s an elevation difference, it drops drastically, that’s a four foot fence, to me. It offers no buffer at all, and I hate to say this but the six foot fence is our best shot. MR. STONE-Well, let me ask a question of Staff, that just occurred to me. What if Prospect built a fence on their property? That’s not the architectural front yard now. Could they put a stockade fence along the property line? MR. BRYANT-It is on their property. MR. FRANK-It isn’t. MR. BURKE-One foot. One foot off their property line. MR. FRANK-They could very well, if they agreed to it, they could build, again, they still would need relief for a stockade fence in the front yard, but again, if they’re claiming their house is only 21 feet off the road or 21 feet off the front property line? MR. BURKE-Off the front property line. MR. STONE-Wait. The front property line being Dixon Road, for you. MR. BURKE-Yes. MR. STONE-For them, it’s your property line, it’s your side line. MRS. BURKE-I don’t know. MR. BURKE-You’ve confused me. MR. STONE-Okay. If we take Dixon Road, you face Dixon Road, your house? MR. BURKE-Yes. MR. STONE-That’s your front yard. MR. BURKE-Yes. MR. STONE-Their front yard, because of the way. MR. BURKE-If that’s Dixon Road, you are the seven cars facing us, right there. MR. STONE-Hold it. Don’t say we are. We’re the Zoning Board of Appeals, but that’s their architectural front yard, according to the definition. It is immediately adjacent to your side yard. Correct? MR. BURKE-Yes. MR. STONE-So if you were to build or have built a fence on your property, we don’t even have to be here, do we? MR. BURKE-A four foot, 140 foot fence is already there. MR. STONE-Six foot, well, we could ask for a variance for a six foot, on your property. MR. FRANK-They could bring a six foot high stockade fence up to their front yard. MR. STONE-Right. MR. FRANK-Their front yard begins with the face of your house, facing Dixon Road. If you were to project a line across the face of your house to said property line, that’s your front yard. MR. BURKE-Yes, that’s their four foot fence, that’s where it starts. MR. STONE-Yes. That’s correct. It starts at your house, but I’m saying they could build a four foot high fence up on your property, and your property is elevated, relative to their parking lot. MR. BURKE-No, no it isn’t. That’s the problem, because my property goes like this, and that’s my property line. Whether they build it a foot here or right on my property line, they’re still in a hole. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) MR. STONE-No, I’m saying, but if you built it up on your hill. MR. BURKE-Two or three feet up? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. BURKE-Then it would cut the arborvitaes in half. MR. STONE-Well, it would provide you the protection that you claim the arborvitae isn’t giving you. MR. BURKE-Who’s fence would it be, mine or Prospect’s fence? MR. STONE-Well, they could build it for you. I’m only suggesting it. I have no idea. This came off the top of my head. MR. BURKE-I would not be opposed to having them build a six foot fence on our property line, put it right smack dab on the property line. MRS. BURKE-But not into the arborvitaes. MR. STONE-I mean, Bruce, what are the legalities of that? MR. FRANK-They can build a fence right on the property line, and according to this plot plan, the row of arborvitaes that they planted, they’re not on the property line. They’re offset to the north by a few feet anyway. So that they could actually construct a stockade fence on the opposite side, away from your house, of that hedgerow. MR. BURKE-They’ve got a ditch, a drainage ditch in there, that’s quite deep, and they can’t. If you look at the picture, they’re stuck with a drainage ditch. The fence is going to be down in the bottom of a hole. I’ll show you, if you come up with that picture, what’s going on here. Our property line, where the fence is going to be, is right here, and if you were to move it away, towards them, away from us, it’s going to be at the bottom of this ditch. This ditch has to run all the way down and drain around the back. This is the problem. This is elevated right up here, and when I come over, I’m looking down on this. So I’m looking above any fence they put in. MR. STONE-And I’m suggesting a fence on your property. I just, it’s a suggestion. MR. BURKE-That’s my property line right there. MR. STONE-Yes. That’s where I’m suggesting the fence. MR. BURKE-And it doesn’t change the elevation at all, but it is on our property. MR. STONE-And it makes, you can do it, and it would protect you a lot better than even a six foot fence. Because my comment is I’m not convinced that a six foot fence, on their property, is going to do you anymore good than a four foot fence. That was my thinking. MR. ABBATE-And thank you for your testimony this evening. It was very helpful, by the way, Mr. and Mrs. Burke, but from what I gather, from what you’ve said, your only objection would be during the evening hours. MR. BURKE-No, activity at all times. MR. ABBATE-Activity at all times. MR. BURKE-Yes. We have seven parking, seven cars being parked all along our property line. Our pool is between our house and our property line. MR. ABBATE-Okay. What kind of activity are we talking about? MR. BURKE-Coming and going. Slamming of doors, opening and closing. Vehicles pulling in and pulling out at the end of the day. MR. ABBATE-And that faces your bay window, your large bay window? MR. BURKE-Our pool, our picnic bench, and our dining room, I’m sorry our living room bay windows, two bay windows, and our whole area of activity. I have a plan, if you would like to see, that I drew up for the Planning Board when we wanted to flip the building, just put the activity on the side. It’s not the facility or the people we object to. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) MR. ABBATE-I understand. MR. BURKE-It’s the activity. If you’d like to see this, it’ll point you to where our house is and how close this is to us. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BURKE-Would you like to see this? MR. STONE-No. I understand what you’re talking about, but that’s, the building is already being built. So that’s. MR. ABBATE-That’s it, that’s the point. MR. BURKE-Well, I don’t think, because we live there, and have for 25 years, and Larry’s been on our property twice, maybe three times. His architect has been on our property. They all seem to feel the need that we feel, but you don’t because you haven’t been there. MR. STONE-No, no, no. Don’t say that. I mean, I have my thoughts. Mr. Abbate has. We all have our thoughts. We are not disputing the value given by this facility. We’re not arguing, I don’t believe, that you might not, that you won’t be bothered by some of the activity. I think that’s a given, but the point is, how do we get relief? If we grant what they’re asking, the applicant, I have certain concerns about it. I think Mr. Abbate has certain concerns, and I see a few other heads shaking. It also sets, to me, a dangerous precedent. Stockade fences in architectural front yards, whether or not you agree with the definition, this is an architectural front yard according to our Code. We have, in the Town of Queensbury, plenty of problems with fences. We have a lot of fences that Staff is aware that they’re not legal. They’ve been built, and if we can avoid giving credence, if you will, or support for some of these other fences, I, personally, would like to do that, and that’s why I came up with the thought, and I think we’ve got your point. I would like to close the public hearing, unless we have any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I have a question. I want to ask you a question. The fence is not on the Prospect School property, right? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. FRANK-It is. MR. STONE-It would have to be. They’re asking for the fence. It’s on their property. MR. ABBATE-Who’s asking for the fence? The applicant is. MR. STONE-Yes, Prospect School. MR. FRANK-It’s proposed to be on the Prospect side, according to this plot plan. MR. ABBATE-Right. So the expense would be at the cost of Prospect. MR. FRANK-I believe so. MR. STONE-That’s correct. That’s what Mr. Gouge said. MR. BRYANT-Well, now I’m confused. Okay, because didn’t you just say that where that black fence is, that’s where the fence is going to be? MR. BURKE-Yes. MR. BRYANT-Now that’s Prospect School’s property or your property? Or is that the property line? MR. BURKE-If you look, there’s a lighter one to the right of that. That’s on my property. MR. STONE-Behind that, there’s a line. MR. ABBATE-Behind the. MR. BRYANT-I see a line. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) MR. ABBATE-I see it now. MR. BRYANT-How far is that back? MR. STONE-That was the four foot line. Wasn’t it? MR. BURKE-Yes. MR. STONE-But that’s on their property. That would go on the Prospect School property side. MR. BRYANT-Now your trees, these trees that are sticking up. MR. BURKE-They’re to the right another three feet or so, three or four feet. MR. BRYANT-Okay, but where are they in relation? It’s hard to tell from here, and in looking at that picture. Where are they in relationship to where the property line is? MR. FRANK-According to the plot plan, they’re eight feet to the north of the property line. If they’re located accurately by that survey crew, they’re showing that hedgerow eight feet to the north of the property line. MR. BURKE-That’s probably about right, and you can just barely see them there. See the telephone pole? That’s probably the centerline of those arborvitaes that we are growing. That’s probably about eight feet from the black fence. MR. STONE-And that’s on your property line. MR. BRYANT-Is that on your property line? MR. BURKE-I think that’s right about on the property line, that pole. MR. STONE-Okay. So if, and I’m trying to be Solomon-esqe. That’s all, guys, I’m trying to say. If Prospect is willing to build a fence, we’ve heard that they’re willing to build a fence, I’m suggesting that they build it on their property, so that, first of all, it could be a little higher, and it doesn’t get into the need for a variance, just for height, to be a stockade fence, though, from the building line back. MR. BURKE-They can put it right on the property line. I agree, 100%, if that’s all right. MR. STONE-Well, Mr. Strough, do you want to comment? Do you want to come forward, sir? JOHN STROUGH MR. STROUGH-Okay. John Strough, Town of Queensbury, a Planning Board member, and I’m not here to speak for the Planning Board, but first of all, Mr. Abbate, when a town makes a Code, it makes it for a typical situation, and I think we’d all agree that if we laid out lots and we laid out the houses, it would not be aesthetically appealing to have fences of eight foot height or even six foot height, between the homes, and wouldn’t be socially pleasing, but this is not a typical situation. This is a-typical. You’ve got a situation where it’s not purely residential here. You’ve got a residence, the Burkes, and just to the east of them, you’ve got an enterprise that’s residence-like, but it’s not. I mean, it’s not in that, look at the parking lot, look at the number of parking spaces. Look at the exterior lighting. The parking lot’s lit. There is bollard lighting there. There’s shifts of people going in and out of there. It’s not truly a residential situation. So now the Planning Board is given the task of trying to make two uses that are not similar uses compatible. We did come up with a situation that appeared at the time to make everyone happy, and it did, but sometimes when you get in the middle of something, you realize that maybe what you did wasn’t enough. A four foot fence might not be enough, and so a six foot fence might make the two uses more compatible, given the lighting, given the shifts and given the other almost commercial like enterprises going on adjacent to this residence, the Burke’s residence, and to address your concern, putting a fence on the Burke’s property, Number One, the Burkes are being impacted. You don’t force them. The burden is not on them to reduce the impacts on them. The burden of reducing the impacts is on the applicant. Furthermore, putting the fence on the Burke’s property would necessitate taking down more vegetation than what’s already been taken down. So there’s some real good reasons why a six foot fence almost seems to be a no-brainer for making this saturation compatible. That it’s not purely a residential situation. MR. ABBATE-Now, you see, if perhaps the Planning Board had paid more attention to the residents, no six foot fence would be necessary at this time. MR. STROUGH-Well, the residents agreed to, and wanted a six foot fence. We tried to go with the lowest impact of a four foot fence. Now it seems like when all is said and done, the vegetation’s taken down, you get a lot better idea of what this thing’s shaping up to be, and I think I have to agree that a six foot fence 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) would be more appropriate, given the situation. Now, when we say a six foot fence, and you’re talking about a stockade fence, it’s not your traditional, take it out of Lowe’s, stockade fence. This is a very professional grade, stockade fence. Even Prospect said, they’re very expensive, please don’t make us do that, and we said, well, it’s expensive, and it’s attractive. It’s what they have up on Aviation Road, and it’s an attractive fence, and we said, that’s what we want, and we’re not accepting anything less. Prospect agreed to go along with it. So, you know, we played with this thing a long time, and the only thing that seemed to be satisfactory was to put a four foot fence and to take, and it’s an attractive four foot fence, and to take away some of the sterility of a fence, we had plantings in front of the fence. So that will take away and soften the tone of the fence, but it seems to me that a six foot high fence is the answer here, with the plantings in front of it, given the two dissimilar uses here. Don’t think this is residential purely and this is residential. This is an adult home, and I think Mr. McNulty knows better than anybody else the difficulties of trying to put adult homes in and around communities. It’s very difficult. So what we try and do is we got a location that made most people happy, and Prospect’s got a location that made most people happy, and the one thing these residents asked was to put up a fence, a four foot fence, and now they’re asking for a six foot fence, to me, seems reasonable. MR. STONE-Let me ask you, did you do any sight lines from where the six foot imaginary fence in place? I’m not convinced that it’s going to cut off much light, down on their property. MR. STROUGH-Well, it’s a visual impact. It’s not going to be just cutting out the light. You’ve got the headlight wash, plus you have lights on all night long. Now how many residences leave their lights on all night long? This is a residence where these adults need to be taken care of, and they need to have exterior lighting on all night long, and there’s going to be service trucks in and out, and there’s going to be State people in and out, and there’s going to be doctors in and out, and this is not a pure residence, and I don’t think we should be looking at that. So now how do you make the residents, the Burkes, compatible with this semi-residence. I don’t know what you want to call it, but it is not a pure residence. MR. STONE-And I don’t think that we have that, I don’t have that. MR. ABBATE-Why didn’t you think of this before, the Planning Board? MR. STROUGH-What do you mean, think of what? MR. ABBATE-They indicated this evening they appeared at the Planning Board and they, go ahead. MR. BURKE-You have five minutes to talk at the Planning Board. You’re cut off. You can’t even say a thing. MR. STONE-Well, we’re about to cut off Mr. Strough, too, for that reason. MR. ABBATE-Yes. I think what you’re suggesting is that an error has occurred, which has resulted in an unfavorable impact on a neighbor, and you’re asking for a correction. MR. STROUGH-There’s no error. MR. ABBATE-Then we’ll just leave it as it is, then. MR. STROUGH-Well, the error is, okay, if you’re talking about we erred in the we should have probably put in a six foot fence rather than a four foot fence. I can’t speak for the Planning Board that comes before us shortly. They’ll speak for themselves. I’ll speak for myself, and myself, I think the six foot fence, if the Burkes are happy with that and Prospect’s happy with that, and it’s going to be softened. It’s going to be a good looking fence with vegetation. It’s a no-brainer. MR. ABBATE-And how many more times will these no-brainers come before us for another six foot fence, in the Town of Queensbury? MR. STROUGH-This is an active community, but I’m not making any promises. MR. ABBATE-And I’m not making any promises either. MR. STONE-Thank you, Mr. Strough. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. STONE-Any other comments in the public hearing? No letters or anything? MR. MC NULTY-No comments. MR. STONE-Okay. Let me close the public hearing. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Why don’t you come forward again. First of all, I disagree with something that Mr. Strough said, not that I’m in love with my idea, but I don’t think it’s an imposition to, as a possible solution to get around the need for a variance that is troubling some of us, to put a fence on their property. I don’t think it’s an imposition. We’re not, it’s not a condition. We’re only suggesting that it might be something that you might want to do. If, in fact, they’ve got to build a fence, it’s easier to build it one place than another, actually, but go ahead, sir. MR. GOUGE-Just two points, in regards to building a fence on their property. I was advised not to agree to do that, from legal counsel, in terms of, it has a lot of implications. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-You got good advice. MR. STONE-That’s probably right. That’s fine. MR. GOUGE-And secondly, the fence, actually the fence is only partially funded through our funding source, because, once we had something set, any changes they wouldn’t approve, but I doubt that they would approve us funding, we would receive no funding for the fence at all if we put it on somebody else’s property. MR. STONE-Yes, but I’ll tell you, I’m concerned that, the comment I wrote down the other day when I looked at the property, I’m not convinced that a six foot fence, given the height of your property, is going to do what the Burkes think it’s going to do, and I’m concerned that you’ll build a six foot fence and they’ll be back and looking for an eight foot fence. MR. ABBATE-Absolutely right. MR. BURKE-We absolutely will not. MR. STONE-I can be concerned, sir. MR. BURKE-I’ll sign a document. MR. STONE-Okay, but that, I still, I’m concerned about that, but that’s, any other comments anybody wants to make before we talk about it individually? Because, unless you have anything more to add, I think we’re ready to talk about it. MR. URRICO-Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-Go ahead. Well, you’re going to speak first anyway. So, go ahead. MR. URRICO-Well, I was just talking to Mr. Frank, and he says that the Zoning Administrator’s determination was that Dixon Road represents the front yard, not the side yard, and I just need some clarification on that. MR. FRANK-By Code, the relief that they need is based on, even though their architectural main entrance is on the side of the building, still the front yard is the front yard. MR. ABBATE-Right. MR. STONE-Well, that’s not what I thought this whole thing was about. MR. FRANK-Well, I was about to correct that. MR. STONE-Yes, but the fence is not in that front yard. MR. FRANK-If their architectural main entrance typically faces the architectural front yard, and this is not the case. MR. STONE-You’re saying along it. MR. FRANK-If you want to call that their architectural front yard, then they could put a six foot or a stockade fence anywhere along that property line. That’s the side yard for both. MR. STONE-Okay. You’re saying that whole block of land is the front yard, all the way, from line to line, and you can’t put a fence anywhere in there? 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) MR. FRANK-If they were to go strictly by the Code, where the architectural entrance is, and that’s not the case here. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. FRANK-It’s an exception to the rule. MR. STONE-Okay. So it’s not the fact that what we’re looking at is the front yard. It’s the area forward of the building, toward Dixon Road, that whole area is the front yard? MR. FRANK-That’s correct. MR. STONE-I apologize if we were confused. So, we’re still talking from Dixon Road back, a six foot fence for 44 feet? MR. FRANK-That’s correct. That would be the architectural front yard, for both parcels. Actually, it would be probably less for the Burkes. MR. STONE-Less for theirs, probably. MR. BURKE-Twenty-one. MR. STONE-Well, Roy, what do you think about it? MR. URRICO-Okay. Well, I just want to clarify the point that I am not opposed to the Burkes having some sort of relief. I certainly want to see them get the maximum relief they can possibly get. My concern is, in fact, with the precedent that a neighbor, in any situation, could object and require us to, A, put a stockade fence where none is allowed, and, B, allow a two foot increase in the allowable height of a fence. That’s a major concern of mine, but I also feel that there needs to be some sort of major barrier put up. I think the Burkes’ situation is well taken. I think there are going to be cars coming in and out. There are going to be cars at night. There are going to be cars during the day. There is going to be garbage and, you know, this seems to be a very odd situation, a one in which the injured party here, if you want to use that term, would be the Burkes, and I think they’re the ones that need to be satisfied the most here. All codes are important, but I think this is a very important situation, too. I guess what I’m saying is that I’m really torn. I’m really torn here, and I think I’d like to hear what the rest of my Board members have to say. MR. STONE-Okay. Let’s go to Mr. Himes. MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I think there may be some other alternatives here. Maybe they wouldn’t be effective over night, but I think part of the trees down along there, if I recall from being there, are cedar trees or what not, but I do believe that natural vegetation could do a great deal here, especially in view of the fence itself is certainly not going to stop any light. I think the parking lot lights are going to be a lot higher than six feet, but I think that in this case the matter, as a matter of fact, I think on the neighbors further side there’s another stockade between one of the other of the properties up Dixon Road, has a stockade fence. It doesn’t come out all the way to the road, but what if they, just 100 or 200 feet away, were to come in and ask us for something. So I think we should uphold the Code from this standpoint, because I do believe that there are other alternatives, although not all of them may have been defined and discussed here tonight. There are other alternatives in my opinion, and so I would not be in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-Most of my remarks I want to say up front I would say are couched in the effects on the neighborhood or community, so it doesn’t seem like I’m wandering here a little bit, but in my experience, or, you know, I think the traditional resistance to “residences”, has been along two lines, the introduction of people that are not the same as everybody else in the neighborhood among the houses, for whatever reason challenged in whatever way, and, two, the increase involved activity of a quasi-commercial activity. I think to our society’s credit the first part of it has been largely erased, and that’s a great thing, but I think the second part hasn’t changed. In this particular case, I think that, as I look at those plans, and I look at what’s involved with that activity there, it’s residential, but it’s really commercial. What’s the definition of commercial? The commercial activities that I’m involved in, I mean, there’s dumpsters. There’s supply vendors. There’s laundry services. There’s administration people. There’s State enforcement people. That’s a commercial business. I mean, it’s not that much different than another one in Town. It just has a different label because people are living there. I mean, on this application it says duplex residence. Well I think that that’s incorrect. I mean, a duplex is two families. This is, in a sense, eight individual people, but they’re their own family or they have their own quarters based on the plans. So in my mind, this is really more commercial than it is residential, and I think that that’s the defining thing, as far as the Burkes are concerned, in this particular case. Mr. Strough brought up that, you know, in our Code we normally have some pretty good buffers between residential zones and commercial zones. In this case, the desire to place a residence in a place that’s cost effective and non-objectionable and all those wonderful things still has put two activities that are not 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) necessarily entirely compatible with each other. How do we mitigate that? How do we reduce the impact of that? Well, obviously, we go through the Planning Board process, and they put as many restrictions and good ideas into that work as they can, but development, being a developer, development, in its initial stages, is still just lines on paper. These plans look good. The survey guys are good at what they do, but there’s no way to necessarily be able to understand where a project ends up, once trees are knocked down and buildings are put up. It’s always, to some degree, different than what was envisioned by the builders or the developers. I think that’s just a fact of life. It has been for me. So I think, in this particular case, the idea that, as a Board, we’re empowered with the opportunity, under special circumstances, to have some leniency or grant some flexibility, I think that that’s an opportunity, not a problem. I think that’s actually an opportunity, in this particular case. I know that with these residences, for example, that the people from Dixon Heights opposed this project based on car count, I guess, that’s what I understand, but I have to believe that they opposed it for some of the reasons that I’ve already discussed, knowing that this is a special type facility, and I think that, you know, it wasn’t said, but I have to believe that that’s there. So, we have a circumstance where the immediately impacted neighbors are asking for some additional relief. It’s an entirely unique circumstance which we’re allowed to consider on an individual basis. I’m not troubled by the precedent because by very definition, everybody’s a little confused here, because their the benefit. You’re the applicant. This is an entirely unique circumstance in which we could honestly say, in good faith, the somebody that came in would not be the same circumstance, if we granted relief. This is not a wide ranging grant of stockade fences because obviously this is entirely unique. I mean, you’re offering to pay for a fence that you don’t have to, at increase costs, because you think you should. I know, as a business owner, you’re not going to see that too often in Town. In fact it would probably be the opposite. They’d probably be here opposing. So I would say, on balance, that I think what the Burkes want, what you’re requesting, is a reasonable request, based on what everything that’s been brought up here to this point. I think that the Burkes property value has declined by the very building of this place, and if this is the small concession that you end up with, to mitigate whatever your personal feelings are about it. MR. BURKE-I personally feel I think it’s a beautiful building. MR. HAYES-I think it is, too. MR. BURKE-I think it’s going to add to our property value. I really do. I like our neighbors. MR. HAYES-I’m not saying you have bad neighbors, Mr. Burke. MR. STONE-Let him keep talking. MR. HAYES-And I’m not implying that. All I’m saying is that generally, you know, from a property value perspective, it would be probably be held more often that the siting of a semi-commercial operation or a commercial operation next to a home does not increase its value, as a rule. I’m not saying in this circumstance. I’m not commenting on that, but I’m saying, as a rule, that’s why they have buffers. That’s why we have zoning, in this circumstance. So I guess I think that your request is reasonable, based on the entire circumstance of what’s happened, and ultimately I think we have a defensible position, as a Board, that we entertain these ideas based on an entire set of fact pattern of which this one is obviously very unique and in my mind a little bit compelling in its uniqueness. So, I’m in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Chuck Abbate? MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. I agree with comments by Roy and by Norm, and I also support, in its infinite wisdom, the Planning Board, when they suggested a maximum four foot stockade fence. I understand what Jaime has to say, and what he has said, but this may be just the beginning of something we may regret, and so I am opposed to the application. MR. STONE-Okay. Allan? MR. BRYANT-I agree, somewhat, with what Mr. Hayes has said, relative to the fact that this is a unique circumstance. This is not a cut and dried, four residential unit or eight residential unit. That there are other requirements that might necessitate this additional blockage. With that I agree, but I also agree with what Mr. Himes has said, and I don’t think that, I think this is a quick fix, and that there are other alternatives, some that the Chairman has mentioned, the fence on the neighbor’s property, for example, which would allow them to build this fence to the front of their house. In any event, any type of fence that you build is not going to block out the lights. That’s not going to change the fact that there are lights that are on 24 hours a day, or at least all night long. With that in mind, I would have to say that I would be opposed to the fence, you know, on this application, but I think a four foot fence would be nice. Some type of vegetation would be nice, a fence on the Burkes property might be the solution. I don’t think the six foot fence this length is going to solve any of the problems that they’re suggesting. So I’d be opposed to it. MR. STONE-Chuck? 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) MR. MC NULTY-I’ve got a million thoughts bouncing around in my head. As Mr. Strough kind of indicated, I’ve had some experience with group homes, and that’s really what we’re talking about here is a group home. A number of years ago the State proposed group homes. One was going to be in my neighborhood. Other neighborhoods were up in arms and afraid, and we had something like ten days, at that point, because it was when the Town Supervisor was going up for re-election and he didn’t open his mail for, I forgot how long, but anyway the six week notice that we were supposed to get was totally wasted. Long story short, we ended up spending three years getting three group homes sited in the area. From that, I found a lot of things. One, a lot of the concerns that you hear, and I think a lot of the concerns you have, are perceived concerns that probably will not be realized as being real concerns when they show up. The general reaction that we found State wide is once a group home is in place for a little while, people don’t know it’s there. I’ll wager there’s probably 20 to 30 group homes in the Town of Queensbury, and I know where there’s three of them, because I was involved with them. There’s one in Courthouse Estates. There’s one on Sweet Road, and I think most people that drive by them aren’t going to know they’re there. There’s one in Glens Falls that for a while was a real pain because they did have a dumpster and it got dumped very loudly early in the morning. They had the whole front yard of the house paved for a parking lot, and it was not a good situation. In this case, though, I think you’ve got a real good neighbor here in Prospect School. I know they’ve been responsive. Whether or not there will be problems, I’m not sure, but if there are I’m sure that Prospect School is going to react to whatever shows up and solve them as best they can. That doesn’t mean that I don’t understand where your concerns are coming from. I do. Somebody mentioned property values. It’s been shown State wide that property values are not affected by group homes. I think, I’m bothered by a stockade fence here that’s six feet high. I’d rather not see one. If we have to put one in there, I would certainly like to see it camouflaged as much as possible by plantings, but my initial reaction I think is still the same is I hate to see a stockade fence there now. I would prefer to try something else first, and then leave the door open, that if that did not work, to have Prospect School come back to us, after their place was finished and in operation and say, we’ve tried it. It’s not working. We need the fence. My other concern, a little more in the background, because this isn’t a regular house that’s being built next to you. It is a little more of a commercial type facility than it is a residence, but as I said, it’s still a group home, and as I said, I’m not sure how many group homes we’ve got in the Town of Queensbury, but I’ll bet it’s up in the 20’s at least, and if we allow a six foot stockade fence for one, I think we are going to be establishing a precedent that says everybody else that has got a group home next to them can reasonably expect to request a six foot fence to protect them, too. So for now I’m going to be opposed to the approval of the application, but I really would like to leave the door open later, in case we find that there is a genuine need, once things are in operation, to come back and re-visit the issue. MR. STONE-Not an easy job. Not an easy job for this Board to think about all the considerations that we have to do. Obviously, we have an applicant before us who is doing a wonderful service for the community. They are building a wonderful facility there. I pray to God that none of us ever need it, and I recognize the Burke’s concern, and I think Mr. McNulty said it very well. It is a concern. We have no evidence. I certainly know I had an impression, when I went out there and looked at your property and looked at their property, and said so you go up six feet, the lights are still going to leak over the top of the fence. The noise is still going to get to their house because their house does sit up higher than the parking lot, considerably, and yet I recognize that they, in fact, are going to be impacted, and how much that’s going to be, obviously none of us can say. I would like to agree with Mr. McNulty that, if there were some way, I’m sure there is, that if we can sort of put this on hold, get the building built, and then see what the impact is, I think we’d be better off. The reason I’m concerned about, as some of the Board have expressed is a precedent, one of the reasons, but right now we don’t allow stockade fences in the architectural front yard. I can see every home on Aviation or other busy thoroughfares saying, well, if I put a stockade fence up, all the way to my property line on the road, I’m going to cut out all the headlights shining into my house as they go by, and what do I say to them if they say that, well, you gave it to the Prospect School because a neighbor asked. Well, I’m a neighbor. I’m the person who lives on this particular road, and that’s one of the reasons we don’t have it. Now we’ve become a series of individual private homes that nobody can see in or out of. I mean, I’m exaggerating, but the point is, if you go out to the road, then you’re going to say, well, the headlights won’t hit my house, because right now they bother me every time a car goes by. So I’m concerned about that. I would like, I mean, right now, by my little poll, we’ve got, before my, and I haven’t made my, there are four people who aren’t willing to grant this variance at this point in time, one person who was very eloquent. I think Jaime, I even wrote down, if we are going to do this, he was going to give the motion, because I think his argument is a very good argument, but I think it’s premature. I really do think that we have to get the building built. You can always put a fence in, and let’s see what happens when we get a little experience under our belt, and I kind of would like to, I don’t want to deny this thing. I would like to table it for six months after the building is complete. That may be a legal precedent, but I would like to do that. MR. ABBATE-I don’t think we should, Mr. Chairman. I think we should vote on the application on its face. MR. STONE-That’s fine. That’s what we’re going to talk about, but I would like to do this thing in such a way, and maybe that’s what I’m saying, that we say we will revisit this when we have experience to make a better judgment. I think somebody said it, it is a little early. So, I’m going to call for a motion to deny, well, see, I don’t want to do that. 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, why don’t you give the applicant the opportunity to withdraw the application, if you want to go that route, because then he’d have to come back with something significantly different, if that’s possible. MR. STONE-That’s what I’m saying. Yes, I would like you to withdraw it, with the provision, with the understanding that we would consider this again when we have some practical experience. Is that acceptable to the Board? MR. URRICO-Is there any idea how much longer it would take to complete the building? MR. GOUGE-The building’s due to be completed by mid-December, and there’s a lot of regulatory types of things that have to happen before folks can move in, but I would anticipate that they would move in anywhere from the beginning of January to as late as the beginning of February. MR. URRICO-How would Mr. and Mrs. Burke feel about that? MR. BURKE-You know how we feel. We wanted the six foot fence. We’re very disappointed. We’ve got snow that’s going to be plowed, anytime now, and that’s all we wanted. You talk about group homes. This is a neighbor, not a group home, but yet he’s putting a parking lot next door to us. MR. STONE-We understand. MR. BURKE-And that’s what we wanted. That’s all we wanted. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Chairman, you made some very important statements. You indicated that, you talk about Queensbury road and about the individual homes on Queensbury road now who are requesting six foot fences because they don’t like the idea that headlights are shining into their homes, and I think we should vote on this and get it over with. We’re procrastinating by not voting on this. Six foot fences in the Town of Queensbury are not allowed. MRS. BURKE-(Lost word) in the front yard. MR. ABBATE-And the public hearing is closed. MRS. BURKE-I’m sorry. MR. STONE-Mr. Abbate, I understand your frustrations, but we can, I mean, the Board’s feeling is that we should deny it. You have the option of withdrawing the application, without prejudice, if you want to, and obviously we’ll have all the minutes. They don’t go away. MR. GOUGE-Right. I think that at this time then I’ll withdraw the application. MR. STONE-Okay. So done. We’ll revisit it when you apply again. MR. GOUGE-Thank you for your time, all of you. MR. BRYANT-Thank you. MRS. BURKE-The only reason I speak out is I don’t always understand what you’re saying. MR. STONE-Well, we’re saying we sympathize with you, but we’ve got greater concern, is what we’re really saying, at this point. AREA VARIANCE NO. 84-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC. PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: MARTIN D. AUFFREDOU, ESQ. – BARTLETT, PONTIFF, ET AL PROPERTY LOCATION: ROUTE 9 AND KENDRICK ROAD ZONE: HC-MOD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,208 SQ. FT. CANOPY AND ASSOCIATED STRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF BOTH THE HC-INT. ZONE AND THE TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. SPR 49-02 BP 2002-416; BP 93-419; BP 89-920 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 10/9/02 TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-69 LOT SIZE: 1 ACRE SECTION 179-4-060; 179-4-030 BRUCE LIPINSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, I’m going to have to recuse myself from this application. MR. STONE-I understand. Don’t go anywhere, because we’ve got one more thing to talk about. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 84-2002, Cumberland Farms, Inc., Meeting Date: October 16, 2002 “Project Location: State Route 9 and Kendrick Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,208 sq. ft. gas island canopy and associated structure improvements. Relief Required: The applicant requests 16 feet of relief (Route 9 frontage) and 10 feet of relief (Kendrick Road frontage) from the 50-foot front setback requirement of the Highway Commercial Moderate Zone, § 179-4- 030. Additionally, the applicant requests 41 feet of relief from the 75-foot minimum setback requirement of the Travel Corridor Overlay Districts per § 179-4-060. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired canopy in the preferred location, and modernize the site to make it competitive with other convenience stores with gas facilities. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a smaller canopy with one less gas stand. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 10 feet and 16 feet of front setback relief may be interpreted as minimal to moderate relative to the Ordinance (20% and 32% respectively). 41 feet of relief from the 75-foot minimum setback requirement of the Travel Corridor Overlay Districts may be interpreted as moderate relative to the Ordinance (54.7%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. The applicant’s plan incorporates some of the design objectives for the Upper Route 9 Corridor such as the reduction of curb cuts, the increased amount of sidewalk and grass area along the road, and an increased landscape buffer along Route 9. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may partly be attributed to the size of the parcel and the location of the building proposed to remain the same. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 49-2002: to be reviewed 10/22/02, installation of new state of the art gasoline dispensers with new canopy, along w/additional landscaping and site work. BP 2002-416: pending, 2208, sq. ft. canopy and new tanks. BP 98-3198: 05/14/98, 36 sq. ft. freestanding sign. BP 98-3199: 05/14/98, 54 sq. ft. wall sign. BP 93-419: 08/18/93, 24’ x 32’ canopy. SP 29-93: 06/22/93, 24’ x 32’ canopy AV 44-1993: 06/16/93, travel corridor overlay and front setback relief for 24’ x 32’ canopy. BP 89-920: 11/29/89, exterior alterations. Staff comments: The relief needed to increase the gas island canopy by 187.57% might be considered offset by the positive attributes of the proposed project. The reduction of curb cuts to one on Route 9 will increase the traffic safety, and incorporating some of the design guidelines for the Upper Route 9 Corridor will result in more greenery along the road. However, a smaller canopy with one less gas island might provide for better internal movement of traffic. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form October 9, 2002 Project Name: Cumberland Farms, Inc. Owner: Cumberland Farms, Inc. ID Number: QBY-02-AV-84 County Project#: Oct02-31 Current Zoning: HC-Mod Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of 2,208 sq. ft. canopy and associated structure improvements. Applicant seeks relief from the setback requirements of both the HC-Int. zone and the Travel Corridor Overlay requirements. Site Location: Route 9 and Kendrick Road Tax Map Number(s): 296.13-1-69 Staff Notes: The applicant requests a variance for the construction of 2,208 sq. ft. canopy over a new 8 pump fuel (4 unit) island. The canopy will be in the same location as the exiting one that currently does not meet the setbacks of the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone or the HC-Int. zone. The existing canopy coverts two units (four pump capacity) fuel dispenser. A lighting plan has been submitted that indicates some lighting at the edges of the Route 9 property line. Staff recommends requesting the applicant to detail the lighting effect onto Route 9. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact with Stipulation The applicant provided requested information about the lighting effect onto Route 9. The Board recommends No County Impact with Stipulation that the applicant meet the Town’s lighting guidelines.” Signed Bennet Driscoll 10/10/02. MR. STONE-Gentlemen, you’re on. Can you make this thing any bigger, by the way, these plans? I mean, because it only covers about three quarters of my car when I stretch it out there. Go ahead. MR. LIPINSKI-Okay. Again, my name is Bruce Lipinski. I’m here filling in on behalf of Martin Auffredou, and we have a number of people here this evening, in case the Board needs additional information. We have Rob Spiak, the engineer on the project, and then we also have representatives of Cumberland Farms here in case you have any questions regarding the actual operation of this facility. As you can see, we’re here for two, well, three variance applications. Number One, we’re looking for approximately 10 feet of relief. We’re seeking I believe it’s a 10 foot variance. It’s a front yard variance here because we have a corner lot, from the canopy to Kendrick Road. We’re also seeking, there’s a 50 foot setback from Route 9, and we’re seeking minor relief from that requirement to the front of the pumps, or to the front of the canopy, and then there’s a 75 foot overlay which we’re also seeking relief from. One thing I want to point out, in particular with the front setback, is there’s already a variance in place for the existing canopy. So, with respect to the front, I think we’re actually seeking one more foot from what’s in place right now. Is that correct? MR. FRANK-I believe so. MR. LIPINSKI-Okay. So, as far as the front is concerned, I don’t think there’s any, we’re not asking for a lot here. It’s already in place. There’s an existing canopy. We may be extending it a little wider, but as far as impacting upon Route 9, there is no major impact, and as you heard earlier, the Warren County Planning Board had nothing but good things to say about this. They had no concerns with any impact on Route 9, and 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) they’re, of course, one of the parties responsible for maintaining that corridor. In terms of where this fits in the overall scheme of things, we’ve been here before, for the Main Street project, for the Quaker Road project. I believe the Board has seen the results of what has happened on those projects. As far as we’re concerned, we believe it’s had a positive impact upon the community, and we want to continue that with Phase III, which is this, this Store Number Three, and basically what we’re going to do is improve, we’re going to rip out the existing pumps, rip out the existing canopy. We’re going to put in all new tanks, state of the art dispensers, state of the art, the credit card machines for quicker service, and environmentally sound tanks which will benefit not only Cumberland Farms but also the neighbors. Does the Board have any questions? MR. STONE-Well, you made a comment that the County gave you approval, and they have responsibility for Route 9. I don’t think they do. I think it’s DOT. MR. LIPINSKI-Okay. MR. STONE-Being a State route, I believe it’s, they’re the ones who plow it, I believe. Anybody argue with me? MR. ABBATE-No, but I do have a question. Counselor, you said you’re not asking for too much. If I were the lead counsel in your firm, and I called you in and I said, Mr. Lipinski, I’m going to increase your salary by 187%. Would that be significant? MR. LIPINSKI-That would be nice, certainly. MR. ABBATE-That’s what you’re asking for, 187.5%. MR. LIPINSKI-Right, but if you think about it in terms of what we’re actually doing with this canopy, the canopy width is going to remain the same. What we’re doing is extending the length to add two pumps. So I know 187% sounds like a lot, but in terms of, you know, comparisons to modern gas stations and being competitive in the gasoline business, you need to have pumps. You need to have convenience for your customers, and this is how we propose to do it. MR. ABBATE-Don’t misunderstand me. I don’t have a problem with this. I just wanted to find out what you meant by insignificant. MR. LIPINSKI-Sure. MR. STONE-So you’re doubling the number of pumping stations, from four to eight? MR. LIPINSKI-Yes. Similar, I believe, to the Quaker Road project. We went from four to eight there. MR. STONE-Well, the applicant is to be congratulated for looking at our new Code, in terms of improving and dressing up the upper Route 9 corridor. We had one recently, a little further south on Route 9, that we jumped all over. So I’m very pleased to see you have done that. I do have a question. Has any consideration been given to moving the Kendrick Road curb cut a little further east? I mean, I applaud the fact that we’re only going to have one on Route 9. That’s great. I would like to see the other one moved a little further east, because I just think it’s very close. People come zooming off, including me, now coming off Route 9, and I get on Kendrick for about a foot and a half, and I zoom into that curb cut. I would like to make that less of a direct route, for safety purposes. I mean, I know what I do, and I’m sure I’m not the worst person that goes in there like that. MR. LIPINSKI-Well, I appreciate you pointing out, which I forgot to mention, was the fact that we did eliminate the curb cut. MR. STONE-Yes, you did, absolutely, and I think that’s great. MR. LIPINSKI-And that’s in keeping with the whole overall plan for Route 9. In terms of moving that entrance, I’m going to leave that to Rob here, as the engineer of the project, to respond to that, and, you know, we may have other comments as well from the people who actually work on the site. MR. SPIAK-I think the basis for leaving Kendrick where it is today is mostly for the tanker truck circulation on the site. By the elimination of a curb cut on Route 9 and basically the centering of this, the basic path of the tanker truck is for them to come in and do this wiggle to get over here to off load his fuel, which will then come around and exit the site. When we had the two curb cuts on Route 9 here, it was easy to pull in and do this routine, here, but this curb cut forms an important function of the site layout now, with the improvements that are being made to the Route 9 side. MR. STONE-Good argument. I’m not sure I buy it, but a good argument. 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) MR. SPIAK-To move the curb cut further here would basically make it a sharper turn and the road narrows up here enough where he’s going to be cutting off the pavement into the shoulders and stuff like that, and it’s a tough movement. MR. ABBATE-Let me relieve some of your stress. I applaud the application as well, and I don’t have a problem with the curb cut. So, we’ve kind of balanced it off. MR. STONE-We’re not agreeing tonight. That’s perfectly all right. MR. URRICO-I have two questions. I notice, on this plot plan here, that between the pump furthest to the left, and the pump next to it, there’s about 20 feet separating it that doesn’t seem to be represented on that drawing. MR. SPIAK-Between these two pumps here? MR. URRICO-Yes, in other words, there seems to be enough room that when you’re coming off of Route 9, you’re going to head directly from the store, there seems to be an extra space between them. I don’t know what pump numbers we are here, but it’s either three and four or one and two. There seems to be some extra room here. MR. STONE-What are you looking at? MR. SPIAK-This room here is consistent with, these outline stripes here are supposed to indicate where the cars would be sitting. MR. URRICO-Okay. I’m reading it wrong, then. It’s my fault. MR. SPIAK-Yes. MR. URRICO-The second question I have, on the handicap spot, is that going to be similar to the one that you have on the Main Street store, where it sits sort of like right in front, and it’s sort of a sway back? MR. SPIAK-It would be the same type of handicap ramp. It’s not going to be the same location. This one is more so centered between the two businesses, versus directly in front of the door like I think it is at Main Street. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. BRYANT-The main structure, are you doing anything to the main structure at all? MR. SPIAK-We’re not proposing any changes to the building at this time. MR. BRYANT-In Staff notes they mention, one of the suggestions they make is to eliminate one of the pumps. MR. SPIAK-I mean, I think they’re talking about this dispenser here. By eliminating that, that would be, the canopy would come back and it would be in compliance. We wouldn’t require a variance there. We don’t believe that there’s any conflicts that leaving that pump there poses. It is, the dispenser from the property line is actually 50 feet. If you had a car sitting under there, if you take a measurement from the canopy to this parking throat here, you’ve got 30 feet of travel space in there. So there’s sufficient distance for two way travel around this canopy, even with that fourth dispenser. MR. BRYANT-Well, that’s what you have consistently around the whole thing is like 29 or 30 feet. MR. SPIAK-Correct, and there’s no real option to be able to slide this over, because again, we’re dealing with that tanker truck circulation there, to get around the site and get out of it, but we don’t believe that having a car parked here is going to pose any significant traffic issues, either, with that curb cut. MR. BRYANT-I’ve got to say that I do agree with the Chairman, because when I came out of this site, I pulled on Kendrick Road, and somebody was right behind me, and they wanted to turn right on Route 9, they just cut right through your parking lot, right onto your parking lot and right out the other way, and it annoyed the heck out of me. MR. SPIAK-Well, I think what’s going to happen here, too, is I think we’re all aware that the canopy sits in the center area. The pumps are currently parallel with Route 9 today. What you’re doing is your fundamentally changing the traffic pattern that’s going to occur on this site also. I’m sure a lot of the traffic pattern now, yes, they fly in and go right to these pumps right here. Now they’re going to drive straight smack into it, and they’re going to have to adjust their speeds and adjust their way of thinking that, if they want to come into this property and fuel they’re either going to have to pull down and do a 90 degree turn up 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) here, or come into here and turn straight down this way. So, I think with that mindset, with the way the site is going to fundamentally change the traffic patterns around here, that also helps to eliminate the concerns of leaving this curb cut alone. MR. STONE-What do you propose for that, the landscaping in the bottom right corner? MR. SPIAK-This area down here, it’s basically proposed to be replanted around the sign, probably with a similar pattern with what’s been done at the Main Street and the Quaker sites. MR. STONE-It looks right now that a lot of the landscaping that’s been put in in Queensbury, it needs taking care of. I’m being kind. It looks seedy. MR. SPIAK-I mean, I think that’s part of the process here. Again, with Quaker and Ridge over there, with Main Street, you’ve seen what Cumberland Farms is trying to do with those sites, and I’m not aware of any issues as to the new landscaping that has been planted there and how it’s been maintained at all, and they want to continue that pattern with this site. MR. STONE-One of the problems, and the new Code addresses it better than the old Code, is that you’ve got to replace it if it dies, I believe, and we haven’t done that before. We have a building down here, big box, that has had a great deal of difficulty with maintaining planting. MR. SPIAK-With that great garden center they’ve got there, too? MR. STONE-Well, I didn’t say which one it was. Yes, you could have taken it out of stock and done better than they’ve done I think. I was also concerned, and this is only me as a casual observer, the place could be policed a little bit better. The property, current property, there’s a lot of stuff, that must be your job, Chuck, to go out. I think it could be better. It looked a little messy, particularly on Kendrick where nobody goes. Okay. Any other questions? MR. HIMES-I have one, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-Go ahead. MR. HIMES-I think perhaps for Staff. I just want to clarify, confirm in my mind here, the understanding of the difference between what’s going on and what’s already there. I think it was said that they’re going to be actually coming a foot closer to Route 9. So does that mean here that they’ve already, they’ve got 15 feet of relief from the variance that was given before, and then the 10 feet to Kendrick is 10 feet, where it was zero before? MR. FRANK-That’s correct. The current canopy, I believe, only has front setback relief on State Route 9, not on the Kendrick side. MR. HIMES-Because it didn’t need it. MR. FRANK-And now what they’re proposing would probably encroach another approximately a foot, compared with what they have. MR. HIMES-And 10 feet towards Kendrick and then we’ve got that overlay business, which seems like we never pay any attention to, and I don’t understand why not, but anyway. All right. Thank you. MR. STONE-Somebody else had a question. MR. URRICO-Yes, I did. You’re not just eliminating one curb cut. You’re actually moving it, right? That curb cut is situated differently than where the current one is? MR. SPIAK-Yes. The existing curb cuts are located approximately here and approximately here. So they’re both going away and being condensed to the center of the property. MR. URRICO-So actually one curb cut is, in essence, moving further away from the corner than it was before? MR. STONE-Yes, one is. What kind of signage are you going to have on this property? What kind of signage are you going to have on this property, or are we going to see you for a sign variance at some point? MR. SPIAK-At this point, I’m not aware of any signage changes for the property at all. MR. STONE-So the way we see it there essentially is going to stay that way? MR. SPIAK-That’s my understanding, yes. 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) MR. STONE-I’ve got a buck that says it’s not true, but that’s okay. MR. SPIAK-If they want to hire me tomorrow to do some new signage, I’d be happy to it on. MR. STONE-We’ve seen a lot of gasoline station signs, in the last couple of years. Any other questions before I open the public hearing? All right. 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. HAYES-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-We’re right back where we were. Any other questions? If not, let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Chuck Abbate. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I think that the application is a reasonable one. I also believe that what you are proposing does, indeed, provide some positive effects to the Town of Queensbury. I also feel that anything that we can do within reason, that doesn’t violate the Codes, to encourage business to increase their business is extremely important and beneficial to the Town of Queensbury, and I also believe that your overall application, 84-2002, in my opinion, is worthy of approval. Thank you. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I essentially agree. In this particular case, I think that I, personally, have had a few compliments about the new construction of the Cumberland Farms and the results therein, and I think that it’s a natural extension of that policy or that direction to update this particular store, which is an older store, including the installation of modern or convenient, as it was pointed out, the gas dispensing facilities. That being the benefit to the applicant, comparing that to any detriment to the neighborhood or the effect of the relief, I really don’t think that the relief that’s being requested troubles me. This still is a commercial area. Obviously, the 41 feet of relief in the 75 foot minimum setback to the Travel Corridor is the largest percentage relief that is requested in this particular circumstance, and as Norm pointed out, we’ve looked beyond that several times recently, but I think in this particular case, as I look at Route 9, they’ve installed a turning lane there. There’s been some improvements in that part of Route 9, some expensive improvements over the last few years. So I think it’s safe to assume to some extent that that has been done, and that we don’t have to be quite as worried about that as we would in maybe another circumstance. So, I feel at least reasonably reassured by that fact. So the effects on the neighborhood or community. I think that the reduction of the curb cut, the compliance or adhering to the plan as the Town has come up with to improve that corridor certainly works in the applicant’s favor in this particular circumstance. I agree with Lew that we need to, you know, when we get the green medians, we need to keep them green, and that’s the reason that they’re on your map there as I see it, and that’s the reason they’re on the plan, but I guess in this particular case, we have to assume that the applicant is going to do as depicted, and I think that that is an improvement, versus the current situation that’s there now, and I don’t think the difficulty is entirely self-created, based on the fact that this is an older property, and certainly the gasoline business, the super station or whatever, the competitive nature of the gasoline business has changed since when this site was designed and constructed. That I absolutely believe. So, on balance, I would be in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Okay. Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes. I agree with what Jaime has said, and I think that really they’re accomplishing a lot of good things with a very small amount of variance that we need to give. So I’d be in favor of the application. Thank you. MR. STONE-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Well, I agree with the speakers, and I would be glad to see one cut instead of two, because I’ve come out of this shopping center and had some hairy experiences where you’ve got them coming from both there and from the Kendrick Road. So I think that would be an improvement, and I do think the green areas are an improvement. So I would be in favor. MR. STONE-Have you guys every tried to get auto manufactures to put the gas on one side or the other consistently for everybody. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I agree with my fellow Board members. I think this is a good project. I think the upgrade is needed there. It’s a busy station. It could use more pumps. I think this’ll accomplish that. The 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) elimination of one of the curb cuts will certainly make it less hairy for those coming in and out of there, and I’d also like to compliment Cumberland Farms. They heard us, when we did Main Street, about the curb cuts, and what we were looking for, and this plan is really right on track. I’m in favor of it. MR. STONE-Allan? MR. BRYANT-I agree with what everybody else has said. Is this the last Cumbies in Queensbury left to be done? We have so much fun. MR. STONE-Well, we got rid of all the Hess’ and now we’ve got the Cumberland Farms. MR. BRYANT-There are a lot of good features to the project. Everybody has already called them out. I’d be in favor of it, but I kind of hope that you would think about what Staff notes have said about eliminating one of the pumps. I’m not going to hold it against you, but I do believe you’d have better traffic flow around that area, because you do have that driveway right there, but I’m in favor of the project. MR. STONE-Yes. That, Allan’s comment works with the comment that I was going to ask you. What is the effect on business when people pay at the pump? Obviously right now, and I use that station fairly often, I’ve got to go in to pay, and obviously, since this isn’t California where people move away from the pumps, we haven’t learned to do that here in the east, I’m tying up pump space, and I would think paying at the pump is going to decrease the time that people are actually parked in front of a pump and maybe you could consider three versus, instead of four. I’m also wondering about what it does to business inside the store. If I don’t have to go in the store, and you’re certainly selling convenience store goods, that’s your problem. It’s not mine. It was just one of those questions you come up, but I certainly think it’s a good project. I think the amount of relief we’re giving is definitely minimal. Yes, I would like the Kendrick Road cut to be moved back, but I hear what you’re saying. You’ve got to get your goods in. You’ve got to get the gasoline in and those things aren’t small. So, on balance, I think it’s a good project. I think it’s going to benefit, certainly, you. I think it’s going to make a more attractive place to do business, and getting rid of the one curb cut on Route 9 is a tremendous thing, and being aware and hopefully maintaining, per Code, the plantings that you’re going to put in, I think is commendable. Having said that, I need a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 84-2002 CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC., Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: State Route 9 and Kendrick Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 2,208 square foot gas island canopy and associated structure improvements. Relief required. The applicant requests 16 feet of relief (Route 9 frontage) and 10 feet of relief (Kendrick Road frontage) from the 50 foot front setback requirement of the Highway Commercial Moderate zone, Section 179-4-030. Additionally, the applicant requests 21 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum setback requirements of the Travel Corridor Overlay District per Section 179-4-060. The benefit to the applicant. The applicant would be permitted to construct the desired canopy in the preferred location, and modernize the site to make it competitive with other convenient stores and with the gas facilities. Feasible alternatives, it could be said that it may include a smaller canopy with one less gas island that may be possible. However, it isn’t congruent with the investment and construction objectives of this project. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? 10 feet and 16 feet of front setback relief may be interpreted as minimal to moderate, relative to the Ordinance, 20% and 32% respectively. 41 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum setback requirement of the Travel Corridor Overlay District may be interpreted as moderate relative to the Ordinance, 54.7%. However, it must be kept in mind that the only increase here is in connection, is one foot on the Route 9 frontage and 10 feet now where it was 0 previously because of the length and canopy, and the 75 foot Overlay is just kind of goes along with what’s already there and being lessened, or the setback increased by the same distance, one foot. The effects on the neighborhood or the community. Well, they’re positive, almost entirely. There’s going to be, there’s underground storage tanks that are upgraded, which are moderate, much safer for the community, reduction of curb cuts on Route 9 is a benefit to highway travel, pay at the pump is a convenience to the motorists, and also there’s an increased amount of sidewalk and grassed area along the road, and an increased landscape buffer along Route 9. So I’d move that we approve this application as submitted. Duly adopted this 16 day of October, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE MR. STONE-There you go. MR. SPIAK-Thank you very much. MR. LIPINSKI-Thank you. 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) AREA VARIANCE NO. 86-2001 EXTENSION JOSEPH & NANCY POLONSKY MR. STONE-All right. We have one thing, gentlemen. Don’t run. We all got in your packet this request to extend the variance for Joseph Polonsky. I would like to move that we extend or that we, whatever the term is that you want, that we extend Area Variance 86-2001, for an extra year from the date at which it was granted, namely extending it to November 15, 2003. A year is a year. A year is not a year and two weeks. Do I have a second to that? Mr. Polonsky couldn’t be here tonight, unfortunately. MR. HAYES-This seems like more than a year, though. I mean, if he’s asking for. MR. STONE-No, November 15 is when it was granted. He wanted to go to November 30. I’m saying thth November 15, 2003. MR. HAYES-Okay. I’ve got you. MR. STONE-We granted it then. MR. BRYANT-You made the motion? MR. STONE-I made a motion. Do I hear a second? MR. BRYANT-Why would you make a motion when you voted against the original thing? MR. STONE-I know I did. I thought about it. I was going to look it up. MR. ABBATE-It’s right here. We have it right here. MR. STONE-Well, this is a request. Go ahead. Somebody else make the motion. MR. HAYES-That’s a two year extension. MR. STONE-No, no. It’s good until now. It’s good for a year. MR. HAYES-Right, but he wants another year on top of that. MR. STONE-He wants a year on top of that. Somebody else make the motion. I’m not going to vote against. It’s a simple request, guys, once we’ve granted it. MR. BRYANT-See, but if you didn’t grant it, if you didn’t vote on it the first time, why would you vote to extend it? It’s not logical. MR. STONE-Go ahead. Make the motion, somebody. MR. BRYANT-I voted against it, too. MR. STONE-So then don’t make the motion. Will somebody who voted for it? MOTION THAT WE EXTEND THE DEADLINE TO NOVEMBER 15, 2003 FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 86-2001 JOSEPH & NANCY POLONSKY, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Duly adopted this 16 day of October, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty NOES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone MR. STONE-The motion’s carried. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, before we go off record, I wasn’t kidding earlier today about the Code books, and I really think that we should, you know, does everybody think that they should have one? MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. HAYES-I do. We should make a motion, not demanding one, but requesting one. MR. BRYANT-Requesting. 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/02) MOTION THAT WE BE PROVIDED WITH THE FULL TOWN CODE BOOK, Introduced by Allan Bryant who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 16 day of October, 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-Now the meeting is adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 48