The URL can be used to link to this page

2004-02-25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/25/04) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 25, 2004 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHARLES MC NULTY, ACTING CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, ACTING SECRETARY CHARLES ABBATE ROY URRICO ALLAN BRYANT LEO RIGBY, ALTERNATE JOYCE HUNT, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT LEWIS STONE PAUL HAYES CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK STENOGRAPHER-SUSAN HEMINGWAY MR. MC NULTY-First off, the changes in the agenda, we’ll take the agenda in the order of three, two, one, and four. The third item on the agenda, under New Business, Hayes Construction Group, LLC, they have formally withdrawn this request for a variance. So that’s off the agenda. Item Two, Robert & Janis Strasser, have requested a tabling, and I think I’ll ask the Secretary to read in their request, and then we’ll proceed from there. AREA VARIANCE NO. 88-2003 SEQRA TYPE: II ROBERT & JANIS STRASSER AGENT: JONATHAN C. LAPPER, STEFANIE DI LALLO BITTER, ESQ. OWNER: WILLIAM H. WALKER, III ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 157 PILOT KNOB ROAD, KATTSKILL BAY APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY THE EXISTING NONCONFORMING BOATHOUSE BY REMOVING THE EXISTING SHED ROOF AND RECONSTRUCTING IT TO A FLAT ROOF WHICH WILL CONTAIN A TOP DECK AND RAILING, WHICH WILL NOT EXCEED THE WIDTH AND OVERALL HEIGHT OF THE EXISTING DOCK/BOATHOUSE. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 2003-142 INT. ALT. LOT SIZE: 0.33 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.14-1-21.2 SECTION: 179-5-050(A) MR. UNDERWOOD-The letter is dated February 24, 2004, to Lew Stone, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals. “Dear Chairman Stone: As you are aware, our office represents Mr. and Mrs. Strasser with regard to the area variance application that is pending for the above mentioned property. This application was made, requesting a setback variance for the pre- existing, non-conforming boathouse that they have an easement to use but which is locating on William Walker’s property. The alteration that the Strasser’s are proposing to the boathouse has become part of an action that was commenced against Mr. Walker. Due to the fact that this litigation is pending, we would request that the Zoning Board table this application until such time that the Court has made a determination on this matter. Thank you. Sincerely Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart, & Rhodes, P.C. Stefanie DiLallo Bitter” MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Based on that, I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 88-2003 ROBERT & JANIS STRASSER, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/25/04) 157 Pilot Knob Road, Kattskill Bay. Because there’s litigation pending, and we’ll table it until such time as the court has made a determination on this matter. Duly adopted this 25 day of February, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Rigby, Mr. Stone, Mr. Hayes MR. MC NULTY-Okay. That’ll take care of those two items. Now we’re to the first item on the agenda. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 86-2003 SEQRA TYPE: II LAWRENCE & KRISTINE SIPOWICZ AGENT: JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS, PLLC OWNER: LAWRENCE & KRISTINE SIPOWICZ ZONING: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: 5 GLEN HALL DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING 737 SQ. FT. DWELLING AND 560 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,008 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE SIDE AND SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. ADDITIONALLY, RELIEF IS NEEDED FROM THE MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 2002-1041 LOT SIZE: 0.23 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-28 SECTION: 179-4-030 179-4-090 MICHAEL O’CONNOR & TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 86-2003, Lawrence & Kristine Sipowicz, Meeting Date: February 25, 2004 “Project Location: 5 Glen Hall Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of a 737 sq. ft. dwelling and a 560 sq. ft. detached garage and the construction of a 2,008 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. Relief Required: Applicant requests 15 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum shoreline setback requirement and 9.5 feet and 6 feet of relief from the 12-foot minimum side setback requirement of the WR-1A Zone, §179-4-030. Additionally, 40 feet of relief is needed from the 40-foot minimum road frontage requirement, per §179-4-90. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 86-2003: tabled 11/19/03, side and shoreline setback relief, height relief, and road frontage requirement relief for a 2,008 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. BP 2002-1041: not issued, 1,777 sq. ft. residential addition. Staff comments: The applicant currently proposes a more compliant shoreline and sideline setback and no longer is requesting height relief compared to their previous proposal. However, it still appears ample room exists to locate the structure compliantly relative to the shoreline setback requirement. It appears as though a narrower dwelling, parallel to the property lines, as are the neighboring homes, would be a feasible alternative. The relief requested from the minimum road frontage requirement does not appear to have a feasible alternative.” MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Applicant. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/25/04) MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Thank you, Mr. McNulty. I’m Mike O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor, and I’m here tonight representing the applicants who are also here, Larry & Kristine Sipowicz, and with me, of course, is Tom Jarrett. I went over the minutes from your last meeting. It seems as though you discussed this in great depth, and made some suggestions to the applicant, which the applicant has listened to and responded to. There is no application here for a height variance which originally there was, and even at the end of your meeting last month, there was talk about a 29 foot height with a berming in front of the property. This structure, as it’s proposed, does comply with the requirement of 28 feet. The relief that is requested, because of the lack of frontage on a Town road, is probably actually the fact we’re probably 90% of the places that are on Glen Lake. There’s a road system that goes much around the lake, that’s a Town road system, but the actual driveways that reach most of the homes are private roads. I have a place on Glen Lake. I think at the foot of Fitzgerald Road there’s probably 30 places, because the road actually ends right at the foot of the hill. All those that go across Rose Lane or go across Pioneer Point, all onto private roads. I think up on Mr. Underwood’s house is probably one of the few areas, except over by the Docksider, where there’s actually a direct access. This is the same condition you have on Lake George. It’s just the way that the lots were developed when they were, the frontage on the lake was carved out of the back land, sold to different individuals, and right of ways were the way that people got to their property. So really we don’t have an alternative to that. I don’t know how much discussion you want as to the two sidelines. We’re not imposing anything new. We’re not changing the character of what’s there. I think the neighbor to the north actually came and kindly spoke in favor of the application, and didn’t have a problem. He’s the one that’s most impacted. The neighbor to the south I don’t think has made any comment at all, although he certainly got notice from the Town. We’re not changing, significantly in any manner, the impact that’s on him. The setback from the lake I think is a fair compromise from what was requested as to what exists there now, and what is proposed. Yes, they could, if they stuck the house on the back part of the lot, but I don’t know if that’s practical or reasonable to request. If you take a look at the two adjoining properties, both the house on the north, and the house on the south, they actually are further out than what is proposed. They’re further out than even the porch that’s proposed on this particular property. So there’s really no negative impact on anyone. We’re not blocking anyone’s view, which I think is a big consider. If you had, and I think the rule says you go 50 feet or the distance, half the distance, or the distance of the average between the two adjoining owners, with an idea of trying to get the maximum setback that you can. My idea, the rule would be 50 feet, or the average, and if that were the case, we wouldn’t actually be asking for a variance here, because we’re at less than the average between the two adjoining properties. I know I’m paraphrasing the Ordinance itself, but I think you look at that when you get into character. You get into that when you look at what is the impact. There really is no negative impact. From the lake, you have a structure that is not a great structure. Right now it’s even closer than what we’re proposing. So I think it’s an application that merits the approval as it’s submitted. I’d be glad to discuss any questions that you have. MR. MC NULTY-Any questions? MR. BRYANT-I have a question. Do you have the minutes for the last meeting relative? MR. O'CONNOR-I have a copy of them, if you want them. MR. BRYANT-May I look at them? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. MR. MC NULTY-Any other questions? MRS. HUNT-I had some questions. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. MRS. HUNT-It looks like the width of the property is 62 feet. Is that it? 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/25/04) MR. O'CONNOR-Along the lake, yes. MRS. HUNT-Okay, and what is the width of the new house? MR. O'CONNOR-Twenty-six feet. MRS. HUNT-Well, I don’t know, according to my math, a 62 foot width and if you subtract 24 feet for the setbacks, you have 38 feet. So you certainly have room to put in that structure within the 12 foot setbacks. MR. O'CONNOR-I think the idea was to try to cant the house to give as much privacy as they could to this particular property and to the two adjoining properties. There was some discussion about that. If you do a cookie cutter type thing, and you have the house go in exactly parallel to the sidelines, which is what you’re suggesting, you then end up with probably more impact than what you presently have the way it is canted. MRS. HUNT-But not if you came back as far as you were supposed to either. Then it wouldn’t have, there would be no buildings on either side of it, that I could see. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, you have the other two buildings in front of you, toward the lake, and the whole idea of having lake property is followed by the assessment is to have a view of the lake and have access, ready access, to the lake. The problem with the Code is that the Code is nice if we had completely green land and not existing buildings, or if we were doing a track where we were doing five or six residences and being able to design all six, where you try to design a residence in conjunction with the existing houses on each side of you, you run into problems. MRS. HUNT-Are these homes on either side all the homes? MR. O'CONNOR-I understand, from the minutes, that the house to the north is probably seven years old. The house to the south, I don’t know how old that is. MRS. HUNT-So that was before the new requirements. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s the larger, the house to the north, I’m told from your minutes, it looks like there’s a larger house. MRS. HUNT-Well, it looks to me like both of those homes are parallel to the property line. MR. JARRETT-It was discussed last meeting setting all the houses exactly that same orientation allows less privacy. Canted like it is, we felt, and I think we had pretty good support from Board members, that there is more privacy, a little more feeling of a camp, private camp, the way it’s situated. We left it that was from the last meeting. We did not change that orientation. MR. O'CONNOR-It allows like a little bit of side yard, as you come in from the south side of the house that way. A little bit of room. It’s not like you’re walking through two buildings. I mean, we’ve done some that are like that. I remember, the one we did, you weren’t here, but we did one on Lake George, the lot was 25 feet long, 25 feet wide, and everybody kind of sympathized with those people. They had an easement for their walkway, and it was like two feet off of one house, and four feet off of the other house, and you walk through the two houses. This, actually, from a planning concept, gives you a little bit more feeling of space and openness than if you did the parallel tracking. Again, and I get to the point, the real basis of the point is, what is the impact. Who has been negatively impacted by this? The neighbor to the north, which is the most impacted, is the fellow who came to the mic last month and spoke in favor of the application. He actually gave something up for the benefit of the neighbor to the south. MR. MC NULTY-Other questions? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/25/04) MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, can I interject a couple of things here? MR. MC NULTY-Sure. MR. FRANK-Just to make the record clear, this lot is less than 50 feet wide. The shoreline distance is the measurement of the shoreline. MRS. HUNT-Okay. MR. FRANK-If you put a scale across that lot, it’s approximately 49 feet wide. That’s why we’re only requiring a 12 foot side setback, just for starters. Just to clear that up. Secondly, I had a phone conversation with the property owner to the south. I don’t know if she submitted something yet, I believe she was going to, but after I explained to her what was the relief needed, and she discussed it with me, she told me she would not speak out against the application. So I don’t know if she submitted something, but I should put that on the record, since there’s some discussion about her. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-We’re not aware of it. MR. BRYANT-Staff makes some comments in their notes about a feasible alternative of just building the building like all the other buildings, as far as being parallel to the property line and so forth, and I know you’ve already explained the privacy issue. Is that the main issue why you can’t do it parallel? MR. JARRETT-Well, originally we came in with the house situated at a similar angle to what it is now. MR. BRYANT-Right. MR. JARRETT-And we were reusing the foundation. MR. BRYANT-But it was like twice the size, wasn’t it? It was a lot bigger. MR. JARRETT-Than original or? MR. BRYANT-Of the original. MR. JARRETT-It wasn’t twice the size. It was larger than the original, no question. It was larger than what’s there now. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. JARRETT-We kept it on the same angle on the lot, for the privacy reasons, but even more importantly at that time was the use of the foundation, which was built by his grandfather. Following discussions with the Board in November, we gave that up. We haven’t totally abandon the idea of trying to use a corner of the foundation, if we can, or even relocating some of the old pieces of foundation into this structure, but we’ve kept the angle the same. We felt that that was still a good angle, and from discussion on the Board, we felt that it was a reasonable proposal. MR. BRYANT-My question basically is, I’m not understanding why we just can’t build a closer to compliant structure parallel to the property line. Most of the other. MR. JARRETT-In an absolute sense I think we can. I think it doesn’t fit the neighborhood. It doesn’t fit the character there, and when we discussed it with the Board in November, we came 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/25/04) back with the idea that moving the structure in the same angle back to 35 feet was an acceptable compromise, and that’s what we did. MR. O'CONNOR-You always get into the discussion of the balancing. What are we balancing against? Are we balancing against the written Ordinance, or are we balancing against the impact of the neighborhood. The impact to the neighborhood is there is none. MR. BRYANT-Well, I think you also have to take into consideration the fact that you have a feasible alternative, and that’s to eliminate the request for the variance. I mean, if it were a situation that the house was already built, and you had to build a porch on, and you were going to build a room on, or you were going to make some kind of addition, and you were restricted because of the location of the building, then that’s not a feasible alternative, but in this particular case, you’re starting from scratch. The question is, why can’t we get closer to the Code and eliminate some of this need for variance? When that is the real feasible alternative. I think, that’s why I wanted to read the minutes, because I think that was my original opinion, and it still is my opinion that, you know, I’m not saying let’s build a totally compliant thing, and, you know, it’ll be a smaller house and it’ll be 50 feet away from the shore. I’m not asking that. I’m just saying, if we can eliminate some of the request for variance, I know you’ve already done a good job in addressing the height issue and the setback issue, but if we can just get closer to reality, we’re starting from scratch. It’s an alternative. It’s a feasible alternative, and that’s all I’m suggesting. MR. O'CONNOR-Let me just ask one question. The house, as I understand it, is 26 feet. The house itself is like 26 feet, but there’s a walkway that goes around the side of it that is wider than that, which is three feet to four feet, and if you look at the back of it, because you’re going to be cutting into the hill when you move it back, they’re trying to put a retaining wall that’ll have to offset a little bit outside of the house, so that you’ve got a concrete retaining wall there, as opposed to house into the soil, or whatever that wood portion. I think that all adds to the fact that it’s to their benefit to try to cant it, and if you look at the privacy issue, I’m talking about giving the applicant a little bit of a side yard feeling in both the front (lost word) off the corner of his deck. I mean, his deck, then, is not right up on the, by bringing the south side of the corner of that property south, further south than it should be, it gives him more room on the north end, and it gives him a little bit of yard on the side of his deck, and the same thing in the back area. It gives him a little bit of side area immediately adjacent to the back of that house. That’s the reason for trying to cant it. I mean, it’s not an arbitrary thing on his part, simply to come in and say he wants to cant it, for the sake of canting it. I think there’s a practical reason for doing what he’s doing. It also then gives him a little bit of privacy from the other people. I think, well, my nephew owns the house next to Mr. Underwood’s. Mr. Underwood’s house is as close to this line as this proposed line is, I think, or close to it, but you don’t really notice it because his house is angled, and the focus of the activity on his house is at the front of his house, is further away from the property line, even though it is very close in the rear, and I think that’s the same principal that’s here. MR. ABBATE-And, you know, I think, not that I’m disagreeing with my fellow Board member, but I think Counsel made a good point, and I can’t remember. I’m trying like the devil to recall, maybe you can help me. What kind of support was there from the neighbors who were going to be impacted? Do you recall? MR. O'CONNOR-I’ve given up my minutes, but the neighbor came in and spoke in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-I thought as much. MR. O'CONNOR-He did. MR. ABBATE-I wasn’t sure. MR. O'CONNOR-Eric Rudnick was his name. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/25/04) MR. JARRETT-There’s a letter in the file, as well, from (lost words). MR. O'CONNOR-He summed it up by saying it’s an improvement on the structure that’s there, what’s there I’m not going to call an eyesore, it’s cute, but again, I think the bigger purpose here is to make a larger living space for his family that (lost words) speaks for itself. MR. ABBATE-Yes. Thank you. I wasn’t quite sure. Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-And he speaks about the house that’s proposed is modest when it’s four family. Their house is rather small for four people, and a cat. I also think to keep the existing setback from the lake, he actually said he didn’t have an objection to it being as, he didn’t think they had to go to 35 feet for the setback, and he’s the fellow that’s right next door to it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-Any other questions or comments at this point? Well, if not, let’s proceed on to the public hearing portion. I’ll open the public hearing and ask if there’s anybody here to speak in favor of this application? Is there anybody wishing to speak opposed to it? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED STEVEN L. JOHNSON MR. JOHNSON-My name is Steven L. Johnson. I own property at 96 Hall Road, and the map is very useful for the comments I’m going to make. I’m not opposed to the building application. I do want to make it a record here for the Board that my property, if you look at Hall Road as it comes down across the screen where it makes the turn, that piece where the pointer is now, that is my property, that piece and a piece going to the lake. Now, the existing road that has been used, because, as we were talking before, these are divided up in a strange way, years ago. The road comes down off Hall Road, you see that pointed piece of property where the pointer was before, it follows that line and then cuts across back to the Sipowicz property, and he goes through my piece of property, which is no problem. That’s a right of way by use I think is what it’s called, and I have no difficulty with that, except that I don’t want the road to be widened, and, you know, pushed out just through use. I think I just want to sort of make it a statement on the record that it is my piece of property and I don’t want it modified, and it’s perfectly acceptable to use it, and that’s the only statement. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Thank you. MR. JOHNSON-Thank you. MR. MC NULTY-Is there anybody else that would like to comment, either for or against? If not, do we have any correspondence? MR. UNDERWOOD-None. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. No current correspondence, then. In that, I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. O'CONNOR-Our only response is that the application has no request for anything to do with the right of way that goes to the property. MR. ABBATE-There goes my question. Thank you, Counsel. That’s for the record. Thank you very much. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/25/04) MR. MC NULTY-Now, is the intent with this, now, to make this a year round home? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. So there probably would be a little increase in use of that road, but not enough to justify or cause it to be widened or anything of that sort. MR. JARRETT-Primarily it would be increased use because summer you’re using it a lot anyway. Right? MR. O'CONNOR-Are there others that use it year round? It really doesn’t make, whether you use it one season or four seasons, it doesn’t give you any right to widen it. The right of way is what it is. I think in those deeds, I don’t know if I have a deed. I think it’s a 12 foot wide right of way. I don’t think I have your deed. My recollection is in that area it’s either a 12 or a 20 foot right of way. I don’t really know. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Defined in the deed anyway. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes it is. MR. MC NULTY-And won’t be expanded. MR. O'CONNOR-No. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Anybody else have any questions before we make a circuit of the Board here? Okay. If not, let’s talk about it. Let’s start from the left this time. Jim, what do you think? MR. UNDERWOOD-Being a lake resident, and as Counsel has described to you, my own home, when I rebuilt my home and updated it, I was dealing with basically many of the same variances requests that are here this evening, and I think that I was convincing in my own argument of for and I have been in the past on other houses on Glen Lake that, you know, these angled houses that aren’t parallel to the property lines are a good idea. I think they do give the illusion that you’re the only one on the lake, whereas, you know, as he described to you, the placing of all these structures in a cookie cutter formation, you know, puts everybody else’s yard in your peripheral vision, and, you know, you really don’t have that privacy. I think that last year, my comments also were directed towards the lack of any kind of green area or green space around this house, and I think that some vegetation along the side lines could greatly alleviate some of that privacy that’s lacking there at the present time, and I think the addition of, you know, a green buffer zone between the house and the lake, which would include a couple of large trees, you know, many of these older homes are devoid of any kind of vegetation, and that’s important for keeping the lake, you know, in a state that we want to continue it to remain. As far as the request for what’s needed here. The 15 feet of relief from the 50 foot lake front requirement I think is very reasonable. It’s going to be more than the adjoining properties on either side of it. I don’t have a problem with the request for the 40 feet of relief from the minimum road frontage requirement either. I think that’s been explained as the fact that these are all small driveways, as many of the camps are on the lake, and we’ve also granted that relief previously. As far as the side setback relief, I think everybody would probably be in agreement that a little bit smaller, more compliant house would be more reasonable, but I think that, you know, the plan, to me, a 26 foot wide house is a not a very huge, wide house, and given the size of the lot, I think it’s reasonable. So I guess I’d be in favor of all the requests. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Thank you. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Well, I still have a problem with going from a 17 foot side setback, yard, to 6 feet, and staying at 2.5 on the other side. I know when we talked about it last time we mentioned about the foundation wall, but I guess I thought they were going to do more than, 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/25/04) well, move it back, I guess, is all you did. I have no problem with the setback from the lake or the 40 foot minimum, but I’m still questioning the two side yards, and I think I’ll reserve judgment until I hear the other members speak. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m satisfied that the current proposal is better than the last one, and I was concerned mostly about the height variance last time, and that seems to be, have been rectified, and the variances that you’re requesting, the setbacks you’re requesting, are no, not really as much of a hardship as what was there before, and I think the changes you’ve made, the benefits you’ve added on to here certainly improve the quality of the neighborhood, and I would be in favor of it. MR. MC NULTY-Al? MR. BRYANT-I agree with Mr. Urrico when he says that this proposal is considerably better than the last one. It is. As to the 40 foot road frontage relief, that’s a non-issue. That’s an existing condition. The 15 foot relief for the shoreline setback, it’s more than I’d like to see, but based on the closeness of the other adjacent houses, it’s compatible with the neighborhood, and I agree with that. I still don’t feel comfortable with the side setback. I’m not saying build a narrower house. I’m just saying, straighten it out a little bit or, to alleviate some of that setback. You’re not going to get totally compliant unless you make the house excessively narrow and I can’t see doing that, but I’d like to see something done with that. I’m about 55% in favor of it. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Thanks. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thanks a lot. There are basically two things that stand out. The applicant came before this committee, with a proposal, and we indicated that we weren’t happy with this proposal. Now the applicant has come back and, as far as I’m concerned, he certainly has indicated a willingness to cooperate with the Board, to consider our suggestions. He has, as an example, no longer requesting a height variance, and the other factor that I’m concerned with is the effects on the neighborhood, and the impact it would have, and I asked the question earlier about last year’s meeting. I thought there was support for the application, but it wasn’t quite true, and if the neighbors who are going to be immediately impacted have no objections, then I don’t really see where I could say I object as well. After all, those are the folks that are going to have to live there. As I recall, and I don’t have those notes, and, Counsel, don’t go to a lot of trouble, but I think I had a concern about trees. Wasn’t that in the minutes? I did say that, did I not? MR. O'CONNOR-There were two of you, I think. MR. ABBATE-I said that, right, that I would really like to see as little, or no trees cut down at all, and I think you and I came to some sort of. MR. JARRETT-I do recall that, yes. I think the tree on the, it was called the northwest corner I think we were talking about. I believe we have tried to save that. LARRY SIPOWICZ MR. SIPOWICZ-On the south, or the north. That’s not going to go, now. That’s going to be saved, both those on that side. There’s actually two dead trees that are on the hill on the back corner, three small little pine trees there in the back. MR. ABBATE-But you’re saving as many as you possibly can? MR. SIPOWICZ-I’m saving three now. MR. ABBATE-So I guess what I’m saying the bottom line is I’ll support the application. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/25/04) MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Thank you. Leo? MR. RIGBY-Yes. I’m pleased with what I see. I think from the last time you came in we talked about the height requirement, and you’ve taken care of that. You’ve moved it back, moved the home back a little bit. I like what I see. With no complaints from the neighbors, it sounds like it’s going to be a great improvement. The neighbor to the north, I think, will have no problem at all. His house is comparable to the one I think you’re building. The neighbor to the south, has a, you know, significantly smaller house, and hearing no objection from that neighbor, I think I’m in favor of it as well. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Well, I’m not encumbered by what was proposed last time and what was changed because I wasn’t at the meeting last time, which suits me fine. It strikes me at times we should look at these applications like I can look at this one, just, this is a fresh presentation here, and it doesn’t really matter, in some ways, how much the applicant has given up, in a sense. I guess what I worry about, that can lead to an applicant saying, okay, I want this. I’m going to double what I’m asking for because I know I’ve got to compromise and I can go back. I don’t think we should get trapped into saying we want to give somebody a variance simply because they have done some compromising, because maybe they came in with an extreme request to begin with. That being said, anyway, I think Counsel has alluded to a valid consideration with a lot of these lakefront properties, that while the Zoning Code may say we’re supposed to have 12 feet setback, or 20 feet setback from the side lot lines, with lakefront property, perhaps we should be looking a little bit more at the total use of the property, including where people are going to be sitting in the sun or whatever outside during the summer, and perhaps give a little bit on the side setback of the building because we’re not talking just about the building. We’re talking about summer use of the property. It would be nicer if there were no setback required from the shoreline, but 15 feet’s not extreme, and I think that the improvement we’ve got with it setting back that that far, compared with what’s there now, is probably a plus. I am a little concerned about the general trend that we see on Lake George and we’re seeing on Glen Lake now of taking down small places and building big places so we can live there year round, and I think at some point we’re going to have to face up a little bit more to how much of that we want to allow, but in this particular case, it strikes me that this is a reasonable proposal. Angling the house, there’s some valid reasons for it. I guess the point I was going to make, too, the fact that we haven’t had objections from, and in fact have had support from at least one of the neighbors is a plus, although I think this Board shouldn’t necessarily focus strictly on that because those neighbors might sell their houses next week. Nevertheless, they are people that have lived next to this property, and probably anticipate living next to it, for at least the next few years. So their opinion, I think should carry some weight, although not, perhaps, 100%. Nevertheless, with their indication that they have no problem with this proposal, I think I’d be in favor also, and I think on that basis, we have a reasonable chance of approving this. So I’m going to ask somebody for a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 86-2003 LAWRENCE & KRISTINE SIPOWICZ, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 5 Glen Hall Drive. The applicant proposes demolition of a 734 square foot dwelling and a 560 square foot detached garage and the construction of a 2,008 square foot single family dwelling. The relief he is requesting is 15 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement and a 9.5 feet and 6 feet of relief from the 12 foot minimum side setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-4-030. Additionally, 40 feet of relief is needed from the 40 foot minimum road frontage requirement per Section 179-4-90. In considering the approval, Mr. Chairman, I mentioned the relief that is required. The benefit to the applicant was quite obvious in the testimony this evening. Feasible alternatives. That has been kind of tossed around. While there may be some suggestion as to alternatives, it is my opinion that the request as submitted warrants approval. Is this relief substantial relief to the Ordinance? I don’t really think so. I think it’s moderate relief. The effects on the neighborhood. We touched upon the effects on the neighborhood, and I specifically asked about support from the 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/25/04) neighbors for just for that reason. At our last meeting we did have support, and as far as I know, we have nothing, no correspondence or anyone at the public hearing this evening who disapproves of this application. Is the difficulty self-created? Well, self-created, I guess, may be subjective at times. In my opinion not really self-created. It’s just something that the applicant desires to do. Now, balance. Balance is an important thing. In any approval of an Area Variance, balance is extremely important, and based on the fact that the applicant has modified his plans as opposed to the original meeting, and based on the fact that there has been support from his community, and based upon the fact that this public meeting this evening did not indicate any disapproval, and I didn’t hear any correspondence that would disapprove the applicant’s request, I then move, Mr. Chairman, that we approve Area Variance No. 86-2003. Also stipulate that the applicant will save as many trees as possible on site. Duly adopted this 25 day of February, 2004, by the following vote: th MR. UNDERWOOD-I would just add to include something in there about the green space, you know, as Mr. Jarrett had suggested, you know, on the forefront and on the sidelines, some additional. MR. ABBATE-I didn’t hear him. MR. JARRETT-He was talking about the landscaping and the green space. MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. JARRETT-We will stipulate that we’ll save as many trees as possible, and we did add landscaping to the front, as we discussed last meeting, and we’ll try to save vegetation on the side. We didn’t add anything on the plan on the side. Are you asking for that? MR. UNDERWOOD-No. I think I’m more concerned on the forefront, along the shoreline. MR. JARRETT-The front we added trees as well as upright Junipers. Sure. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Good. Then, Mr. Chairman, I’ll modify my request and make Mr. Underwood’s a part of the modification, as stipulation. AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Hayes MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you very much. Can I ask you a question? I understand you’re struggling with the requirements of the Ordinance. I have a real problem with the height requirements in this zone. You have a restriction on the lots by saying you can only have a certain percentage of floor area ratio to lot. That actually controls the amount of building that you can put on through a lot. We’ve been here many times, and almost every time because, almost all lake properties slope up away from the lake, and if you get into any type of somebody who’s trying to do something architecturally, you end up with a house that’s hard to fit into the 28 feet when you measure it from the finished ground level to the top of the peak. What you end up doing is making people artificially live with the, I don’t know what you call them, the walls, the short walls. MR. UNDERWOOD-Knee walls. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/25/04) MR. O'CONNOR-Knee walls, and I’ve had one of my mother’s, or one of our houses at the lake has had knee walls in it since 1953. If you have big people in your family, they just are a pain in the neck, and you talk about practical effect, right now I don’t think there’s a property for sale on Glen Lake. There might be one I think, or something like that. The people on the lake aren’t objecting to the height variances that you are giving, and in most of the cases there’s 30 feet, 33 feet, something like that. So I would really think, in one of your workshops, you might want to go back and look at that and maybe make a recommendation to the Town, because I understand your reluctance to say, okay, the Ordinance says this. Well, why are we doing something different, but I think from a planning point of view, we’ve taken two bites out of the apple on these undersized lots. Probably 50% of the lots on Glen Lake are 50 feet or less in width. Probably the of the other 50%, probably 30% aren’t greater than 75 feet. Somebody did a whole stretch of them at 60 feet. I don’t know how they ever figured out 60 feet, but there’s one whole part of that lake that’s 60 feet. So, I mean, it really is frustrating I would think from point of view, we’ve taken two bites out of the apple on these undersized lots. Probably 50% of the lots on Glen Lake are 50 feet or less in width. Probably the of the other 50%, probably 30% aren’t greater than 75 feet. Somebody did a whole stretch of them at 60 feet. I don’t know how they ever figured out 60 feet, but there’s one whole part of that lake that’s 60 feet. So, I mean, it really is frustrating I would think from your side to sit and say, okay, how do I get past this mathematical problem that I have, because the Town has told me that that’s an important issue, but I’ll tell you the people on the lake don’t think it’s an important issue, and the height on these buildings is obviously less, if you’re building on a ridge, I can understand it, but if the people are building on the down side of their hills, toward the lake, and because of the topographical features, they have real difficulty making a decent house that they can live with, still take care of the floor area ratio and still maintain your height. So I think we’re creating our own issues that we don’t need to create, and then you’ve got people that spend a lot of money on attorneys and lawyers or engineers. MR. BRYANT-Are you complaining, Mr. O’Connor? MR. O'CONNOR-I’ve always thought that the Code of the Queensbury was a lawyer’s relief act, and they keep making it thicker. MR. ABBATE-Well, your point is well made, plus the fact that you’re on the record. So those folks will be reading our minutes of the meeting, I can assure you. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. MC NULTY-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-2004 SEQRA TYPE: TYPE I COORDINATED REVIEW DOUG & THERESA MILLER AGENT: JONATHAN C. LAPPER, STEFANIE DI LALLO BITTER OWNER: GEORGE & DAWN DRELLOS ZONING: LI LOCATION: SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 116,000 SQ. FT. DOME WHICH WOULD BE USED AS AN ATHLETIC FACILITY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENT. CROSS REFERENCE: PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE PZ 2-2003 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 2/11/2004 LOT SIZE: 21 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.05-1-3 SECTION: 179-4-30 STEFANIE BITTER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Area Variance No. 7-2004, Doug & Theresa Miller, Meeting Date: February 25, 2004 “Project Location: Sherman Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 116,000 sq. ft. dome structure, which would be used as an athletic facility. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/25/04) Relief Required: Applicant requests 28 feet of relief from the 50-foot maximum height requirement of the RC-15 Zone, §179-4-030. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Town Board Res. No. 74-2004: resolved 01/26/04, petition to change zone from Light Industrial to Recreation Commercial-15. PZ-2-2003: 12/23/03, SEQRA Negative Declaration adopted by Planning Board, and positive recommendation made to the Town Board to approve the rezoning application. Town Board Res. No. 296-2003: resolved 06/16/03, submission of the rezoning application to the Planning Board for report and recommendation authorized, and SEQRA Lead Agency status consented to the Planning Board. Staff comments: Staff wonders why the visual impact of the proposed dome structure was not assessed from additional locations other than due east of the proposed location. While the visibility of the proposed 78-foot high dome from the north may be minimal as explained by the applicant, in the opinion of staff, the top 10 to 20 feet of the dome will be visible as viewed from the west and the south including the north–bound lane of I-87. The diagram (1-A1) depicts the tree canopy along I-87 as being approximately 75 feet high. In the opinion of staff, the average tree height, especially to the south and west of the proposed dome location, is closer to 50 to 60 feet in average height. The average tree height was determined by an on-site assessment of the stand of trees, and the cellular phone transmission tower on the adjacent property to the south was utilized for a relative height comparison (the elevation of the 156-foot high cell tower base location is relatively equal to the elevation of the proposed dome location). Staff suggests the Zoning Board of Appeals consider requesting the Planning Board review the proposed project for their recommendation before granting any required relief from the zoning ordinance.” MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form February 11, 2004 Project Name: Miller, Doug & Theresa Owner: George & Dawn Drellos ID Number: QBY-04-AV-7 County Project#: Feb04-37 Current Zoning: LI Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 116,000 sq. ft. dome, which would be used as an athletic facility. Relief requested from the maximum height requirement. Site Location: Sherman Avenue Tax Map Number(s): 309.05-1-3 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to construct a 116,000 dome sports complex facility. The dome is proposed to be 78 ft. in height where 50 ft. maximum allowed. The information submitted with the application details the site layout with clearing limits for the facility, 6 outdoor fields, parking, skate training building, existing plantings and proposed. Also included is a detailed visual assessment of the dome facility. The information submitted indicates the facility will not be seen from the Northway, and have minimal exposure on Sherman Avenue due to the driveway access. The plans also detail a 20’ buffer zone at the property line on sides and rear then a 30’ buffer zone at the front property line. The applicant did receive a petition for zone change for the area from light industrial to recreational commercial. Staff recognizes Queensbury’s desire to have recreation facilities on the west side of the Northway. Staff recommends approval based on the information submitted that the site will not have a negative visual impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve County Planning Board recommends approval recognizing Queensbury’s desire to have recreation facilities on the west side of the Northway.” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 2/17/04. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Applicants. MRS. BITTER-Good evening. My name is Stefanie Bitter. I’m here with Tom Nace, as well as the applicant, Doug Miller. As you’re aware, Mr. Miller is proposing the construction of a 116,000 square foot indoor recreation facility. We’re seeking a height variance due to the height of the dome is going to be 78 feet. As you are aware, this parcel was at one time zoned Light Industrial, and was just recently rezoned to recreational commercial. During the rezoning application process, the Planning Board had an opportunity to review and make a 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/25/04) recommendation to the Town Board with regard to the rezoning application. During that time, they were also identified as the Lead Agent for the SEQRA review. One of the items that was presented to the Planning Board and which they had reviewed was this visual impact evaluation, which Mr. Nace and Mr. Miller will go into detail about. The visual impact evaluation was essentially that a balloon was placed at certain elevations on the property. One being 75 feet in height, the next being 80 feet in height, and the last being 85 feet in height, and it was assessed, the balloon’s elevation was assessed at a point that was the most visible to the public. That 70 foot height balloon wasn’t even visual at any point, which is why the two other balloons followed. The Planning Board members also had an opportunity to view these themselves and to actually witness the little to no impact that this height would have, as to the proposed height of the dome. Also during the Planning Board’s review, it was open to the public hearing for their opinions and comments. As you’re aware, the Comprehensive Plan identifies the need for a recreational facility on the west side for the Town of Queensbury. There’s been many, many positive comments as for this proposal. Specifically Board of Education members were present as well as members from the youth soccer clubs, identifying their interest in having this facility brought to the Town of Queensbury. Also, there was an environmental analysis that showed that the proposed site for this facility would have the least impact on the area. In addition, due to the site areas that Mr. Nace is going to go into, this is a flat piece of property. It’s not, and also there’s existing vegetation which a buffer is going to be maintained, due to those issues, or due to those factors. The impact of the height that’s being suggested is going to be minimized by the buffer and due to the fact that the property is flat. It’s not as if this dome is going to be placed in an open field. In addition, other factors to be considered are the adjacent properties. The NiMo substation is one thing that’s to the west, and the cell tower is also adjacent as well as the Northway. As a result, the impact, or the variance, should be deemed not substantial. I’m going to turn it over to Mr. Nace to discuss the visual impact evaluation as well as the site conditions. MR. NACE-Let me just take a minute to walk you through the site. As Stefanie described, the site actually is fairly ideal for this type of use, and for the development that is proposed, in that it’s really buffered on most sides. On the Adirondack Northway side, there’s not only the original Northway right of way, but there’s also an additional 100 feet of buffer zone that was purchased as part of the Northway corridor, scenic corridor, and that 100 foot strip, plus what is already buffered or already forested on the actual right of way before you get to the edge of the travel lane, creates a substantial buffer, in many places over 150 feet wide, of treed buffer. Additionally, we will be providing some buffer on our portion of the site. On the south is the cell tower property and the Arrowhead Equipment. On the west is actually two sets of power lines. They don’t show very well on this site plan, but if you look at the more detailed site plan, there are two sets of power lines, one to the west side is the main transmission line, and that right of way is actually cleared, but to the east of that, between that main transmission line and our site, there is a distribution line which you’ll see here, and that area, plus the area between those two, is treed and creates additional buffer. To the west of that, I don’t know, Bruce, do you have the overall aerial view on your Power Point? MR. FRANK-No. MR. NACE-Okay. Well, if you’ll look in the visual analysis at the overall aerial view, you’ll see that, to the west of the site, is Lake Zoley, to the west of the power lines, and that’s a large area. The east side of Lake Zoley, is land area, and a lot of that, although this picture doesn’t show it because it was taken, I think, in the early 90’s, if you go in through there, a lot of that has grown up as fairly high tree cover at this point, and on the north side of the site, we have Sherman Avenue. The site is actually depressed. Sherman Avenue comes over the top of a rise back here, and is elevated to cross the Northway, so the site is actually sunken down in from Sherman Avenue, which helps create a buffer, plus we’re leaving a substantial treed buffer between the developed portion of the site and Sherman Avenue. DOUG MILLER 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/25/04) MR. MILLER-This area, which is a sandy area, is actually the Ogden Brook substation, just north of Lake Zoley. For those that don’t have a history of Lake Zoley, that’s, this was all dug out in order to provide fill for the overpasses when the Northway was put in back in the early 60’s, and groundwater came up and filled that. The business right in front of that is Drellos’ Queensbury Septic, and to the west of that is the Homestead Trailer Park. One of the questions Staff had was why visual pictures weren’t taken when we flew the balloons to the west, and to the south, and also I’ll even talk about to the north. The north, when we first flew the balloons at 75 feet, we couldn’t find a place to observe them anywhere. They just, even if I got on the highest part of the Northway, where it crosses over Luzerne Road, that is the highest, closest to the, what would be the top of the trees as you can get, which is pretty close to where that picture appears to have been taken, and the visual angle that you get, you’ve got to look above the tree line in order to be able to see the structure, and so it’s going to be canopied, or protected by that tree line, by that buffer. We put the balloons, again, at 80 feet, and then again at 85, and the only place, the only place they could see the balloons, which is in that visual impact statement, it’s the next drawing behind the map that you have, some of you have open there, shows, essentially, a scaled drawing of how the trees will buffer that, even though the top of the dome could be at the tree line, the buffer that’s left will provide a site angle that will make the dome essentially unseen. Then there’s an aerial, this is a photograph of one that’s a dome, or two domes in Canada, similar size and height, and then behind that photograph, the one that’s labeled Photograph Two, that is the lowest area along the tree line that we could find that is the only place I could see the balloons, and then the next two pictures behind that actually zoom in on the balloons, and the bottom picture you finally can see it. It’s those blue dots at 85 feet. Below that were red ones at 80 feet and below that were two more balloons at 75 feet. So, again, in answer to the question, why didn’t we look at it from other locations, we did, and at 85 feet, that balloon was set right here, and this is the only place, this is the actual configuration of the tree line, and it’s the least amount of uncut area, the least tree canopy protecting the site, and that was the only place we could even get a view of it. The Planning Board came out and did a site visit and I had set two balloons. Again, they wanted to see them at the same spot. Again, I set them in there. They weren’t ever going to see it from anywhere, unless they went along the Northway. So I then set two more here, and the distance from here is almost 1200 feet from where they were looking at it. They drove in here on the highest part at the Ogden Brook substation. This puts you about 20 feet above this elevation. The elevation line here, the contour line is at 380 feet. We’re at 400 feet in here, and the comment was, where’s the balloons. Craig was asking, Craig MacEwan, I said, look down there, and he said, it’s that far down, and it was below the tree canopy, and at that point they had no more concerns about the visual impacts of the structure. MR. BRYANT-I have a couple of questions. You have this drawing, this cross section drawing. You show the balloon height at 75 feet, and the application is requesting 78 feet. MR. MILLER-That’s a good question. The reason, many of the structures of this type are put in with the footing at grade, so that tennis courts that are covered, they can be then taken down during the summer, so you’re back in the outdoors. The footings for this will be raised 18 inches. So that we protect the fabric and the material from snow plow. I don’t want a snow plow coming up and, I’d rather have him hit the concrete footing than the fabric and put a hole in it. So that’s 18 inches, and then we allowed another roughly foot and a half, just to have that margin for safety. The last thing I want to do is end up being four inches short. MR. BRYANT-The photograph you show the two domes in Canada. This particular dome is 65 feet high. Is there a reason why you’re 78 feet, 75 feet? MR. MILLER-Height is a function of the width. If you’ll notice, it’s 220 feet wide, and the height is a direct correlation to the width, we’re 250 foot wide. The reason we’re going with the width is to be able to get a regulation size field, outdoor size field, in under cover with a four line tracker on it. I would have liked gone with a six line track, but we just, I would have had to go another roughly 15 feet wider and it would just create more of a height issue. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/25/04) MR. BRYANT-This has nothing to do with the application, but why do they always make these balloons white? Why don’t they make them green? The structure itself. MR. MILLER-A large part of the reason, they can make them other colors, but what happens, you’ve got more ultraviolet absorption with darker colors and the life of the fabric will be reduced. Ultraviolet, your best color for ultraviolet protection is the white, in this type of use. The other part is, if we made it green, it would hide it, it would blend in with the trees in the summertime, but in the winter time, with the white snow, it would stick out like a sore thumb, and we’re canopied, we’re treed, excuse me, concealed a little more with the leaves on the trees in the summertime. MR. ABBATE-Yes. I have a question for Counsel. You indicated, maybe I misinterpreted what you said. You indicated that the Planning Board has reviewed your application? MRS. BITTER-They had an opportunity to make a positive recommendation, or a recommendation to the Town Board for a rezoning. MR. ABBATE-For a rezoning only. MRS. BITTER-Right. MR. ABBATE-But they haven’t actually, the reason I ask is this. Staff has suggested that we consider requesting the Planning Board review the proposed project for their recommendation, before we do anything at all here this evening. So when I was listening to you, I wanted to make sure I didn’t misinterpret what you were saying, and that the Planning Board actually reviewed your application, but all they reviewed was the rezoning. MRS. BITTER-Right. MR. ABBATE-And the SEQRA. MR. NACE-They reviewed the SEQRA for the entire project. MR. ABBATE-Yes. I saw that. Okay. MR. MILLER-Because of the uniqueness of the project, we actually had (lost words) it was a more drawn out process than would normally be the case because of the uniqueness of the structure. MR. ABBATE-Do you have a problem with this going to the Planning Board first, before coming to us? MR. MILLER-I really feel that they’ve already addressed it. MR. ABBATE-They addressed it? MRS. BITTER-They were familiar with the project as well. They had an opportunity to review the project as being proposed. It wasn’t as if the height had changed or anything specific with this project, other than what’s being presented this evening. They were familiar with it being 78 feet and the fact that a variance would have to be requested in the future. So I would see it as going back for the same review that we had essentially already had, since it’s not a new project and there’s nothing new that’s being presented that wasn’t being presented to them in December. MR. ABBATE-Are there minutes of the meeting that actually addressed this application from the Planning Board? Because if there are, I’d like to read them. MRS. BITTER-Not for a height variance. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/25/04) MR. ABBATE-Well, see, that’s the heart of my question. That’s exactly, so the Planning Board did not review this, then. MR. NACE-The Planning Board reviewed the rezoning, okay. MR. ABBATE-Correct. MR. NACE-And they had the same drawings and the same information. They had the same visual assessment, and they also reviewed SEQRA for the entire project, not just for rezoning, but for the entire project, and in that SEQRA review, they went through a thorough review of the visual impact of the structure, and at that point, as Stefanie said, they were aware that we would be getting or asking for a variance on the height. MR. MILLER-Actually, the balloon, their concern, to just show their concern for the height, they were the ones that requested that we do the visual impact study with the balloons and with the photographs that are provided here, because these were originally provided to the Planning Board. So, that’s why I was so surprised to see the comments from Staff suggesting that the Planning Board may want to look at it, because our feeling is that they’ve looked at it in pretty good detail already. MR. ABBATE-You will eventually be going to the Planning Board. MR. MILLER-For site plan review. MR. ABBATE-Why not do the site plan review first, then come to us? MR. NACE-It can’t be accepted before they have the zoning variance for the height. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. BRYANT-In that vein, relative to Mr. Abbate’s question, if, for example, we were to say, well, we’d go with 65 feet high instead of the 78 feet high. Are you saying, based on your previous response, that, then the balloon itself would have to be not as long and not as wide? MR. MILLER-The entire structure width would have to be reduced, yes. MR. BRYANT-Would have to be reduced to support that height. It’s all intermingled. MR. NACE-It would change the complex of facilities that could be offered. MR. ABBATE-The mathematical configuration of it. MR. URRICO-Is that cut in stone? I mean, is that 75 feet the absolute minimum for that width? MR. MILLER-The absolute minimum. Yes, what you get into a problem then is snow shedding. If you start to bring it down, you start to flatten the top out to the point where it won’t shed snow effectively, and that’s when you can get into some. MR. URRICO-Would you comment on the Staff’s comments about the tree heights actually being off. They say that where the proposed dome location is, that the trees are actually closer to 50 to 60 feet in height. MR. MILLER-I think they’re talking to the south and to the west, and probably the best look at this is the picture that’s in visual assessment here, because I didn’t expect the trees to be 75 feet and when we put the balloons right up against them, at 75 and 80 feet, we are. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/25/04) MR. URRICO-Well, the reason I ask is because if that cell tower is 156 feet, that tree line doesn’t look halfway up the cell tower. It looks like it’s about a third of the way up the cell tower, the tree line. MR. MILLER-The cell tower, keep in mind, that property where that cell tower is sets down below the road there. MR. URRICO-Yes, but we’re looking at it from here. MR. MILLER-You’re not seeing the bottom of the cell tower, is what I’m saying. MR. NACE-And the cell tower is in the fort now. So it’s real hard to estimate the height of different objects that are different distances away from you. MR. BRYANT-So you get that angle looking up, and that distorts it. MR. URRICO-Well, I guess my point is if the dome climbs above that tree line, it’s going to block part of that view of that mountain in the background, from that angle. So that’s an angle that hasn’t been explored prior to this. MR. MILLER-Well, actually it has. As I mentioned before, when the balloons were initially flown, we went along the Northway. We went along Sherman Avenue trying to find, trying to get a view of the balloons with binoculars even, and because you’ve got basically the same effect from the Northway that you’ve got in this rendition here, the distance of no cut to the edge of the dome is roughly 180 feet here, and it’s going to be about the same, almost the same to the south. So you’ve got that same buffer all the way around, and unless you’re standing even with the top of the trees, which, well, that picture that was there did start to show that a bit. MR. FRANK-This photograph was taken from the Northwinds mobile home court. It’s due west of the property. So I’m equidistant from that cell tower, and where the dome location is to be. Again, this is not to be taken as hard facts, this is just a visual assessment that we conducted. How accurate is it? I can’t tell you exactly how accurate it is. I walked the property. I walked all the way around there. There was some question as to the actual tree height. How did they determine the tree height, that was the only question that was really being raised, I guess. I think I ought to make another comment, that, even though the Staff notes suggest that maybe you might want to refer this to the Planning Board, that was a comment by the Zoning Administrator. He told me today, that, you know, if you feel comfortable with things, it doesn’t necessarily have to go before the Planning Board for this part of it. They will have site plan review. If there’s really not a concern that the visual aspect is going to be a problem, then you can go ahead and grant the relief that’s needed. If you think that there’s some concern about the visual aspect of the dome and you want to request more of a visual assessment, that’s up to the Board, but again, I guess the Zoning Administrator had a change of mind as far as this having to go before the Planning Board so you could get some kind of feel for the project, with regard to the height. Now he’s saying today that, well, you know, it depends on how the Board feels, and how important is the visual assessment from the south and the west. MR. BRYANT-I want to go back to where I was before, and I just want to follow the chain of discussion we were having about the height and the width and the length and so forth and so on, and I can understand. I think what you were saying was that the height variance would have to be approved before you went for the plan review, because that would determine what the length and the width are going to be, ultimately. MR. MILLER-Well, no, the project as submitted has to be in conformance with your Zoning Code or it can’t be accepted for site plan review. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/25/04) MR. BRYANT-Right. I understand that, but I mean, I just want to, the comments about the Staff going to Planning Board, is there something that we’re missing or there might be some other concern relative to the application, or is it just, you know? MR. FRANK-I’m not really sure. We’re actually leaning towards possibly having projects reviewed by the Planning Board before going to the Zoning Board. That’s true for other municipalities. Actually, the Town of Queensbury used to do it that way. You went before the Planning Board first and then to the Zoning Board. So I’m not sure if what Mr. Nace is saying is accurate, that you have to have the approval, or the height variance first before it can be reviewed. They can still review it and approve it and you still would need the height variance. So in the future we may be requiring applications go before the Planning Board first before appearing before the Zoning Board. You know what you’ve done in the past. If it’s a major project and you’re not really sure how the Board feels about some, about how the Planning Board feels about something, you want some feedback, and I know you’ve done this on at least two or three different occasions, I’m not saying this is one of those applications that warrants being reviewed by the Planning Board. Again, what the applicant stated was accurate. They did the SEQRA review. There was a negative declaration. The height was part of that review. In fairness to the applicant, that was done. How much did they look at the height in particular? I wasn’t at the meeting. I can’t tell you that. Was that the majority of the review? No. I think they looked at all aspects of the SEQRA review and the height was part of it. I can’t tell you how much was focused on the height itself. MR. ABBATE-Well, you see, that goes to my question here, height review. When we talk about height review, we have to talk about visual impact, and you have Hidden Hills there. You have Oak Tree Circle there. Arbor Drive there. You have a lot of residential homes there, in that area, and I’m really concerned about the visual impact, particularly, I don’t know whether we have anything in correspondence. I don’t know whether, during our public meeting, there’s going to be any support or opposition, but I think visual impact and height is critical. I truly do, and at this point, quite frankly, I don’t seem to have a handle on this thing, and I’m being very honest about it. I’m worried about it. I don’t know. Maybe it’s just I don’t understand it. MRS. BITTER-Just to respond to the comments that were made by Staff, as well as Mr. Abbate’s, the Planning Board also had these concerns, which is why they addressed that a visual impact evaluation had to be done during their SEQRA review, which is why this was developed and the Planning Board was on site for the evaluation particularly. So they were able to analyze this and not just see it on documentation and make that SEQRA determination that visual impact was not going to be an issue. Which is why there was a negative declaration. MR. ABBATE-See, you’re right, Counselor, and, you know, what, guess what, I would be very comfortable if I had their observations and comments in writing, which we don’t. MRS. BITTER-Okay. MR. ABBATE-That’s why I’m questioning you. I don’t have in writing exactly what their position is. MRS. BITTER-Other than the negative declaration. MR. URRICO-Also, was the visual impact done in the summer months when there are more trees covering? From here it doesn’t look like there’s any snow on the ground, which would be when the indoor bubble would be up. MRS. BITTER-Because I believe the meeting was December 23. rd MR. URRICO-But none of the pictures show, I mean, it’s pretty much treed. MR. NACE-If you look at Photographs Three and Four, the leaves are off. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/25/04) MR. MILLER-The leaves are off the trees. MR. NACE-If you take a look at the birch trees there, the leaves are all down. MR. URRICO-Okay. I stand corrected. MR. MILLER-And the other thing that you’ve got is when the Planning Board members visited the site, and got an understanding, for their own eyes the fact that there’s such an elevation change that we’re actually, where the dome is, is almost 1200 feet from Sherman Avenue, the north end of the structure, and that it sets down from Sherman Avenue itself. Sherman Avenue has to raise up to go over the Northway there. So that’s roughly 15, 20 foot rise. So that provides a berm. Because then Hidden Hills development is below also. So, the line of sight to look over the Northway, over Sherman Avenue, over the trees, it will canopy. You’ve got to keep in mind that the top of the dome, even if it stuck 15 feet above the trees, the fact that there’s an area here which is buffered, and if the top of those trees is here, if the top of those trees, if Stefanie is in Hidden Hills, the top of the trees are here, and the dome is up 10 feet. Our line of sight is still blocked from that, and we’ve got a significant buffer on the north side, to protect it, and the berm also, the berm of Sherman Avenue is also a sound buffer. MR. ABBATE-See, that sounds, you know, I have no reason to argue that you’re wrong, but I would be a heck of a lot more comfortable if I heard those remarks or read those remarks in writing from the Planning Board. There was a great amount of emphasis on all three of your parts this evening to rely on the comments from the Planning Board, which is fine, and I prefaced my remarks, I don’t object to your project. Don’t misunderstand, but I’d like somebody from the Planning Board to put something in writing basically relating, reiterating what you folks have said this evening, and I don’t have it. So that’s why my suggestion was to support Staff’s suggestion that perhaps we should go to the Planning Board. That’s where I’m just coming from. MR. FRANK-Mr. Abbate, I want to make one thing clear. I did speak with George Hilton, our Planner, who was representing the Staff at the Planning Board meeting. I said, you know, what was his discussion with the Planning Board relative to the height, and again, they did do the SEQRA review, and he says, well, there wasn’t a lot of discussion. So obviously they did go to the site. They did look at the balloon raised up. I guess it was enough for them to declare a negative impact. So again, I don’t want you to think that this wasn’t looked at. They did look at it. They went to the site. They did some discussion. They didn’t go into great depth on it. Draw you conclusions from that. Why did they not go into great depth. MR. ABBATE-Are you suggesting, then, that the Planning Board indicated there would be no adverse visual impact if this were approved? That’s what I want to know. MR. NACE-In order to issue a negative declaration, they had to. MR. ABBATE-All right. So on the record what you’re stating is that, as far as you’re concerned, the Planning Board indicated that there would be no adverse visual impact if this were approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. MILLER-That is an actual question on the SEQRA, and that was a no. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would think they would be very reluctant to give a negative declaration on SEQRA if there was any question in their mind if it was going to be a problem. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. BRYANT-As far as your visual analysis, you’ve got some photographs from the looking towards the west, and some looking towards the east. Do you have any representation from the north looking towards the property? 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/25/04) MR. MILLER-There’s nowhere to get a photograph from along Sherman Avenue, because if I took a photograph to the south, I’m just looking at the trees. MR. BRYANT-The buffer on Sherman Avenue is about how wide? In other words, from Hidden Hills, will you see the balloons? MR. MILLER-No. MR. NACE-No. That’s what he was describing before. The site sits down about 20 feet below Sherman Avenue, okay, and Hidden Hills sits down probably another 10 to 15 feet below Sherman Avenue. So, with this hump in the middle here, looking out from Hidden Hills, all you’re going to see is this berm of the Northway and the trees that are planted along the Northway there. you won’t really have a chance to see any of the site. I mean, I would dare to guess that if this were 100 feet high, you would not see it from Hidden Hills. MR. BRYANT-The large bubble, whatever it is, the balloon, that’s in the southern part of the property? MR. NACE-That’s way down in the southern part. MR. BRYANT-Yes. MR. NACE-So the effect of height of this, the further you get away from this berm of Sherman Avenue, and we’re about 1200 feet just to here, from Sherman Avenue, the further you get away, the more effective that berm becomes and the higher your facility down here can be without any view from Hidden Hills. MR. MILLER-We’re close to the cell tower. The cell tower is depicted on this drawing as being here, at 1200 feet, correct me if I’m wrong, excuse me, about 156 feet. So that’s above the dome. You can’t see that from Sherman Avenue. You cannot see that tower at all. MR. BRYANT-What can you see, what will you see of the dome from the commercial property to the south? When you’re on Luzerne Road. MR. MILLER-You won’t see it from Luzerne Road. You’re too far away. MR. BRYANT-You pull into that parking lot, will you see the dome? MR. MILLER-No, not unless, they have got some plans to do, again, that buffer here, that buffer from the south end of the dome to the cell tower is all wooded. That is a greater distance that the tree buffer that is here, where we flew the balloon. You asked about pictures from the north or from other directions. When pictures were taken, the car was parked on the side by Morse Fields. We walked over the bridge trying to find the balloon to get some pictures from another orientation, and again, at 85 feet, the only place we could see the balloon was on this side of the Northway looking through this basic depression in the tree line here, and that’s with the balloons, that’s the distance. We’re more than that distance to the south. It is interesting, because I expected to be able to see the balloons from different places, and when we drove around trying to find it to get pictures, the angles that are caused by the trees being out here and people being, your place you’re trying to see them from being so close to you, and then that distance to the balloons, it just sets up an angle that prevents you from seeing them. MR. BRYANT-And the only entrance you’re really going to have to this facility is off of Sherman Avenue? MR. MILLER-There is no, we’re landlocked here. MR. BRYANT-Okay. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/25/04) MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Maybe we should move on to our public hearing at this point, and then we can come back if there’s other questions raised at that point. Before we do that, however, a comment for Staff, it strikes me it might be helpful if Staff knows ahead of time when Planning Board is going to go to one of these sites. I know they tend to do it as a group, but when they’re going to have a demonstration like this, if we know ahead that they’re going to float a balloon, and Zoning Board’s going to be asked to move on it, on a height related issue, if we could be notified. We probably all can’t make it, but even if two or three of us could physically be there when something like that’s happened, then we could report back and we’d have some first hand information. MR. FRANK-I think that’s an excellent request. Again, you’re a separate Board. If you feel like you’re not concerned, then you do what you think you need to do. If you are concerned that there may be a visual impact, you can always request another assessment where you can review yourselves, but I think what you requested is probably a wiser thing to do, and I will make a note of that. MR. MC NULTY-Yes, because there’s no point in making the applicant go through this twice for two Boards, and I know they do that once in a while with the Planning Board. Okay. Let’s open the public hearing, and ask if there’s anybody here that wants to speak in favor of this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED GEORGE DRELLOS MR. DRELLOS-Hi. I’m George Drellos. Me and my brother own Northwinds Mobile Home Park and the sewer building, and which you call Lake Zoley. I don’t call it a lake, but anyway, we are in favor of this project. We don’t see any effects at all, from our point of view. We have a cell tower right there that’s 150 some feet. We see that and that doesn’t bother us. So I think it’s a good project and it should go through. I don’t see why you shouldn’t vote on this and give them the okay. MR. URRICO-You’re the current property owner? MR. DRELLOS-Yes. MR. ABBATE-And for the record, I have a question. Do you have any financial interest in this project, for the record? MR. DRELLOS-Do I? I own the building that they are buying. MR. ABBATE-So you have a financial interest in it. MR. DRELLOS-Well, I do, yes. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. DRELLOS-But I also own property all the way around it. MR. ABBATE-I just want to make it for the record, that you have a financial interest in this. MR. DRELLOS-And, just for the record, too, I’m surprised that your Board doesn’t coincide with the Planning Board. Now you say you don’t get notes. I mean, this is one Town, isn’t it? Don’t you work together. MR. BRYANT-Well, we have two separate functions. MR. DRELLOS-Still, I mean. You don’t get any notes from the Planning Board or anything? 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/25/04) MR. ABBATE-Why don’t you ask the Staff or Zoning Administrator about that. MR. DRELLOS-I will. I will. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Anybody else wishing to speak in favor? Opposed? JIM EGGLESTON MR. EGGLESTON-Hi. I’m Jim Eggleston, and this is my wife Patricia. We live at 38 Apple Drive. SHERRY DIEFFENBACH MRS. DIFFENBACH-My name is Sherry Dieffenbach, and I am a property owner at 40 Maple Drive. I don’t say that we’re opposed. I just, I’m not a very technical person, but all I know is I’ve lived in that area for 25 years, and for me to think of this being there is really quite a disruption in the type of land we’re going to have around us. We’re going to have to, I don’t understand, maybe you can explain it to me. Are we saying that the entrance off of Sherman Avenue is going to be 1200 feet long, into the, I’m confused on what the gentleman said, and then the actual facility will sit down, like so that from, I live, our land backs up onto Sherman Avenue. So it would be directly across from us. So he’s saying that we would not see this facility at all from our land? I find that very hard to believe. MR. BRYANT-Did you see these at all? MRS. DIEFFENBACH-No. MR. ABBATE-Would you like to view these things? MRS. DIEFFENBACH-But I also know that I have walked that land for 20 years, and I don’t believe we have 75 foot high trees there. I’m sorry, I don’t believe that. So I do wonder. I know that, I can see the positive aspects of what they want to do, but you’re making a huge change in the environment. A huge change, and I enjoy looking out my back door and seeing woods. I don’t want to see a dome in my back yard. MR. URRICO-Could I ask a question? Were you notified of the previous meeting with the Planning Board? MRS. DIEFFENBACH-No. MR. URRICO-Well, the Planning Board’s going to be meeting again on this, too. MR. URRICO-At the previous time when this was supposedly brought up. MRS. DIEFFENBACH-No. MR. EGGLESTON-The other question I had was, and nobody’s addressed it, and that’s probably a Planning Board issue, I don’t know, but the traffic impact. Mr. Underwood said that there was no negative impact and I totally disagree with that. Currently, getting out of Oak Tree Circle onto Sherman Avenue can be quite risky at this point. Coming in on the other side of the bridge from Veterans Road getting on to Sherman Avenue, is horrendous, at best, horrendous, and when they added the recreational field on the other side of the Northway, it got terrible. I mean, I even think at times there should be a light down there. MR. BRYANT-There should be a light at Veterans Road, because you can’t turn there. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/25/04) MR. EGGLESTON-So now you’re going to add this facility that will draw, I’m sure, many, many people right across from my house, the back part of my house, but still, you know, they’re saying that the berm will create a noise buffer, but it really won’t, if all those cars are on top of the berm. Right now, you know, the din from the Northway and Sherman Avenue, you know, we hear traffic all the time now. When you go adding all those extra cars, I think it will be a negative impact. MRS. DIEFFENBACH-Not only that, but you’re going to be cutting down more trees that are going to even more allow the sound to travel, and, you know, other things that, I know people don’t think of as important, but I think they are, the fact that you’re going to displace so much more wildlife that we already have problems with now. I mean, all of these things to me are negative impacts. I have lived in that area for 25 years on Arbutus Drive or now in Hidden Hills, and I love that land, and I think it’s something for us to seriously consider. I mean, we are going to have a negative impact. If everybody decides to do it, we have to live with it, yes, but it’s still going to be a negative impact to us. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. You’re right. A lot of your comments and your concerns are Planning Board issues, and you probably should check with Town Staff and make sure you’re informed when the Planning Board’s going to be taking this up and bringing these questions up, and they’re certainly legitimate questions, questions of will it increase traffic through Hidden Hills. It strikes me that would make a good short cut. MRS. DIEFFENBACH-People cutting through. We already have that problem. MR. MC NULTY-But that’s a Planning Board concern at that point. The only thing we’re dealing here with tonight is whether or not to allow the additional height. MRS. DIEFFENBACH-And even at that, I can’t be sure that I truly believe that we’re not going to see that building. I mean, like I said, I’m not a technical person. So I can’t visualize it as you gentlemen can, but. MR. URRICO-How much of the cell tower do you see from your? MR. EGGLESTON-We can’t see the cell tower. We don’t see the cell tower. I mean, I realize what they’re saying, that that’s 156 feet. So how would we see the dome, but I know that the dome is a lot larger than a cell tower as well, and it’s white, and the fact that if it were green that you would see it in the winter I don’t believe, because all those trees in that area are pine trees. So they’re all green all year long. So I would like to see it green, myself. MRS. DIEFFENBACH-And I know someone asked when they took the pictures, or were there leaves on the trees, was it, you know, a time of the year when you couldn’t see them anyway if there were leaves on the trees, you know, those are things that I seriously question. So, as I said, it’s not that we’re opposed. I just don’t think we have all the answers. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak in opposition? Okay. Do we have any correspondence? MR. UNDERWOOD-I didn’t see any. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. If there’s no correspondence, then I’ll close the public hearing, and ask the applicants to come back up. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC NULTY-I think we’ve pretty well covered the issue of line of sight and potential for visibility, but if the applicant wishes to make any other statements. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/25/04) MR. MILLER-Just, I feel I want to try to help clarify where the actual location, and I’m not sure if it’s appropriate to let them take a look at the drawings or, if that might help. MR. BRYANT-Here, take this set. Why don’t you just go ahead and give it to them. MR. MILLER-Okay. MR. BRYANT-This way they can see what the layout is. MR. MILLER-Actually these are opened up over here, if you want to take a look, I can show you just quickly where that is. You’re familiar with how far Arrowhead Equipment is from, and where the cell tower sits. This is the cell tower, all right, and this is, the dome is just at this end down here. So when I said 1200 feet, it’s “S” curve on the driveway to bring it in, and the only thing that will be up here will be the ball fields. That’s Sherman Avenue there. MRS. DIEFFENBACH-When you go over the Northway, how much past there would be the entrance to your driveway? MR. EGGLESTON-Is it on the hill, or is it down below there? MR. MILLER-It’s in the area between the crown of the hill and the start of the Northway bridge. I guess we’ve got to have line of sight by State DOT standards. MR. EGGLESTON-Probably right across from our property line, but this will be, you’ll take trees down here? MR. MILLER-This will be ball fields, similar to Morse Fields on the other side. MR. EGGLESTON-Okay. How big of a, how wide of a tree buffer? MR. MILLER-That will still be a 100 foot buffer. MR. EGGLESTON-One hundred feet. MR. MILLER-The fabric, the structure is just so far back, and we’re putting the parking down here. So you’re not going to have the problem with people parking on Sherman Avenue like you do at Morse Fields when they get overflow. That’s why we’ve got dedicated area here for parking, and then overflow parking in this area. So we’re trying to keep that away from the Hidden Hills, because I don’t want that to be a visual impact problem for you guys. MR. MC NULTY-Does the Board have any other questions of the applicant? MR. RIGBY-Yes. I have a couple of questions. Can we say that we’re absolutely sure that, first of all, I think that’s a great idea. I’m very much in favor of doing some type of a facility like this. Whether the location is right or not is another question, but what my question is, are we absolutely sure that this facility will not be visible from the Northway and will not be visible from Sherman Avenue? MR. MILLER-From the Northway there may be a slight, when you crown the Northway over Luzerne Road, there might be a slight notice of the very top of it, at the most. Now the next thing that can come into play is what does the owner of the property south of that do, in terms of reducing the buffer that’s on his property? I don’t know if he can reduce that buffer between his property line and our property line, but even then, I don’t think that that’s going to be, I guess he’s looking for the picture. That might be your point where you would get to see maybe the very top of it, because you’ve got to get up. You’ve got to get up in order to be able to see above the tree line, and this might be the highest point anywhere around to be able to see across that, and there might be a slight, you’ll sit in this general area here, and you might see it through some of the low spots in here, perhaps a slight. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/25/04) MR. RIGBY-That’s coming from the north. MR. MILLER-This is going north. You’re looking north now. Heading south, if you see it, it’ll be through the trees. MR. RIGBY-How about Sherman Avenue? MR. MILLER-Sherman Avenue, here’s the bridge here, and you can see how far away this is. I couldn’t see the balloon at 85 feet, and that was to the highway side, the Northway side. MR. RIGBY-I know we did all the testing and everything, but I guess what I’m asking is, are we absolutely sure that we won’t be able to see this facility from Sherman Avenue? Are you 100% certain that it won’t be visible? MR. MILLER-I don’t have a problem saying, because of the distance to the south that we are from Sherman Avenue, if somebody were to get right at this entrance and look at them, yes, you might be able to see it through the driveway entrance, but not where the trees are, and we’re purposely putting a little bit of an offset to the driveway, just to try and do things to reduce the visual impact that there might, just through this little slight corridor here, but from here, no. From here, no. One thing I was mentioning, before we were talking about the height of the tower here, as you’re looking across, and you can’t see the top, you can just barely see the tops of the buildings. So you’ve got 25 foot buildings that are on the other side of this, of the Northway here, Arrowhead Equipment. I’m guesstimating 25 feet, the height of the building is. You’ve got a tremendous, you’re up here quite a bit. So you’re not seeing the bottom half of this tower, which is down in here somewhere. MR. FRANK-I wouldn’t agree with you on that, because you can see the base of the utility building, which is 10 feet high. You can see the top of the, I’m sorry, not the base. You would see the top of it. MR. MILLER-Where do you see Arrowhead Equipment, the building? MR. FRANK-That arrow is on the utility building part of the cell tower, and I measured it today. It’s 10 feet high. So, if anything, you’re missing about nine feet of the bottom of that tower. MR. MILLER-But the point being that you’ve got to get up here. This is the highest place you can see from the south, and we’re closest to this end of the property, and from way up here, you know, your line of sight, just looking here, even going back here, and put a straight edge to the tops of these trees, it takes you up in here. So anything that would be in this area here, you’re not going to see from Sherman Avenue. It’s not the best representation, but without getting in a hot air balloon, I guess, and getting some pictures, I guess it’s difficult to get a better representation than that. MR. BRYANT-When is the dome going to be inflated, all year round? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. BRYANT-This has nothing to do with the height, but just out of curiosity, your busiest time is going to be, when, probably in the summer? MR. MILLER-No. During the wintertime. The primary use is for indoor fields for the winter use for soccer leagues and field hockey, lacrosse. MR. BRYANT-But you have outdoor baseball diamonds and stuff? MR. MILLER-Yes. That’s a very small part of the use. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/25/04) MR. BRYANT-So in the winter, what do you think, at a peak time on a Saturday afternoon, whenever your busy time is, what are we talking about in people? MR. MILLER-In terms of people? You’ll have at most four fields at any given time, four small fields. So you’re talking soccer, if you’re doing soccer, that’s the significant use here. Four fields with teams of eight to twelve players. MR. BRYANT-About 50 people, 75 feet people max. MR. MILLER-Maybe a little more. Maybe 80 people. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. MILLER-And it’s youth soccer. I mean, a lot of the kids that come, they’re carpooling. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Any other questions? It’s about time to talk about it. Again, bear in mind we’re dealing strictly with the height issue, and in spite of what the applicant says, I think we need to consider the possibility that this might be seen from some point at some time. So as we talk about where we’re at, let’s consider that. I don’t think there’s any set rule that says this thing has to be invisible. MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, can I add one more thing before you go on with the poll. Mr. Underwood brought up a good point to me. Keep in mind these white pines are not mature trees. They’re still growing. So, I mean, I expect the life of this dome to be here for, if it’s approved, for a long time. Well, the trees are still growing, too. I mean, they’re not mature white pines, which get very tall. So, as long as the health of the trees remain, there’s no doubt that they would continue to grow taller. So if there’s any concern about the top of the dome being visible, potentially, well, some day if it was approved, it might not be visible. Other than that, I mean. MR. MILLER-I have a vested interest in trying to protect some of the buffering around there, in order to protect it from wind loading and that sort. It’s a large sail, otherwise. I do want the buffer around there. So I’m not going to compromise that, and I do want to make a comment. Your point was well taken that it would be very advantageous to have all the Boards that might be involved when there is a site visit, because I think that would have helped allay a lot of, all of your concerns, if you had the opportunity to be there when the Planning Board did their site visit. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Well, I think it’s a wonderful idea. I think it’s much needed, and I would hope that the traffic would be addressed by the Planning Board, and I really don’t have a problem with the height, considering all the information that we’ve gotten so far. So I would be in favor. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. It’s a tremendous project. There’s no doubt about that, and it’s certainly something that would add to the recreation in the community, but I’m having a very difficult time, in my mind, balancing this, the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of neighborhood or community. My feeling is if any of it is visible in any direction, it stands to deplete what we sell up here, what we have going for us here as the scenic nature of the Adirondacks, and I’m not absolutely sure, from what information I have, that that’s not going to happen. We’re still asking for 28 feet of relief above the 50 foot maximum, which is significant, and in order for me, personally, to say go ahead with this, I have to be absolutely sure that we’re protecting the environment, and that includes the sites from the Northway, from Sherman Avenue, from the immediate area, and maybe even a little bit beyond the immediate area because this will have an impact. If you’re coming up the Northway and 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/25/04) you see this, you know, I use the water towers as an example over by Crandall Park. It strikes you as soon as you come, you see that from miles away, and I just don’t feel I have enough information to grant relief from my perspective. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Al? MR. BRYANT-Well, I’d like to just address something that the neighbor said, not relative to the application, but I used to use Veterans highway to get over from Luzerne to Sherman, cut across Lupine to get to Peggy Ann, and that road is horrendous, you know, something needs to be done about the traffic on Sherman Avenue. It has nothing to do with your site or the height request. Traditionally, in four years, I’ve never voted for a height variance, never voted positively, but as you look at this type of project, along the Northway, it’s not really attractive residential area. Nobody wants to live next to a highway. So traditionally that area is commercial, and anything you do from a commercial aspect in that area is going to alter, you know, environmentally, this beautiful patch of wooded land, but as far as the height, I think from the photographs and the other photographs that Mr. Frank was putting up on the screen, I’m relatively convinced that it’s not visible from any of the residential areas. I’m really not concerned that it’s visible from the Northway. I mean, we can see the Great Escape Ferris wheel and roller coaster from the Northway, and it doesn’t upset anybody. So from that aspect, I’m not upset. I would be upset, on the other hand, if somebody living on Maple Drive, for example, had to go in their backyard and see this giant balloon, but the fact that the balloon is on the south part of the property, as you say 1200 plus feet away from the road there at that point, it’s virtually not visible from any of the major residential areas, and, frankly, I think it’s a good plan. I’m hoping that it breezes by the Planning Board. So I’m in favor of it. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Thanks. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Well, it is a good plan, and as I said earlier, I’m not against the plan. I have some honest concerns, the same as Roy, I might add, about the impact in the community. I truly do, but we are addressing the height issue this evening, and, using that as a guideline, but using it as an aside that I’m very concerned about the impact. I have problems with that, I will support the application. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Thank you. Leo? MR. RIGBY-As I said before, I think the idea is great. The community really needs this. There’s no question about it, and taking into consideration that we’re only voting on a height variance tonight and nothing else, and given the assurance that it won’t be visible from Sherman Avenue, it may be somewhat visible from the Northway, I think I’m in favor of it as well. One thing I’d like to just throw out on the table, that you might want to think about a little bit, is we talked about the possibility of visibility from Sherman Avenue through the entrance. Maybe there’s a way to stagger that entrance so it wouldn’t be visible from Sherman Avenue, but in general, I’d be in favor of it as well. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I, too, am in favor of it. I think that there’s probably little chance of being able to visualize this from Hidden Hills on the north side of Sherman Avenue. I think if you put a 30 foot step ladder on top of your house and stood up on the roof, you probably wouldn’t see it, even, given the topography with the hill going up higher at that point. At the same time, I think the benefit to the community is going to be a great one. Everybody needs more exercise, and there’s a big demand for this. My brother drives his kids all the way to Ballston Spa to play indoor soccer, and it’ll be convenient for him just to drive them down here instead. At the same time, I think that, you know, we need to visualize that those trees, as I mentioned to Bruce, I estimated those trees at probably 40 or 50 years of age. They’re going to grow to be over 100 years of age, and they’re going to add height continuously. So the minimal few low spots that you would have, viewing it from the south and the Northway, I don’t think that’s a real detriment to the community, and I think, too, that the traffic concerns of those 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/25/04) neighbors, this is going to be used during off peak hours. That traffic is not going to be at eight o’clock in the morning and everybody’s heading to work, and five o’clock in the afternoon when everybody’s coming back. So sport facilities are used at different times of the day. So, I’d be in favor. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I guess, generally, I’d be in favor too. Looking at our criteria, whether there’d be an undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood, I think as long as it’s not blatantly visible, probably there will not be a change in the character of the neighborhood, and this is important. I think it’s been kind of mentioned before, but we’ve got residential areas near there, and in the Town. We’ve got to pay attention to what we’re going to do to residential areas when we put any kind of a commercial facility near them. Granted people, when they bought their houses, may have known that piece of property was there and it was going to be something some day, but nevertheless, it’s very important that we protect residential areas. Second point would be whether the benefit can be achieved in some other way, and, other than finding a different location, no. It’s not going to work, you can’t make the roof half the height or whatever by changing the way the structure is made and still accomplish what you’re after. Whether the Area Variance is substantial. It’s probably moderate, but it’s not, I don’t believe it’s substantial. Whether it’ll have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Other than the obvious need to clear the area where the buildings are going to go, probably not, and whether it’s self- created, yes, it is. You’ve made a choice that you want to put this in here, so, but I think on balance it comes out in favor of the applicant. As I mentioned before, when I’m looking at it, I’m looking at it and saying, okay, it’s going to be pretty well shielded by the trees. The trees are probably going to grow. There’s no absolute guarantee. We could have some kind of a white pine blight come through next year and clear those pines out and we’d see the thing. Not likely, but there is a slight risk that something like that could happen, and I think we just have to balance risk against what we hope won’t happen, and I think the case here is that it probably will be well shielded. I don’t think it’s going to affect the neighborhood, and so I’d be in favor, too. That all being said, we need a motion to approve, and I might suggest that that motion include a stipulation that the buffer areas that the applicant has specified on his plan be included. Obviously, he cannot guarantee the buffer areas that he mentioned that are not on the proposed property will always be there, but he can certainly maintain those that he’s indicated will be on his property. Any volunteers? MRS. HUNT-I’ll try it. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Thanks, Joyce. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-2004 DOUG & TERESA MILLER, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: Sherman Avenue. The applicant proposes construction of a 116,000 square foot dome structure which would be used as an athletic facility. Relief required. Applicant requests 28 feet of relief from the 50 foot maximum height requirement of the RC-15 zone Section 179-4-030. Parcel History: Town Board Resolution No. 74-2004 resolved January 26, 2004 Petition to Change zone from Light Industrial to RC-15. Considering the criteria for the Area Variance, whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created. Considering the change in the variance in the height, we have been discussing that it would not be visible because of the location and the trees around the project. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant may be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an Area Variance? No. There is not, and accomplish what he wishes to accomplish. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. I guess it is, but it seems like it’s the only solution to this problem. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Well, we have addressed the fact that it will not be visible from any of the immediate areas because of the trees and the setting of the project. Whether the difficulty is self-created? Well, I suppose it is because it’s something they want to do, but I 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/25/04) would move that we pass Area Variance No. 7-2004. We also stipulate that the developer will maintain the buffer of trees as shown in the plan on all four sides. Duly adopted this 25 day of February, 2004, by the following vote: th MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, did you want to add that stipulation that you made? MR. MC NULTY-Yes, the buffer. Probably just saying that the stipulation is that the applicant will, indeed, provide and maintain the buffers that are indicated on his plan. MRS. HUNT-Okay. AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Bryant, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty NOES: Mr. Urrico ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Hayes MR. MC NULTY-There you go. MRS. BITTER-Thank you very much. MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, before you close the meeting, did you want to discuss with the Board about the use of the formatted resolutions provided to you? Did everyone have a chance to look at those prepared resolutions? MR. BRYANT-What are you talking about? MR. FRANK-Well, there was some discussion about giving you prepared resolutions, to make it easier for you to make the resolution. MR. MC NULTY-Yes. Mr. Bryant probably didn’t get a chance to see them because he wasn’t here last week. MR. FRANK-All right, and this is nothing you have to vote on or anything. I just wanted you to discuss it. MR. BRYANT-Mae a culpa. MR. URRICO-I think you’re better off moving that to another date, when everybody’s had a chance to look at it. MR. FRANK-That’s fine. Yes, that’s a good idea. I guess Lew and Jaime should also have the opportunity. I just wondered if there was any feedback at all from anybody. MR. ABBATE-The resolution, in the final analysis, is done by the Chairman. Correct? MR. FRANK-That’s true. Of course, you’re going to add any conditions. MR. ABBATE-But I mean, the resolution is proposed by the Chairman. MR. FRANK-That was just something that you could use as a template to make it easier. I mean, obviously you feel comfortable doing it the way you do it. You’ve done it for years, and you do it well. I mean, if you don’t feel comfortable with something that would help you out, I would imagine. You’re going to add the criteria. You’re going to address them in the resolution also and add any special conditions. The Planning Board, by the way, that’s what they do on a regular basis. All their resolutions are prepared for them, and then they add any special conditioning or whatever. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/25/04) MR. BRYANT-Does that mean you’re going to provide a resolution for each application in advance, or are you just going to have a generic form that we fill in the blanks? MR. MC NULTY-Well, it could be done either way. Understand that we’re just making comments now. We’re not making a decision. MR. BRYANT-It’s not always going to be the same. I mean, you have different types of variances. MR. FRANK-That’s what it’s going to be fill in the blanks, something that helps you look at (lost words). Again, it’s not something you have to do. It was an idea that was brought up, and then the Zoning Administrator had made some of these examples. You didn’t get one because you weren’t here. I’ll see that you get one. MR. BRYANT-Will you put it in my package next month? MR. MC NULTY-My general reaction, first off, was I was wondering whether or not it was a solution seeking a problem. MR. FRANK-That could be. Maybe it’s something that’s not legal. MR. MC NULTY-That’s what I, you know, throwing a lot of whereas’s in, I wondered whether or not it would make it more confusing for someone looking at it. Also, I wasn’t quite clear. I know it lists the criteria that we’re supposed to consider, but it wasn’t quite clear to me whether it’s intended that we fill in the answers to each of those questions in the process of accomplishing this or not. A minor point, too, if we’re going to just list the criteria, it strikes me they should be listed as statements rather than questions. MR. FRANK-These are all good, to get some feedback, why don’t you put these on your forms and Craig can actually review every one of your concerns and your opinions. I think this is what he was intending this for right now. MR. MC NULTY-Yes, and looking at the sections that went down, the general criteria, like the date of the Staff notes. The date of Warren County Planning. The date the application was submitted and all, if there’s a good reason to have that in the motion, then, fine, but it’s not going to establish those things as fact. If somebody’s going to challenge us in court, they’re not going to believe our motion. They’re going to go back and look at the record anyway. So I’m wondering whether, you know, that’s necessary in it. So I guess my initial reaction at this point is I prefer our current format where we identify the variance and the applicants describe what relief we’re offering, review the statutory criteria and our evaluation of those criteria, so that we’re going on record, just as Joyce did in this last motion, saying we’ve considered whether it affects the neighborhood or not and we’ve decided that yes it does or no it doesn’t, to a certain degree, and then state our determination, but again, you know, the question I would have back to Craig or whoever, is, is it just a neat idea, or are there problems that they’ve encountered on appeals or wherever else that suggests that we should have this information in the motion? MR. FRANK-And I encourage you to make written comment and give them to Craig. You can e-mail it to him or mail it to him, let him know. Because maybe this is a bad idea, and I think each one of you has a right to give him that feedback. MR. BRYANT-Can you e-mail that to me, so I can look at it? MR. FRANK-I believe so. MR. BRYANT-You know, I can’t talk intelligently about the topic, but I do want to make a statement. Relative to the last meeting I was at, I think it was the last meeting, where we had an election for officers, and we talked about the possibility of change because, you know, it’s been 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/25/04) so many years, and, you know, we need a different flavor, and it was so refreshing to have Mr. McNulty sitting in as Chairman tonight. He just moved the meeting right along. He shut the Board down when he was tired of listening to their rhetoric and questions. MR. MC NULTY-Well, I let some things go on deliberately because I knew we only had the two, and at one point it was nice that we had the interruption because a couple of us needed a break. MR. ABBATE-Getting back to this form, also, who’s going to provide us with the information, such as they look for dates, Warren County Planning date, notice of public hearing date, meeting notice project date, notice to APA date. MR. MC NULTY-I think the Staff would do that. If it’s determined, you know, if we decide, when we’re all finished, that we want that, I would think that part the Staff would do. MR. FRANK-I want to make a comment before you all leave. What’s up with Al Bryant? Doesn’t grant height relief for four years, then he goes and grants 48 feet of height relief. I’m kidding. MR. BRYANT-I know. It’s a great project, though. We need projects like that. MR. FRANK-I’m all for it. I think it’s a wonderful idea. I just don’t want everybody to think that this is not going to be viewable from all the way around. MR. UNDERWOOD-You’ll see it somewhere. MR. BRYANT-Of course it’s going to be viewable. MR. FRANK-And, by the way, the closer you are to any object, of course those trees of any height, whatever height, whatever they are now, is going to block it. The further you get away, you get a better perspective. So, again, is it a big deal? Maybe it’s not a big deal you’re going to see the top of the dome. I didn’t know. That’s what the Staff wanted to know. Why didn’t they provide that assessment from all the way around. He gave some answers, but I guarantee you’re going to see it from the south and the west. MR. MC NULTY-And I think the other thing is it’s a big object. So you may see it through some of the trees, where you didn’t see the balloons through them. MR. FRANK-That’s what the Planning Board can say, you know what, you need to do something with the lower story, or fill in the gap somehow, or what’s the answer, I don’t know. MR. ABBATE-Well, there’s a certain amount of support for it, particularly the individual who had a financial interest. MR. FRANK-Well, I’m glad you brought that up, because if you hadn’t, I was going to say. MR. URRICO-Well, it’s listed right on the agenda as the property owner. MR. FRANK-I’m glad you caught that because I went there and asked permission to walk his property, his adjacent property. MR. URRICO-I think it’s a great project, and I think it’s in a great location with the other sports complex there, you know, the Glens Falls. It’s going to be great. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/25/04) Charles McNulty, Acting Chairman 33