Loading...
2004-05-26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 26, 2004 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY PAUL HAYES JAMES UNDERWOOD ALLAN BRYANT LEO RIGBY, ALTERNATE JOYCE HUNT, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT CHARLES ABBATE ROY URRICO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CHRIS ROUND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-2004 REQUEST FOR EXTENSION SEQRA TYPE: II TERRY KARANIKAS OWNER: TERRY KARANIKAS ZONING: UR-1A, SFR-1A LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF COUNTRY CLUB RD., 300 FT. SOUTH OF SWEET RD. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF APPROAL FROM ZBA ON MAY 28, 2003. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 10,625 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING ON A PARCEL WITHOUT FRONTAGE ON A TOWN ROAD AND PROPOSES TO ACCESS THE PARCEL FROM THE APPLICANT’S ADJOINING PARCEL, WHICH EXCEEDS THE MINIMUM FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 5/12/2004 LOT SIZE: 10.09 ACRES AND 6.62 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.15-1-18; 296.15-1-24 SECTION: 179-4- 090A TERRY KARANIKAS, PRESENT MR. STONE-Mr. Karanikas, a letter dated April 15, 2004 to myself and members of the Zoning Board, “I am requesting a one year extension of my 41-2003 variance. I was unable to take action within a year, due to obtaining the necessary permit from New York State DEC. Please find enclosed my DEC permit. I anticipate completing my paperwork for a building permit shortly, and constructing my home this summer.” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 41-2003 Request for Extension, Terry Karanikas, Meeting Date: May 26, 2004 “Project Location: East side of Country Club Rd., 300 ft. south of Sweet Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 10,625 sq. ft. single- family dwelling on a parcel without frontage on a town road, and proposes to access the parcel from the applicant’s adjoining parcel, which exceeds the minimum frontage requirements. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) Relief Required: Applicant requests 40 feet of relief from the 40-foot minimum road frontage requirements per § 179-4-090. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 41-2003: 05/28/03, same as current application. Staff comments: The applicant is requesting an extension of AV 41-2003, which was approved May 28, 2003. A copy of the original staff notes is attached.” MR. STONE-Sir, anything more you want to add? MR. KARANIKAS-That would be it. MR. STONE-That sounds very clear to me. MR. KARANIKAS-I got my approvals I think November of last year. MR. STONE-The motion, too, was actually May 28. You got your DEC permit. th MR. KARANIKAS-Actually the Army Corps of Engineers was also involved. MR. STONE-You went through the whole hoop. MR. KARANIKAS-I had to go through the, in November 25, something like that. th MR. STONE-Well, in May of 2003, by unanimous vote, we did approve your Area Variance. Any questions from the Board? I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on this subject? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Allan. MR. BRYANT-Well, Mr. Chairman, again, it might have been helpful to have the minutes from the original meeting back in 2003, I was not here for the vote in 2003, so it’s hard for me to comment on, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Well, I wasn’t sitting on the Board, but I was here at the hearing, and my opinion then would have been to vote for it, and I still feel that way. MR. STONE-Mr. Hayes? MR. HAYES-I essentially agree. I thought we heard it pretty thoroughly that night, and I still feel the same way that I did, and also, we’ve had a history of giving one extension of variances 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) outside of, you know, extenuating circumstances. It doesn’t mean we have to, but we generally have. So I’ll be in favor. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I’ll be in favor also. It might help if I took just a second to explain a little bit on this, for the benefit of those members that weren’t here. This was a situation where the applicant wanted to do a combination of his two parcels, but unfortunately one parcel is in one school district, and the other parcel’s in another school district, and the school district’s have to agree to have a tax consolidation, and they did not. So, if he could have combined the two parcels, and made them one, he wouldn’t be here for a variance, and I think that’s why probably most of us did approve this, and I’ll be voting for it. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think it’s understandable that the permitting process can be lengthy, and, you know, we always give extensions. So I have no problem with it. MR. STONE-Leo? MR. RIGBY-Yes. I wasn’t here for the last discussion either, but seeing that the Board unanimously approved it the last time, and what everyone said tonight, I have no object to it either. MR. STONE-And I agree. On review of the motion to approve Area Variance 41-2003 at the time, I don’t think anything has changed, except that Mr. Karanikas now can proceed if we, assuming he gets a building permit from the Town. MR. KARANIKAS-Right. MR. STONE-As far as we’re concerned, he can proceed if we grant the variance, and I am certainly agreed that we should do that. Whoever wants to do this motion, if you grab last year’s, it would be very easy, because it really hasn’t changed. You get credit for a motion. MOTION TO EXTEND AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-2003 TERRY KARANIKAS, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Country Club Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 10,625 square foot single family dwelling on a parcel without frontage on a Town road and proposes to access the parcel from the applicant’s adjoining parcel, which exceeds the minimum frontage requirements. Relief required. The applicant requests 40 feet of relief from the 40 foot minimum road frontage requirements per 179-4-090. Based upon the previous ruling, the motion to approve, which was unanimous by the Board, and seeing no negative impacts, I suggest that we give the extension. Duly adopted this 26 day of May, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Rigby, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico MR. STONE-There you go, sir. MR. KARANIKAS-Thank you very much. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-2004 SEQRA TYPE: TYPE I ACTION GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC HOTEL/INDOOR WATER PARK AGENT: JOHN LEMERY OF LEMERY GREISLER, LLC OWNER: GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK LLC ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF NYS RTE. 9, ADJACENT TO COACHOUSE RESTAURANT APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 200-UNIT HOTEL AND INDOOR WATER PARK AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS OF THE HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE (HC-INT.) ZONE. THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES ARE 67 FEET TALL. THE HC-INT. ZONE IMPOSES A 40 FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT. THE PROJECT HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF A SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SDGEIS) WHICH HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD AS THE LEAD AGENCY UNDER SEQRA. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WILL ISSUE NO DECISION UNTIL THE PLANNING BOARD ISSUES A SEQRA DETERMINATION. THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF THE REVIEW OF THE PROPOSAL. THIS APPLICATION MAY OR MAY NOT BE HEARD PENDING THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE FEIS AND THE ADOPTION OF SEQRA FINDINGS BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SPR 4-2004 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: MARCH 10, 2004 LOT SIZE: 3.90 ACRES, 6.76 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.8-4 & 5 SECTION: 179-4-030 JOHN LEMERY & JOHN COLLINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STONE-Do you want to read Staff notes? MR. MC NULTY-The Staff notes that we’ve got are the same ones that we had on April 6. th MR. STONE-Well, read them anyway, just to be on the safe side, for everybody who might be here. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. These are the same Staff notes dated April 6, 2004. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 23-2004, Great Escape Theme Park, LLC Hotel/Indoor Water Park, Meeting Date: April 6, 2004 Project Location: west side of NYS Rte. 9, adjacent to Coachhouse Restaurant, Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 200 room, 216,850 sf Hotel and indoor Water Park facility. Relief Required: Applicant requests 27 feet of relief from the 40-foot maximum height requirement of the HC-Int Zone, §179-4-030. The original application submitted requested relief from the Travel Corridor Overlay zone, however, the proposed construction has been relocated in order to eliminate the need for such relief. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): The Planning Board is currently reviewing application materials associated with this proposal. Specifically, the Planning Board is considering a Site Plan Review application as well as a Special Use Permit application. SP 4-2004: 05/20/04, Planning Board adopts SEQRA Findings for the Great Escape Hotel/Water Park. SP 4-2004: 05/10/04, Planning Board accepts FEIS. Staff comments: Please see the attached memo from Marilyn Ryba regarding this project. In addition to the required review criteria, the Ryba memo raises several on point questions that might provide additional answers and insight on the potential impacts (positive and negative ) of this project. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) Given that the close of the comment period, relative to the SDGEIS, is April 8, it would be th prudent for this board to discuss all concerns with the applicant and provide a comment document to the Planning Board by then so that the Planning Board can consider your concerns when rendering a SEQRA finding.” MR. MC NULTY-And that’s it for Staff notes. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Gentlemen? Just keep in mind, the public hearing was kept open. So there will be an opportunity for people to speak, if they’re so inclined, after the applicant makes their presentation, and after we’ve asked anymore questions that we might have. MR. LEMERY-Mr. Chairman, Members of the Zoning Board, my name is John Lemery, Lemery Greisler law firm, as Counsel to The Great Escape Theme Park, LLC, and the project sponsor. With me here is John Collins, Vice President and General Manager of The Great Escape Theme Park. Since the close, or since the last meeting with this Board, where the public hearing was left open, the Town of Queensbury, the Planning Board, at a meeting on May 20, adopted th Findings, relative to the Theme Park. I’m not sure it’s necessary to go through those Findings, but in effect, the Planning Board found that, among other things, that there was a rational for the decision and there was a rational for the Finding of approving the variance, although the Planning Board does not approve variances. The Planning Board found that the considerations under which we ask for the variances, the Area Variance, were reasonable, necessary, and by way of mitigating the transaction. The Planning Board Findings, I’m told that the Planning Board Findings were distributed to your Board. MR. STONE-That is correct. MR. LEMERY-And that your Board has had a chance, hopefully, to look at them. We’re prepared to answer any questions. We have all the renderings that we’ve been here before with, including the diagram that shows where sort of our neighborhood is, relative to any other neighborhoods affected by the hotel and water park. As you know, we flew the balloons three separate times. The Planning Board found, and we hope that those of you who went out and took the site visits found, that this structure, these two structures, do not affect, in any way, the receptor neighborhoods, or the Glen Lake area, and, in effect, is not visible from those areas, with the exception of a small look on Ash Road, which effectively can be screened by trees, but all that land is owned, in any event, by The Great Escape Theme Park. We did bring with us tonight, we have the architects with us, and we thought it might be helpful for you to see some of the siting, and some of the way the building will look. We brought some of the actual colors with us that might help people in the audience take a look at what the building will look like, the siding, the shingles, the stone and the other things that we’ve tried to incorporate. So as to maintain the Adirondack style of architecture. MR. STONE-In other words, what you’re going to tell us is this is how this oversized building, the colors that are going to be used. That’s fine. JAY KOLPECK MR. KOLPECK-My name is Jay Kolpeck. This is just a, the actual sample of the shingles that will be used to color, for your architectural, again, to replicate the old architectural style, because the roofs are pretty expansive. We just wanted to show you exactly what the roof materials would be like. MR. BRYANT-That’s for the hotel, is that correct? MR. KOLPECK-That’s for both the hotel and the waterpark. MR. BRYANT-I was under the impression that the waterpark was. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) MR. KOLPECK-It’s a combination of clear panels and shingle roof. MR. BRYANT-Exactly. MR. LEMERY-If I could, I should like to put in the record and read to you the rational why it’s necessary, we think, to ask for an Area Variance from this Board. The waterpark hotel is 67 feet tall, which makes it 27 feet taller than that provided for in the zone. It was driven by a number of factors, including the physical constraints of the site, the industry standards for room size and corridor length, the desire to have an Adirondack style architecture, because of where the buildings are situated between 87 and Route 9 at the entrance to Queensbury, really, at the Exit 20 entrance, and the needs of the waterpark. We had a need, also, which we think justifies the variance, to connect the proposed hotel and waterpark to the existing Coachouse Restaurant, which will serve as the hotel restaurant and provide all food service to the hotel. This configuration directed and dictated the location of the hotel common areas, elevators, so as to place these facilities adjacent to the Coachouse. Fixing the starting point, if you will, of all the guest room corridors. The degree to which the project room corridors could extend toward the western boundary was limited by the need to provide sufficient space to accommodate a three lane ring road, which was required pursuant to the 2001 Findings and site plan, rather Findings and Environmental Quality Review statement that was provided to this Town Planning Board. We had to put a ring road in, which will ultimately serve all of the Park traffic going into the parking lots, and will get the traffic off Route 9. The eastward extension of the site was constrained by the 75 foot building setback from Route 9, which is in accordance with your Zoning Ordinance. The extension of the corridor guest rooms leading out horizontally from behind the Coachouse on the north side was limited by industry corridor standards. If we had it to basically drop the hotel by one story, it would have added to the length of the “T” going out the back end toward the north by 140 feet. We would have had a corridor length of 460 feet, which is 110 feet more than what are the industry standards. The Adirondack style peak roof which is on the hotel is 15 feet of the building height of the hotel, and again, given the hotel’s prominent location along 87, and the entrance to the Town, we believe that the way the hotel is sited and the way the hotel is built will be aesthetically pleasing to people coming into the area, sets the Adirondack style, which is part of the Zoning Board’s hope when projects come before them, and is reasonable. The placement of the hotel behind the Coachouse and the complimentary Adirondack style architecture consolidates the structures in a single location and creates a unified architectural statement. We tried to make the architecture compatible with the Coachouse Restaurant, which is almost a landmark here in our area for those of us old enough to remember Alfonso’s when it was built, and the fact that it, for a long time, was one of the area’s leading restaurants and provided a very interesting and unique Adirondack style to this part of the Town. The height of the waterpark portion of the facility could not be any lower and still accommodate the mix of attractions deemed necessary to meet guest expectations for a resort of this kind. The slides and the interpretive dump bucket play structure, for those of you who have been over at The Great Escape, if you, over there and see the big Paul Bunyan structure and the dump bucket and all of that, there’s one of those in the waterpark. Those are a minimum of 55 feet high, and the mechanical systems required to operate those dump buckets, along with the slides, require a 65 foot height minimum. These facilities are usually 75 to 85 feet in height, and when this was being designed, we directed the architects and the waterpark planners that this building had to be below, we had to fly balloons, we had to fly balloons. We had to make sure that it could not be seen by Glen Lake. We wanted to make sure that it could not be seen by any of the receptor neighborhoods, or on the west side of the property, well beyond the Rush Pond area. So we located it at the very, possibly lowest portion of the site. The lighting plan has been minimized, and actually the lighting plan for the project is below the standards required by the Town of Queensbury. The other reason that this hotel is necessary here is hopefully to be of help to regenerate and get The Great Escape attendance levels back up to where they were prior to 9/11/2001. Up to that time, things were going well, and then after that time, the theme park industry in general took a hit. It’s been a long, hard struggle to get the population back, and it’s still not back to those pre-9/11 levels, and one of the reasons we’re trying to locate the hotel with a resort indoor waterpark is that we’re hopeful that it’ll increase guest traffic to The Great Escape. We’re hoping that if you approve this that it will increase guest traffic at the Theme Park by about 80,000 people a year, which is terrific because they’re 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) well below the levels that they were, as I said, at 9/11. So, again, the notes of the Planning Board, these facts were all found to be reasonable by the Queensbury Planning Board, and these statements I’ve made were adopted as Findings by the Queensbury Planning Board. We’re hopeful that we’ve met your test here in this case. We think the socio-economic benefits of this project are quite significant, that it will add a half a million dollars to the bed tax revenues, that as a result of the Bed Tax enactment by the County. It should result in an increased sales tax revenue of about one million dollars. It will be serviced by Town Sewer. It will be a major user of the sewer line which is very helpful to the Town, in connection with its new sewer line running from approximately Wal-Mart up to 149. So it will be serviced by Town Sewer, by Town Water. There is no discharge anywhere into the Rush Pond area or the Fen or anything. All the discharges from this facility will go into the sewer lines and ultimately to the Glens Falls Wastewater Treatment Plant. We have our architect with us. We’d be glad to try to answer any of your questions about this. We think this is unique enough to justify this variance because of it’s location and the need to coordinate this with the Coachouse, the need to make it a part of the resort, The Great Escape Theme Park. This is not a separate hotel that is on its own, freestanding. This is part of a, what is hopeful will be a resort destination. This is all part of that, to get the traffic up. We think it will be a significant help to the winter population here in the area, hopefully that this will also have a spinoff effect to the other hotels that are being developed, in that people who can’t stay in here, necessarily, will stay there and enjoy the benefits of the area during the winter months and in the fall season and spring season, in so called shoulder areas. We think it’s unique enough that it justifies this 27 foot variance and we hope that you’ll be willing to look at it in that respect, and allow us to have that variance. Thank you. MR. COLLINS-John Collins, General Manager. I don’t really have anything to add that John didn’t already cover. Just reinforcing, obviously, the visual impact of this building from Day One was something we really looked at, and as John mentioned, we lowered it right out of the gate, and then we’ve looked at it a couple of times, and a third time for the Board, just to make sure that it was visually as non-intrusive as possible, but at the same time understand that this is going to be a signature resort in the area, and that’s pretty much my comments. MR. LEMERY-I would make one further comment regarding the stormwater management plan. We had the stormwater management plan put together. We had The Glen Lake Association, through its President, Paul Derby, we asked him to take part in the stormwater management plan, the stormwater management plan analysis. It was reviewed by Warren County stormwater management people. The Glen Lake Association had input to that, and so far as we’re told, everyone was satisfied with stormwater management plan. It exceeds the plan which was presented and approved by the Board in 2001. It meets the Phase II stormwater management plan designs now required, and it’s basically a State of the Art plan. At our last meeting, we were told by the President of The Glen Lake Association, Mr. Derby, that they didn’t object to the facility. They just wanted to make sure that the stormwater management was such that there was no risk to the Glen Lake Fen, and I think that’s been satisfied. The Planning Board found that to be the case. So that was a question that was before the Boards, and we hope that’s been addressed and answered satisfactorily. Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you for a very direct and informative presentation, Mr. Lemery. Are there any questions on the part of Board members? Go ahead, Allan. MR. BRYANT-First of all, I want to say, I took part in one of the balloon demonstrations. It was very effective, traveled all around the Town, to the Ash Drive location and to the school location, even to the Mall, to see if the balloons were, in fact, visible. One of the questions I don’t think has been answered, especially in the Planning Board evaluation, is relative to the transparent panels on the top of the water slide, in the waterpark. How big are they? How much light pollution is there going to be? I mean, we couldn’t see the balloons very well from the Ash Drive location. What’s that going to look like at night, just out of curiosity? Maybe the architect can step up and talk a little bit about the composition of the panels and how much light is going to escape. What it’s going to look like. Is it going to look like a multi-colored airport? I mean, what are we looking at? 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) MR. KOLPECK-Again, I’m Jay Kolpeck. This elevation shows, roughly this section of the building is the waterpark itself, and approximately 50% of the roof area is covered. It’s called a Texilon System. It’s actually a flexible clear panel that it’s a new product, but it’s actually a composite sandwich panel that has insulating value, but it allows ultra violet light through. So actually inside the facility, natural plants can grow, and you can actually get a suntan through the panels. Where if you had a standard glass skylight, you actually cannot technically grow vegetation well or really get a suntan, whether it’s a large issue or not. The way the building is illuminated is it’s all down lighting. So there’s minimal to no light pollution that’s being reflected up from these panels, and the way the building is positioned and the way the balloons were floated, it’s actually, I believe it’s a section of the corner that doesn’t show where the panels are. Those panels are actually hidden behind some of the larger evergreen trees that we’re maintaining on the site. So, as you’re, in Ash Drive, or coming up Route 9, you actually won’t see those illuminated panels, and again, they will have, you know, a mild glow to them, but there’s no up lighting, and really there’s minimal to no light pollution. MR. BRYANT-Basically, when you flew the balloons, you flew them in two locations, the front of the building and the back of the building. Were those the two locations? MR. KOLPECK-That’s correct. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. LEMERY-The Planning Board actually did look at the light pollution and I’m reading from the Planning Board’s Findings. They found that the skylight windows in the roof would have a minimal nighttime visual impact, given that the waterpark roofline is not visible from any of the residential receptor points, and that the waterpark interior lights are mounted high and directed downward away from the sky, and that no floodlights will be directed up through the skylight. So that’s a Finding. There will be no lights directed up through the skylights. MR. BRYANT-Yes. I’m just curious how they determined that. That’s, I mean, the light is going to escape. Even if it’s pointing down, you’re going to have some reflection. I’m just curious. MR. UNDERWOOD-Most of those lamps are hooded on the top so they down (lost word). You would get some reflection off the water, but it would probably be minimal, you know, given the amount of lumens inside a building. It’s not like the place is going to be lit up with sodium halide lamps or something like that. MR. BRYANT-Okay. Thank you. MR. COLLINS-And just, the park, waterpark hours are obviously going to dictate. These will not be on 24 hours a day. Only the evening hours, between 10 and 11. We’re not exactly sure exactly what time, and possibly 10 on slower days, 11 on busier days, but no later than 11. MR. BRYANT-Thank you. MR. STONE-I have one ongoing concern. I’m not really concerned about the project, but you cite, in what you read tonight and earlier, industry standards for length of corridors. To my knowledge, and if you’ve provided, please pardon me. I have never seen these industry standards. You seem to talk about them, but I personally know, anecdotally, some very fancy resort hotels where you can walk forever, getting to maybe the cheaper rooms, but they’re pretty far removed from the lobby, and I’m just curious, industry standards. What are they? Where are they? Are they printed? MR. KOLPECK-I’m not sure if the Findings actually list the publication and the author, but in hospitality design, it isn’t a code book or a law that’s written on paper. It’s, as they say industry standards that we use as guidelines as a business travel will conveniently travel, I believe the number is 240 feet before he deems that as too long of a distance to walk from the lobby to his 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) hotel room. Because they’re on a shorter timeframe, they have to get in and get out quickly. Usually with resort type considerations, I think the number is 320 or 340 feet, and it’s assumed they have a little bit more time, a little bit more leisure. They don’t need to catch the bus or get to the airport, and that few extra feet is not a critical factor for them, but we try, in a resort type configuration, stay within that 340 feet, and if we reduce the floor and expanded the footprint, it would put us way beyond what, you know, quote industry standards feels is a comfortable distance to walk. Again, I’m Jay Kolpeck. MR. STONE-Okay. Industry standards is a wonderful term, and as I say, I am not adverse to this thing. I just want the record clear that industry standards are at most, at best, a guideline, and that you, I haven’t seen a reference. I still haven’t seen a reference, and I don’t want to dwell on it very long, but it’s certainly one of the reasons you’re going up, and I understand that, and the waterslide park, and the water theme park is another reason you’re going up, and that’s fine, but I’d like more, if you’re going to use a statement like that, I guess I’d like more concrete evidence. MR. ROUND-Mr. Stone, I’m throwing one to the applicant here. On Page 310 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, they do reference Building Type Basics for Hospitality Facilities by Brian McDonough, John Hill, and others, as well as Hotel Designing, Planning, Development, New Edition, by Walter Roots, and so those references are in, as part of the record. MR. STONE-As I say, I thought they might be. Thank you, Chris. Because I haven’t read every single word. Thank you. Okay. I’m going to continue the public hearing, if there’s no other questions on the part of the Board, and let me remind anybody who comes up, that this is a continuation, and we’re still guided by the five minute rule, and my other statement that if it’s been said, merely say you agree, so that we don’t dwell on a lot of information. Now I know many of you may not have seen the minutes, but we’ll try and say we’ve heard that, and do you agree or disagree. Anybody wishing to speak on this subject? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN PHIL TUCKER MR. TUCKER-Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board. My name is Phil Tucker. I’m the President of the Glens Falls Building and Construction Trades Council. The union construction trades that we represent are the sheet metal workers, the plumbers, the brick layers, the operating engineers, the electrical workers, the carpenters, the millwrights, the ironworkers, the laborers, the roofers, insulators, the boilermakers, and the painters and allied trades. I’m proud to call all of them my friends, and honored that occasionally I’m asked to make a statement on their behalf. That’s what happened today. We have our weekly building trades meeting when this project became part of our discussion at our meeting, and our affiliates asked me to come here and make a statement, maybe as sort of a perspective of a construction trades worker. Maybe just as a couple of points of reference, we currently have workers at the Glens Falls Hospital and also at the Warren County Jail, a couple of bigger projects in the area. We represent literally thousands of area union construction trades workers and apprentices. When I’m in their presence, I see more than the hardhat and the blue collar. I see the hardworking individuals with families. They probably have a mortgage at one of the local banks. They probably purchase vehicles at one of the area dealership, and they are circulating that hard earned construction dollar through our local communities. Some are the little league coaches and the soccer moms and dads, and the volunteers that our communities contribute to the quality of life that we all enjoy. This project will probably create a demand for as many as 200 construction trades workers for nearly a year, and in the future, there will be maintenance, renovations and repairs that would also employ our people. I ask that as you’re looking at the blueprints and the drawings, and doing the proper due diligence, that you might take the time or a certain amount of time, to look at the project, and indeed any projects under consideration, through the eyes of the construction worker, and the benefits that this project means for us and the benefits that the area communities, as those construction dollars 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) contribute to the local economy. In the near future, as you’re driving to The Great Escape, I’m sure that in your thoughts you will realize that you made the right decision for Queensbury, and for Warren County, and I hope that you will also take into account and realize that you helped create a couple of hundred union construction jobs, and that you’ve also created 60 to 70 new jobs for Warren County. I hope in the near future, as I’m making another presentation to another Board, or group, that I can say, I’m introducing myself and indicate my pride in our union construction workers, I can say as a point of reference, we’re currently working at the Glens Falls Hospital, or the Warren County Jail, and that we’re also working at the hotel and waterpark at The Great Escape. Thank you, again, for your time. MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak on this subject? Any further correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No further correspondence. MR. STONE-One more chance. Anybody want to speak? Then I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-And I will ask the Board if they have any further questions. If not, I will start with Jaime. What do you think, Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, I’ve been on the Board for seven or eight years now, which may be too long, I guess, some would say, but I think this application has gone the way that a lot of other successful and positive result producing applications have gone, as I’ve seen them in the past. It was openly introduced. There was a lot of homework, a lot of science that was employed after the idea was developed by The Great Escape, in cooperation with the people that were going to be involved. There was a lot of neighborhood involvement after that science was put forth. Certainly The Great Escape has not, by any stretch of the imagination, been held to a standard that wasn’t very high, in terms of environmental impacts, in terms of traffic. I think this obviously will continue, at the Planning Board level, already has been fairly significant, in my opinion, and justifiable so. It’s a large project. It’s an important part of our Town, and I think that this has gone the way that it should have. The public has been involved, from the beginning to the end. To me, one of the biggest evidence of that fact is that, at the initial meetings, there was at least 100 people here, probably more now, there was no one here speaking in opposition to the project. To me, that indicates that a lot of those concerns have been met, either by The Great Escape or by the process, both of which are beneficial in my opinion, but as I looked to the test, as we’re charged with, in terms of granting an Area Variance, or not granting an Area Variance, I’ll hit what I think are the highlights in my opinion. As far as benefit to the applicant, I think The Great Escape has introduced, to my satisfaction, the reasons why this new project is, I won’t say a necessity for the Park, but a benefit. The synergy that’s associated with the existing facility, which is still an important part of the economy in this area, the fact that the attendance has diminished, and for whatever reason, I guess we could guess at that, but the fact this really is a necessary upgrade for the attraction within in the industry to continue it to be a destination, I’m satisfied that some of that some of that really is the reason why the applicant is asking us for a variance in this particular case. I find some of it to be true. As far as character of the neighborhood and health, safety and welfare of the community, I don’t see any real change in the character of the neighborhood, as a result of this project. It’s a commercial zoned area, and it has been for a long time. As I drive through there, I think people that have lived in Queensbury see that as a resort area. They also see it as an area that The Great Escape has dominated for a number of years. They don’t, it’s a resort/park part of Town. It has been. It will be, and I think it’s going to continue to be. To the north is the outlets, and to the south, again, is, you know, probably the most commercially intensive areas of our Town. So I don’t think that the introduction of this hotel is going to change the character of that neighborhood whatsoever. I really don’t. There’s been a lot of attempts to have it blend in with the architecture of the existing Coach House Restaurant, and with the plans. So I just can’t see it as being a change in the character of the neighborhood. As far as feasible alternatives, I think that the applicant, to my satisfaction, demonstrated that 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) things were investigated and considered and to some extent employed in the plan that they set forth. The height of the structure was reduced to the minimum that it could be, to accommodate the waterslide park, which is obviously one of the primary ingredients of this whole project. Again, I would be against holding against the applicant also that they had tried to employ an Adirondack style architecture roof versus a flatter roof structure, which would have reduced the height relief that was necessary, but in my opinion would have produced a less positive result. I think in this particular case some of the impact was also reduced by removing some of the hill there, the height of the hill itself. So I think, as far as feasible alternatives, I think that there was some consideration given to reducing the relief to a minimum, and still accomplishing their goals. We’re not being asked here just to build on top of that hill and keep going. I think that, you know, the alternatives were introduced and some were employed in the plan. Is the relief substantial? I don’t find that it is. In this particular case, the real deciding factor for me was the balloon floatings, which some of the other Board members have said that they attended, as I did, and as I went to the different sites and sighted the balloons, I really couldn’t see it at all, and that was really going to be one of the big factors for me, from Ash Drive, I could see one of the balloons minimally, and I mean minimally, and I just cannot see how this 27 feet, in the end, is going to be relief that’s going to be dramatic or something that I regret being a part of, because I just don’t think the impacts are going to be there, going forward, and finally, the adverse effect or impact on the environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. I do not find, in this particular case, that that is going to be a problem, in my considerations. This project has been highly scrutinized and reviewed. There’s stormwater management plans. There’s lighting, traffic, all these type of things, and I’m convinced, or I feel that I can rely upon the presentations that have been made by the applicant, which are reviewed by the Town’s engineer. I haven’t seen anything yet that indicates to me that we’re going to end up with adverse environmental impacts based on this project. It certainly is a significant project, but I think that those bases have been touched. We have the benefit of the new sewer line through that area. Again, that would be a consideration, in my opinion, because it does reduce some of the concerns that I could have, as far as environmental conditions, but on balance, looking at the test, the five parts of the test, I find very little that would lead me not to conclude that this ultimately falls in favor of the application as submitted. So I’ll be in favor. MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. McNulty? MR. MC NULTY-I’m going to do a little thinking out loud here. I can agree with a lot of what Jaime has just said. As far as change in the immediate neighborhood, no, probably not. Great Escape has made a real effort to reduce the height as much as they can and still get what they want here, and I don’t believe it’s going to impact the nearby neighborhoods, at least directly. Certainly there is benefit to the applicant. I’m not inclined to second guess the applicant. So whether the benefit can be achieved by some other method, to get to the ends that they want, probably not, and I won’t argue or question their criteria on length of the hallways or whatever. That’s their bailiwick, and if they feel this is what they need, so be it. If the requested variance is substantial or not, I guess it depends on how you look at it, and the State guidance on this question is kind of ambiguous. It doesn’t say whether it means as a substantial period or does it have a substantial impact or what. Impact, no. Twenty-seven feet more than forty feet, if not substantial, is significant anyway. I’ll agree probably it’s not going to have a direct effect on the environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, the way it seems to be planned. Difficulty self-created? Yes, it is, unless you want to blame business conditions. No question there. There’s a bigger question that bothers me, though, and in earlier discussions on this project, someone mentioned they’d done some research, and that there was one of these parks put up in I believe it was Wisconsin, and it spawned something like eleven more. We’ve already had a request in here, preceding Great Escape, for an applicant a little further north on Route 9, that wanted to build a hotel that exceeded the Town’s limit. That, along with this application, and at least a potential out there that if this place is successful, which is certainly what everybody is hoping it will be if it’s put in, is going to cause other people to want to do something similar. That bothers me some. There’s also the question, not directly related to height, but the statement that was made back in 2001 that no ride would ever be put up on the west side of Route 9. Now they’re asking for the equivalent of a ride on the west side of Route 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) 9. Business conditions change, and I can fully understand the request being made now, but that also says that any statements made now, for instance this’ll be the only ride that’ll ever be put on the west side of Route 9, three or four years from now, may well not hold true. So I can’t place a lot of credence on that, and it brings me back to my concern of what else might go up on the west side of Route 9. I guess where I come from with all of this is what we’re really looking at, beyond the ride thing, is just hotels. Is this Town better off with several additional hotels that are two or three stories high, and spread out for 500 feet, or is it better off with some hotels that are designed more like this one, that go vertically, are more efficient, meet more industry standards, and conform to what’s needed these days? It all leads me to the fact that I think this is Number Two in a long chain of requests that we’re going to get of this sort, and I’ve heard repeatedly that the Zoning Board of Appeals is not supposed to change zoning. It strikes me that this is an issue that really should be being answered by the Town Board. Now the Town Board rightfully will not consider this while we’re considering it, but I think it’s a question that should be going back to the Town Board, and the Town Board should take a serious look, do we want to enforce our 40 foot height in the Town of Queensbury, or do we want to take a look and maybe say for Highway Commercial Intensive or some new zone, create an area where we can say, this is where it would be appropriate and desirable to have some taller hotels that would serve what we need. That really bothers me. I know we’re supposed to consider these applications on a merit basis, based on each application, but I think there’s a greater consideration here for the Towns. Where are we headed, and if this is approved right now, then it’s going to be very difficult for this Board, when the previous applicant comes back in and asks for additional height to not grant his height, or anybody else that comes along in the future, that wants to put some kind of a waterslide on with their hotel, and they want additional height. There’s going to be no real basis for telling them no, if we tell Great Escape yes at this point. Likewise, I think if we said yes to this, and then say, Town Board, would you please take a look at this some time, Town Board may or may not ever get to it. I think if this is denied right now, the Town Board’s going to pay attention to it right away, and I think it’s, again, it’s an issue that belongs to the Town Board. We’ve got to decide, do we want 60, 70, 80 foot high hotels in this Town, and I think the answer may well be yes, because it’s a question of do we go up or do we sprawl, and going up may be the answer, but anyway, it strikes me that the jurisdiction for this kind of decision ought to get bounced back to the Town Board, and the only way I see of doing that is to deny this application at this point, and ask the Town Board to act on it promptly. So I’m going to be opposed. MR. STONE-Mr. Underwood. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think 50 years in business is a long time for anybody in the resort business, and The Great Escape, you know, prior to it Story Town, USA, is an example of a business that’s been in a changing state for quite a few number of years. The Adirondack Park, in the past, has always a grand, a lot of grand hotels. Most all the original ones are no longer with us, but I think if you were to go and research the hotels along the west shore of Schroon Lake, the Ausable Club up in Keene Valley, the Lake Placid Club Resort up in Lake Placid, many of these buildings were five, even six stories tall, ultimately, and I think that what you’re trying to accomplish here, to me, does seem reasonable in this day and age. I can’t imagine that, you know, any business, you know, is going to remain over the years, if, indeed, it’s a mom and pop type hotel that’s two stories tall and, you know, looks like it was built in the 1950’s. I think that last year, you know, with the opening up of the Fort William Henry Hotel on Lake George, you know, which ultimately probably wasn’t to everyone’s taste architecturally reflected that something as you have proposed here to me makes a lot more sense, with the Adirondack style. It is the gateway to the Adirondack Park, and I think that, over the years, you know, we’ve seen the decline, you know, across the board, in many communities throughout the area, and I think that this may, indeed, act as a catalyst for the future, you know, and, you know, there’s always a tentative first few steps that you take, and this happens to be the one that’s going to be our big test here. We may, indeed, face other hotels and motels that want to do similar ideas along the Route 9 corridor and in this instance here, you’re located topographically at the low point of the valley there, as evidenced by your balloon flights and things like that. The impact, visually, is not going to be a negative one for anybody for any reason that I can foresee. I think that, you know, as other applications do come in to us in the future, it may be important for us to really 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) consider them as we are in this case doing it on an individual basis, that is that, you know, some may not be appropriate for multi-stories, whereas others may have to, you know, maintain the current Code as we have it, but I would echo Chuck’s sentiments. I think that the Town Board will need to address this in the future at some point. Whether these similar buildings go up to the south along Route 9, where they might have more of an impact, obviously to the north, where you have narrower corridors, it may not be possible. Who knows what the future holds, but I think, ultimately, as you’ve proposed, the 27 feet of relief, to me, you know, because half of it is incorporated as your roofline, is a reasonable request. I think that this hotel will allow you to recoup some of what you could make in the rest of the season that you’re missing at the present time with the seasonal business, and I think it’s important that we do support this. MR. STONE-Leo? MR. RIGBY-I think you’ve done a great job presenting to the public what’s planned and what’s probably going to happen going forward. I agree with Jaime and Jim on everything that they’ve said. As far as what Chuck, Chuck brings up a good point, too, in that, you know, we’re setting a precedent here. We could be setting a precedent here, but I think we have to look at this as a single application, and that’s what it really is. I was at the balloon siting. I was pleased with what I saw. I have no reason to object to the variance, and, to keep it simple, I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Al? MR. BRYANT-I want to address just the height issue, and the visual impact issue. As I mentioned before, I was also at the balloon siting. From the Ash Drive location, some of the rides are more visible than any of the top of the new structure. So I really don’t have a problem with the visual impact. I think the only place that the hotel is going to be visible from is Route 9 in front of it, very little visibility, just about, from any other place in the Town. I don’t think, on the other hand, that the lighting issue, with the transparent panels, was answered sufficiently, and I think we should have had more hard data, relative to, you know, what we’re going to see at the end, whether it’s translated in lumens, or however they translate lighting issues at night, but I think it should have been addressed. All in all, the project is a good project. I agree with a lot of the statements in the Planning Board’s review, and with what Mr. Hayes and Mr. Underwood have said, and I’d be in favor of the project. MR. STONE-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Yes, I agree with Jaime and Al, and Leo and Jim. First off, I want to say that I think it’s a very handsome building. Very attractive, and more than half of the relief is because you want to keep the Adirondack roof pitch. I think The Great Escape went through a lot of hoops, and satisfied most of the issues that came up, and I would have no problem. I would support this. MR. STONE-You will please permit me a personal moment before I tell you where I stand. I have never been prouder of this Board. They have stood up here, and they have told exactly where they stand. They have not held back. They’ve given very good reasons for the decisions they’re making, and I am extremely proud to be the Chairman of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. Having said that, I certainly am also in favor of this thing. I think we have done a very good job, Mr. Hayes particularly, in doing the balancing test that we’re required to do, the benefit to the applicant, which is obvious, versus the detriment to the community, and I know that’s a simple way of putting it. Mr. Schachner doesn’t always like the way I say that, but basically, you have minimized, you collectively, all of us have minimized the detriment to the community by all of the work that’s been done by the applicant, by the agent’s working for the applicant, by the Planning Board, and certainly by this Board, and I think we’ve minimized that to a major, major degree. What we’re considering tonight, and I hear Mr. McNulty, and I, too, have been concerned with what it might mean for the future, and other projects, but I am comforted by the fact that this project, and Mr. Lemery used the word well, he defined it well. We’re talking a hotel with an indoor water theme park, or an indoor waterpark. That is a very 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) specific project, and that is the project for which we are granting the relief, and that’s important to me, that says, yes, if someone comes in and wants to do an identical project, yes, then we would have to do some hard thinking, but a simple hotel, somebody can’t come in and say, well, you granted this project that relief, you’ve got to do it for us. I don’t think we’re in that situation. I think this is a major project. It is a specific project, and as I said, it was covered very well, and I have no problem in granting this variance. Having said that, Jaime, why don’t you do the motion, since you were so eloquent. MR. ROUND-Mr. Stone, you’ve got to. MR. STONE-I blew it. Excuse me. I got the lawyer sitting there and I blew it. We first have to consider our approval of the. MR. ROUND-You have SEQRA Findings in front of you. MR. STONE-Yes, the SEQRA Finding is what I’m trying to come up with, yes. I’ve got it. MR. ROUND-If you would let me, there’s a couple of corrections I just need to note some typos on here. Always corrections. What, you should have, a week and a half ago, we transmitted the Planning Board Findings to you. What we did tonight is we presented you Findings that take those, where it says Planning Board reference, generally we put Zoning Board. We just have a couple of corrections to note, and I’m just going to walk you through those, just so you have an accurate depiction of what’s in front of you. On Page Four, Item Ten, we want to add a statement that says ZBA concurs, at the end of Item Ten. Page Five, there’s two paragraphs under a heading titled Special Use Permit. We’re going to just strike those two paragraphs. So B1 and B2 will be stricken. The rest of the paragraphs will then be titled correctly, so Pedestrian Bridge would be B, C, we’ll correct that as we issue a final, and that was the two changes. MR. STONE-That’s the two? Okay. MR. ROUND-So what you really need to do is you do not have to go through a test, like you’re normally going through, as if there’s been an Environmental Impact Statement. So you need to really entertain a resolution accepting the Findings. MR. STONE-I’m going to read the Certification to Approve as a motion. MOTION TO ADOPT THE CERTIFICATION TO APPROVE ON PAGE 11 OF THE DOCUMENT FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-2004 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC HOTEL/INDOOR WATER PARK, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Having considered the Supplemental Draft and Final Supplement Generic Environmental Impact Statements, and having considered the preceding written fact and conclusions, relied on to meet the requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617.11. This Statement of Findings Certifies, that requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617 have been met and, two, consistent with social, economic, and other essential considerations, from among the reasonable alternatives available the action is the one that avoids or minimizes adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable, and that adverse impacts will be avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practicable by incorporating, as conditions to the decision, these mitigative measures that were identified as practicable, as approved in the SEQRA Findings Statement. Duly adopted this 26 day of May, 2004 , by the following vote: th MR. BRYANT-I want to ask Staff a question before I vote, if that’s possible. I don’t want to interrupt the proceedings. We’re approving a document that, similar to the Planning Board’s review, on items that we haven’t really even discussed. MR. SCHACHNER-What’s your question? 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) MR. BRYANT-That’s my question. MR. SCHACHNER-What’s your question? I don’t mean to be quarrelsome. I didn’t hear a question. MR. BRYANT-Well, I’m just saying, if you go through the document, there are a lot of items that we are not even discussing as a part of this. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m not sure if that’s true. My sense is you actually had discussed a majority of the items, but this, each agency that’s involved in issuing an approval or a decision for this project, is obligated, by law, to approve some sort of SEQRA Findings Statement. If you, individually, are not comfortable with the SEQRA Findings Statement that you presumably have now been through, you obviously have read it, because you had an insightful comment about it. MR. BRYANT-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-Then, you know, you shouldn’t vote for it. If others are comfortable, then they should vote for it. MR. BRYANT-Okay. No. MR. RIGBY-Can I abstain? I, too, don’t feel comfortable. I don’t know everything that’s in this document. I’ve read through it, but. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s not generally a grounds for abstention. I’m not hearing a grounds for abstention. The grounds for abstention are generally if you have, you know, knowledge, or, you know, you weren’t present, for example, at meetings, and you weren’t familiar with the record, don’t know what the application’s about, have some sort of conflict of interest, in which case you recuse or something like that. MR. RIGBY-Then I’ll say no also. AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Rigby ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico MR. STONE-Okay. Now I need a motion, having approved the SEQRA Findings, or accepted them for the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, I now need a motion to approve the Variance. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-2004 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC HOTEL/INDOOR WATER PARK, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: West side of NYS Rte. 9, adjacent to Coach House Restaurant. The applicant proposes construction of a 216,850 square foot hotel and indoor water park facility. The applicant specifically is requesting 27 feet of relief from the 40-foot maximum height requirement of the HC Highway Commercial Intensive zone, Section 179-4-030. I move to approve the variance as made for the following reasons: The benefit to the applicants, the applicant has demonstrated to, I believe, the Board’s satisfaction that the project is a necessary part of the Park’s future, in terms of Park attendance, attractability to the overall market, and there’s some economic synergies involved with the operation, as Mr. Underwood brought forth to off season employment of assets. Two, will the character of the neighborhood and health, safety and welfare of the community be negatively impacted or changed? I don’t believe that it will. I 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) think this is a commercial area. In particular, the size and scope of The Great Escape Park is that neighborhood, and I think it will remain so if this project is approved. The addition of the hotel will not, based on the things that have been set forth through the applicant’s presentation, change the safety or welfare of our community, I don’t believe. In terms of feasible alternatives, I think the applicant entertained feasible alternatives. They’re requesting this relief. I think that it’s been established to the Board’s satisfaction that feasible alternatives were in fact investigated and employed ultimately in the plan that was set forth. I believe this is the minimum height that the hotel could be to accommodate the water slide park which has been demonstrated to be an integral portion, feature of the project set forth. Also, as Mrs. Hunt pointed out, the part of the relief that is being requested, in terms of a feasible alternative, would have been to provide a flatter, less appealing roof in this particular case, and I think that the fact that they came forward and possibly asked for a slight more relief to install a roof that would be complimentary to the neighborhood, and to the visual impacts surrounding the project I think is commendable. So I think I’m satisfied that feasible alternatives have been investigated and to some extent employed in the plan. Is the relief substantial? Certainly 27 feet is not minimal, but I believe in this particular case it’s moderate, based on it’s moderated significantly by the screening, the trees, the reduction of the hill and where exactly the hotel is located, and in terms of, is the difficulty self-created? Certainly the Park has expressed a desire to do this, and I think it is self-created, but, on balance, as I look at the parts of the test that we’re charged with, examining for this particular type of variance, I think that the weight falls clearly in favor of the applicant, and I would move for its approval. Duly adopted this 26 day of May, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Hayes, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. McNulty ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico MR. STONE-There you go, gentlemen. MR. COLLINS-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II LARRY CLUTE OWNER: LARRY CLUTE ZONING: SR-20 LOCATION: HOWARD STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT RESULTING IN TWO EQUAL SIZED LOTS, AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND WIDTH REQUIREMENTS FOR BOTH LOTS. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 2004-100, BP 2004-098 LOT SIZE: 0.17 ACRES, 0.34 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.08-2-52 & 53 SECTION: 179-4-030 LARRY CLUTE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 39-2004, Larry Clute, Meeting Date: May 26, 2004 “Project Location: Howard Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a boundary line adjustment between Lot 53 and Lot 52. Presently, Lot 53 is 0.34 acres (15,000 sq. ft.) with a lot width of 100 feet, and Lot 52 is 0.17 acres (7,500 sq. ft.) with a lot width of 50 feet. The proposed boundary line adjustment would result in both lots being 0.258 acres (11,250 sq. ft.) with lot widths of 75 feet. Relief Required: Lot 53: 1) 13,750 sq. ft. of relief from the 25,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size requirement. 2) 25 feet of relief from the 100-foot minimum lot width requirement. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) Lot 52: 1) 13,750 sq. ft. of relief from the 25,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size requirement. 2) 25 feet of relief from the 100-foot minimum lot width requirement. All relief required per §179-4-030 for the SR-20 Zone. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Lot 53: BP 2004-098: pending this application, 936 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. Lot 52: BP2004-100: pending this application, 936 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with a 280 sq. ft. one-car attached garage. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a boundary line adjustment between Lots 53 and 52. Lot 52 is currently nonconforming to lot size and lot width, and is proposed to be made more conforming to lot size and width, but still in need of relief from the minimum lot size and width requirements. Lot 53 is currently nonconforming to lot size, but does conform to lot width, and is proposed to be made even more nonconforming to lot size and nonconforming to lot width. However, the lots as proposed would not be out of character with others that exist in the neighborhood (14 other lots on Howard Street are smaller than that proposed).” MR. STONE-County at all? MR. MC NULTY-No County. MR. STONE-Mr. Clute. MR. CLUTE-I apologize in advance. Neither structure has indoor waterslide incorporated into that. Trying to keep the excitement going, but, yes, I’m simply trying to duplicate what I’ve got going on right now on Veterans Road. I have two houses going on on Veterans Road. I don’t know if any of the Board has seen those as they went by to check out these sites, but it’s just two fairly attractive simple ranch style homes, and the one lot definitely requires a 25 foot additional space to accommodate it. The other one doesn’t require anything. I’m simply just taking some of the footage away. So that’s what I’m looking to accomplish. MR. STONE-Any questions of Mr. Clute? Hearing none, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on this subject, on this variance? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Let’s start with Chuck McNulty. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I can see the benefit to the applicant with this request, and certainly what’s proposed would make these lots more consistent with what appears on Howard Street. Lot width, I don’t have any big problem with, given the current conditions on that street. However, the square footage of the lots does bother me quite a bit. The combined square footage of the two lots together just barely exceed the minimum requirement for that area, and I have to go back to, I think the kind of thing I’ve said before that we fairly recently revised our Zoning Code. The people that did the revision, in their wisdom, designated this area to be an area that required 2500 square feet to a lot. They either did it with a blindfold on, or they did it 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) realizing that there was a lot of nonconforming lots on that street, but for some reason felt that they should tend towards larger lots in the future. That being the case, and the significant relief required for the lot square footage, I’m going to be voting no. I think the only proper answer, in this case, is combine the two lots and make them one conforming lot. So I’m going to be on the negative. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-My feelings are the same as they’ve been on most of your other projects in that same area. I think that you’ve done a very good job, as far as accommodating the type of housing that fits into those neighborhoods on those much smaller lots. I think that there’s a need within our community for reasonably priced housing. I know the Town is concerned with that at the same time. I think that even though these lots are substantially substandard, as far as the zoning is required in that area, at the same time, that we can be a little bit accommodating with our Zoning Code to include some of those smaller homes and make them available for people that don’t have millions of dollars. Maybe in the future, when the price of real estate really goes sky high, somebody can buy three of them, like a game of Monopoly, and put up a big house on the three lots and combine them, but probably won’t happen anytime soon. MR. STONE-Leo? MR. RIGBY-I agree with Jim. I think that, you know, given the size of the homes, 936 square feet, they’re smaller homes, and the lot size, and being in character with the neighborhood, Staff notes that there’s 14 other lots on Howard Street that are smaller than that proposed. I think that I’d be in favor of it as well. MR. STONE-Okay. Al? MR. BRYANT-Well, I agree with what Mr. McNulty said. However, the majority of the lots are on that, in that neighborhood are the same size as each one of your lots. So, in my view, I think you’re making a bad situation a little better. So in this case I’d be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. Well, I agree with Mr. McNulty in some ways. If you combine the two, I don’t think it would be economically feasible. You’ could put a house on there that you probably couldn’t sell. It would be too expensive for that neighborhood. So I think that combining the two and making them equal, two equal parts, I think makes sense. I would be in favor. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree with what the rest of the Board members have said in this particular case. On first examination, it’s a lot of relief. There’s really no denying that. So, what are the reasons, what are we considering, and I think that, I think the other Board members have said it well. These are pre-existing lots, which means we didn’t make them. We didn’t approve of them, and the fact that it was rezoned doesn’t change the fact that they’re pre-existing lots. So where are we going from there? And I think that, as it’s already been said, this is a plan that at least makes whatever’s there better, and in that way I think it is a benefit to the neighborhood, and I would be in favor. MR. STONE-This is one of those situations where everybody’s right, and I’m going to say Mr. McNulty is wrong, only because I’m going to go the other way, but I do understand what he’s saying. I happen to live in a part of Town where 93%, I’m making up a number, of the lots are nonconforming, undersized. That hasn’t stopped people from building on these lots. However, I think in this area, I think it’s important that we see new construction, that we set an example for the residents in the area. Obviously, it’s a, I don’t want to use that word, so I’ll try not to. It’s an area with problems. Let’s put it that way, and I think putting two new homes on equal 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) size lots, even though they’re undersized, is a benefit to the community and certainly a benefit to the applicant, the ability to build these two. So I would be in favor. I think that, you know, I would like to be a dictator and say, take everything down and put only whatever the lots are supposed to be, 25,000, but that’s not going to happen. We’re going to get new homes. We’re going to get something which will improve the neighborhood, and I’m in favor of it. Jim, how about a motion to approve? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2004 LARRY CLUTE, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: Howard Street. The applicant proposes a boundary line adjustment between Lot 53 and Lot 52. Presently, Lot 53 is .34 acres, 15,000 square feet, the lot width of 100 feet, and Lot 52 is .17 acres, 7500 square feet for the lot width of 50 feet. Proposed boundary line adjustment will result in both lots being 0.258 acres or 11,250 square feet with lot widths of 75 feet. On Lot 53, the relief required is 13,750 square feet of relief from the 25,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement for this zone, and secondly 25 feet of relief from the 100 foot minimum lot width requirement. On Lot 52 it’s 13,750 square feet of relief from the 25,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement, and also 25 feet of relief from the 100 foot minimum lot width requirement. As the applicant has explained to us, the boundary line adjustment will result in two sized lots that would be basically the same size as each other, on which two smaller homes could be constructed that would be basically in conformance with most of the other housing in that area, being smaller homes. As far as the neighborhood goes, the effect on the neighborhood would be a positive one. Duly adopted this 26 day of May, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. McNulty ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico MR. STONE-Go and build some more. MR. CLUTE-Thank you. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 40-2004 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED RAY SIGN FOR MOUNTAIN VIEW OUTLET STORES AGENT: RAY SIGN, INC. OWNER: GORDON DEVELOPMENT ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 1476 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE THE EXISTING 60 SQ. FT. FACTORY STORES OF AMERICA FREESTANDING SIGN AND REPLACE IT WITH A NEW DOUBLE FACED-ELECTRIC 192 SQ. FT. SIGN (MOUNTAIN VIEW OUTLET STORES). RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM SETBACK AND MAXIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 94-1645 FREEST. SIGN WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 5/12/2004 LOT SIZE: 4.51 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-17 SECTION: 140-6 RUSS HAZEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 40-2004, Ray Sign for Mountain View Outlet Stores, Meeting Date: May 26, 2004 “Project Location: 1476 Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove the existing 48.56 sq. ft., 15 feet high, freestanding sign at a 14- foot front setback and construct a 192.37 sq. ft., 24.33 feet high, freestanding sign at a 12-foot front setback. Relief Required: 1) 3 feet of relief from the 15-foot minimum front setback requirement 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) for a 50 sq. ft. freestanding sign. 2) 142.37 sq. ft. of relief from the 50 sq. ft. maximum requirement for a freestanding sign setback 15 feet. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 94-1645: 05/23/00, 48.56 sq. ft. freestanding sign (change of copy for Factory Stores of America). BP 94-1645: 05/31/94, 48.56 sq. ft. freestanding sign for Factory Stores of America Outlet Center. Numerous other building permits, sign permits, 3 sign variances, 1 area variance, and 2 site plan reviews for the business complex. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to remove the existing 48.56 sq. ft., 15 feet high, freestanding sign at a 14-foot front setback and construct a 192.37 sq. ft., 24.33 feet high, freestanding sign at a 12-foot front setback. The sign location on the submitted survey scales 14 feet from the front property line, and is assumed to be the existing sign. The proposed location for the new sign is not depicted on the same plan. Is the sign proposed to be located in the same general area only 2 feet closer to State Route 9 from its present location?” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form May 12, 2004 Project Name: Ray Sign for Mountain View Outlet Stores Owner: Gordon Development County Project #: QBY-04-SV-40 Current Zoning: HC-Int. Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to remove the existing 60 sq. ft. Factory Stores of America freestanding sign and replace it with a new double faced-electric 192 sq. ft. sign (Mountain View Outlet Stores). Relief requested from the minimum setback and minimum size requirements. Project Location: 1476 State Route 9 Tax Map Number(s): 288.12-1-17 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to remove a 60 sq. ft. sign and to build a 192 sq. ft. sign. The existing sign advertises the Factory Outlets with new tenant space. The new sign will identify tenants on the site. The new sign will be located 12 ft. from the front property line where 15 ft. is required. The new sign is to be 192 sq. ft. at 15 ft. in height where the maximum size allowed is 64 sq. ft. The applicant has submitted a sign layout. Staff recognizes the need for businesses to obtain customers. Staff recommends approval. Warren County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve The Warren County Planning Board recommends approval recognizing the need for businesses to obtain customers.” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board, 5/17/04. MR. STONE-Sir? MR. HAZEN-Good evening Chairman, and fellow Board members. My name is Russ Hayes and I’m with Ray Sign Company. Not knowing what date we would get on for a meeting, Mr. Gordon, the owner of the Plaza, had some previous engagements that were booked months in advance, but I do have a letter here that he wrote to the Board, if you’d like me to read it. MR. STONE-Please. MR. HAZEN-Can I read that, please? MR. STONE-Sure. MR. HAZEN-This is to the Board. “Dear Members of the Board:”, he says here I profusely apologize for not being able to attend this meeting due to the fact that I must attend a shopping center convention that I had scheduled months ago. We have retained Russ Hayes of Russ Sign, Incorporated to attend this meeting on our behalf. Russ has a great reputation and strong abilities. I didn’t tell him to put that in there, strong abilities in designing and, I thought that was nice, installing signs throughout the Capital District for many years. This is the important part, as you know currently the center is approximately 60% vacant, whereas the other centers on the strip are at 100% occupancy. Given the market conditions, this center is at a much 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) greater vacancy than it should be. In speaking with the previous owners of the center, and potential tenants for the center, they are saying the same thing. The storefronts have no visibility. Given the configuration of the center being perpendicular to Route 9, there’s virtually no visibility for our tenants. We are respectfully requesting a Sign Variance with enough square footage to allow all tenants to be on the pylon sign. We are proposing several designs that we feel are architecturally pleasing and would conform to the surrounding area. However, we are very flexible on redesigning the sign to comply with the Town Board’s suggestions as to how the sign should look architecturally. I would like to express, however, the importance of having enough square footage to allow all our tenants to be placed on the sign. It is our main objective to obtain the Sign Variance, as it is imperative to the tenancy of this center to be visible on Route 9. We feel the shopping center has the ability to become a thriving center, attracting new business owners to Queensbury, and enhancing the appearance along Route 9. This will be a positive attribute to the Town, possibly generating more employment to area residents, and generally making the area look more appealing. Initially, we plan on doing such things as renovating the façade and installing additional lighting to the center. Without a new pylon sign with enough square footage for all of the tenants in the shopping center, we are finding it very difficult to attract new tenants to the center. Again, I deeply regret not being able to be at the meeting. I thank you for your time and greatly appreciate your consideration in this matter, as I am enthusiastic about making this shopping center a flourishing success, and thank you for listening to that. I think everyone here probably knows the center better than I do. Being in the sign business for 23 years and dealing with shopping centers from Colonie to Lake George to Utica to Kingston, what we found, and I’m not sure the age of the center, but it looks like it’s been, it might have been one of the, at least in the earlier stages here, these centers that are on these L-shapes, over time, when you have other competing centers coming in, and areas redeveloping in different areas have a tendency to have their vacancy rates go down because of that visibility. MR. STONE-Vacancy rates go down. You mean occupancy rates go down. MR. HAZEN-I’m sorry. Yes, occupancy rates. I’ve got a hotel on the mind. So it is a problem, not only here but in other areas, and I’m hoping that we can look at this again on an individual basis tonight, and I know precedence is very important when it comes to signage. We’re very, very flexible as far as the design of the sign. If you have suggestions, we’re open to that. The important thing here is really to get those names out on the road, in a size that will have some impact on the travelers that are going down Route 9 there. Just about half those stores in there, if you put a wall sign up, you couldn’t see the sign. We are allowed 100 square feet, correct me if I’m wrong on that, per tenant. We’d be very willing to cut that down considerably. That’s how important we feel that this sign will be to making this center a viable center again, but again, we hope you look at it on an individual basis. You can’t physically change the building. Is the relief substantial? Absolutely, but we feel we have a substantial problem here, and we are appealing to the Board to help us out here, and make any suggestions that you deem fit. MR. STONE-Mr. Gordon just purchased this shopping center? MR. HAZEN-Yes, he has. MR. STONE-And what I understand, it was a considerable discount from the last sale price. MR. HAZEN-I don’t have any knowledge of that. MR. STONE-Well, I do because it came before us yesterday on the Board of Assessment Review. So I do know that he paid about 2/3’s of the last purchase price. So there’s a recognition by rd him that this is a center with a problem. There’s no question about that. MR. HAZEN-Right. I think, the discussion earlier about property values going up. This is a property that’s in trouble. I don’t know, we’re looking for ways to turn it around. We’re looking for whatever concessions we can give up here on the wall signage. I brought several 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) designs tonight, if you’re willing to look at them, consider them, we’d love to show you, color. We’re open for color, any suggestions, name changes, but we have a real need here. MR. MC NULTY-Let’s see if I can summarize a couple of my concerns. It might help to get a reaction from the Board. Looking at that picture that’s up there now, that’s a 15 foot high sign, and you’re asking for almost another 10 feet on top of that, I believe, for total height. MR. HAZEN-Approximately 10, yes. MR. MC NULTY-So take 2/3’s of that sign and add it to the top is what you’re asking. So, yes, rd maybe up somewhere where the cursor arrow is now, that’s going to be fairly tall. That’s one concern I have. Second concern is, as Staff noted, I’m wondering just where this sign’s actually going to go, and along with that, if it moves south a little bit from where that sign is now to where the building’s angled, it strikes me that the sign could move further away from the road and still be visible. Beyond that, I don’t like to design signs or buildings for people that are before us, and I’m hoping the Board won’t opt to design your sign for you, but I guess the question is, how can we minimize the impact of this sign and still give you what you need, because I think we all agree what you’ve said is true. We were up there, I don’t know, what was it, a month or two ago, when there was another sign application in, which we didn’t like, and we all said at that time, do something with this sign that you’re back with us for. So we’re kind of under pressure to make this work. MR. HAZEN-The location of sign, this sign, existing sign, would be removed. We would install the new sign in that same location. The reason why it’s closer is we wanted to, a discussion came up, can we keep the flagpoles. Maybe they have to be removed. I don’t know. That’s an issue here tonight with the Board. So we’d be exactly in the same spot. It’s, the proposed sign is wider. So we wanted to maintain that same area to the right here, to come out, which brings us to about a 12 foot front line setback. MR. STONE-And you are counting the outside of the sign, when you say the 12 feet? MR. HAZEN-Yes, sir. MR. STONE-Okay. Staff, Craig, and Bruce, there is, just to the north of this, a shopping center, at which we granted some sign relief, a multiple business sign, on the corner of 149 and Route 9, and a couple of years ago we had some questions about the number of signs, the size of the signs, and I know we weren’t totally pleased, and then one of the signs, in fact, I’m not even sure we granted a variance for it, because we were concerned. Am I right? Do you remember? MR. BROWN-I don’t remember that one, no. MR. STONE-Okay, up where Dominos is and the sock store, whatever’s up on the corner. MR. BROWN-I don’t recall any of the specifics, no. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, we certainly can look into it. Any other questions anybody wants to ask? Al? MR. BRYANT-I have a question, basically about the statement made, the fact that some of your stores are empty. Primarily because they don’t have exposure with signs. Has that been the trend before the new ownership? MR. HAZEN-I would say yes. I’m not an expert here on how long these areas have been vacant, but I think the fact that, you know, when I come up here to Lake George, and I do visit this Route 9 corridor here, and I’ve gone to the Log Jam, I can’t remember this Plaza. If you come down Route 9, you can only see half of it. If you’re going north, you really don’t see anything until you see that sign, and that side of the building there. All the other plazas have some large signs on the front of their stores that face Route 9 which I think is important. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) MR. BRYANT-Yes, but the reverse is also true. There’s some other shopping areas, and I don’t know them by the name of the overall facility, but there’s a U-shaped unit where Jones NY and Van Huesen are. I mean, they don’t have the giant signs, and they’re not empty. MR. HAZEN-I’m not sure, is there a name on that plaza? MR. STONE-No, I don’t think there is. MR. HAZEN-Do they have Route 9 visibility? MR. STONE-Most of the stores don’t. MR. BRYANT-Most of the stores don’t. Only the ones in the center do. It’s basically the same scenario that you’ve got. The only difference is one leg you can see going north and the other leg you can only see going south. So my point being is that, you know, you made a statement that we’re empty because we don’t have exposure, and yet, there are other facilities similar to that in construction that don’t have exposure, and they’re all full. MR. HAZEN-Well, I’d have to see how those plazas are in relation to Route 9. I mean, if they’re a lot. This is such a narrow front there, I think you can’t compare it to those. It’s just so narrow that, where if this was parallel to Route 9 and set back with building signs, or even U-shaped, I think you still have better visibility. I mean, the only visibility you have is those couple of stores on the end here, and even the sign that’s there, it’s there, but it’s really not visible. A lot of these retailers come in and they do ask for road signage. It’s very important for them when they sign long term leases, can we get a sign on the road, how big is it going to be, and he really, I think the owner and myself, in dealing with this type of a situation, feel that this could be really a key to get this place going again, and I think the precedent issue is very unique again, it’s a unique property. MR. BRYANT-Frankly, I don’t think it’s any different than the other scenario. It has the same configuration. The only difference is it is U-shaped. There are two legs that are totally not visible from Route 9. If you don’t go in the driveway, you’re not going to know what’s in the store. I happen to know that they’re there because I like those stores, but I think it’s, frankly, the same situation. Maybe I’m wrong. MR. STONE-Craig and Bruce, just a quick question, just to get it on the table. We currently allow 50 foot at 15 feet. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Okay, and we do allow each store to have a wall sign. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. STONE-Of 100 square feet. Is that the correct number? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-And what the applicant is proposing to, are you proposing to give up some of the wall signs and put them on the freestanding sign? MR. HAZEN-Well, in terms of total square footage, yes, absolutely. I mean, we’re willing to give up 50% of the wall signs, if it can help us out some way on this road sign. I mean, there are some other suggestions. We can, I brought a back up design, and it was brought in so we can hopefully make a decision where the sign is only 20 foot high, but what happens is these tenant areas are a little bit wider, but it’s a lower sign, 20 feet instead of 25 foot. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) MR. STONE-Am I missing something? Did we have these pictures? MR. HAZEN-No. These were just other drawings that we brought up as a. MR. STONE-Well, that puts you at a difficulty with this Board, usually, if we don’t see things ahead of time. I can tell you that. MR. HAZEN-Okay. I didn’t know if we could submit something that wasn’t. MR. STONE-Absolutely. MR. HAZEN-Okay. MR. STONE-You’re asking for relief, and you’re asking for a particular sign. Granted you’re saying you’re open to changes, but you’ve got to give us a starting point in some cases. MR. HAZEN-Well, if we could lower the sign to 20 feet, and take those columns of tenants, instead of stacking them, create something where you could go side by side, and some of the larger tenants that go in there could go on top, that would reduce the sign, if there was a concern about height. That would reduce the height. MR. RIGBY-Yes. I have a hard time visualizing what it’s going to look like. We’ve got 11 retail spots here, and we’re looking at a sign that’s four times the size of the sign that’s there now, and that’s what my question was to you, is how is it physically going to look? I mean, we’ve got 11 retailers. So how is it going to appear on the sign? Is it going to be cluttered, is it not going to be cluttered? What’s the appearance of the sign? I don’t know what, you know, we’re granting a variance, but we’re just granting a generic variance, and I have no idea what it’s going to look like. MR. STONE-You can answer his comment. MR. HAZEN-Other than coming up with scaled drawings, I did take some digital shots of some other designs and possibly, one very similar to what we submitted here, as to how, what these signs would look like, if you’d like me to pass these around. MR. STONE-Well, we’re offering that you didn’t submit anything, at least we don’t have any. Did we? MR. FRANK-Nothing was provided with the application. I think he’s bringing this to the table now. MR. HAZEN-Only because I didn’t know you could submit other drawings. MR. STONE-Well, you’ve got to submit one to begin with. MR. HAZEN-Well, we did. MR. BRYANT-Yes, there is one in the packet. MR. HAZEN-There is one in the packet. Yes. MR. BRYANT-From the last sheet. MR. STONE-Yes, there I go again. Okay. I apologize. I was so swayed by the size of the sign that I didn’t get much further. So you’re suggesting, if you take this sign, you’re willing to lower it to 20 feet. MR. HAZEN-Absolutely. It’s a way to get the height down, and to reduce that concern. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) MR. STONE-Okay, but yet you talked about using that pole. MR. HAZEN-No, we would not. This sign would completely come down. They were interested in leaving the flagpoles there. MR. STONE-The flagpole, the real flagpole. Not, rather than the sign. MR. HAZEN-Right. MR. STONE-Okay. I misunderstood. Okay. MR. MC NULTY-So your 20 foot high sign would be wider than the one that’s proposed? MR. HAZEN-It would be a bit wider, yes. MR. MC NULTY-Now, would that width go closer to the road, or would it come back toward the building? MR. HAZEN-It would have the, let’s see here, I think if we went with the lower sign and wider sign, I would recommend to Mr. Gordon to relocate the flagpoles. So that we stay at least as close to that building or as far set back as we can get. MR. STONE-Does our Ordinance cover flagpoles? MR. BROWN-I think if somebody wanted to make the argument that they’re structures and they should be subject to the maximum allowable height for a structure in a particular zone, that might be an argument, but that’s not one that I want to get into. MR. STONE-No, not at the moment you don’t. Okay. It’s just interesting. I mean, it’s a very attractive display. There’s no question, but can you put it right on the property line is a good question. MR. HAZEN-A lot of the signs are fairly close out there. I don’t know where exactly property lines are, but some of those signs are fairly close to Route 9. We wouldn’t be doing anything that unusually close. MR. STONE-Just out of curiosity, and this is not a serious proposal, have you thought about putting it, for greater visibility, in the other corner of the parking lot? MR. HAZEN-That was not a consideration, didn’t come up in conversation. MR. STONE-Well, this way you’d get traffic being able to turn in at the sign, rather than going by going north, or getting on the north, you can get in on the south, just a thought. MR. HAZEN-If that’s what the Board, it would help us out here. MR. STONE-I just asked the question. I don’t know the sense of the Board. MR. HAZEN-And those are good questions. I know it’s very difficult to make decisions on large signs. The tendency has been to reduce sign clutter, and I go to many Boards, and I hear the same concerns, but I think part of the viability of a center is good signage now, especially when you have a unique situation like this, and I know, in all due respect to Mr. Bryant, I think that center is similar, but it does have a better road appeal than this here. This, you basically look at a side of a building with very little storefront. It’s just not appealing at all, and I think that was one of Gordon’s objectives here was to eventually do something to the storefronts here to help the look of that center, reduce the signage on the building substantially, and just make something attractive that we can get some visibility with. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) MR. STONE-Any other questions? Hearing none, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on this subject? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN STROUGH MR. STROUGH-John Strough, Town Board. Just wondering, not speaking for or against the applicant. Just wondering if Craig might be able to answer this. If the sewer easement, and we’re putting lighting, antique lighting, sidewalk lighting up through there. That easement, which will be one in the same, at least for the utilities, this sign, and I don’t know the setback, and I don’t know what the setback is, and I haven’t seen anything, and like I said, I’m not here to speak for or against it. I was just wondering if the proposed easement, and the location of the sewer easement, which is also going to be the conduit easement for the electricity supplying some lighting we’re going to be putting up there. Are we going to put lighting along the sidewalks. It’s going to be antique lighting. It’s going to be about 12 feet high. Victorian antique style, and that’s going to be located on the store side of the sidewalks, and then you’re going to have the sewer easement. I was just wondering if that information was conveyed to you so that you could take that into your consideration for the setback, if it’s proper or not, or if it’s going to interfere with the easement or not. I just don’t know. So I thought I’d, I’m just thinking out loud here, okay. Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you. The answer is no. It has not been conveyed to us. All right. Anybody else wishing to speak on the subject? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. STONE-Let me close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any further questions? Well, let’s talk about it. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, obviously the old signage was not sufficient, given the present lack of tenants in that mall, and I’ve been bringing my kids up there for running shoes to the sport shoe center for years, and it seems like it’s always been two-thirds empty, at best. I think that one thing that could be done is, I mean, at a brief glance at his lower sign there, which probably would be more in effect, I would think that if we’re going to, in effect, upgrade the corridor there with that old time lighting along the sidewalks that a lower sign probably would be more in keeping with that theme, you know, and also a marquee type sign that would list the individual tenants on there. I’m not so convinced that we need to continue the Factory Store of Asia, or I mean, America, sign there. Whether that has had any effect at all on people visiting there probably is minimal, but I would think it would be more important to identify the tenants that were going to be in that building. As far as the size that’s requested, the relief from the setbacks I don’t have a problem with. I think it’s close enough, and as he suggested, if it’s wider, he’s going to move it back toward the building more. I do think that the sign could be shrunk down and it could be made smaller, as opposed to 142 square feet plus. I think you could make it 100 square feet, which would be double what’s given in the current Code. The only one I can think of is the one on the west side of Route 9 there, further down, where that Faltzgraff Store is and all those other ones. I never visit most of those stores, but I know that sign has a marquee sign out front that lists the tenants inside there, and I think that it would make more sense to identify what products are available if you want to do business. So, I would be in favor of it, if we shrank the sign down a little bit, shrink it down to 100 square feet, as opposed to 142. MR. BRYANT-One hundred and ninety is what they’re looking for, one hundred and forty-two of relief. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, 190. Sorry. MR. STONE-Okay. So you’re saying, you’d like to see it changed, Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. RIGBY-Yes. I’d like to see it changed, too, and the first problem I’m having is visualizing how it’s actually going to look there. I mean, some of the other people that have come in front of the Board with a Sign Variance have done a sign, placed it, you know, on a visual, so you can see exactly what it’s going to look like. I mean, I see what you’ve done here, and I see what’s there now, but I’m having a hard time getting from one to the other. You’re asking for a tremendous amount of relief. The property was bought at a discount, as we identified, because of the vacancy, and I understand what’s trying to transpire here to get some business into that mall again, but I’m having a problem with the amount of the variance. I’m having a problem with visualizing what it’s going to look like, and as Mr. Strough said, there’s probably some other factors that fit in here with what’s going to happen going forward with that property, too. So I’d, as it stands right now, I wouldn’t be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Al? MR. BRYANT-Basically you’re asking for 300% relief. MR. HAZEN-Yes. MR. BRYANT-I was looking at the map that Bruce had up, just before that, and you can see the outlines of the actual buildings. There’s an L-shaped building further south there. I mean, the southern portion of that is not visible from, I mean, there are other buildings on that strip that have that same identical problem, and I don’t necessarily agree that signage is the sole savior of a retail establishment. I think there are other things involved. Because the place is empty, there might be other reasons that we’re not aware of. I can’t even look anywhere close to 300% relief, on any kind of. MR. STONE-Al, just for the purpose of clarification, I believe that L-shaped building is the motel. Is that right? MR. BRYANT-Fine. It doesn’t matter what it is. MR. STONE-No, I’m just saying. MR. BRYANT-The point is I’m just demonstrating, I don’t see, the other building that I was referring to. MR. STONE-That’s down below, yes. MR. BRYANT-It’s down lower, but there are other malls that have that same identical problem, and I don’t know that that is necessarily the only reason that those buildings are empty. So I can’t even begin to look at something that close to that. MR. HAZEN-I don’t know how the voting goes here. MR. BRYANT-So anyway, my bottom line is. MR. STONE-You’ve got the same problem. MR. BRYANT-I’m opposed. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HAZEN-If the square footage is a major issue, if we were to eliminate, let’s say the name, and just put your tenant listing there, that would substantially reduce our request. Would that be considered? MR. BRYANT-Yes. If you were looking for 50% relief or 60% relief, you know, when you start approaching the 100% relief, then you’re talking about a different planet, and, in my mind, not, apparently not in Mr. Underwood’s mind, but in my mind, when you’re asking for 100% relief, unless it’s really a situation that is out of the ordinary, then I don’t even go that route. MR. HAZEN-Yes, well, again, I think what Mr. Gordon was trying to say here, the situation is a little different, and I understand there are similar plazas up there, but I didn’t find, and I took photos of various plazas, and maybe there’s one in here that you’re referring to. I didn’t find the problem as unique as this parcel. When you have 60% vacancy rate, or occupancy or lack of occupancy, obviously there’s a problem here, and the fact, that, nobody wants to sell off something up in Queensbury where values are going up in property, at a discount. There’s a problem here. MR. STONE-I think what we’re saying, and I don’t want to paraphrase for everybody because we’ve got others to hear. I think we’re saying, this particular project that you’ve brought to us, we’ve got some problems in terms of, it’s an awful lot, and I think we’re asking, at least the people I’ve heard so far, and I don’t want to take away from anybody else, I feel the same way, but that we need to have other things to consider, and I’m not sure we can do it cold, unless you’re going to make very big concessions, and I’m sure you’re not authorized to do that. MR. HAZEN-Well, this was part of my dilemma coming up here tonight. I explained to Mr. Gordon, you know, if I have to make some decisions, where do I go with this? Let me ask this question. If I feel that I can’t make the right decision, are we allowed to table, move on? MR. STONE-Absolutely. MR. HAZEN-Because, or do we come up with a number, is it possible to come up with a square footage number tonight and say this is what you can work with? MR. STONE-Well, let’s see where we’re going. I mean, right now, what we do here, and I think you were here, is that we give our thoughts and we don’t usually get dialogue, and I apologize to the Board for doing that, but, Joyce, what do you think? MRS. HUNT-Well, I go to the Log Jam quite frequently, and I find that shopping center rather depressing now, I mean, with the empty stores. There’s nothing, I mean, even if you look here, there’s nothing to really attract you, and you can’t see the names of the stores down the, and I think there’s a different situation. Go back, Bruce, to that map. It’s a very narrow driveway, and I think you’re focusing on the Log Jam and not the other. So I certainly think we have to give some relief, but I don’t know that I could go along with all of, with as much as you’re asking for. MR. STONE-Okay. So you’ve got some of the same concerns. MRS. HUNT-The same concerns, yes. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree with the rest of the Board. I think that there’s, you know, some level, minor or major, of sympathy for the fact that the plaza is empty, because it is, but I think the amount of relief that’s being contemplated right here is a no go. I think that’s what you’re 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) hearing from the rest of the Board. So, I think you need to come back with a plan that’s more conservative than this. I think that’s what you’re hearing. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I, too, need to see something else. I think you need to come back with something else, but let me list some of my concerns as a guide. I think certainly something 20 feet high is going to fly better with me than 24 or 25 feet high. So the lower height, I think is important. I can understand the need for the sign out there. I’ll agree. I think you need signs of what stores are there, and it needs to be out front somewhere there, and I would think that part of that whole operation, a tradeoff of saying, okay, instead of 100 square foot sign for each tenant on their doorway, you’d settle for 50 square feet. That’s a good compromise to start with, to yield some on the front, but looking at the picture that’s up there now, the existing sign is on a slim pole, with just a sign on top of it, and trying to visualize the kind of sign, you’re proposing in place of that, it’s going to be a wider sign, and it’s going to block the vision where you can look past that pole now, you’re going to have signs in there. So it’s going to stand out more. I think I’d like to see the kind of sign you’re proposing, set back maybe close to the 15 foot setback, but shoved back closer to the building as much as you can, so it’s not sticking out next to Route 9, and, you know, being a big visual block right there. The only other thought is somebody mentioned the possibility of maybe putting the sign out more into the parking lot. I’m not sure that’s practical in that area, but that might be something to look at, as an alternative. I’d also thought of suggesting putting some of the tenant signs on the end of the building, but that building kind of faces south. So that would be a problem for traffic coming from the north. So I would like to approve something there, because I agree. I think that mall needs some help. I think probably signs are a major factor for it. It looks like a neat decent mall, if we could get some tenants in there. So I’d like to see something that suggested the sign sitting back closer to the building, maybe no more than 20 feet high, and figure out what kind of width you need to accomplish that, and then take another look at it, maybe with some good sketch plans or an overlay on a photo or something, that would give us a little better visualization. MR. STONE-I concur with the Board. I think that the Board is saying that it’s too much, too close to the road. While we’re all sympathetic, I think we need some more visualization on your part. I think we need a half a dozen alternatives that you can live with, and then we can help you, because we’re obviously all concerned by the size. The height is something that you’d be willing to come down a little bit, but I think we need to see it, and I would strongly suggest that listening to the Board, that we table this for a period of up to two months, so that you can come back, after taking into your awareness and your client’s awareness of what it is our problem is. I’m wondering, as a question, I want to ask this of Craig and Bruce, Chuck just mentioned it, too, a shingle type sign, you know, where you used to have doctors on the wall lined up with little name signs. How do we classify that sign? MR. BROWN-Freestanding sign? MR. STONE-No, not freestanding. Attached to the building, but hanging out with names on either sides of slats, so to speak. MR. BROWN-So a projecting sign from the building? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. BROWN-I guess we’d consider it a projecting sign, and there’s some limitations to how far they can project from the building. MR. STONE-Right, but it is a permitted sign, of the right size and so on. MR. BROWN-Correct. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) MR. STONE-Okay. That was just another thought of another possibility, but I would strongly advise you to ask us to table it, so that you and your client can discuss what we’ve said and certainly minutes are available relatively quickly on what we said. So you don’t have to rely only on your own memory. You can hear what we said, and we can get that to you, and sit down and do some noodling, listening to what you heard us say. MR. HAZEN-Is it possible to get on the Board, at a sooner meeting? Rather than two months? MR. STONE-Probably not until July. Is that correct? Are we full up in June? I mean, we’re past the deadline. MR. BROWN-Well, I guess we’re not really full up. I guess this Board, unlike the Planning Board, has not adopted an agenda limit. So whatever. MR. STONE-Tell me what you think we’re not full of. MR. BROWN-I could tell you what I, no. What you could do, I guess, if you wanted to give the applicant some time, pick a date to allow them to submit new information, and then put them on the June meeting if you chose to, but if you want to give Staff time to digest the information, you can get it to the Board, if you want to put it on for a June meeting, you’re correct. We are almost two weeks past the deadline that we normally use. MR. STONE-I don’t know how much time you think you’re going to need. I mean, transcript would be available in, what, a week? MR. BROWN-At least a week. MR. STONE-At least a week. So that gets you into June. We’re pushing for a June meeting. So, I mean, I would table it for up to two months, and hope to get it on as soon as possible. MR. HAZEN-Yes. I think the, if there’s anything, is it late July, is it early July? MR. STONE-The third week in July and the fourth week in July. MR. H AZEN-Third week in July. That’s a tough decision. MR. STONE-Right. I mean, it’s the height of the tourist season. Yes. MR. HAZEN-They’re trying to do something, or even by September. MR. STONE-Well, by September we probably could do something. MR. HAZEN-Just another, I don’t know. Suppose we were to just eliminate the name, bring the sign down to. MR. STONE-We don’t like to do conjecture. We like to see it in front of us. I think I’m speaking for the Board when I say we’d like to see some alternatives with numbers on them, and I appreciate your ability to describe them, but I think we need more. Am I correct in my reading, Board? Shake your heads. You don’t have to. Okay. MR. HAZEN-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 40-2004 RAY SIGN, MOUNTAIN VIEW OUTLET STORES, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: 1476 State Route 9. For up to two months, 62 days, for the client and his agent to consider comments made by the Board in regard to his application and to submit possible alternatives 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) which we can consider for granting a variance, or for the sign to come into conformance. We would suggest that you get it in by June 15 so that it could be on the July agenda. th Duly adopted this 26 day of May, 2004, by the following vote: th MR. HAZEN-Do we have to reapply for a variance once it’s tabled, or do we just bring the stuff in? MR. BROWN-No. You would not have to reapply. You would have to, based on this tabling motion, you’d have to get any additional information in before June 15, to make it for a July th meeting. MR. HAZEN-Okay. MR. BROWN-Because they haven’t picked a specific date for you. MR. HAZEN-Okay. AYES: Mr. Rigby, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico MR. HAZEN-I would like to tank you very much for your time. I know it’s getting late. MR. STONE-Okay. AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II PHILLIP C. & RITA A. MC INTIRE AGENT: JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER: PHILIP C. & RITA A. MC INTIRE ZONING: LC-42A LOCATION: 2352 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING 8 FT. BY 10 FT. DECK AND ADD A 14 FT. BY 16.5 FT. WOOD FRAME, ONE-STORY DINING ROOM. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 97-392 SEPTIC, BP 98-241 BEDROOM BP 99-744 SOLARIUM, AV 105-1999, SPR 67-99 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 5/12/2004 LOT SIZE: 1.08 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.00-1-7 SECTION: 179-4-030 STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 41-2004, Phillip C. & Rita A. McIntire, Meeting Date: May 26, 2004 “Project Location: 2352 Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove an existing 8’ x 12’ deck behind the single-family dwelling and construct a 14’ x 16.5’ dining room addition. Relief Required: 1) 97.4 feet of side setback relief from the 100-foot minimum requirement. 2) 1.9% of permeability relief from the 95% minimum requirement. 3) 26.5 feet of front setback relief from the 100-foot minimum requirement (Note: the front setback relief was not requested by the applicant; however, after further review has been identified as additional relief required. The 73.5-foot setback to the new construction was scaled from the submitted survey). Relief 1-3 required per §179-4-030 for the LC-42A Zone. 4) Relief from the Continuation requirements of the zoning code, per §179-13-010(A1 and E). 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 99-744: 01/05/00, 13’ x 16’ glass sunroom addition. SP 67-99: 12/28/99, 13’ x 16’ glass sunroom addition. AV 105-1999: 12/15/99, setback relief and relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure for a 13’ x 16’ glass sunroom addition. BP 98-241: 05/26/98, bedroom addition BP 97-392: 07/10/97, septic alteration. BP 6763: 03/10/81, dormer addition to dwelling. BP 5412: 08/24/78, 22’ x 22’, two-car detached garage. Staff comments: The relief required for the proposed addition is due to the great setback requirements of the LC- 42A zone (100 feet for all) for a pre-existing nonconforming parcel where the entire dwelling is located within the front and north side setback area (no area exists on the parcel which would meet the setback requirements). Should the board grant the relief required for the project proposed, the applicant would be required to apply for Site Plan Review due to the proposed enlargement of the nonconforming structure within a critical environmental area, per §179-13-010(F).” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form May 12, 2004 Project Name: McIntire, Phillip C. & Rita A. Owner: Phillip C. & Rita A. McIntire ID Number: QBY-AV-04-41 County Project#: May04-31 Current Zoning: LC-42A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to remove existing 8 ft. by 10 ft. deck and add a 14 ft. by 16.5 ft. wood frame, one-story dining room. Relief requested from the minimum side setback and permeability requirements. Site Location: 2352 Ridge Road Tax Map Number(s): 240.00-1-7 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to remove an existing deck to construct a 14 x 16.5 one story addition to an existing home. The new addition is to be located 2.6’ from the side property line where 100 ft. is required. The addition will be used as a dining area and a portion of the roof area will be used as a walk out porch from the second story of the home. The addition is to the rear of the dwelling where the existing dwelling is does not meet the required setbacks. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 5/17/04. MR. STONE-You’re on. MRS. BITTER-I’m Stefanie Bitter, here on behalf of the applicants, Phillip & Rita McIntire. I actually have Phillip McIntire here with me, in the event that applicant comments are necessary. As the application identifies, the applicant’s proposing to remove the existing eight by twelve deck and construct a fourteen by sixteen point five dining room. To give you a little parcel history, this was an old Queensbury schoolhouse that was a pre-existing, nonconforming structure. The schoolhouse was built prior to zoning, and at that time there was no consideration given for the setback requirements. When it was converted into a residence, they had to take what they had with the schoolhouse’s layout. So currently it’s only a two bedroom structure, and no dining room exists at this time. The kitchen is actually located in the northwestern corner of the house, and the proposed dining room would be immediately adjacent to the kitchen, which is customary in most homes. To supplement the test identified for the Area Variance in the application. The relief requested would provide the applicant a benefit of essentially adding a dining room to his current residence or to their current residence. To give you a little more history, when the applicant purchased this property back in 1972, he was a bachelor, and he just is a recent newlywed, and is currently expanding his family. Mrs. McIntire has, I believe it’s three children, four children, and they keep having grandchildren. So he’d like the dining room to be able to accommodate his family when they visit. As for the character of the neighborhood, it’s our position that the proposed addition would not have an 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) impact. First, because the proposed addition is being placed in the back of the structure. It’ll be barely visible from the road. It’s also being constructed on an exposed bedrock area. The slab is actually going to go right on top of that bedrock. So there’s not going to be excavation in order to place this addition on the property. In addition, the adjacent lands are unfortunately misrepresented on the survey that you have, but they’re actually owned by the State of New York and are forever wild. It’s named as the Sothby lands. So the impact to the State of New York will obviously be minimal. More importantly, the existing deck actually is 1.4 feet away from the property line and the proposed addition would actually be 2.6 feet away from the property line. So we’re actually decreasing the nonconformity. There’s actually, there’s no feasible alternatives for this project as was noted in the Staff notes. No area exists on the parcel which would meet the setback requirement due to the current zoning district that the property is located in. The amount of relief, is it substantial, it would be our position no, due to the factors that are behind what I have just identified. No dining room exists on this structure at this time, and we’re actually proposing to add one. It’s not like we’re expanding the dining room, and it’s a unique situation due to the fact that it’s a pre-existing, nonconforming structure in a district that requires major setback relief. Adverse effect on the environment. Again, because it’s being built on the bedrock, and there’s only being a slab placed down, and the nonconforming is actually being decreased, it’s our position that no, there wouldn’t be an adverse effect on the neighborhood. In addition, this parcel is in the APA area. So the application is subject to review. As to the practical difficulty burden, it’s our position, again, due to the fact that this was originally built as a schoolhouse, and is a pre-existing, nonconforming structure, the structure’s conversion into a residence was limited with the schoolhouse’s layout, and at that time a dining room wasn’t able to be even identified in the structure as an available area. As a result, variances have to be requested so that a dining room can actually be added. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s it? MRS. BITTER-That’s it for now. Do you have any questions? MR. STONE-The only question I have is of Staff. There seem to be an awful lot of buildings on this property. Am I counting more than I should? MR. FRANK-How many are you counting? MR. STONE-A garage, a shed, and another shed. MR. FRANK-And again, I think the question to the applicant, what is the age of the sheds. Under current Code you’re allowed one accessory structure. I see two. What’s the age of the sheds? Do they pre-date the current Code? MRS. BITTER-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. Fine. Thank you. Any questions, at all? MR. BRYANT-I have a question. MR. STONE-Go. MR. BRYANT-Relative to the position of the dining room. There seems to be a space between, in other words, can’t you shove that dining room further south, you know, into that little corner? MRS. BITTER-It’s my understanding that the applicant actually has, there’s going to be a decked in area there, with a porch, on the southern side. MR. STONE-Well, why don’t we have Mr. McIntire come up, if you would. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) PHILLIP MC INTIRE MR. MC INTIRE-Yes. I’m Phillip McIntire, the applicant. There are currently French doors there which we’d want to retain for access to the outside for any number of reasons, safety and otherwise, in that space between that gap you’re talking about. MR. STONE-You mean that little alley? MR. MC INTIRE-Right. MR. STONE-I’m not denigrating it, but. MR. MC INTIRE-That’s right. There are French doors that open out there that we want to retain. MR. BRYANT-So you’re going to have a deck there, too? MR. MC INTIRE-No. MR. BRYANT-So if they open out there, what do they open to? MR. MC INTIRE-They open out into the ground area. MR. BRYANT-I’m not following you at all. Because if there’s not going to be a deck there, and you’ve got a dining room that’s separated from the building by, you know, five, six feet, whatever it is, why does that space exist? MR. MC INTIRE-My wife and I had this argument, but I don’t want to bore you with it. It is a question of aesthetics, primarily, to keep the French doors there, and yes, you’re right, we will have to walk around and get into the dining room from the kitchen area, but we don’t. MR. BRYANT-So why don’t you just push the dining room down and let the French doors open into the dining room? I mean, where are the French doors? I’m not following this. MRS. BITTER-Right there, on the right side. MR. MC INTIRE-May I? MR. STONE-Sure, go on up there. MR. MC INTIRE-We want to retain this to an open area to the outside. This, a bay window currently is there, which will be the entrance way to the dining room which will come out this way. These doors will still be there to open to the outside. MR. BRYANT-Okay. Is that the only rear exit that you have in the building? MR. MC INTIRE-Yes. MR. STONE-Anybody else, any questions? Hearing none, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on the subject? Nobody? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) MR. HAYES-I have one question for Staff. Did we confirm that that’s truly State property to the north there, versus a mystery seleeks or whatever? Because it does make a difference to me of who we’re impacting here. MR. FRANK-The large parcel definitely, it’s, I’ll highlight the narrow strip. MR. STONE-The narrow strip, that’s State? MR. FRANK-State of New York, right here. MR. MC INTIRE-That was sold by Mr. Sahlke, my neighbor across the street, to the State of New York 10 years ago, and it’s a part of the Dunham’s Bay wetland area. MR. FRANK-I have the cursor next to the owner. It’s the State of New York. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HAYES-So we can assume that the odds that they’ll sell that to somebody are pretty low. MR. MC INTIRE-There is nothing until you get further up and further down, in terms of any sort of residence, except. MR. STONE-Now who owns the land that surrounds you on three sides, or two sides? MR. MC INTIRE-The State of New York. MR. STONE-That’s the State of New York, too, even though that says Benton, Denton? MR. MC INTIRE-Denton. Denton’s on the south. MR. STONE-That’s what I said, I meant the south. MR. MC INTIRE-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC INTIRE-That’s right. Those buildings down there are the Denton property. MR. STONE-Okay. Let’s talk about it. We’ll start with Leo. MR. RIGBY-It’s a great house, by the way. I took a drive by this morning. It’s interesting, and I can see why you’re presented with a building dilemma here. I have no problem with it. I mean, my only concern when I saw the property was the lands to the north, and knowing that it’s State property, I don’t think there’s any concern. Just looking at the blueprints here, there’s something that says deed parcel line. What does that represent? Does it mean anything? MR. MC INTIRE-I can answer that quickly. I don’t know why Matt put that on there. The original parcel was 100 by 200 feet, which was the original school. I subsequently purchased behind it to put a leach field in. I don’t know why he’s continued to have that line on there. MR. RIGBY-Okay. MR. MC INTIRE-It’s all one tax parcel now. It’s all. MR. RIGBY-Okay. Looking at it, I have no problem with the variance the way it’s proposed. MR. STONE-Al? 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) MR. BRYANT-Actually, when I looked at it today I wasn’t really in favor of it. I think the State land issue changes the entire picture. On your application, where you talk about the effects of the neighborhood, you say you’re going to reduce the setback to the side by that one foot, my idea of reducing the setback is tear down the deck and not build anything there. I mean, that’s a reduction of setback, but anyway. Based on the State land issue, I would vote in favor of the applicant. MR. STONE-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I have to agree with Leo and with Al, because if you want to put the addition, there’s no other place you could put it, and again, the fact that it’s State land does mitigate the closeness to the property line. I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I guess you could argue where the addition belongs or where it doesn’t, but I guess in the end there’s no negative impact. I just don’t see, with that being State land, I just can’t see any real negative impact for anyone, and all that leaves me really is with the benefit to the applicant. So I’m in favor. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I basically agree. There’s certainly going to be no neighbors impacted. It’s a unique parcel. The fact that it’s a unique parcel by itself doesn’t necessarily justify the variance, but that combined with the fact that I can’t see any impact on anyone, it strikes me that that kicks the balance to the applicant. So I’ll be in favor. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I’ll be in favor, too. The LC-42 zone puts pretty strict requirements on dwellings, and since this is a pre-existing, nonconforming structure here, I don’t think the size of this request is going to have any dramatic effect on the Dunham’s Bay wetlands. There’s plenty of moose habitat left out there. MR. STONE-I certainly concur with the Board. I mean, we have a nonconforming lot, certainly a sizeable lot, since you bought the back parcel, an acre is a reasonable sized lot. The fact that it’s State land and that’s the only comment I wrote down was neighbor, and we’re saying, not that the State of New York isn’t a friendly neighbor, but it’s not a neighbor who’s going to be impacted by a dining room on the back of the house. I think that, as the rest of the Board said, it’s a benefit to the applicant with minimal detriment to the community, and I certainly would go along with it. So I need a motion to approve. MRS. BITTER-Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to mention, because this is subject to APA review, that if it be possible, put it in the resolution. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. We can’t do that. MR. BROWN-Well, those aren’t the criteria that you’re charged with using. If you want to make mention. MR. STONE-No, we can’t do that, but we can say the benefit to the applicant is they can put a dining room, put this dining room as close to the kitchen as possible, because otherwise it would, that’s practical in terms of we don’t use those words, I agree with you. Thank you. So, and the applicant did say the kitchen, it’s going to be off the kitchen. MRS. BITTER-That’s correct. 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) MR. STONE-So if someone does the motion, you can work that in as that location is a definite benefit to the applicant. Who’s talking? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-2004 PHILIP C. & RITA MC INTIRE, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: 2352 Ridge Road. The applicant has proposed to remove an eight by twelve foot deck behind a single-family dwelling and construct a 14 by 16.5 dining room addition. Specifically, the applicant is requesting 97.4 feet of side setback relief from the 100-foot minimum requirement. They are also requesting 1.9% of permeability relief from the 95% minimum requirement. Further 26.5 feet of relief from the front setback requirement of 100-foot minimum. The fourth piece of relief that they’re requesting is from relief from the Continuation requirements of the Zoning Code, per Section 179-13-010 A1 & E. Examining the criteria for an Area Variance of this kind, the benefit to the applicant, the applicant has demonstrated that placing the dining room at this location will aid in the flow of the house from the kitchen, essentially, and this is the most advantageous place for them to place the structure. In terms of impacting the neighborhood adversely, I believe that the Board has determined that, based on the fact that immediate and most affected neighbor to the north and to the, what would be to the west, I believe, is the State of New York, which, in all likelihood, will remain undeveloped for a great deal of time. Therefore, no true negative impacts on the neighborhood can be determined. It was also set forth that where the structure will be placed it probably, for the most part, will not even be visible from the Route 9L travel corridor, and that way have no visual impact on the neighborhood or greater community. Based on that fact, I think the test falls in favor of the applicant. Therefore I move for its approval. Duly adopted this 26 day of May, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Rigby, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico MRS. BITTER-Thank you very much. MR. STONE-You’re welcome. MR. MC INTIRE-Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. MR. STONE-Yes, good luck with the APA, because we don’t want them to overturn us again, which they’ve only done once in the history of the Board since we’ve all been on it. AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II CAL BRIGGS-HARRIS OWNER: CALVIN & MARILYN BRIGGS-HARRIS ZONING: SR-1A LOCATION: 32 LESTER DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 280 SQ. FT. 3-SEASON PORCH, ATTACHED TO THE GARAGE AND LAUNDRY ROOM. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. LOT SIZE: 0.49 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.13-1-22 SECTION: 179-4-030 CAL BRIGGS-HARRIS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 42-2004, Cal Briggs-Harris, Meeting Date: May 26, 2004 “Project Location: 32 Lester Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 20’ x 14’ three-season porch addition to the rear of the dwelling. Relief Required: 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) Applicant requests 3.1 feet of rear setback relief from the 20-foot minimum requirement, per §179-4-030 for the SR-1A zone and from the Continuation requirements of the zoning code, per §179-13-010(A1). Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None. Staff comments: The proposed location of the addition appears to be very well screened to the north, south and west by the existing stand of trees.” MR. MC NULTY-And there’s no County. MR. HAYES-Would you like to introduce yourself for the record, please. MR. BRIGGS-HARRIS-Surely. I’m Cal Briggs-Harris. Along with the bank, we’re the owners, and new resident of Queensbury last November, and the applicant as well. MR. HAYES-Welcome. Is there anything you’d like to add to the application at this time? MR. BRIGGS-HARRIS-We consulted our deed, and we thought that the setback was 15 feet, because that’s what it said on the Schedule A, the Addendum to the deed. So, just to be sure, I contacted Mr. Brown, and he looked it up and discovered that indeed it was 20 feet and not 15. So that’s why we’re asking for the variance. MR. STONE-What’s behind your property? MR. BRIGGS-HARRIS-The parcel of land owned by Mr. Brayton, approximately 12 acres. Most of that that I can see is woods. Approximately 100 yards between our property and his home is wooded. MR. STONE-So there is a home behind you up the hill? MR. BRIGGS-HARRIS-Yes. MR. STONE-Or toward the hill. Okay. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, I believe that that property owned by Brayton was in before this Board within the last couple of years and received a variance for an oversized accessory storage pole barn kind of building. So, just to familiarize you with that. MR. STONE-Right. Thank you. MR. FRANK-The house location is approximately where I have the cursor for the neighbor. MR. STONE-It’s down that finger off of Fuller Road. Okay. Yes, I remember that now. Okay. Sometimes you don’t, you see things, you don’t get the aerial view. MR. HAYES-So the porch is going to the rear of the house then, essentially? MR. BRIGGS-HARRIS-Yes. We have a garage on the left hand side of the house, and there’s a laundry room just down from the kitchen, and we currently have a back door that goes out to that room. MR. STONE-He’s got a picture up there. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) MR. BRIGGS-HARRIS-Yes. The door is there, onto a small deck. The deck will be moved, and we will enter the porch area through that door. MR. STONE-And there’ll be a door on the porch to get off it, I assume? MR. BRIGGS-HARRIS-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. All right. Any other questions? All right. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on the subject? Anybody? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-All right. Let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Allen. MR. BRYANT-The amount of relief they’re requesting is not really substantial. The area is going to be shielded, as they said in the Staff notes, from view from anywhere. I really have no problems with the project at all. MR. STONE-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I have to agree with Al. I don’t see any problem. It’s very minimal relief requested, and as Staff said, it’s well screened. So I would be in favor. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree. The relief is certainly minimal in this particular case, and it’s hard to identify any negative impact on the neighborhood, and I guess Mr. Brayton has the opportunity, if he felt so inclined, to talk about that tonight, but he’s not here. So I’ll have to assume that he’s not troubled by it. So, I guess I’m in favor. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I’ll agree. It strikes me that it’s a minimal request. I can’t see anybody being impacted. I can definitely see benefit to the applicant. So I’d be in favor. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I, too, would be in favor. I think if it were a 10 foot wide porch, it would be pretty minimally useful, as far as navigating around chairs and tables. I think if there’s a further future subdivision of that property behind there, there’s probably going to leave some kind of a vegetative buffer between the zones anyway. So it won’t have any effect. MR. STONE-Leo? MR. RIGBY-Yes, I agree as well. Seeing no negative input from Mr. Brayton, the only person really affected by this, and minimal relief, I’m in favor, too. MR. STONE-I concur with the rest of the Board. This is one where, when you consider the land behind you, and as Mr. Hayes said, you consider that the neighbor, the only impacted person, and that would be minimally, is not here, is not objecting to it, certainly you’re going to get a benefit, and there is very little of a negative to the community. So, having said that, I need a motion to approve. 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-2004 CAL BRIGGS-HARRIS, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Leo Rigby: 32 Lester Drive. The applicant is proposing construction of a 20 foot by 14 foot three season porch addition to the rear of the dwelling, and he’s requesting 3.1 feet of rear setback relief from the 20-foot minimum requirement per Section 179-4-030 of the SR-1A zone, and from the Continuation requirements of the Zoning Code. As mentioned, he could build a smaller, a narrower addition on the back, but this one’s practical, and the net impact on the neighbor to the near side up in there would be minimal to none. Duly adopted this 26 day of May, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico MR. STONE-Go. You have a very attractive piece of property there. That’s the first time I’ve ever been down that road, but I found it very nice. MR. BRIGGS-HARRIS-It’s very quiet. We enjoy it very much. MR. STONE-Very quiet. MR. BRIGGS-HARRIS-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II NICHOLAS F. DAIGLE OWNER: NICHOLAS F. DAIGLE ZONING: CI-1A LOCATION: 15-19 BOULEVARD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO COMBINE TWO PRE-EXISTING NONCONFORMING PARCELS INTO ONE NEW CONFORMING PARCEL. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 7,500 SQ. FT. PRE-ENGINEERED STEELWAREHOUSE TO REPLACE FOUR BUILDINGS AND OTHER SITE IMPROVEMENTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE REAR SETBACK AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: SPR 27-2004, BP 2002-585, SPR 15-2002 LOT SIZE: 0.77 ACRES, 0.36 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.20-2-34, 33 SECTION: 179-4-030 NICHOLAS DAIGLE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 43-2004, Nicholas F. Daigle, Meeting Date: May 26, 2004 “Project Location: 15-19 Boulevard Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to combine two pre-existing nonconforming parcels into one new conforming parcel, and proposes to construct a new 7,500 sq. ft. pre-engineered steel warehouse to replace four buildings and other associated site improvements. Relief Required: Applicant requests 6 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum rear setback requirement and 17.8% of relief from the 30% minimum permeability requirement, per §179-4- 030 for the CI-1A zone. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2002-585: 07/16/02, commercial interior alteration. SP 15-2002: 04/01/02, utilizing the existing warehouse and commercial building (former Tire Warehouse) for retail, wholesale, storage and distribution business (Haun Welding). 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) BP 2002-629: 07/31/02, 32 sq. ft. wall sign for Haun Welding. BP 2002-640: 07/31/02, 32 sq. ft. wall sign for Haun Welding. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to consolidate two pre-existing nonconforming parcels into one conforming parcel in order to redevelop the site. Four of the old structures will be demolished as part of the plan to construct a new 7,500 sq. ft. warehouse. Even though the applicant is requesting relief from the minimum permeability requirement, the proposed permeable area will increase from essentially zero to 12.2 %.” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form May 12, 2004 Project Name: Daigle, Nicholas F. Owner: Nicholas F. Daigle ID Number: QBY-AV-04- 43 County Project#: May04-26 Current Zoning: CI-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to combine two pre-existing nonconforming parcels into one new conforming parcel. Applicant proposes to construct a new 7,500 sq. ft. pre-engineered steel warehouse to replace four buildings and other site improvements. Relief requested from the rear setback and permeability requirements. Site Location: 15-19 Boulevard Tax Map Number(s): 303.20-2-34, 33 Staff Notes: The applicant proposes to remove two existing structures from the property and to construct a 7,500 sq. ft. one story distribution center. The new building is to be located 24 ft. from the rear property line where 30 ft. is required. In addition, the site is 100% non-permeable where the applicant proposes 12.2% and 30% is required. The information submitted shows an office building and a warehouse buildings to remain, parking layout, lighting, existing and new green areas. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. Warren County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board, 5/17/04. MR. STONE-Sir? MR. DAIGLE-Good evening. I’m the property owner and the applicant. My name is Nick Daigle, and the proposed plan I propose I feel will increase and improve the area tremendously. MR. STONE-Maybe I’m missing something. It says you’re combining two pieces of property, but these two drawings show them combined. I don’t see a property line. MR. DAIGLE-I believe there was another drawing that should have been with the packet that showed the existing property line. MR. STONE-I’ve got existing site usage, but I don’t have existing property lines. Is there a third one, guys? None of you had it, did you? I’m not really worried about it, but I didn’t see it. That’s all. Any questions of Mr. Daigle? So you’re going to tear down a bunch of buildings and do a lot of green space in here? MR. DAIGLE-That’s the idea, sir. MR. STONE-Okay. I mean, this is all going to be green, these dark shaded areas? MR. DAIGLE-That is correct, sir. MR. BRYANT-One of the retail buildings is going to, you know, remain. Actually two of the buildings. I’m trying to determine which actual buildings are staying. Can you throw up a picture of that, Bruce, please? MR. DAIGLE-The buildings that would be staying, I believe, are where his cursory is now, that’s the Haun Welding Supply business that’s up and thriving right now, and that building there, which has great potential of being restored. 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) MR. BRYANT-Okay. So the other two buildings are going to be removed? MR. DAIGLE-Correct. There’s actually four buildings there. The one where his cursor is now is closest to the road, probably the most nonconforming building on the site, pretty run down. It would take a tremendous amount of effort to revitalize it, if you will, and the pole barn, and there’s two small structures that are attached to the pole barn in the back would be coming down as well. MR. STONE-Okay. So the two, the office building on Quaker, on the Quaker side is staying, up in the corner. MR. DAIGLE-That’s correct. MR. STONE-And the one story retail is staying. MR. DAIGLE-That is correct. MR. STONE-Now where’s the new? MR. HAYES-Where those old buildings are. MR. DAIGLE-Right basically centered on the property, if you will. MR. STONE-I’m sorry, yes. Okay. MR. BRYANT-What determined the size of the building? I mean, what are you going to do in that building? MR. DAIGLE-I actually had a tenant that was expressing, or potential tenant that was expressing some interest, and that was the size of the building that they required, and until I was able to firm up the ability to do the project, I could not commit to the tenant. So we’re still under negotiations at that time, at this time. MR. STONE-Yes. I guess it’s the Staff notes that confused me, guys. It says propose to combine to pre-existing, nonconforming parcels into one, and proposes to construct a new 7500 square foot pre-engineered warehouse to replace four buildings. MR. BRYANT-That was my question. MR. HAYES-Because there’s two little buildings in between those other buildings. They’re buildings, but, you know, they’re small. They have roofs and stuff. You can see the top of one of them from here. MR. FRANK-If you walk the site, you definitely can make out those, there’s four structures. MR. STONE-These two little things on the right side. Okay. So that whole center section is going down, and will be replaced by the new building, in a sense. MR. DAIGLE-That is correct. MR. STONE-Okay. Just the numbers are hard to reconcile. Okay. Any other questions? Well, let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on this subject? Anybody? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Joyce. MRS. HUNT-All right. Thank you. Well, I think the way I see it there are positives there. The two existing parcels which would now be conforming, they were not before, and that four of these buildings would come down and one new one in their place, and then also that one building will not be as close to the road, and there will be more green space. I don’t have any problems. I don’t see any negatives. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, I mean, the potential for a recycling of this property is obviously a big plus, as I see it. I mean, it’s certainly, when we’re considering the impact on the neighborhood, I see that as being a plus for sure. Obviously the building you already have is nice, and that’s, you know, a positive reflection on your business, but I guess I certainly do not have any problem at all with the six feet of relief from the thirty foot minimum rear setback. There’s a lot of encroachment going on there now, and in the cumulative sense, this is a lot less, a lot less confusion. So those are all positive things. Anything that I would like to see, and I’m not sure that it’s fatal, I would personally prefer to give you a little relief on a few parking spots, and maybe pick up some permeability. I mean, obviously that wasn’t advertised, and maybe that’s not a great solution in this particular case, because zero permeability to where you’re going is a lot better than it was. There’s no doubt about that. It will be greener. It will be nicer. I really don’t have any doubt about that, but I guess the parking spaces, those are all statutory, then, essentially, the ones that are, where it says 10 spaces required, or whatever. Those are all by Code then? MR. FRANK-Well, he’s required to have 28 for this use and he’s proposing 29. So, he could give up one and still be within the minimum allowed, minimum required. I’m sorry. MR. HAYES-I guess, on balance, in this particular case, based on the permeability of where we’re at and where we’re going, I still think that the test would fall in favor of this improvement, and the applicant, just based on the overwhelming change for the good, I would say. So I’m in favor. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I’m also in favor. Ideally it would be nice if there were no variances required, but like Jaime, six feet from the thirty is not a big deal, and I’d like to see more permeability, but again, this is certainly an improvement, and what’s proposed is, I think in character with that neighborhood. So I’ll be in favor. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. One newly constructed building would be a plus, when you’re replacing the hodgepodge nature of what’s there at the present time, and I think the increase in the permeability to 12% is a plus also. MR. STONE-Leo? MR. RIGBY-Yes, I agree. I think this is really the only way to make that size building, and it’s a big improvement, removing the four buildings, increasing permeability. I’d be in favor, too. MR. STONE-Al? MR. BRYANT-I’m also in favor, for all the above reasons. 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) MR. STONE-Well, I’m not going to spoil it either. I think the word resurrecting a very busy and very old piece of property into something new, with grass, and certainly increase permeability. The slight problem with the rear setback doesn’t trouble me in this particular case, so, having said all that, I need a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-2004 NICHOLAS F. DAIGLE, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: 15-19 Boulevard and Quaker Road. The applicant proposes to combine two pre-existing, nonconforming parcels into one new conforming parcel, and proposes to construct a new 7500 square foot pre-engineered steel warehouse to replace four buildings and other associated site improvements. The applicant requests six feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum rear setback requirement and 17.8% of relief from the 30% minimum permeability requirement, as per Section 179-4-030 for the CI-1A zone. I think the benefit to the applicant could not be achieved by any other means, except by the way he has proposed it. I see it as, not as an undesirable change, but as actually a positive change to the neighborhood and nearby properties. The request is not substantial. In fact, the permeability will be increased to 12.2%. I do not think it will have any adverse effects, either physical or environmental effects, and whether it’s self- created, that’s probably true, but as I said, I think it’s an improvement. Therefore I request that we pass Area Variance No. 43-2004. Duly adopted this 26 day of May, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico MR. DAIGLE-Thank you very much. MR. STONE-You’re to be congratulated for bringing, for doing what you’re doing there. You’ve made a much conforming situation. We’re sitting here always granting variances from the Code. You’re bringing it into Code, in terms of size and that’s good. Thank you. MR. DAIGLE-Thank you very much. USE VARIANCE NO. 44-2004 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED MIKE LUDWIG OWNER: 52 MAIN STREET WEST GF, LLC ZONING: MU LOCATION: 52 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES AN AUTOMOTIVE CUSTOMIZING/RETAIL SALES BUSINESS, WHICH INCLUDES THE INSTALLATION OF PERFORMANCE PARTS AND SIGN WORK, AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE ALLOWED USES IN THE MU ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE: SPR 28-2004, UV 52-1989, BP 8816 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/12/04 LOT SIZE: 0.19 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.10-2-28 SECTION: 179-4-020 BRAD LA CROSS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MIKE LUDWIG, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 44-2004, Mike Ludwig, Meeting Date: May 26, 2004 “Project Location: 52 Main Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes an automotive customizing / retail sales business, which includes the installation of performance parts and sign work. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the permitted uses of the MU Zone, §179-4- 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) 020. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 28-2004: review to be in June pending the outcome of this application. UV 52-1989: 05/24/89, request to allow an additional use, automotive leasing and related usage to the existing heating, air conditioning and refrigeration sales use. BP 88-016: 01/22/88, interior alterations. Other BP’s for freestanding and wall signage. Staff comments: The applicant is proposing, in addition to the allowable retail sales use, to use the existing lift in the garage bays for the installation of performance automobile parts and automotive tuning. This part of the proposed business falls under the automotive service use, which is not an allowed use in the MU zone. As part of the applicant’s demonstration to show the applicable zoning regulations and restrictions have caused an unnecessary hardship in this case, the applicant in “Attachment 1” describes why the permitted uses in the MU zone would not be suitable for the structure and site due to the size of the site and the existing design and setup of the building (automotive bays with lift). However, the applicant has failed to demonstrate, by competent financial evidence, that a reasonable return cannot be realized with each and every permitted use listed for the MU zone. In fact, the applicant is proposing a permitted use…retail sales. In May of 1989, UV 52-1989 was granted to the current owner (Marvin S. Dobert) for the operation of an automobile leasing business. Prior to the granting of the use variance for the additional use, the structure was being utilized for a heating, air conditioning and refrigeration business.” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form May 12, 2004 Project Name: Ludwig, Mike Owner: Mike Ludwig ID Number: QBY-UV-04-44 County Project#: May04-30 Current Zoning: MU Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes an automotive customizing/retail sales business, which includes the installation of performance parts and sign work, and seeks relief from the allowed uses in the MU zone. Site Location: 52 Main Street Tax Map Number(s): Staff Notes: Use Variance: The applicant proposes to operate an automotive customizing/retail sales business, which includes the installation of performance parts and sign work. The information submitted indicates the existing building was constructed for automotive repair prior to the existing zoning and previous applicants have obtained a use variance to operate automotive type operation. The plans show the layout of the site with parking arrangements and building usage. The applicant has identified the allowed uses within the zone and listed reasons why they would not be accommodated at the existing site. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 5/17/04. MR. STONE-Gentlemen. You’re on. MR. LUDWIG-Yes. I’m Mike Ludwig, and this is actually my partner Brad LaCross. We’re both T.B. Racing, which is the name of the business that we are currently trying to open at 52 Main Street. MR. STONE-Now you own the property at this point? MR. LUDWIG-Actually, no. Mr. Dobert is still the current owner of the property. We are renting from him. So we will be answering your questions probably both at the same time, or whatever you may have. 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) MR. STONE-A question of Staff, a Use Variance, that goes with the building, right? MR. BROWN-It goes with the property, that’s correct. MR. STONE-So it’s the owner of the property who should be the applicant. MR. BROWN-No, I think the. MR. STONE-Okay. I’m just asking. It’s a question. You’re saying no, Bruce? They can be the applicant. MR. BROWN-Yes, no. I’m saying that the applicant before you has the permission from the property owner to appear before you. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LUDWIG-I apologize. I believe we’re the agent for the applicant. MR. STONE-Okay. I’ll accept it. MR. LUDWIG-Okay. MR. STONE-Anything else you want to tell us? I mean, we do have this list, and the reason I didn’t ask him to read it in is that Staff notes does acknowledge that you’ve provided this list of your opinion of why these uses are not going to provide enough financial remuneration, and we’re charged, in a Use Variance, and I’m sure you were told, very difficult to get a Use Variance because, and I’ll just quote, which they did in Staff notes, that you have to show us that you cannot realize a reasonable return substantiated as shown by competent financial evidence, not current structure is not usable. That’s your judgment it’s not usable. That’s not competent financial evidence. MR. LUDWIG-You are absolutely right. I had hoped that the previous issuance of a variance, it states in that variance that it is demonstrated that the lot’s unique and that it would be unreasonable to deny the use of the lift. It would also be, I’m sorry, it would be difficult realizing a reasonable return on the property as used, in the previous issuance of the variance. MR. STONE-And I think what Staff told you, that if you owned every car, and I’m paraphrasing, that if you owned every car that came in there, you could use the lift. Am I right? In a sense. MR. BROWN-No, I’m not sure we had those discussions with the applicant before you about the previous Use Variance. MR. STONE-You don’t think we did? MR. LUDWIG-No, I have never had that conversation. MR. BROWN-I’m sure that I didn’t. The Use Variance that was issued was for the operation of a leasing business. MR. STONE-Leasing. He owned the vehicles, in other words. MR. BROWN-Correct. The operator owned the vehicles, and the use of the auto bays was to service those fleet vehicles. MR. STONE-Correct. MR. BROWN-Right. 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) MR. STONE-And that’s the difference, in this particular case. You are proposing a retail use. You’re asking people to come in and avail themselves of your services on their property, their automobiles. I mean, that’s the difference. Is that a correct interpretation? MR. BROWN-Well, that’s the difference why the previous Use Variance does not cover this proposed use. MR. STONE-Right, that’s what I mean, yes. MR. BROWN-That’s right. MR. STONE-So we’re starting from scratch, in a sense. You have to show us all of the things that, all of the questions you were asked in the application, you have to answer all of those, and all of them. I mean, I know you’ve sat here all night and you have heard us talk about balancing test, benefit, detriment. A Use Variance doesn’t work that way. MR. LUDWIG-In some conversations I had had with people at the counter, the planning board, I was lead to believe that it would be for consideration, because some of the uses would be completely unreasonable for the parcel that’s in question, such as a duplex home. I do not know of anybody that wants to live in a greasy garage, as a home. MR. STONE-You don’t know anybody who wants to. MR. LUDWIG-I would venture to guess I don’t know anybody that knows someone that would do that, but I had hoped that most of them were common sense type answers to some of these things, being as the structures. MR. STONE-What I’m doing right now is I’m not speaking for the Board. I am interpreting what I understand the Code and the requirements, and I will be asking some questions, but the burden of proof is on you, much more than it is on somebody seeking an Area Variance. That’s what I’m really trying to say. Al, go ahead. MR. BRYANT-Back in ’88 or ’89, whenever they did the other variance, Use Variance, they probably provided some financial information, detailed financial information, that showed why they had to do whatever they were going to do. The fact that you say that the building is not usable for this case for that use or that use is fine, but you also have to show, you know, as the leaser of the building, if you can’t do this, how is it going to affect you. Also, what are your other possibilities, other possible uses of the building? Do they fall within the guidelines of the zoning in that particular zone, and those are things you have to show, and you have to give it in black and white, as far as dollars and cents, and that’s critical. You heard the Staff notes. That’s something that you’re going to need. So at some point, you’re going to have to provide that, and that’s what the Chairman, I think, is saying. MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, can I interject for a moment? I did have conversations with Mr. Ludwig. At the time the Zoning Administrator was on vacation, and because of the situation that arose, I did talk with the Director of Community Development, Chris Round, and we had extended the courtesy for them to get an application in, and I can’t remember the particular reason exactly, but it was turned in within, I believe, a couple of days. I happened on the end of the week when he was directed to submit and he turned it in, I believe, on a Monday following. I told him what he was providing, and our discussion was, well, the applicant’s saying, you know, I can’t even do this use here because the site won’t allow for it. So why do I need to show competent financial evidence that the site couldn’t realize a return, a reasonable return, and I told him he did not provide that, and so I was told by Chris Round that we would accept the application, and of course it would be in your hands for your review, and of course you can direct the applicant any way you wish, I would imagine, but it wasn’t like he decided to do this all on his own. He discussed this. He said, this site couldn’t even support this use, which is allowed. So why do I need to show, I’m not saying this is right or wrong. I’m just saying that 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) there was a discussion and that’s what I told him. So it’s not like he decided to do this all on his own. Just to let you know, to be fair to the applicant. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HAYES-He’s not necessarily even wrong. It’s just, I mean, the truth is, a lot of those things are, they might not be proven, but they’re probably true, but I guess in this case they have to be proven. I think that’s what Mr. Bryant’s saying. MR. BRYANT-Exactly. MR. HAYES-I mean, as I read through those, nobody’s saying you’re wrong. MR. STONE-No, I’m not saying that your judgment isn’t good, saying, well, a nursery, there’s not enough room, now we’re into, that’s a judgment. Some of them it’s very obvious, but the point is, there are two things that I have trouble with. One is the financial thing. Secondly, since you don’t own the building, you don’t have any risk at the moment. So I have trouble with you saying you can’t get financial return. The owner of the building I would listen to. I know you’re acting as an agent, but you’re also the person who wants to take over the building, and I get hung up on those, that mixture. MR. HAYES-There’s opinions that you can get, though, that would be outside of your own, from commercial real estate people and those type of things. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. HAYES-Letters, and stuff like that, that would say. MR. LUDWIG-I was unaware of how to obtain that particular financial information from. MR. HAYES-It’s not easy, but it happens all the time. MR. LUDWIG-Given our limited time to submit the application. MR. STONE-I know it’s not easy, and we have, in fairness to what Mr. Hayes is saying, we have listened to some realtors and said, so. MR. HAYES-Right, but my guess, you’ve got to come from some approach. MR. STONE-You’ve got to come from some approach, that’s better than none. MR. HAYES-It’s an evidentiary standard, essentially. MR. BRYANT-The other thing that Mr. Stone was saying is, if, you know, have the owner, you know, you have a lease with the owner now, is that it? MR. LUDWIG-We currently have a month to month lease. MR. BRYANT-Okay, and how long has that been? MR. LUDWIG-Actually just recently, on the 19. th MR. BRYANT-Okay. The building was empty though for a while, right? MR. LUDWIG-I believe so, yes. MR. BRYANT-Yes, see, that’s really a trouble corridor, and it’s not that people are not giving you, we’re not trying to give you a hard time, but if the owner states, look, you know, the 48 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) building is going to end up sitting empty. I mean, it’s configured with so many bays to do work on automobiles or that type of work, or to have some kind of construction trucks or something in there, and there aren’t that many people out there to rent it. I’m sure you could find a commercial real estate company to say that. MR. STONE-Yes, we have had commercial realtors come in and say I’ve had it on the market for two years, trying to get it rented or sold for the uses that are permitted, and I haven’t been able to do it. That starts to get to the financial aspect. That’s not necessarily enough, but at least if that person can say I actively tried to rent this business, this building, then we start to say, well, maybe it can’t be rented for an allowable use, but the fact that you come to us and say, well, you took it over on the 19, and you’d like to use this lift, and I don’t think, and I’m not th criticizing you. I’m just stating the facts. You’re saying, I don’t think it can be used for this. That’s not competent. MR. LUDWIG-Well, fortunately for us, the owner is here with us tonight. If he makes that statement, is that acceptable proof for you? MR. STONE-I would like an independent. MR. LUDWIG-Okay. MR. STONE-I would like a realtor that he may have, I don’t know how you found out about the property, for example. MR. LUDWIG-Specifically through the owner. MR. STONE-Through the owner? MR. LUDWIG-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. So he certainly can tell us, if he’s willing, that he’s been trying to actively rent this property for two years, and nobody’s taken him up on it, because they don’t want to do what’s an allowable use, but without that, we don’t even have a start. MR. BRYANT-Was that also the sign building before? Did a sign company own that? MR. LUDWIG-Sign Craft signs was in there, and I believe that they had vacated the premises due to financial hardships. They moved to South Glens Falls to a cheaper rent location. MR. BRYANT-They weren’t there for long? MR. LUDWIG-No, I don’t believe so. MR. BRYANT-So is that the basic problem, that there’s a problem getting a tenant there, with the configuration and location of the building? MR. LUDWIG-That’s essentially the problem, is the building is configured as an automotive repair facility. The majority of the square footage is in those two service bays. It’s 1260 feet of service bay in a cinder block building and a very small additional space attached to it, which is only 800 square feet, for either office space or retail sales, which is certainly not enough floor space to support the rent justified by the total square footage of the building. MR. STONE-Let me ask Staff another question. Gentlemen, if the Main Street reconstruction project gets started soon, where is it going to go in relationship to this building? MR. BROWN-I’m not sure I understand the question. MR. STONE-Well, we’re going to widen Main Street. 49 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) MR. BROWN-Right. MR. STONE-Is it going to have any effect on the building, is what I’m getting at, and access to the building? MR. BROWN-No, I would say no. MR. STONE-Okay. I just want to get it off the table, that’s all, as we’re starting to talk more actively about. MR. HAYES-That person across the street would have to be concerned, though. MR. STONE-Yes, the one that’s sitting on the roadway. Any other questions? Do you have anything more you can offer us? I mean, our problem is that our hands are fairly well tied in terms of, and we haven’t even considered the other things, although I’m not sure they come into play as much as the first one does, but that has been a stick in the mud, if you will, for every time we look at a Use Variance. MR. LUDWIG-Basically our argument was based on what we had attached, without any prior knowledge to how to obtain the financial information for those uses, and like I said, the time constraints of submitting the application. Other than that, we have discussed with the current owner, Mr. Dobert, if we do sign an annual lease agreement, we just propose to restore the building, you know, go through and make site improvements and everything on those scales, as we’ve already started, which we have pictures of the interior from what it was and from what it is. We’ve already gone through and while there’s virtually zero permeability on the property, we have set up planting boxes and things like that and started aesthetically improving the site, which is a large part of our intention in addition. MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Bryant and Mr. Hayes, you basically are saying what I’m saying, I believe, in your comments. MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. STONE-How about the rest of you? Anybody else have anything, differing opinion? MR. HAYES-I think we should table the application. MR. STONE-I think we ought to table it, and allow you to see if you can meet the test. I mean, you’ve got the test, and we can listen to the owner. Just come on up and talk on the record as part of the agent, since they’re the agent for you. MR. HAYES-He understands. MR. MC NULTY-If you’re going to table, there’s a couple of public comments that might be pertinent, just for them to be aware of them, before we send them away. MR. STONE-Okay. Let’s hear Mr. Dobert, identify himself and talk to us. MARVIN DOBERT MR. DOBERT-Marvin Dobert. I’m the owner, along with my son, and I was originally the owner, in 2001 we incorporated. So the property is now in the name of 52 Main Street, LLC. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. DOBERT-The financial aspect that you rose caught me a little off guard, to be very frank with you, but I can answer your questions. Having been in the building since mid-80’s, 50 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) through three zoning changes, and there’s been a total of four, and trying to conduct business when zoning is changed underneath you, to a lesser scale, three times, has been a challenge, to say the least. Regarding, I’m also a real estate agent. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. DOBERT-So I feel qualified to answer some of your questions that you rose. The basic problem here is building design. It’s a four walls, concrete block, with the old-fashioned lift in it that goes, well, 12 feet into the ground, with an air compressor, that was designed and built before the zoning was in Queensbury to be an automotive repair facility. Basically it still is. It’s just been used for several different purposes since then. I gave up my business to my children, who are still in business with GF Refrigeration and Heating, up in Queensbury, up on the Corinth Road, just a few miles away. Finally got the building paid for, after almost 20 years in business. It was a financial milestone, and with the modifications that’s planned for Main Street, I’m looking at underground sewers now, sewer hook-up. I’m looking at an underground new electrical utility hook-up. I’m looking at a loss of I think 15 feet on the front, but it doesn’t affect the setback because that’s one of the very well conforming buildings that we originally set back. If anything, that could be moved forward, legally, like the Cumberland Farms building was, closer to the street, legally. I’ve had Mr. Eppich, design professional, up on the Corinth Road, at Big Ventures, do some designs for me. If I’d known this issue was going to come up, I would have brought them. I had some estimates done on the design, and what my charge was to Mr. Eppich, in the sense of being a good citizen and a good citizen of Queensbury and going along with the plans that your zoning people have forwarded to us, to use as guidelines, my charge to Mr. Eppich was, I brought the plans to him, the Queensbury guidelines, and asked him to put a building together that applied to the current specifications, and would utilize the Main Street corridor improvement. The quotes came in over half a million dollars. I’m approaching 70 years old, just got out of debt with the building, and it scared the living bejesus out of me. Okay. So, what do I do? The building rents for about $1500, that complex there, a month. I’ve lost two months rent. That’s a $3,000 loss to me. It may not be significant to some here, but that’s about half of my taxes that I had to pay the Town of Queensbury, and I consider that very hard hit financially. Not to speak of the borrowing that would be required to finance the building as it was designed to the Queensbury specifications. This is the inlet corridors, Bay Street, Main Street. You’ve got some neat designs, and I wish I could conform to them. So, anyway, we thought about all of this. I’ve hashed this over with my son. I’ve hashed it over with my bean counters. I’ve looked at the plans. The conclusion I came to was that what I’d like to do is approach this expansion, so to speak, in a step manner. One I don’t have to go into a great deal of debt. The first thing I’d have to do is provide for the underground utilities. That’s about $50,000, just because there’s no foundation in there. The second thing I had to do was pay taxes. So I thought, well, considering the permitted uses for that complex right now, which are none, by just looking at the permitted uses, there are no permitted uses for a commercial for that particular facility that’s listed under most recent zoning. That got by me, and I attended every one of the meetings that you had before the zoning. MR. HAYES-You understand that you have to prove that, though. That’s the issue. I mean, ultimately the Board could agree with you, and what you’re saying. I’m not saying they will, but they could, but you have to establish factually that all those uses couldn’t, aren’t feasible. It’s not just saying, they’re not feasible. MR. STONE-Yes, but until two months ago, you had a tenant you said, with a permitted use. MR. DOBERT-It was February 1. st MR. STONE-All right, but two, three months ago, you had a tenant in there who was providing what I have to assume is a reasonable return. MR. DOBERT-Right. 51 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) MR. STONE-Okay, so, and that was a permitted use. You would agree? You better. MR. LUDWIG-I would like to point out the fact that the tenant has actually vacated the premises, would lead you to believe that he can’t survive in that location, using the building the way it is. MR. STONE-And all I’m saying is three months ago Mr. Dobert had a viable tenant in there. The fact that he left suggests, maybe suggests what you’re saying, but we have found, over our Use Variance history, that three months is a short time, and I’m not saying it’s not important to you. Obviously losing rent at $1500 a month to me would be a disaster, and I share your thought, but the point is three months does not establish, in my mind, and I don’t think all of our minds, maybe, that you can’t show a reasonable return for one of these uses. That’s a short time to try to get a new tenant, on the basis of some of the things we’ve heard. MR. HAYES-But also it just boils down to what is the Board’s acceptable level of proof, you know, and we’re telling you, acceptable level of proof that these things cannot be, are not financially viable as zoned in that location. What we’re really saying is that the fact, it has to be established factually that they can’t be, and we’re not telling you what that level is, but we are telling you tonight that this attachment, or your verbal testimony, doesn’t do that, and I’m not trying to speak for the Board, but I mean. MR. STONE-No, no. We’re not saying that. All we’re saying, if you could come in tomorrow and miraculously do a spread sheet on every one of these things, and saying, well, first of all, there’s nobody in that business in Town, therefore I can’t get, whatever, and show, with numbers. I think that’s what Mr. Hayes is trying to tell you. We need numbers. MR. HAYES-Or professional opinions that aren’t yours. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. HAYES-You have to understand that you’re the applicant. We’re asking you to establish something. It has to be from someone. It really can’t be that you say it just isn’t possible, even though it may not be. MR. STONE-You may be absolutely right. MR. HAYES-I think you are, but I mean, I’ll even say that. MR. BRYANT-I just want to comment on that. I mean, you know, some of the possible uses, I mean, the thing is a garage. You look at it, it’s a garage. That’s basically what it is, but I mean, as far as a financial, it was clear on the application. If you can’t get a reasonable return from that as it’s zoned, if your answer is no, please provide financial evidence supporting the claim. So somewhere you’ve got to provide something that says, you know, the place is going to empty. MR. STONE-I mean, it could be a statement, and we’ve had this before, where a realtor, a real estate agent, not the owner, has said, I have actively been advertising and selling this property for rent. MR. HAYES-Or a similar product in the community. MR. STONE-Yes, and there is none. Nobody wants to go into that business. We need that kind of statement. I mean, that’s a minimum. Numbers are better, but a competent financial. I mean, we had, I’ll use names, I remember was it Mark Levack. MR. HAYES-Or Bob Sears. 52 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) MR. STONE-Or Bob Sears came before us, a couple of times saying, swearing, I’ve tried to rent this for two years. Okay. We can build on two years, and put a number against that, and that says, well, that use is probably not a good one. MR. LUDWIG-Are you looking for the professional opinion of an agent such as Bob Sears, or do they have to actually have represented the property? MR. STONE-That’s the problem. Usually we’re talking people who have represented properties. MR. LUDWIG-Because Mr. Dobert has been the one that has been representing his own property, as the rentor. He does not use an agent, such as what you’re suggesting, and I’m just trying to figure out specific, I believe you’re going to table this argument until the next meeting, specifically where I can go to get this information, to satisfy your needs for this. MR. MC NULTY-You still might get it from somebody like Bob Sears or some other agent, if they can say they’ve been trying to rent similar properties on Main Street. MR. HAYES-Or can establish that they have experience with similar properties. That’s a professional opinion. MR. DOBERT-It was zoned once before. This very Board allowed it, for automotive uses. MR. STONE-In 1989. MR. DOBERT-That’s right. MR. STONE-For the owners own cars. MR. HAYES-It wasn’t the same thing. MR. STONE-That’s the difference. It wasn’t the same business. MR. DOBERT-It was for what? MR. STONE-It was for his cars. It was a leasing. He owned all of the automobiles that they serviced. At least that’s how I understand it. Is that your interpretation, Mr. Brown? MR. BROWN-I would make. MR. DOBERT-The owner of the property? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. DOBERT-I was the owner of the property. I leased it. MR. STONE-You leased it, and they got, you got a variance for them to conduct work on their own vehicles. They didn’t invite the public in. That’s the difference. It’s a subtle difference, but nevertheless it is a difference, between the permitted use and the non permitted use. MR. DOBERT-The difference being? MR. STONE-That they worked only on automobiles, or vehicles that they owned. They didn’t say to the public, come by. MR. DOBERT-It was an automotive leasing firm. MR. STONE-Right. Leasing. That means they owned the vehicles. 53 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) MR. DOBERT-Right, and people came to the office. MR. STONE-Correct. MR. DOBERT-And they leased the vehicles for a day or a week or whatever. MR. STONE-Right, and then when they came back, they oiled them and greased them on their rack, their own vehicles. It’s a hard difference to understand, but it is a difference under the Zoning Code. Am I being straightforward, gentlemen, with what I’m saying? MR. HAYES-Well, the whole point is, they’re coming in asking for a specific use, but it’s not the same use that they got a variance for. MR. STONE-Right, it’s not the same use. You’re going to take, you’re going to put an ad in the newspaper, in the phone book, on the sign, that says come in and we will, what, fix your cars up with high performance parts and so on and so forth. MR. LUDWIG-Actually we’re currently nationally advertised. MR. STONE-Yes, but you’re going to take other people’s cars. Now you’re an automotive service center. MR. LUDWIG-I would argue that it’s not going to be an automotive service center as we’re not doing repair work. We’re not going to be where you get your oil changed. If your brakes are squeaking, don’t come see us. If you would like to buy one of our products, we would like to be able to install it for you. This isn’t a garage. This is a much, much cleaner facility. We’re not storing hazardous fluids. We’re not, you know, we don’t have 55 gallon drums with used oil. Basically things like that. MR. STONE-Maybe these are the kind of things that you’ve got to write down and adequately describe. I can’t, at least describe your business to the best of your ability, in terms of what it is you do, but the problem that I see, and I think Mr. Hayes and the rest, is that you’re taking other people’s vehicles, not your own. MR. LUDWIG-I understand your point, and I’m not arguing against it, other than, I guess I am arguing against it a little bit. MR. BRYANT-I want to ask you a question. Can you tell me, when you say high performance parts, what is that? What exactly? MR. LUDWIG-High performance, I’m sure you’ve noticed the market for all these younger kids, probably between the ages of let’s say 18 to 30 years old, they have a lot of these cars you see driving around, which they like to. MR. BRYANT-Are you talking about the scoops on the hood or? MR. LUDWIG-Scoops on the hood, you know, the ground effects kids, you know, all their upgraded parts, and there is a higher end to that, where you have serious tuners who are more interested in adding horsepower performance to their vehicles, which is more along the lines of forced conduction. MR. HAYES-Too Fast, Too Furious? MR. LUDWIG-(Lost words) yes, that movie is an embarrassment to our industry. MR. HAYES-No, but certainly there’s some expensive stuff that can be put in cars, people would be surprised. 54 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) MR. LUDWIG-It would surprise you very much, how much money people spend on their vehicles to get that special look that they want. MR. DOBERT-Mr. Stone, you and I have been dominating this conversation. May I ask other members of this Board what their opinions are on this issue? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would just offer, isn’t there an auto glass replacement place on one of those streets near by there? MR. LUDWIG-That’s Adirondack Auto down on (lost words), which is literally a stone’s throw away, not to mention the new Della Lincoln, Mercury dealer, which is. MR. STONE-In Glens Falls. MR. LUDWIG-Right at the other side of, yes, I do understand that it’s on the other side of the stop light, but nevertheless, it is on the same street in the same course of travel. I don’t think that it’s out of the ordinary for. MR. UNDERWOOD-Would an auto parts store be an available use on Main Street at the present time? MR. BROWN-A retail business? MR. UNDERWOOD-A retail business. MR. BROWN-A retail business that sold auto parts? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-But the fact that they would be installing the parts would mean, it doesn’t fall within. MR. BROWN-That’s where you cross the line into auto service, correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because I think it could be a semantic call from the sense that it’s not a repair facility oil change. MR. BROWN-That determination’s been made, and I don’t think the applicant’s here to argue that. Certainly no appeal has been filed to address that. I think they’re here before you because they agree that they’re an auto service business and they’re here seeking a Use Variance to be established there. MR. HAYES-Even though it’s getting to be appeal season. MR. LUDWIG-If I could interject. I was unaware of the availability to appeal for that determination, as to my never having done this before and us being. MR. STONE-You can always appeal any determination, any written determination by the Zoning Administrator. MR. LUDWIG-Okay. Since we’re already at this process, I believe it may be our best course of action would be to continue with trying to obtain the variance for that, provided we can give you acceptable proof of a hardship there financially. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, let me open the public hearing. 55 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) MR. DOBERT-I still haven’t heard from these other members. MR. STONE-I’m going to ask them. Just give me a chance. MR. BRYANT-Before you do that, Mr. Chairman, I do have one more question of Staff. Mr. Underwood brought up a very interesting point. Supposing I was a tweeter and I sold car stereos, and I installed those car stereos, just like Ray Electronics. Is Ray Electronics an automobile service area? They install car radios. I know. I had a car radio put in there. So, if that’s the case, would that make them a service area? MR. LUDWIG-Yes. MR. BROWN-Well, I think we want to be careful to not mix two different things. That property is in a completely different zoning district, a zoning district that may allow auto service and sales and service. How their approvals have been issued I don’t know. MR. BRYANT-I just want to understand. I want to understand what makes, that’s why I asked about the performance. I want to understand what makes it an auto repair center, or service center. That’s all. MR. BROWN-Right. Once you start touching the car and putting parts on, now it’s a service center. Now it’s auto service. MR. UNDERWOOD-What was the rationale behind not allow that on Main Street? I mean, given the fact? MR. BROWN-I can’t answer that question. MR. STONE-Okay. Here’s what I’m going to do. We can ask all the questions, as we normally do. I’m going to open the public hearing, because I’m told that maybe somebody wants to speak. I’m also told there’s a couple of letters, because if we’re going to table it, if we get to that point, I want the applicant to have the benefit of all of the information that is available in this room tonight, but go ahead, Joyce. MRS. HUNT-Well, I thought I heard you say that some of the parts you sell, but you don’t install. Is that what you said, or? MR. LUDWIG-We would like to be able to install the parts that we sell. We don’t believe that the retail side of the business can survive without. MRS. HUNT-But you did say that some people would buy it and want to do it themselves. MR. LUDWIG-Of course. That is a very large part of that industry is that some will. MRS. HUNT-That’s what I thought. MR. LUDWIG-But most of the higher end stuff that we sell that we can actually make money on is more of a higher level of knowledge required to install those parts. MR. STONE-Any other questions? MR. RIGBY-Yes, I have one quick one, I think. What other uses was this building, what else was this building used for, prior to the leasing company? MR. DOBERT-I’ve owned the building since the mid-80’s. At that point, I was in the refrigeration business as a sales person, heavy refrigeration, for another company. I bought this building, in anticipation of future. It initially was used as a sales office for the refrigeration firm 56 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) that I worked for. We just use the office, and that’s where the garage’s leasing came into play, for the super saver. After that, I went into business for myself and opened up GF Refrigeration, and used the building for a mechanical firm, housed the trucks, housed the vehicles, got a multi-purpose building. MR. RIGBY-It was the base of your operations and such? MR. DOBERT-Right. MR. STONE-You worked on your trucks there? No, that’s perfectly legal if you did. MR. HAYES-Maybe not. MR. STONE-Maybe not, but it was a Use Variance, though. MR. HAYES-It doesn’t matter now because that was historical. MR. STONE-Yes. Okay. MR. RIGBY-So the leasing company was the only company where the repair of automobiles was done, when the leasing company was there? MR. DOBERT-Well, I would say it was probably the only, except for one exception, it was the primary application for automotive related stuff. MR. RIGBY-Okay. MR. DOBERT-But after GF moved, the primary tenant was Sign Craft, and this brings up the question that James brought up. Again, if the Sign Company makes a sign for a vehicle, brings the vehicle in the garage and installs the sign, that’s why I hesitated when you asked the question about the conforming usage. Is that an automotive application? The point I’m making is that, if I lease, the point I’m making is that there’s a big gray area associated with automotive usage, and what if I lease to State Farm Insurance? MR. STONE-Okay. Let me try to explain to you. A determination has been made by the Zoning Administrator, saying you require a Use Variance, to do this business. You accepted that determination by coming and applying for the Use Variance. That doesn’t preclude them making, can they make an appeal now? Are they within 60 days? MR. HAYES-No, 30 days. MR. STONE-Thirty days. MR. HAYES-Theoretically accepted it if he didn’t challenge it within 30 days. MR. STONE-Right. MR. HAYES-But actually I don’t know if he ever knew you made a determination, really. MR. BROWN-I’m not sure if we drafted a letter. Did we send you guys a letter? MR. LUDWIG-No, I believe I had brought something in describing briefly what our intended use for the facility was, and I believe he did make a determination, saying that we would have to apply for a variance. I was told verbally. I was unaware that I could change that determination, or appeal for another determination. MR. STONE-You were, okay. 57 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) MR. LUDWIG-And that’s my fault, yes, and I have not. MR. HAYES-It’s not even a fault. Most people don’t even know, unless you come here. MR. BRYANT-One more question before you open the public hearing. Mr. Dobert, how long was the building empty between being used as a refrigerating place and a car leasing place and then again between the car leasing place and the sign people. Was the building empty at all? Where it wasn’t used, wasn’t rented, wasn’t occupied? MR. DOBERT-That’s a hard question to answer. My business started from zero. So I kind of slid into it, so to speak. When I put my slate up, I can’t remember. MR. BRYANT-No, I’m talking about from the time that you no longer did the refrigeration, you rented it to a car leasing place, right? Is that my understanding? So that was there a space or time when it was empty? MR. DOBERT-(Lost words) two refrigeration elements, and then the car leasing was in between. The company I worked for originally, and the leasing, and then my own company. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So then the car leasing place moved out, and you rented it to the sign people. Was it empty? MR. DOBERT-This was a long span, sir. MR. BRYANT-Yes, yes. I want to know. My question is, you had tenants, okay. I just want to verify was it easy to get tenants? Did the sign guy come the next day after the automobile leasing guy moved out? I mean, I’m trying to establish the need here. That’s all. MR. DOBERT-Yes. The short answer is that it’s not easy to get tenants, but the way I have always managed it is that, through communication, through planning, I’ve always tried to minimize the vacancy, because that hurts. Okay. So if I know that I’m going to close the business up in 2005, I start looking for a tenant now. So the planning process, you know, in the case, to answer your question, the day I went out, the sign company moved in. So there was zero vacancy, and I chalk that up to good planning, but it was not easy to do that. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody else have a question? I’m going to open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on this subject? Please come forward, sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BRUCE ALLEN MR. ALLEN-Thank you. My name’s Bruce Allen. I live on Richardson Street, which is around the corner from the garage here. I have a few issues that I’d like the Board to consider, while they’re considering this variance. Living on Richardson Street for 10 years now, I’ve observed traffic patterns, and also the make up of the neighborhood, being a residential area, it’s within a block of this zoning. We’re down, I don’t know how familiar you are with Richardson Street itself. MR. HAYES-Are you north or south of this? MR. ALLEN-South of Main Street, okay. When you go south of Main Street on Richardson Street, there’s a few safety issues that I have concerns with. One of them is the fact that there’s a rise in the street, and you can’t see down below it as it goes down over the hill and the cars coming up, creates a very hazardous traffic situation. The intersections of Fourth Street, Fifth Street, and Richardson Street are also another hazard. There’s a hazard at the bottom of 58 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) Richardson Street hill where it turns in to a very sharp turn. My concern with this type of business in this area is the fact that, at this present time, over the past 10 years living there, I’ve observed a number of vehicles literally racing up and down the hill side by side. The area has been fraught with problems of noisy radios, noisy mufflers, a lot of violations of posted signs, such as stop signs on the corners. There’s been a number of accidents on that road, up and down, throughout the years. My concern with this type of business is if you’re going to install a high performance part in a vehicle to enhance it’s performance, to increase its horsepower, to increase it’s speed, it’s handling, it’s agility, the customer’s going to want to test it. I applaud young people for being entrepreneurs and wanting to open a business. It’s great. I really think they’re doing a great thing. However, I think they picked a really bad location, for the community area. There are a lot of families, it’s used every day as a walking street, people walk dogs. Kids ride bikes. At this time, it’s already pretty dangerous, and I feel that adding this type of a business, 100 yards down the road, would encourage that to be even worse, and listening to some of the testimony that I’ve heard tonight, coming from these folks, and living down the street from the residence, from this building, I haven’t seen it vacant all that long in between, over the last 10 years. It may be difficult to rent it, grant it, I don’t know that, but I have seen a lot of businesses in there. The Glens Falls, GF Heating, I believe it was, was in there for a considerable amount of time. Evidently successful at it, considering the amount of time that they were in there. I don’t know the circumstances that the sign shop left under. I was under the impression that they were expanding, but I really don’t know. They were in there for a fairly considerable amount of time, not a real long time. Again, my biggest concern is for the residents in the area that are, that it becomes very densely populated within a block of there. The typical use of the road, right now, has been very fraught with a lot of dangerous driving, and I really am very strongly feeling that a business of this type would encourage even more of that, and another issue that you may want to consider, with putting a business in that area, is that lot is very small. If you look at the parking areas in the front, you may be able to fit two or three cars. I’m sure they want their business to flourish, and grow, and if it does, they’re going to quickly outgrow that parking area, and they’re going to have cars very close to the edge of the road, it could create some more hazards, and I guess that pretty much covers everything that I’d like to bring up, and, you know, again, I’d just like you guys to consider the safety of the neighborhoods in the area, and what I have personally seen in that area going on now with vehicles, and the fact that given a performance shop, and high performance parts going in, customers will probably want to test it, and it’s a very, very inviting strip for them to do that. Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak on this subject? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-Okay. We’ve got some notes and correspondence. I’ve got one form here, it’s a Complaint Investigation Inspector’s Report, anonymous complaint, it says “a lot of kids fixing cars and burning the tires”, and I suspect what they mean is spinning the tires, corner of Main and Richardson, TB Racing. I’ve got another anonymous letter from a concerned resident, it says, “I am an elderly woman that lives near the corner of Richardson Street and Main Street in Queensbury. I am concerned about the new Racing Store going in there which I believe is RTB Racing or so the door reads. Since they have been there a lot of loud car stereos playing, cars spinning their tire and kids working on there cars in and out side the shop till way past 11 p.m. some nights. I was told by my other neighbors that they need a New York State license to work on cars also. If this is true do they need to get that from you?? If so take my letter about my concerns. The loud music, loud cars, loud kids at all hours of the night, with some of the cars parking in the street. I do not wish to give my name because of the kids that hang out there may possibly damage my home. Thanks for your ear, Sincerely, a concerned resident” Now there’s an attached. MR. STONE-Unfortunately, if people don’t sign, it’s hard to take them seriously. MR. HAYES-I’m not even sure that it should be read into the record. That’s setting a dangerous precedent. MR. LUDWIG-Actually, if I could respond to that. Just in response. 59 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) MR. STONE-Wait a minute. We’re not done yet. MR. LUDWIG-Okay. MR. STONE-Is that another unknown? MR. MC NULTY-This is a note that is on Town of Queensbury Community Development – Fire Marshal stationary. It says, “Received an anonymous letter from a resident near the corner of Richardson and Main complaining about the activities going on at the above address. Specifically, the complaint states that there is loud music a night, cars spinning their tires, and motor vehicles being worked on late at night sometimes past 11 p.m. A check of our files reveals that the subjects in question do not have a CO for the building they are occupying. They are currently seeking a zoning variance to occupy the building with what is currently a nonconforming business. I met with Mike Ludwig and advised him of the complaint. I also advised him that he is occupying the building illegally as he does not possess a valid CO. He stated that they are not conducting any business, just setting up the place in anticipation of obtaining the variance. I advised him that he is still occupying the building, in my opinion, and he needs to either file for his CO or leave the building. He stated that he has filled out the paperwork for his CO, but says that he was advised by Craig Brown to hold off on filing the CO paperwork until the variance has been obtained. I advised him to file the paperwork immediately and to contact Mr. Brown for further guidance. Mr. Ludwig stated that he would take care of it.” That’s all we’ve got for now. I jus thought they should be aware that there are these kind of complaints. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LUDWIG-Can we respond to these types of complaints? MR. STONE-Let me close the public hearing, and you certainly may. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Go. MR. LUDWIG-I believe Brad wanted to address those. MR. LA CROSS-Yes. In response to those, a lot of those are assumptions of the type of business that we have. One of the big promotional things that we have is that we want to keep these in safe areas. If you want to drag race, you bring it to a drag strip. If you want to race your car, you bring it to the track. There’s plenty of areas to do these things, and we promote that, and that is something we try to instill in everyone. Another thing I’d like to add to that is that the end of the road which we’re on is a bus stop, and we’ve been nice enough to allow and actually provide areas for the parents of the children to park in the parking lot because there’s no safe area for those children to get off and get into the vehicles. MR. STONE-You mean a school bus stop? MR. LA CROSS-Correct. So, I mean, we’re more than willing to work with the community on things. We’re trying not to cause a big uproar. We’re trying to be professional. MR. STONE-I hope that you don’t take anything that we’ve said personally. I mean, we’re talking. MR. LA CROSS-No. We understand it’s not you making the complaint. You’re merely reading it. 60 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) MR. STONE-Well, not even the complaint. I mean, that’s the public has commented, but anything we’ve said tonight. We are following the mandates of our position, and it’s very difficult at some times. You asked, Mr. Dobert asked that we ask the whole Board. I will ask the whole Board what they think, but I caution you, let them talk. We’re not going to get into a challenge. They’re going to state wherever they are, and then we’ll see what we’re going to do. So, having said that, I would like to start with Jaime. MR. HAYES-Well, I think, in this particular case, no one is making a determination tonight. I guess I should speak for myself. I’m not making a determination tonight that your claim is with or without merit. As I look at the rest of the test, I think this is a very viable Use Variance. The Use Variance is a very tough standard, but in this particular case, I think there are some components of the test that are met in my mind, but, in the Use Variance, which you guys don’t have experience with, every part of the test has to be met to get an up or down decision, or to get a positive decision in your favor. So if you don’t have part of one of the components, then you’re really not in a position to go forward with a Variance, and I think myself, and I think some of the other members of the Board are saying, that when it comes to the evidence that’s required to establish that this is not, a reasonable return isn’t possible under those other allowable uses, and we’re not comfortable that you’ve established that factually yet. You may feel that way, and Mr. Dobert obviously feels very strongly that way, and I’m not disagreeing with how you feel, but you can understand why when it comes to a variance that affects the greater community, that stays with the property, and we’re required to employ a certain evidentiary standard to that test, that it can’t be your testimony that decides that. It has to be some factual basis. Certainly you can provide us with history and, you know, like Allan, I thought that was great, you know, determining what has been your lease experience, those things, but somebody has to determine the financial evidence that supports your claims, because they’re claims. I mean, you’re making this claim that you don’t think that it can be used. That’s still a claim. It has to be supported, and speaking for myself, that test has to be met evidentiary wise, and if it has, then you’re going to have a full hearing that night and people are going to use their own judgment to that effect, but you can’t do it without it, or at least I can’t go forward without it. MR. STONE-So you’re suggesting we table that? MR. HAYES-Correct. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I, too, need something more. With Use Variance, it’s a pain in the neck to qualify on a Use Variance, because you do need to sit down with a list of activities that are permitted in that zone, and for each one, show that it’s not viable for this particular property. So for instance, if duplex homes are a permitted use in that area, then there’s two questions. Could the place be converted to a duplex home. I think you’ve kind of indicated no, or would it be reasonable to tear down the current structure and build a new duplex home? Now, again, probably the answer is no, but what we need is something that says, you’ve got an indication from somebody that it would cost X number of dollars to tear the place down and it would cost X number of dollars to build a duplex home, and show that that cost is ridiculous, based on the value of the property or what your resources are. Likewise, with the existing building. There was a sign shop in there. What are the chances of getting another sign shop in there, or somebody else with a retail use, or even for you guys. You’ve got part of your business is a retail business. Part of it you hope to be an installation business. Some indication from you that the retail business by itself would not support you paying rent, so that you would not rent it, if that’s the only thing you could do is just a retail business, but you’ve got to go down through the list on each one of those activities and show some figures, and where possible, as we’ve indicated earlier, if it’s a case of, I can’t rent it for another sign shop or retail use, something from a realtor other than somebody directly connected with the property which says, yes, we’ve had extreme difficulty renting retail uses on that street, or I’ve tried to rent it and I can’t, but something to produce that kind of substantiation. So I’d be in favor of tabling at this point to give them a chance to give that a shot. 61 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) MR. STONE-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would say we’d have to table. MR. STONE-Leo? MR. RIGBY-Yes, I agree, too. I think we need to get some more information and then look at it again. MR. STONE-Al? MR. BRYANT-I would like to see some financial data, but I’ve got to tell the other Board members, this is typical of a couple of buildings in that area. They were built for a specific thing. Yes, it probably could be another retail area, as Mr. McNulty suggested, but it would have to be something having to do with installing it on vehicles like a sign place, storing vehicles, and the retail space in that small room, and I was there, and that’s why I remember it was a sign place, when the sign place was there, and the retail area is very small. The majority of the building is two bays. So, you know, in my view, the thing is built like a garage. There are very few uses that it can have. Be thankful that the place is rented, and if we had to vote on it tonight, I would vote in favor of it, but I’d like to see some financial data, but I think you have to be blind not to see that it’s a garage. MR. STONE-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I feel we should table it. I don’t think we’ve had competent financial evidence to prove that it can’t be used any other way. I mean, whether it can or not, we have not had the competent financial evidence. MR. STONE-Well, I certainly agree that we need more information, but I also don’t want to lose sight of the fact, and I think it was Mr. Hayes who said it, that our charge, which is summarized on the application, but it says, and I just want to read it so that we’re all on the same page, to allow use not otherwise allowed in zoning, an applicant must demonstrate to the Board unnecessary hardship. Such demonstration includes all of the following for each and every permitted use. It’s a very strict test. One, cannot realize a reasonable return substantial as shown by competent financial evidence. Two, alleged hardship is unique and does not apply to substantial portion of district or neighborhood. Well, Mr. Bryant made some reference to other, maybe not substantial, but other buildings of a similar ilk. Requested variance will not alter essential character of the neighborhood. Mr. Allen from the public, a neighbor, is concerned that it might alter the thing. That’s one of the things that we have to consider, and, four, alleged hardship has not been self created, and also if approved, shall grant minimum variance necessary, and may impose reasonable conditions. So, all of these things have to be met, and the best thing that we can do for you is to table it. I know it doesn’t help Mr. Dobert and doesn’t help you, but we can’t, I mean, I think you heard it, I mean, I’m not making, I’m speaking for everybody now, because at least six and a half people, Mr. Bryant is the only one who said he would possibly vote tonight, but the rest of us all said we need competent financial evidence, at a minimum, and therefore, I propose that we table the Use Variance. MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE NO. 44-2004 MIKE LUDWIG, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: 52 Main Street. For up to 62 days, to allow the applicants to provide, at a minimum, the competent financial evidence to show that all uses cannot provide a reasonable return, and comment on other areas of this test. Duly adopted this 26 day of May, 2004, by the following vote: th 62 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) MR. LUDWIG-I don’t mean to interrupt. Is there a possibility that we could respond a little further to some of the comments, complaints that were made of the thing before you table this, to put them in the record, or should we just wait until after 62 days? MR. STONE-If you think there’s something, I certainly don’t stop people from talking, if you want a couple of comments. Let me just. MR. HAYES-But if they’re going to come back. MR. STONE-If you’re going to come back. MR. LUDWIG-I would just like to address them now, so that they’re fresh in your mind, as are the complaints that have been brought to the table. The gentlemen had spoke of altering the neighborhood and the safety of his neighbors on Richardson Street. I’d like to point out that absolutely zero percent of our traffic travels down Richardson Street. We are a retail business that is on Main Street. Our business comes in from Main Street and leaves by the same way. MR. STONE-Again, that’s your opinion, but that’s why we’re here. We have to look at all of those things, and we appreciate your thought. MR. LUDWIG-I understand that, but I’d also like to say that I have also, over the time that I have been there, we spend probably about 16 hours a day there trying to get this place in order, as to what we would like to see it become, doing improvements to this site. We have also noticed the traffic patterns, of which I’d like to say that there are considerable people coming out of Richardson Street, in rather large trucks, which I would like to say are responsible for the tire squealing, but they want to show the little guy in the sport compact car what a real vehicle is. Other than that, I have also seen four wheelers come flying down that street with no regard for pedestrians or other vehicles, as a matter of fact, having almost run into one, coming out of our facility there, much less turning left on Main Street, driving down both lanes and doing wheelies and on and off the road, which is having nothing to do with our business, and further that Brad and I are both avid members of the FCCA, and we do not endorse any kind of street racing or anything of that nature. We encourage people that come into our store to take it to the track. We have photos of track racing, and that’s firmly where we believe it should be. Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you. I think you’re to be commended for that. AYES: Mr. Rigby, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Bryant ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico MR. STONE-So, Al, you’re the only one who voted no? MR. BRYANT-I guess. MR. STONE-No, I just, I got distracted. Okay. All right. So, get the information as quickly as you can. Keep in mind that the date, the deadline for the June meeting has come and gone. So you want to get that information over the next two weeks. MR. HAYES-For July. MR. STONE-For July. MR. LUDWIG-We may be out of business before we’re in business, is all I’m going to state further, because both Brad and I have quit our full-time jobs in order to attack this full-time. We have been delayed already, and I understand that it’s my responsibility to come prepared to this 63 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) meeting, but I’ve never dealt with it before. I think this may be our last time we see you guys, unfortunately, and to further demonstrate Mr. Dobert’s hardship of renting the facility, we won’t be able to afford to probably stay there. So maybe we’ll see you and maybe we don’t. Hopefully a miracle will happen. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. MR. LUDWIG-Thank you very much. MR. STONE-Did you want to say something, sir? MR. DOBERT-Just, I’d like to just real briefly address the, as I look at that building up there, the usage and the obvious intended usage of that building I should think should be very apparent to. MR. STONE-Okay. Sir, let me just tell you, this is what the law tells us we have to do, and if we don’t follow it, we are liable for people going to court and saying, how could you do that. You didn’t follow the rules. So we’re taking our guide from the Zoning Code, from the State of New York, and that’s where this comes. Actually, the Use test comes from the courts. There was a decision made, I don’t know how many years ago, but there was a case in court, specific law, and I’m sure that counselor back there could probably quote it, but there it was a case called Otto vs. something, and that’s where the Use Variance requirements came from. That’s where we have to go. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Stone, it was the law of that case. MR. STONE-No, it wasn’t. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, it was. MR. STONE-Mr. Salvador, please. We’re not going to get into a discussion. I’m sorry, but it is late, we have another piece of business that we have to do, and I’m afraid I’m going to have to cut off conversation. We’ve done our job, so far. I’m not sure it’s liked, but we’ve done our job. Mr. Brown? MR. BROWN-Good evening. I guess, first of all, I’d like to extend an apology to this Board, and to the Collins’, for not appearing last week when the actual Appeal was before this Board. I think, had I been here, I think I probably could have answered a lot of the questions that came up, dispelled much of the misinformation that I think the Board was given, and likely the Collins’ probably would have gotten to the Variance application, possibly even had a variance issued, at least that’s the tone I may be getting from the minutes. I guess what I’m going to be asking you to do, and I’ve prepared a memo and I think everybody probably has received a copy of it. I don’t know if you’ve all had a chance to read it. What I’m going to ask you to do is to re-hear the appeal that you decided on last week for the Collins property up on Lake George at Holiday Point Road. The reasons that I’m suggesting that you do that are outlined in the memo. I’d be happy to read it for you, if you’d like me to. I don’t know if anybody’s had a chance to look at it yet, or? MR. STONE-Do you want him to read it? MR. HAYES-Maybe if you could just actually say the highlights of it. MR. BROWN-Well, I can read it. It’s only a page and a half long. It should be in the record anyway, I guess. It says, “Dear Chairman Stone and Zoning Board members: The Town of Queensbury and its Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) have a long held position regarding the “grandfathering” of existing structures. The ZBA has held, on numerous occasions, that the 64 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) rebuilding of a structure in violation of the setback requirements is not permitted under the Continuation section of the Zoning Ordinance. The recent decision associated with the above referenced appeal”, which is the Peter & Christina Collins Notice of Appeal No. 2-2004, “represents an undisputed departure from this historically consistent position. Upon review of the meeting minutes from the May 19, 2004 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, relative to the above referenced matter, I need to inform you of several inaccurate statements made. Specifically, comments offered by Mr. Lapper, Mr. Flansburg and Mr. Martin do not accurately reflect their conversations with Dave Hatin, John O’Brien and me regarding the demolition and rebuilding of a portion of the Collins home. In my review of the meeting minutes I noted several inaccuracies. I offer the following as examples of the inaccurate statements made. On exactly what several occasions during the meeting the Appellants’ agents referred to doing “… the building permit showed ” when describing the demolition and rebuilding of a significant portion of the home. The building permit plans, (attached) submitted by Collins, clearly indicate interior alterations and existing exterior walls to remain. This is a significant misrepresentation. Mr. Martin offered, referring to a conversation he had on site with John interpreted what he said to mean to go ahead O’Brien, that he “……”. A meeting notes memo, from John O’Brien, in the building permit file indicates that no demolition was discussed and further, that the applicant should contact the Town Zoning Administrator prior to any further progress in order to be sure that their plan was acceptable. (O’Brien memo attached) Mr. Flansburg We had a meeting on site indicated: “.” Neither Dave Hatin nor I have ever met on site with Mr. Flansburg. We did have with Mr. Flansburg on April 1, 2004 in the Town office building. At this meeting, Mr. Flansburg admitted that he, personally, directed the contractor to demolish We actually the structure, without first checking with the Town. Mr. Lapper indicated that “ requested in writing, before we made the Appeal …” when responding to the question of whether or not a written determination was issued. I find nothing in our files requesting any determination on this matter prior to the filing of the appeal. Therefore, based on the specific discrepancies addressed herein, I think that it would be most appropriate for the Zoning Board of Appeals to rehear Appeal 2-2004 as it appears as though the findings in this matter may have been based on misinformation. I will be available to answer all questions regarding our conversations with the Appellants agents as well as all questions of the Board. If the Zoning Board of Appeals is comfortable with its decision I hereby request a detailed clarification of the decision. Given the implications of this new and precarious decision we at the Town, as well as the public, need to be certain of the intent of the ZBA findings in order to properly address future situations of this type. For scheduling purposes, the Board may wish to consider an upcoming regular ZBA meeting date if a rehearing is agreed upon as the notification requirements must be observed for a rehearing.” So, without getting into the merits of the actual Appeal, was the decision correct or not, I think my concerns are with the process, and I don’t think accurate information was given to the Board, and I think that information that was presented obviously affected the decision, and I think that needs to be corrected. MR. BRYANT-Are you appealing the ruling of the ZBA? MR. BROWN-I’m requesting that the Zoning Board re-hear that appeal. That’s correct. STEFANIE BITTER MS. BITTER-Is it possible, Chairman, for (lost words) to make a statement? MR. STONE-No, for the moment, this is request to us. I mean, I’m not even sure the public should be here, but we’re a public meeting. Any comments gentlemen, lady? (Two Board members said they weren’t there. Couldn’t distinguish which ones!) MR. BROWN-Well, I think it important to note that in order for this re-hearing to be forwarded, a motion has to come from one of the Zoning Board members, in order to re-hear the application, and then that motion has to be passed unanimously by the Board members that are present that are considering that re-hearing. So, I’m not asking that you consider it to vote on it tonight. I think I’m asking you to, if you want to reconvene with those members that were 65 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) present that night, that’s fine. If the Board members here are comfortable to vote on it, that’s fine as well. I think the meeting minutes are there. They speak for themselves. Certainly if you want to take some time to digest those before you make a decision, I just want to bring this information to your attention. MR. BRYANT-Do you want to refresh my memory. I know that the Board voted in favor of the appellant. Then, did they go on for their? MR. STONE-No. I moved that we didn’t have to. MR. BRYANT-That’s right. At that point they didn’t have to. Yes. Now I remember. MR. HAYES-It has to be unanimous, though, Craig? I thought? MR. STONE-Of those who were there, or those right now? MR. BROWN-Right now. If you make a motion tonight, in order for it to pass, it would have to be unanimous. MR. HAYES-To make a re-hearing? MR. BROWN-To re-hear the Appeal. That’s correct. MR. HAYES-That’s in either direction? So if the Appellant was asking us to re-hear an appeal, it would have to be? MR. BROWN-Yes, absolutely, either way. MR. HAYES-Same standard? MR. BROWN-Same standard. MR. STONE-I mean, I certainly am concerned with the statements made by Mr. Brown, not his statements, but the fact that we may have been mislead. I mean, I don’t want to, it’s bad enough we get into he said, she said too often, but two of you, three of you, have said that’s not what happened. Unfortunately, none of you were here. MR. BROWN-And again, I apologize for that. MR. STONE-No, I understand. MR. BROWN-I made a clear indication to both Mr. Frank, and I had spoken to you earlier in the day requesting whether or not you felt I needed to be at the meeting. Why I wasn’t called, I don’t know. I was a moment’s notice away. MR. STONE-I don’t think we recognized where we were going. I mean, I didn’t recognize, certainly, the implications. MR. BROWN-And the perfect time to table it. MR. STONE-I understand, and then we would have gotten into he said, she said again, you know, at that point in time. Right now, you have given us written statements, your own, and you’ve quoted from Mr. O’Brien and from Mr. Hatin, all of which I would like to hear if we do re-hear this thing. I mean, I think it’s, you know, again, it’s like the one letter that we just read, that we ended up not reading because the woman didn’t give her name, I assume woman. I don’t know, didn’t give her name. I need face to face. I am troubled that certainly you make the comment, and I know he’s your associate, but I am concerned that an officer of the court 66 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) may have made a misstatement, or condoned misstatements, or have been mislead by his clients. MR. HAYES-It could just be a legitimate difference of opinion, but that has to be determined. MR. STONE-It has to be determined. That’s what I, that’s all I’m saying. I mean, I don’t know where I would go, but certainly I think that I, for one, would like to see us hear it with everybody in the room at the same time. MR. HAYES-I agree. MS. BITTER-I have a question as to the standing of the Zoning Administrator. I have a couple of questions regarding the standing of the Zoning Administrator being able to make this appeal, as well as the fact that notice hasn’t been provided, other than that we received this submission yesterday and the only reason I knew this was happening was a little bit of eaves dropping, and I’m concerned that those issues need to be addressed before even a motion can be made for the re-hearing. MR. STONE-That would be a valid point. MS. BITTER-And I know that Mr. Lapper had ever intention of responding to Mr. Brown’s memo tomorrow, and if we had that opportunity, I’m not sure if a motion can be made prior to the June meeting, if you felt that it needed to be dealt with immediately, or if some sort of special meeting could be dealt with, but I just, I feel very uncomfortable with making this motion at this time, due to those two points. MR. STONE-Well, it sounds like a couple of things we could do. We could put our action on hold, could we not? MR. BROWN-Well, you could, and if you want, I’d be happy to respond to the two concerns that the Counselor has raised. MR. STONE-Go ahead. MR. BROWN-I think any aggrieved party can appeal a decision or request a re-hearing from the Zoning Board, and I think, as the Zoning Administrator for the Town of Queensbury, I represent the Town of Queensbury Code, and I think that the decision that was made by the Zoning Board has maybe farther reaching implications than everybody realizes when it comes to demolition and reconstruction of a home, and without getting into the actual Appeal or project, demolition or reconstruction of a home that’s in violation of the setbacks. I think it’s, and I’ll say it again, I think it was a dangerous decision that you guys made. MR. STONE-But if we wanted to just put a stay on what we did last week, I don’t know if that’s even possible, say we’re still in the process, that we’re keeping the public hearing open. I’m making analogies. MR. BROWN-No, I think you’ve decided and it’s a closed matter, unless you decide to re-open it. MS. BITTER-I think in his point, I understand that he’s arguing that he’s an aggrieved party, but even the Code identifies when you limit the Zoning Administrator’s powers, it says, he has the ability to interpret the Ordinance unless such interpretation is overturned by the Zoning Board of Appeals. That’s exactly what you guys did on the last meeting. So that’s where I have a question of as to whether or not standing even exists for the Zoning Administrator to come and claim as an aggrieved party. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, can I interject here? 67 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) MR. STONE-Yes. MR. BRYANT-From a personal perspective, I was opposed to the Appeal anyway, okay, in the very beginning, but in this particular instance, the way I look at it, you know, we had our day in court. We made our decision. Even though I voted against it, and I was in the minority, and I understand that there’s new information, but, frankly, it should have been presented that night, and now it’s over, and we ought to just move on. I don’t now what the implications are. I know what you’re saying that somewhere down the line somebody’s going to say, well, in this particular case you said this was the definition of demolition and repair versus replacement, and this may become an issue, and I understand that, but the reality is, we’ve already gone through this once. I don’t know that it’s fair to the applicant to go through it again, and I think that we made a decision, and this should be it. MR. BROWN-I think if we want to talk fairness, I think we want to be sure not to overlook the fairness to the previous decisions that the Zoning Board has made, and I can bring you a stack of meeting minutes where virtually every member on this Board has made the statement, you tear it down, you lose the right to rebuild it. I think that’s been a long held position, a long held determination that’s been held by this Board, and I think what you did, the determination that was made on May 19, flies in the face of that position. th MR. BRYANT-And also what ends up happening at this point is this could be a never-ending process, because what could happen if the Board then votes again in favor of the Appellant, we could come back and say, well, this is not accurate and let’s reopen it. I mean, I think that this is a dangerous statement by reopening it. We ought to just let sleeping dogs lie. MR. BROWN-Well, I think it’s also dangerous, too, if you withhold, or not withhold, uphold a decision and a determination that you made that was based on misinformation. MS. BITTER-But that hasn’t been responded to by the actual applicant yet, as to Mr. Brown’s memo’s. MR. BROWN-And the Board decides to re-hear it, then the Appellant and the Appellant’s agents would get a chance to do that. MR. STONE-Absolutely. MR. BROWN-There’s no requirement that we notify them that we asked for re-hearing. There’s no requirement that we have to notify them. MR. STONE-Okay. I don’t know what the risk is to re-hear it. MR. BROWN-You can always find the same answer. I think in order to solidify and clarify the process, not the details of the application, but what the process is, you get the information, you get the accurate information, and then you make a decision, and I don’t think that’s happened here. MS. BITTER-But on any other occasion when any other individual, as an aggrieved party, would come to the Board and say that they were appealing or looking for a re-hearing, at that time, it would be done at a meeting where the actual applicant would have notice that this was occurring. Am I incorrect in making that statement? MR. STONE-If you’re asking us not to do it now, tonight, I have no problem with that. MS. BITTER-That would be what I’m asking. MR. STONE-But that’s the minimum, that’s all you’re asking? 68 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) MS. BITTER-At this time, due to the fact that I’m aware that Mr. Brown’s memo exists and we have to respond to that, which we plan to do. MR. BROWN-I would argue that they don’t have to respond to it. It wasn’t a memo that was intended for Mr. Collins or the Appellants. It was a memo that was intended for the Zoning Board of Appeals that’s requesting you to re-hear the application. MS. BITTER-But I think, due to the circumstances, it requires a response. MR. BROWN-And I think that response would be unfair unless it was during the re-hearing of the Appeal. I don’t think you want to get into a he said, she said unless you’re talking about the actual Appeal. MR. RIGBY-What would be the process if that memo didn’t come from you, but came from someone else? MR. BROWN-If it came from an aggrieved party, a neighbor? MR. RIGBY-Right. MR. BROWN-Well, then I think you’d be faced with the same decision. Do you want to re-open it and re-hear it. MR. RIGBY-Would there have to be a response from the other side, prior to the Appeal? MR. BROWN-No. MR. RIGBY-So we’re following the same process that we would follow if it were anyone? MR. BROWN-Correct. If you make the decision to re-hear it, then absolutely, we do the same notification, public hearing, the Appellants get to come and state their case. MR. HAYES-So tonight’s more of a procedural thing, it’s not a fact finding part of it. It’s a procedural question. MR. BROWN-Whether you want to re-open it and address it again, or whether you want to stand by the decision you made. That’s all. MR. RIGBY-So we have to treat your letter as if it was coming from anybody, not just the Zoning Administrator, right? So in other words, if it were someone who was an aggrieved party, not you, we would follow the exact same process as we’re following now? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. RIGBY-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I think there’s a little difference here. Craig is assuming that at least some of us made the decision based on what we heard in regards who promised who what at the time, and that’s certainly one issue here. I think another issue, it strikes me more as I didn’t make my decision, I voted in favor of supporting the Appeal, but I did that based on looking at it, they didn’t tear the whole house down. They only tore part of it down. MR. BROWN-Well, I don’t want to get into too much of the details of. MR. MC NULTY-But I think that’s an important thing, even if we support the same thing, as far as what you need for precedent, is I think a definition of why we supported the Appellant. Was it an issue of saying, it’s okay now to tear something down completely as long as you leave the foundation and rebuild. 69 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) MR. BROWN-That’s what the determination you made last week said. MR. MC NULTY-Or at what point does tearing down one wall or two walls constitute tearing down enough that it’s a tear down, rebuild, versus a repair. That’s the question I’m left with thinking about it at this point. MR. BROWN-Well, that’s the question that we’re going to be left with and the public’s going to be left without a clarification or a re-hearing. MR. MC NULTY-Right. So I think it’s important to get that cleared up. MR. STONE-You’re asking, at a minimum, for an interpretation of what it was we decided. MR. BROWN-Well, I’d ask you, at a minimum, to re-hear it and get a chance to make my arguments as part of the re-hearing. MS. BITTER-I guess I’m confused because the Zoning Administrator wasn’t here last week, and could have had that opportunity to make those arguments. MR. STONE-Well, he could have, what he said would have been hearsay also, because we did not know. MR. BRYANT-Let’s hear from Mr. Salvador, Mr. Chairman. He’s the only one that has anything good to say. Let’s hear from Mr. Salvador. MR. STONE-This is not a public hearing. I’m sorry. She’s a party to this whole thing. She’s an associate. She represents. MR. HAYES-The Appellants. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-In this case, the parties are the Zoning Administrator and this Board. MR. STONE-I’m not going to get into, look, it’s late, and I’m going to get very tired, and I’ve had enough tonight. MR. SALVADOR-May I, or may I not? MR. STONE-No, you may not. MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. I’m sorry, Mr. Bryant, I would liked to have said something. MR. BRYANT-And I would have liked to have heard it. MR. STONE-You’d like to re-hear it. The reason, everybody wouldn’t have been here because we wouldn’t have known that two people claim they were misquoted, from the Town Staff, and we couldn’t, you could have been here. MR. FRANK-Just for the record, when I was absent for that short period of time and I called up the Zoning Administrator, I asked him that question. I said, hey, Mr. Flansburg has made the statement, is that true to your knowledge. He told that he’s pretty sure that that was not true, but again, I didn’t come back here and state anything because it was he said Dave said, and I know you would have said that’s hearsay, so I didn’t offer that information up. So, again, Craig told me at the time on the phone that that was not true, to the best of his knowledge. Dave never made that statement, but I did not report that at the time because, what you’re stating 70 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) right now. Even if Craig was here and said that, would you have considered that hearsay, and I think you just said it would have been. MR. STONE-We probably would have. At least the two other gentlemen were here. I’m bound by what the Board wants to do. I’m one person, guys. We’ve been asked by, two things, one to vote to re-hear, and that’s what we’ve been asked, or to re-hear it, and therefore vote to do it. We’ve been asked by the representative, who happened to be here, of the Appellant, to say, why don’t you wait until you hear from us and we’ll all be glad to come together to talk about the thing. MR. BROWN-And if you’d like to not decide tonight, too, that’s fine. I’d be happy to get you information that clearly indicates that I have standing to make this request. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. HAYES-That’s true. I guess the only problem with that is the status of the project. MR. BROWN-Well, the status of the project right now, as it stands, is the Appellant is going to be required to update their building permit before they can actually reconstruct, because their building permit never indicated any demolition. So that hasn’t even been filed yet. So there’s really no delay until they get to the point of actually filing that building permit, having it reviewed by the Building Department and ready to be issued, which isn’t going to happen tomorrow. MR. HAYES-But as it stands now, if they did do that, it would be difficult for the Planning Department to not allow them to proceed, based on the successful Appeal, essentially. MR. BROWN-Correct. Right. MR. STONE-They have no authority to go ahead, even though we agreed with their Appeal. MR. BROWN-Not until they get their building permit revised. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. HAYES-But once they get that revised, as it stands now, that’s why I’m saying, in some sense, we have to make a relatively quick decision, because it’s going to become an issue with the project going forward, too. MR. HAYES-At some point probably it would, if it was delayed, right. MR. STONE-Can we get it advertised, or do we have to advertise it for next Tuesday, next Wednesday? MR. BROWN-No. I don’t think you can make the advertisement for next Wednesday. It would have to be probably one of the regular meetings to meet the advertising requirements. MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. HUNT-Could I ask a question, Craig? MR. BROWN-Sure. MRS. HUNT-Is it just because you thought there was some misinformation, or do you have some other, do you feel we’re setting a precedent of some sort? MR. BROWN-Absolutely. I can give you a what if. 71 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) MRS. HUNT-But we’re supposed to look at each application. MS. BITTER-On a case by case basis. MRS. HUNT-On it’s own merits and not. MR. BROWN-Correct, but the Appeal that was filed was based on the determination that says, if you tear something down within the setbacks, you can’t rebuild it without a variance, and I think that can be interpreted to say, if I have a house on Lake George, or in Queensbury any place, that violates a setback, any place, not on Lake George, I have a structure that violates a setback, if I want to tear it down and rebuild it on that foundation, I don’t need a variance. That’s what the determination was. MRS. HUNT-But I even made the comment that is a wall a structure, and you had mentioned structure. So right there, differentiating between part of the house and the whole building. Talked about the 75%. MR. STONE-Yes. Well, the other thing we didn’t have, we did not have benefit of Counsel that night either, which is as telling as anything. MR. HAYES-But like Craig said, though, we’ve had ones like with Kevin Maschewski where there was things that were in the setback, and when he came back to the Board, he came back to the Board because he determined that he was going to take out the (lost words) and everything else, and at that point he had to apply for a variance because we said that was no longer fixing that wall, that he was building a new camp in that area. MR. BROWN-It’s clearly the position that the Zoning Board has held that, as far back as I can find in any Zoning Board minutes. MR. STONE-And that certainly was not our intent. I mean, at least not my intent, in voting to support the Appeal. I can’t speak for other people. MRS. HUNT-That was not my intent, either. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would think that we have, on instance, given permission for people to build on the same foundation print that’s here. I mean, on my instance, with my. MR. BROWN-With variances. MR. UNDERWOOD-With variances. In my instance, with my home, it was done that way, but I got the variance before I did it, but I know in the past we’ve had other ones where they started construction and the place was a dump and it fell down and then they started completely from scratch, having obtained. MRS. HUNT-So that’s the whole bone of contention, that he should have had a variance before. MR. HAYES-Well, no, there’s two bones of contention, really. MR. BROWN-They filed a variance to seek that setback relief from the shoreline. Coincidentally they filed an Appeal that says I don’t agree with the determination that I even need the variance. So that’s why they never got to the hearing, the actual setback relief request. MRS. HUNT-Okay. MR. HAYES-But you’re saying there’s two major things from your point of view, in the sense that one is the precedent of the decision, and, two, the fact pattern. That there’s a legitimate difference in the fact pattern from your perspective and from their perspective. 72 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) MR. BROWN-That’s correct. From the historical perspective of the Zoning Board, and from their perspective, right. I’m sure I could find minutes in the Zoning Board meetings where the appellants agents have been before this Board arguing that very case, that, I’ve torn it down. I want to put it back in the same spot. MR. UNDERWOOD-For the Board members that were present that evening, I would just ask, given the situation, you know, if the request was there, would you have granted it? I mean, realistically speaking. MR. STONE-You mean the Variance? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I mean, if they had requested it, I mean, as a semantic thing, you know, would you have granted it, based upon the information that you had that evening? If they had been requesting a variance? MR. HAYES-It would put us in a better perspective, from a precedent perspective, if that’s what we did, though. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. HAYES-If you read the minutes, which I read them twice, and I don’t think Craig’s disagreeing with that. He’s saying you might have very well given them the Variance if they got it, but yet that’s still forcing people to get a variance, versus. MR. STONE-Well, let me ask you a question, only because I was the one who said we didn’t need to go to the Variance, should I, do you think, in hindsight? MR. BROWN-No. There’s no need. Once you uphold the Appeal, there’s no need to go to the variance. Right. MR. STONE-I didn’t think so. I mean, I can tell you I’d have voted no on the variance because I think that’s too close to the lake, but that’s. John, do you have something you really want to add? I mean, I’ll be glad to entertain it now because I think we’ve talked about everything. We haven’t made a decision, but I’m not sure what we’re going to do. MR. SALVADOR-It is extremely disturbing that this whole application and this whole scenario is going on. That’s what bothers me the most. Professional people should know better than to further this kind of activity. These shenanigans have been going on in North Queensbury for more than a few years, and Mr. Brown has alluded to that, and you’ve heard about them all. Okay. These applicants don’t enter into a project without a plan, without a plan. Contractors don’t bid work without a plan, and everything we’re witnessing tonight is part of the plan, and that’s the disturbing thing to me. You should definitely re-hear this Appeal. MR. STONE-Thank you. MR. BRYANT-You should definitely, I didn’t hear the last sentence, re-hear it? MR. STONE-Yes. I, for one, can say that I did not, maybe it was the spirit of the time, I did not appreciate what we did, the decision that we did. I know Bruce tried to help by what do you mean by that, and I don’t think we did a very good job of saying we were limiting it to this particular. I thought we did, though. Didn’t we say we limited it to this particular situation, but, be that as it may, I didn’t appreciate that we were creating the thing that we hate to create, is a precedent. MR. BRYANT-Then why did you vote for it? MR. HAYES-I think he’s saying he feels like he could have been partially wrong. 73 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) MR. STONE-I was mislead, like a lot of us were, and I think there was. MR. HAYES-He’s being self-deprecating, essentially. MR. MC NULTY-I think part of the, back, the way I was looking at it is, what is the rule? Is the rule that, clearly, if you tear the whole house down, then you need a variance before we put it back up, but, you find one rotten wall, if I tear one wall down, is that equivalent to tearing the house down? If it is, then I’ll tear the inside off, pull the studs out, replace the studs, put the inside wall back on, go outside and tear the siding off and tear the sheathing off and then put that back on, it’s a game. MR. BRYANT-I don’t want to re-open this discussion, because we had this discussion during this thing, because it’s always been our position, if you tore a porch off a house, and you, you know, demolished the porch, and then you were going to build a porch, and it was a problem with a setback, they had to get a variance. I mean, it was a demolition. So that’s why, and, frankly, that’s why I voted against it. There was some discussion about MR. RIGBY-You voted against what? MR. HAYES-He voted against the Appellant, if you look at the minutes. MR. RIGBY-Okay. MR. BRYANT-There was some discussion about, well, we had this in the zoning book about docks, and, you know, if you tear down 75% of the dock, and that’s how we got into this whole tear down the whole thing, or, you know, and I was against. MR. BROWN-That’s not relevant at all. MS. BITTER-But that was part of the argument that was presented. MR. BRYANT-That came up, and that was the basis of the determination. MR. BROWN-It was not the basis of my determination. The Zoning Board’s determination? MR. BRYANT-The Zoning Board voted, they extrapolated the dock issue to be house issue, and that’s why it wasn’t, but you see, even though I’d like to hear the thing re-heard, and I understand what you said, Mr. Salvador. I think that you made a determination, and I don’t think, if you read the minutes, that our determination was based on the two statements that Mr. Brown is pointing out. So, you know, if it was based on that, the majority of it was based on the fact that it wasn’t the whole house, if you read the minutes. So, I mean, I don’t like this determination, I don’t like the vote, but in reality, I don’t see why it has to be re-opened. MR. STONE-Well, I’m going to say that we’re going to wait. I think we ought to wait to think about it. We’ll get to the other two people who were here, whoever was here. I’m not trying to ace anybody out, but I think all of us should sit and discuss it, and make a motion, and move on it, but I don’t think we should do it right now. MR. MC NULTY-I’ll agree. I think maybe since we’re going to be meeting next week anyway. MR. BRYANT-Yes, maybe we should talk about it next week. MR. MC NULTY-Talk about it. I think we should do something next week, because otherwise you’re jerking the applicant around. MR. STONE-We’ve only got one thing on the agenda now. We’re not going to do this one next week. 74 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/04) MR. BROWN-No, no. MR. STONE-But we can discuss it then. MR. BROWN-You can make the decision to re-hear it, but you can’t hear, talk about it or anything. MR. MC NULTY-Yes, we should make the decision next week. So if we are going to re-hear it, the applicant knows ahead of time, and we’ll get it moving rapidly. MR. BROWN-Yes, no question. We’d have to advertise and identify it. MR. STONE-And certainly, I’m curious, who shared the note with your associate? MS. BITTER-I’m sorry, what note are you talking about? MR. STONE-This letter. I’m sorry, I’ve got the wrong letter. Did you carbon them? MR. BROWN-No. Mr. Collins was in the Building Department today speaking with Dave Hatin regarding the updating of the building permit. Mr. Hatin provided Mr. Collins with a copy of it. MR. STONE-Okay. Meeting is adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 75