Loading...
2009.02.18(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 18, 2009 INDEX Area Variance No. 77-2008 NPA II, LLC 1. Tax Map No. 296.18-1-47 Sign Variance No. 87-2008 The Sign Center 21. Tax Map No. 308.5-1-92.11 Area Variance No. 5-2009 Thomas W. Penders 25. Tax Map No. 289.11-2-26 Area Variance No. 6-2009 Judith M. Riccio 30. Tax Map No. 279.18-1-11 Sign Variance No. 7-2009 Warren Electric/Ryan Nudi 32. Tax Map No. 303.15-1-4 Area Variance No. 10-2009 Serge & Holly Shishik 39. Tax Map No. 226.12-1-38 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 18, 2009 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT JAMES UNDERWOOD ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOYCE HUNT RICHARD GARRAND JOAN JENKIN BRIAN CLEMENTS MEMBERS ABSENT GEORGE DRELLOS LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. UNDERWOOD-I'll call the February 18, 2009 meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to order, and starting out I want to quickly go through our procedures once again for anybody that perhaps is new here. As we handle each application I'll call the application by name and number. The secretary will read the pertinent parts of the application, Staff Notes and Warren County Planning Board decision if applicable into the record. Then we'll ask the applicant to present any information they wish to present to the Board. The Board will ask questions of the applicant. Then we'll open the public hearing. The public hearing's intended to help us gather information and understand it about the issue at hand. It functions to help the Board members make a wise decision. It does not make the decision for the Board members. There will be a five minute limit on all speakers. We will allow speakers to speak again after everybody's had a chance to speak, but not for more than three minutes, and only if after listening to the other speakers, a speaker believes that they have new information to present, and, Board members, I'd suggest that because we have the five minute limit that we not interrupt the speaker with questions while they're speaking. Rather we should wait until the speaker has finished his five minute period and then ask the questions. Following all the speakers, we'll read in any correspondence into the record, and then the applicant will have an opportunity to react and respond to the public comment. Board members will then discuss the variance request with the applicant. Following that, the Board members will have a chance to explain their positions on the application, and then the public hearing will be closed or left open depending on the situation, and finally, if appropriate a motion to approve or disapprove will follow. Okay. We've got a couple of things going on here today. I think what we're going to do is get right into the first item under Old Business, and that is Northway Plaza Associates, LLC. That's the Northway Plaza. AREA VARIANCE NO. 77-2008 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED NPA II, LLC (NORTHWAY PLAZA) [CHILI'S RESTAURANT] AGENT(S): J. CAPPER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S): NPA II, LLC (NORTHWAY PLAZA) ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 820 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A WALGREENS AND CHILI'S RESTAURANT AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS. RELIEF REQUSTED FROM MINIMUM PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: SPR 48-08; SV 74-2008; SV 75-2008; SV 76-2008 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: NOVEMBER 12, 2008 LOT SIZE: 31.25 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.18-1-47 SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-8-070 STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-We had previously heard this and dealt with the Sign Variances up there, and we were waiting for a recommendation from the Planning Board regarding the permeability requirements on the project. As far as what we're going to do here, I guess I'll have Roy read the Staff Notes in, but, just to refresh everybody's memory here, we had asked for a resolution for a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals from the Planning Board. Last night they did meet. I don't know if anybody was here. I think, Joan, you did go or something. MRS. JENKIN-I did go. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) MR. UNDERWOOD-Other than that, none of us were present, but they did make a motion, and that motion is to "MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGARDING AREA VARIANCE NO. 77-2008 FOR NPA II, LLC WHICH IS NORTHWAY PLAZA. THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION ON THE ONE PERCENT PERMEABILITY ISSUE. THE PLANNING BOARD FURTHER WILL CONTRIBUTE THAT THERE WILL BE SIGNIFICANT SITE PLAN REVIEW ISSUES, INCLUDING THE MAINTENANCE OF THE BUFFER AND LANDSCAPING, BUT WE WOULD MAKE A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION ON THE PERMEABILITY., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption", it was a unanimous decision on the part of the Planning Board. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 77-2008, NPA II, LLC (Northway Plaza) Meeting Date: February 18, 2009 "Project Location: 820 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes the construction of an approximate 14,820 square foot Walgreens Pharmacy, 4,642 square foot Chili's Restaurant, reconfiguration of the former Travelers space to include increased parking, and associated site work. Relief Required: Relief required from the minimum permeability requirements per 179-4-030. The project, according to the plan submitted, proposes the reduction of permeability from 22.40 percent down to 20.0 percent. The minimum permeability for the Highway Commercial intensive zone is 30.0 percent. Note: The Planning Board, on February 17, 2009 issued a recommendation concerning the decrease in permeability associated with this project (see handout). Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Moderate to severe changes to nearby properties may be anticipated as a result of this proposal as the average size of the buffer between the Pine View Cemetery and proposed parking expansion will drop from approximately 45 feet to 0 feet. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant could build in a more compliant location and/or reduce the size of the project. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. According to staff calculations, the request for 35,665 square feet or 1.5 percent of additional impermeable area may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. This parcel received permeability relief in the past (A.V. 54-2002) and is now seeking additional relief. Further, there appears to be a discrepancy concerning the actual amount of impermeable area existing on the site (see below). 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Moderate impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated as green space will be reduced. However, the plan calls for a stormwater management plan that may potentially manage stormwater to a greater extent. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created as the proposal calls for the removal of green space, an increase in parking and an increase in the overall building footprints on site. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): A.V. 54-2002 Home Depot Permeability 6/26/2002 S.V.59-2002 Home Depot signs 7/24/2002 S.V. 83-2003 Empire Vision sign 10/22/03 S.V. 61-2004 Panera sign 8/25/04 S.P. Mod, Home Depot 2004 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) S.V. 95-2004 sign 12/15/04 Staff comments: This application was tabled on December 17, 2008 at the request of the applicant. The tabling resolution states: The app/icant is proposing the construction ofa Wa/greens and a Chi/i's Restaurant and associated site improvements. Re/ief is requested from the minimum permeabi/ity requirements and they're going to submit by the 23rd to just c/arify the permeabi/ity request. The applicant subsequently submitted plans on December 30, 2008. These plans were also found to be incorrectly calculated. The permeability calculations were again resubmitted on February 4, 2009 and once more were found to be incorrectly calculated. The following are Staff Calculations: Existing Conditions Net Addition Proposed conditions Building Footprint 177,042 sq. ft. 10,807 sq. ft. 187,849 sq. ft. Hard-surfacing 623,229 sq. ft. 24,848 sq. ft. 648,077 sq. ft. Total Impermeable 800,271 sq. ft. 35,665 sq. ft. 835,936 sq. ft. Parcel size 996,156 sq. ft. 25,665 sq. ft. 1,021,821 sq. ft. Percent Impermeable 80.3 % 81.8 Percent Permeable 19.7 % 18.2% • Staff calculates an increase in overall impermeability by 35,665 square feet or1.5 percent over existing conditions. • The applicant appears to have not included the correct foot-print calculation for the existing retail building located at the northwest portion of the property. According to A.V. 54-2002, which deals partially with permeability, the northwest retail building's footprint is 43,501 sq. ft. and not 37,519 sq. ft. as sited in parking calculations on page C1.1A. • Further, the existing vacant Monroe Muffler/Convenient Medical building is not sited in the calculations. The size of this existing building is 8,665 sq. ft. • Staff calculations do not include the Home Depot parcel, nor will staff include said parcel in their calculations as this has lend itself to confusion. The Home Depot parcel is not owned by Northway Plaza Association, LLC. SEAR Status: Unlisted-The Zoning Board of Appeals must make a SEAR Determination concerning this application." MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Staff, I think, wanted to correct those numbers. MR. OBORNE-Yes. There is clarification that Staff and the architect have worked through, and we have closed the gap on the potential permeability decrease. We are pretty close. We're probably about, say four to five hundred square feet off, which is negligible, when it comes down to the percentage that we're talking about. What our calculations are, as far as the building footprint, which the secretary read in, should be amended to 163,638 square feet square feet, as opposed to 177,042 square feet. There was confusion along the lines, basically because of multiple submissions, incorrect calculations before. Their final calculations are pretty much on the up and up, and as Staff, I'd just like to corroborate that, if there are any issues with that. MR. GARRAND-So it's a 10%? MR. OBORNE-It's a one percent. MR. GARRAND-One percent difference. MR. OBORNE-One percent difference. MR. GARRAND-So total is 30%? MR. OBORNE-The total additional square footage by my calculations falls in at around 24,800, okay, and what the applicant has is 24,848. It's not tight, but it will be tight before it's all over, and if we need to come up with a number tonight as far as what the exact square footage is, as to what you want to give for permeability, we will endeavor to give you that number. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MS. BITTER-All right. Stefanie Bitter, for the record. I just wanted to give you some handouts to make it easier to see the maps that we're going to show you. Good evening, Stefanie Bitter for the record. I'm the attorney for the applicant. Unfortunately Bill Dutch, from Northway Plaza Associates, apologizes because he couldn't be here this evening. He's one of the managing principles of the applicant. Due to the weather and the fact that he comes from Syracuse, it was difficult for him to make the ride, and it was just unsafe. Jim Hagen, our project architect, actually had the same set of circumstances. So tonight with me this evening is Chris Boyea from Bohler Engineering, a project engineer, as well as Nicole David Heiser from Clough Harbour, again, a project engineer. This project has been about 10 years in the making. Northway Plaza Associates took on an old, stale site that needed a significant facelift and made it their priority to modernize it. The first phase of their project was Home Depot, which started back in 2001. Home Depot, due to financing reasons, had to subdivide off, and as a result, had to seek a permeability variance. Although that lot does exist independently, it also functions together with the Plaza, not only visually, but also for purposes of parking. There's a reciprocal easement on that site, so, in that regard, when they came forward for their permeability request, they explained that although their permeability was going to deviate from the requirement, when you took the Plaza as a whole, it was able to maintain the 30% as is required. We're here this evening seeking to essentially finish the project that was started eight years ago. It was always Northway Plaza's intent to redevelop what's considered the southern most portion of this property, or where Monroe Muffler essentially sat. The change in permeability would be approximately one percent against, to deviate from the Plaza as a whole, which I presented to you the numbers that were calculated from the architect at the last submission. This Plaza exists at a main intersection of this Town, and due to some unfortunate vacancies, sits there with not a very architectural, or I should say aesthetic appearance at that intersection. The vacancies that are existing, as I'm sure all of you are aware, is Monroe Muffler, the medical center, and the Travelers office. The plan in 2001 always included the removal of the Monroe Muffler facility. When the lease actually expired, there were negotiations with other restaurants that unfortunately didn't come to fruition, but now we're seeking to actually demolish the Monroe Muffler facility to construct two new businesses, to reconfigure the Travelers building, which on the sheets I just gave you are identified as Retail A, and to convert that into retail space, and to help assist Per Se, which is an existing tenant, expand its business. To give you one more piece of paperwork, this is a letter that was submitted in November, to this Board. I'm not sure if you guys have it, from Per Se. Per Se exists in Retail B, but in the rear lower portion of Retail B. The map doesn't necessarily demonstrate that back portion of the property, but it's right in this actual corner. It's right back here, for those of you that aren't familiar with that application. With these proposals, these two new businesses, the reconfiguration of Retail A, as well as Per Se's request to be able to expand its business. What does this mean in a time when the economy is so uncertain. Well it means jobs. Per Se has requested to expand its business, but in order to do so, they need to have 50 to 60 spaces. Those additional spaces have to be located in the rear of this lot in order to accommodate their employees. The property that they're actually, or I should say the section that they're actually leasing is located in the basement area, and there's no way in which for their employees to safely or be able to access any other parking spaces. Like if you place them in the front of the retail plaza or on the side, it would just be impractical and obviously not be appealing for that tenant to keep that space. So we're in a position where we have to or we're trying to accommodate that tenant, not only so that they don't leave the Plaza, but that they don't leave the Town. Although jobs are important, we understand that permeability is important as well. However, as you're aware from our December 17t" meeting, part of this project that we're proposing is also this stormwater management plan. This stormwater management plan would be to actually be able to capture and treat runoff from New York State Route 9 before it enters Halfway Brook. How did this plan come up? Mr. Dutch had actually sought to obtain certain parcels of land from DOT and the County so that he could assist in his redevelopment plan of the southernmost portion of property on this parcel. In order to do that, he negotiated that as part of the exchange Northway Plaza would design and construct this stormwater management facility on the County land that sits right at that intersection. This is one, deemed one of the most important project of Warren County Water and Soil at this time and has been for about the last five years. This stormwater system is going to be very beneficial, although it does not specifically impact Northway Plaza. Northway Plaza is going to be able to handle most of its stormwater right on site. I'm going to leave that up to Chris and Nicole to discuss in more detail in a second, but Home Depot has its stormwater treated behind the building, and Northway Plaza, due to the Planning Board's instructions when this Plaza was looked at some years ago, has an underground stormwater management system, but without Mr. Dutch's inquiry, this 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) stormwater management project wouldn't even be a possibility, because as you know, DOT is not held to the stormwater regulations. Although this stormwater project is expensive for Mr. Dutch, it will assist with this revitalization project which obviously the Town would be interested in as well. The Plaza, as it exists, sits in a very important intersection for the Town and unfortunately as it exists it's an eyesore. Our proposal seeks to bring in two new businesses and expand an already existing business which is huge for this economy. We're proposing two nicely landscaped and very architecturally designed buildings at a most visible portion of the Plaza at that intersection, which is a big change from what is there today. We are aware of the submission that was made by the cemetery, and appreciated their concerns. We understood that it was something that was going to be forthcoming. Originally, as I'm sure you guys saw with the submission, we had proposed a retaining wall with a fence. At last night's meeting, we discussed a possible resolution to hopefully address the cemeteries concerns as well as what we're trying to achieve with this project, which would be to have the retaining wall actually be a tiered retaining wall, which would incorporate landscaping that we could hopefully discuss with the cemetery what would be something they would like to see in this tiered section. I know that here this evening is Michael Genier, the Superintendent of Cemeteries, and we've brought this proposal to him last night, and after the meeting I even identified that we could discuss with the Commission what their landscaping planting schedule might be. So we're hoping that could be a resolution that could achieve both interests, but what was also discussed at the meeting is that we just need those parking spaces. It's crucial to the project. It's crucial to keeping Per Se at the Plaza, so that we can maintain those jobs and maintain that tenant, and what Mr. Dutch expressed to the Planning Board last night is that this project as a whole would benefit both the applicant and the Town. Obviously Northway Plaza contributes to the tax base significantly because of the expense of the Plaza, but without having occupancy in those spaces, you decrease the value significantly. Travelers left, which was a huge hit to Northway Plaza. Without the right and ability to have these more spaces, we possibly could lose another tenant which would put Northway Plaza in some serious trouble. We obviously have the Planning Board's recommendation which was just read into the record. We understand the Site Plan issues that we are prepared and ready to address at the time that we go to them in March to review parking, the buffer and the landscaping. I know at this time your responsibility is to look at the burden, look at the balancing test as to whether or not the benefit to the applicant is outweighed by the detriment to the community. Without going into those factors, since they're already in our application, we believe that that balance is already in favor of the applicant, for three main reasons, jobs, stormwater management facility, as well as revitalization to both the Plaza and that intersection. I'm going to open it up to Chris Boyea and Nicole David Heiser and at least leave it to the Chairman to decide if you want them to discuss the actual stormwater, the spec details, or if you want to open it to questions, because I know that these things were discussed with you in December. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think maybe what we'll do is we'll just kind of open it up for our questions, because I think everybody's pretty familiar with what was proposed and nothing's really changed as far as I can see. MS. BITTER-Okay. Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-My question is that, you know, as far as receiving the waiver from the standard setback buffer from the Town Code for the cemetery, I mean, there's an obvious reason why we would want to have significant buffers around cemeteries, and I think that's reflected in the record, and Roy will be reading the letter into the record. I don't think any of us, having received that letter prior to last night's meeting with the Planning Board, wasn't extremely concerned about maintaining some kind of sanctity for the cemetery because I'm sure the cemetery pre-exists the mall up there in its original incarnation in 1960 whatever. That was the first one in Town, as far as I know. I guess the big question in my mind is that, you know, I think we all understand what you're trying to achieve up there, and everybody pretty much was on page with the two new buildings replacing the Monroe Muffler part of it, and my only concern was that buffer zone along the cemetery there, you know, and you can rationalize, to a degree, yes, it's going to create jobs, in the near future, as a result of creation of that new parking there, but, you know, something gets lost in the mix every single time here. If we whittle away, whittle away at the Code, it's important for us to recognize why we have those, you know, rules written into the book. It's not just simply something that, you know, you can just simply dismiss out of hand, but at the same time, I think I want to hear what everybody else has to say regarding that, because I think that, you know, the realities are the one percent change in the permeability doesn't strike me as being any great thing, and everything that's been done up there with Northway has been a positive, including the Home Depot thing. I mean, there's a lot less runoff coming off site compared to what was originally 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) there, and I think we're all on page with that, but I think what I want to do is just go down through the Board, what are your concerns? I mean, are you seeing the same thing I am, or are you still concerned with that? MRS. JENKIN-I have a question of Keith, actually. Because this is in the Code, it's 179- 8-070, it talks about buffering, and this is a requirement. I'm wondering, does it need a variance? This was brought up last night, and it was more or less just pushed aside and I really want to ask the question and find out if it is a variance. MR. OBORNE-It is not a variance for the buffer. It is under the auspices of the Planning Board. They can waive the requirements or change the requirements. MRS. JENKIN-Where does that say that in the Code? MR. OBORNE-I shall get that for you. MRS. JENKIN-Because I was looking, and I really would like to have that clarified. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anything else you want to add at this point, Joan? MR. OBORNE-If you go back to 179-8-020, Applicability, and as you roll down, the landscaping requirements of this Article are not retroactive, and the landscaping has to do with, to a certain extent, the buffer. As I read this now, it says the Planning Board may waive some or all the requirements of this Article. This is Article 179-8. Within 179- 8 are the buffering requirements. MRS. JENKIN-It says only trees from the list provided, am I looking at, this is Article 8 on Page. MR. OBORNE-Article 8, the heading for Article 8 is Landscaping and Buffering Standards. MRS. JENKIN-Right. Right. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MRS. JENKIN-It says to establish incentives for the preservation of existing trees, the replanting to provide guidelines for minimum landscaping on site as well as within the Town's right of way. Only trees from the list provided in this Article or alternates approved by the Planning Board and/or Zoning Enforcement Officer, will be considered to meet the requirements of this Chapter. Does that? MR. OBORNE-What is held up by the Zoning Administrator is 179-8-020, which is applicability, specifically the last sentence in that heading. MRS. JENKIN-The developer/owner shall make every effort to? MR. OBORNE-The Planning Board may waive some or all of the requirements of this Article at its discretion. It's not something that would need the Zoning Administrator's letter in order for somebody to sit for a change in the buffering standards. MR. URRICO-So in this case the burden would be on the cemetery to maintain a buffer of some sort, a landscaping buffer? MR. OBORNE-No, it would be on, the burden would be on the property owner, of that adjacent use. MR. URRICO-Even though there is no buffer and the Planning Board may not require them to? MR. OBORNE-Correct. They can waive the requirements of that. MR. URRICO-So if the Planning Board waives that requirement, then the burden is on the cemetery to landscape the buffer? MR. OBORNE-No, the burden would still be on the property owner. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) MS. BITTER-I think that was part of the recommendation last night, or part of their inquiry was who was going to maintain it, with regards to our tiered retaining wall proposal, and that was something that they were going to discuss at the Site Plan. MRS. JENKIN-But that is eliminating the buffer. MS. BITTER-Right. MRS. JENKIN-It's not a natural area any longer, and I guess it was Keith last night that said that there's going to be, what, three feet left of the buffer? MS. BITTER-With the retaining wall, the inclusion of the retaining wall. The retaining wall as exists, I'm not sure if you guys had traveled that street there, right behind. I mean, there is a treed line, I mean, you can see the cemetery. It's not as if it's, you know, completely protected by those trees. I mean, it's in a decent proximity, which is why the retaining wall that we had suggested are at least modified with our suggestion last night would be a tiered retaining wall, so that we can incorporate some sort of vegetation to assist with the aesthetics on that side. MRS. JENKIN-But I think that the fact that was brought forward is the trees would be gone, so there would be no visual left except a brick wall, or a stone wall. MS. BITTER-Well, the stone wall would actually be on the Northway Plaza side. On the actual cemetery side, did you provide them with the? NICOLE DAVID HEISER MS. HEISER-Yes, the trees would not be completely gone. Here is, this shows, after the wall and the parking is in, this is from our survey that we did of the Plaza. This is still the vegetated area that will remain. This is going to be reduced by the additional parking and the wall but it won't be completely gone. MRS. JENKIN-Where is the cemetery road? Because I drove down that today. MS. HEISER-Right here. Actually, here's the edge of the road right here. It's right here. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. So the cemetery does own part of this, then, do they? MS. HEISER-Correct. Here's the property line, is right along here. All this vegetation right here is what the cemetery owns, what's shown on this map, and this is from the survey that we did two years ago of this area, and this is what the survey lines came out for the tree line. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. Thank you. MS. HEISER-So, yes. Does that help? Okay. So this is all the trees that would still remain that's on the cemetery property. So it would be reduced, but it would be really in, I think the concern was this area where it would be thinned down a lot more. MR. UNDERWOOD-Tapering towards, out towards Quaker. MS. HEISER-Correct. MRS. JENKIN-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Okay. Anybody else want to make any comments at this time? MR. CLEMENTS-I just wanted to ask, is this something that you're proposing? MS. BITTER-That's something that's just a visual. The waterfall wasn't incorporated. What we had explained to the Superintendent is that we would discuss a planting schedule with them as to what sort of vegetation would work with the conditions that exist there today. I'll let Nicole go into more detail. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would assume that, you know, you could do something like arborvitae, a high growing hedge that eventually would be 30 feet high, going forward. MS. HEISER-Right, fast growing. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, obviously you could do some significant changes that are going to, although in the interim you're stuck with what you've got. MR. OBORNE-If I can add, with the arborvitae, in order for them to be a good buffer, they would need to have sun all around in order for them to grow to their full extent. So you would need to cut more trees or push the arborvitae away from the boundary line in order for them to actually have any real purpose. MS. HEISER-They would probably be best if they were up on the second tier instead, would be, that's what we would look at doing something like that. MR. UNDERWOOD-On top. MR. OBORNE-True. Okay. MS. HEISER-Not down at the bottom. MR. OBORNE-I see a lot of pine trees that are on the side of the cemetery, and that would be a Site Plan issue obviously. So I just want to throw that out. As far as that being a fix all, I would have problems with that in my review. MS. HEISER-I think there's a variation of deciduous and evergreen trees there. I think it would be less intrusive if we, like we show in the picture that we provided, a mix of something to make it more naturalized looking for, you know, to kind of compensate for, you know, some of the vegetation that was removed. MRS. JENKIN-Last night there was a lot of discussion, also, and I just wanted to make sure that the rest of the Board knew what the discussion was about, that it was said several times that it could probably work, make adjustments, make some changes so that there wasn't this straight line of parking and nothing to break it up at all. MS. BITTER-And we understand that during Site Plan we're going to be working towards modifications in that that permeability requested this evening is hopefully the worst case scenario. MRS. JENKIN-Right, and so I went, today, to look very, very carefully at it again, because there was a lot of talk about the loading docks. The loading docks are up on the upper level, are they? MS. BITTER-Right, under, behind Retail A. MRS. JENKIN-Yes, on the upper level where there's actually no, there's nothing there now. There's no parking or anything, and you can see it in the drawing here, where the loading docks are, but those probably will not be used at all now, will they, because there's really no doors there? MS. BITTER-Of the Retail A building or the three proposed (lost words)? MRS. JENKIN-The loading docks are on the upper level. MS. BITTER-Right. Right. MRS. JENKIN-There's no access in except one small door. MS. BITTER-And that was mostly to market that building. I think that was what was discussed by Bill Dutch last and Jim Hagen was that they're not sure if three will be necessary or how it will be configured. So they set up that way, for purposes of marketing, but at this time, he didn't think that there would be a lot of area for the parking spaces that we're looking for to accommodate Per Se. He felt like a couple would be able to be incorporated in that area, but not a significant amount. MRS. JENKIN-Well, because it's the upper area, the top layer area, and you said that it wasn't possible, you want the lower. This was just another idea. You're doing another retaining wall. You're putting all the money into building a new retaining wall. Why not take that retaining wall that's there now and push it back and allow more parking down below? It's not being used up on top. It probably won't be used up on top. That is now a retaining wall similar to this one, but just one height. If that was taken back, the money's going into it, you would free up probably 25 spaces down below there, and then the top 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) could be used for walking access for people that are up there, or even going outside, and it could be a (lost word), but it wouldn't have to be a driving area. The other one that I looked at, too, that was, just a suggestion, there's a raised area at the back, down below, that right now it's fenced, and it's obviously for people to go and sit at, and that could be taken out and there could be more parking there. That would add another six, eight spaces right there, if you didn't have that. That's right under the windows. MS. HEISER-Could you just point out on the plan, so I can make sure. MRS. JENKIN-I think it's right in here. MS. HEISER-They actually did add spaces in there already on this plan. This doesn't, there was a concrete. MRS. JENKIN-They did remove this? MS. HEISER-There was a concrete, correct, yes. There was this area here, there was this concrete pad area for employees to sit and they put the parking spaces in there. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. So that's already done, then? MS. HEISER-Correct, and then were you talking about putting more parking about here? MRS. JENKIN-I was talking about if you could move this back, this retaining wall, this is a retaining wall here? MS. HEISER-Yes, right, this is this whole thing right here is the retaining wall right here. MRS. JENKIN-Right, that this could easily be moved back much closer to the building, way back. You don't use it as a driveway anyway. It could be a walking area for employees. They could walk around. There's only one door there, and if this was pushed right back, you would have more parking there. You wouldn't increase it, you'd have to increase some of the permeability. You wouldn't have to have this long line there, if you're trying to add about 50, 60 spaces. MS. HEISER-As long as they don't need these parking spaces. The problem is that he doesn't know what his tenants are going to be here, and that's why they're providing these loading docks back there. MRS. JENKIN-I guess what I'm looking at is the balancing test, and whether it can be achieved by other means feasible, and this is what I was really looking for, to see if you could possibly avoid taking all of the area next to the cemetery, maybe part of it as the cemetery had suggested, just taking the section that is behind where the buildings are. They said that they wouldn't mind that part. It's the part near the cemetery, near the end where they want to sell lots, cemetery plots, which, to me, is quite sensible, and you'll probably hear anyway, but I was thinking if you took part of it and then found parking places in other areas to make up the difference, that then the benefit can be achieved by other means. The second one, and it probably is premature, and I'm talking a lot here. Do you mind? MR. UNDERWOOD-No, go right ahead. MRS. JENKIN-If an undesirable change in the neighborhood character, I think by encroaching, as you are, building a wall like this, next to a cemetery, which is a quite, natural area, you want as much natural as possible, I think that that does change the character of the neighborhood there, behind it, and I really do feel very strongly that this shopping center is a very, very important shopping center for the Town. It's a central location. It's Mixed Use. It's exactly what the Comprehensive Plan had talked about, and so to make it reasonable and making it viable again and building up retail there, I think that's extremely important, but the thing is, we also have to protect what's around it and the properties around it, and that's why I feel strongly about the cemetery, maintaining the integrity of this cemetery as much as you possibly, possibly can, and think of some alternatives for the parking. When I drove by there today, every parking place was filled. So you do need it, but it's just to think about some alternatives that you could possibly do without encroaching on the cemetery. MS. BITTER-I think if I could just respond to your comments is I appreciate where you're coming from with regards to the alternatives for utilizing the area that's the loading docks for Retail A now, because we don't necessarily have tenants. The only possibility we 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) could incorporate is what's been known as banking spots because ultimately, in the best case scenario, these spaces are going to be rented, this retail area. So we can't necessarily give up those spaces because then in six months we're going to be back here talking about, well, we've got a tenant now, now we need the parking spaces, and we need to go back to what's originally proposed. So I can appreciate that, well, right, we modify it to a certain extent, but it's going to ultimately be the permeability request that we're here seeking, but as you understand, as I already mentioned, we realize that, with Site Plan Review, we're looking for (lost words). MRS. JENKIN-Well, one of the arguments was that you couldn't have parking on the top, and you couldn't use all this available parking in the front and the side because it has to be on the bottom. MS. BITTER-Right, for proximity purposes. MRS. JENKIN-And so that's what I was thinking, if you could build more parking places down there and easily, because there is ample and adequate parking on the top, give up a few of those places. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else? MR. URRICO-I trust that, Keith, when you calculated the green area, that you considered all the spaces. There's a space along the driveway that comes in from Route 9, and the plan, as it is now, does not have that cut, and now there's a cut there, and I just want to make sure that the original calculation of green space there is 11,076 square feet, and I don't know if that comes around that driveway up onto Route 9, includes the bend there, and now I see 5,606 square feet, and then I see, down below inside the Plaza on the driveway 3,280 square feet. So we're accounting for that new cut there? MR. OBORNE-Absolutely, yes, and that's another Site Plan Review issue that is in my review. That cut is not something that Staff would like to see in that location, for stacking purposes. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. OBORNE-So you may increase some green space in that regard. So, but to allay any confusion, yes, green space was absolutely calculated. MR. URRICO-Okay. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess I'm going to open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on this matter? Come up, sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MIKE GENIER MR. GENIER-I'm Mike Genier, Superintendent of the Pineview Cemetery. This is the first zoning meeting I've ever been to, and yesterday was the first planning I've ever been to. The letter that I wrote to you, or to the Planning Board, regarding the barrier, of course the Pineview Cemetery Commission and myself would really like to keep that barrier, or as much of the barrier as possible for the reasons that were discussed. The barrier has been there, trees in there, or similar trees have been there for 110 years, the same age as the cemetery, and again, it provides the privacy that we feel we need there. We have a number of lots left in that adjacent section. We've had some hard times selling some of them because of the proximity of the mall. We feel that if we come right almost to the property line, it's going to be, you know, more difficult. On the letter I wrote, you can see that I referenced Walgreens and Chili's. The reason was is when I learned about the project, Keith gave me a roll of drawings, and I studied them, and it was Walgreens and Chili's. In a former career, I was an engineer for 32 years. So I have a pretty good idea what they were doing, and all I saw was Walgreens and Chili's, and yet this whole strip of land was going to be cut down and made into parking, and I was kind of upset with Walgreens and Chili's because I said, why on earth do you need to do that, you know, because looking around the buildings, to me there was adequate parking. It wasn't until last night when Mr. Dutch started talking, and the team, they did a fine job of presenting, that I realized that it was Per Se Technologies were looking to possibly expand and that's why they needed them. So I referenced the Walgreens and Chili's. I probably should have referenced Per Se, but, looking it over, we tried to come up with a balance, again, like Joan said, between the Route 9 and up to about where their utilities 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) buildings are. They could probably get quite a number, 15 or 20 parking spaces there, and some others with some imagination and moving some things around, and we think that would hopefully save our barrier. Today I went for a hike up through there, and I walked up around and by the muffler place, and I started walking in, and I counted approximately nine or ten spaces that hadn't been used for parking. I mean, they were open. The closer I got up to Per Se, the more, you know, like Joan says, they were pretty full, and I looked over, again, where the utility buildings were and I thought that would be a possible compromise, and then I kept walking north and I went down into the woods and I talked with Keith for a few minutes this afternoon, because I was trying to think outside of the box, how can we save this strip of trees, and on the northeast part up there, just, almost opposite Per Se, there's a knoll, flat knoll, well, it's not flat. It's a hump, and then it kind of goes down in the background and there's a ravine all around it, and I believe there's wetlands, and I said, gee, if we could swap that strip of land that they want to cut down for that knoll, it's cemetery property, and they could build a parking lot in that area, it would probably save them a lot of money as far as the fancy walls and the trees and what not, and you could put riprap around it and a standard parking rail, guardrail, and I think they'd have a nice spot, but Keith indicated that that might take some doings from the Corps of Engineers because the wetlands was located below it and we'd have to jump through hoops. I'd be willing to try to jump through some hoops to save it. I was in the Army. I'm used to jumping through hoops, and so it was just a thinking outside of the box, but I believe that's been probably talked about before. So the same thing as Mrs. Jenkin. I was looking for alternate solutions that would help out. That was the only one I came up with, along with extending the parking up to behind the utility buildings. MRS. JENKIN-Is that area right across from the entrance, the lower entrance, that flat area that you were talking about? MR. GENIER-First we were thinking, this is the office, that's the utility building. MRS. JENKIN-Right, but the one farther up that you were talking about flattening out. MR. GENIER-And it was Per Se, it's about up in that area, where the road starts curving out. MRS. JENKIN-Right. I saw that, too. MR. GENIER-I walked around in there and it goes down, but I was thinking, gee, with all the fill they're going to need to put this whole thing, grade it off, I think they'd probably save money if they could work with the Cemetery and the Town for a land swap for a nominal fee or something just to use that area as parking. It's never going to be developed by the Cemetery. It's never going to be used as graves because of the location and the brook and the lowlands around it. So it will probably sit there forever, but it was just kind of an idea, the thought might give them the 50 spaces or even more if they were looking, plus, having a bank like that would be a great spot to get rid of snow. They could dump the snow over the bank and it would possibly help that. MRS. JENKIN-Well, that was also brought up last night and I was looking at the snow banks today, too, thinking, boy, it's going to be tough to get rid of all that snow, and not push it around to the cemetery lot. MR. GENIER-Again, I've never really worked, specifically, with the Corps of Engineers, and I'm not sure what it would require or if it's even possible, or they would go for it. I'm not quite, you know, familiar with the planning and the zoning process for all this, but it was just trying to think outside the box, and again, I wasn't familiar with the Per Se requirements versus the Chili's and the Walgreens and again, I think that's a great idea. I'd like to see those restaurants come in. I know the guys down at the cemetery are just saying this is a great place to go for lunch. Go up and get a chili burger and stop at Walgreens and get some Tums on the way back or something. So, they're for it, too, but again, we agree with the concepts. Sorry for the misleading in the letter, because I was, again, thinking it was Walgreens and Chili's. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Genier, you still agree that the construction not extend between the two cemetery utility buildings? MR. GENIER-I think that would be a compromise, or I know it would be with the Cemetery Commission would be agreeable to, yes. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) MR. GARRAND-Because one thing we kind of want to avoid is, you know, people, they're mourning relatives and having to stare at cars. MR. GENIER-That's why if we could keep it from the utility buildings back, you wouldn't be over the main part of the Horicon section. MR. OBORNE-Just for clarification, you, from the utility building south are what you would be okay, amenable to parking, additional parking? MR. GENIER-That's fairly open the way it is now, yes. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. GENIER-We've got quite a few families that come and visit in that area. We've had some recent burials, Skip Stranahan's mom and the little Bhatti girl and Sue Howard's mom, and, you know, there's a lot of recent folks there, and they're there quite a bit, about every day, mostly. MR. CLEMENTS-Excuse me. Can you point to that on the map there, where the buildings are right there? MR. GENIER-Yes. This is main office and the garage, and about here and about in this area there's the utility building. So it would be from this area back south. MR. CLEMENTS-That's what you would be agreeable to use as parking? MR. GENIER-Yes, sir. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. MR. GENIER-I would hope that we could save the section by the Horicon section in this area, if we could. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-What's that, about 20, the lower 20 spots there, is that what you would surmise on that, Keith? MR. GENIER-Something like that. MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm guessing no more than 20. MR. OBORNE-Yes, and probably not what the applicant would want because it is, they're looking for Per Se parking obviously, but nevertheless it is a compromise. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. GENIER-When I took the walk, I counted the number of vacancies down in this area, both (lost words). MR. URRICO-Now that's on the Northway Plaza side or on the cemetery side? MR. UNDERWOOD-That's on the back side. MRS. JENKIN-The cemetery side. MR. URRICO-That's different from the swap you were talking about. MR. GENIER-Okay. Originally I was thinking, or with the new, if, for example, all the, everything went okay where the knoll is, it's up, roughly up in this area, right where my shadow is. MR. UNDERWOOD-It's about 2/3rd's of the way up that rise there. MR. GENIER-I was thinking, gee, what a great spot. MRS. JENKIN-It's before you get up the hill, though, Jim. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, it's about 2/3rd's of the way up. When you start to climb up the hill. MRS. JENKIN-Well, it's just before it starts climbing up the hill. MR. GENIER-It's flat on top, and then it goes down. I walked down there and eight cats took off. I don't know what they were doing there, but there's a gentleman sometimes, a homeless man, that hangs out in that area, and he's been a friend of the cemetery. He kind of keeps an eye on things sometimes at night, and he lets us know what's going on. So, I mean, it works, but it's kind of a mess up there with cardboard and wood and some other things that people have dragged in. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I think what I'm going to do, just for the purposes of the record, is read the letter into the record, just so we have that, you know, on record. Anything else you want to add? We'll give you a chance to come back once they make their comments again, in case you want to add anything. MR. GENIER-I think the applicants made an excellent presentation last night, all of them, and Bill Dutch I think did a pretty good job. I wish he would make the presentation to Dan Stec for the Cemetery budget. That would help. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. This letter was received on February 12, 2009, again, from Pineview Cemetery and Crematorium at 21 Quaker Road, Queensbury, New York, and it's addressed To Whom It May Concern, the subject is the Northway Plaza expansion. "The Pine View Cemetery Commission and the Superintendent of Pine View Cemetery and Crematorium respectfully request to go on record as opposing the proposed expansion of the Northway Plaza Parking Area along the common property line at the western edge of the Cemetery property. (Reference Clough Harbour & Associates Drawing No. C1.1, Proposed Walgreens for HDL Property Group, LLC.) This expansion would effectively eliminate the majority of the treed barrier between the properties, considerably reducing the privacy of the adjacent section of the Cemetery. It is the desire of the Pine View Cemetery Commission and the Cemetery Superintendent to effectively maintain the present integrity of the Cemetery from all surrounding properties through a natural mature treed barrier, as opposed to a manmade fence. Construction of the new parking area as proposed would essentially marry the Plaza and Cemetery properties opening up the oldest sections of the Cemetery (circa 1899) to increased exposure to the Plaza buildings, and the impact of vehicular traffic. Present Cemetery lot owners would be greatly offended if their peace and solitude were further compromised. In addition, it would become difficult to sell the remaining Cemetery lots in these sections. The Pine View Cemetery Commission and the Cemetery Superintendent realizes that the planned Northway Plaza expansion with new commercial interests is beneficial to the Town of Queensbury, Queensbury citizens and the HDL Property Group stockholders, and they wish to work with the Plaza in a Spirit of Cooperation beneficial to all parties. In an effort to reach an acceptable parking compromise, it is suggested that, "if necessary", the additional parking area be constructed to a distance not to extend beyond the two Cemetery utility buildings located below the proposed parking area. This would have the effect of increasing the number of available parking spaces for the Northway Plaza, while retaining the integrity of the majority of the existing treed barrier for Pine View Cemetery. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely yours, Laura Vamvalis, Donna Partridge, Robert Edwards, Pine View Cemetery Commission Michael Genier, Superintendent of Pine View Cemetery and Crematorium" MS. HEISER-A couple of things we wanted to address. First with the snow storage. At a pre-submission meeting with the Planning Staff, they had requested that we put a six foot high fence along the retaining wall. So that snow won't be able to be pushed, obviously, the fence is going to be right along the back of the curb there. So there's not going to be any snow pushed over that wall, so that won't be a concern. As far as the recommendations for alternative parking, that the Cemetery Superintendent made, that area is wetlands in that area. So the retaining wall will have to actually be built in wetlands area. MR. UNDERWOOD-We have the wetlands on your plot plan. MRS. JENKIN-But there's a line around the wetlands, and I didn't know whether that was the, those were the boundaries of the wetland. MS. HEISER-Yes There's also, with wetlands there's a buffer, you know, that's the actual wetland delineation line. So above and beyond that, also. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) MRS. JENKIN-The 100 feet after that. MS. HEISER-There'd be a buffer. So the red tape, to be able to get something like that, could be years, if they would ever, you know, approve something like that, and that's unfortunately time that we really don't have for this project. MR. UNDERWOOD-I have a question for you. What's the present number of parking utilized by the Per Se people back there, the number of spots? I mean, what's on the record as the number at the present time? MR. URRICO-For the record, is Per Se the same as McKesson? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. URRICO-We're talking the same company. MS. HEISER-Yes. I believe parking provided right now is 125 spots. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So you're looking at 250 back there, on that lower section? That's what I saw on there. So 100 more than what you presently utilize, and is there anything definite from McKesson or Per Se saying that they're definitely going to add 100 employees? MS. BITTER-That's what their letter indicated, that that's what they're looking to do with regards to their lease options, is that they want to increase their employment base, and that was the number that was provided. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do they have the square footage in there or utilize space to add that many people now? MS. BITTER-Yes, and they don't necessarily have to expand their leasable area. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. The other thing is, is that I think it's been suggested in the past, because of the nature of Home Depot's significant lack of business up there with that lot being 2/3rd's empty 99% of every day of the year, that parking could be accomplished by putting some vehicles up there. In fact, when Travelers was utilizing the space that's now empty there in the Plaza, a significant number of their employees did park over on that part of the lot and walk across, and I think that, you know, you can always make the argument, for convenience purposes, what you're proposing does make sense. I don't think there's a problem with that at all, but at the same time, if we're going to be creative in our attempts to maintain that buffer zone and maintain the integrity of the cemetery there, I think it's important for us to consider the other options that are available out there. We seem to always be in a big hurry to these things done, like suddenly they're going to vaporize tomorrow, and I know in the situation with, you know, Travelers, you know, it was a big hit for the whole area up there when that place left, with all those jobs, and I don't think we want to put ourselves in that position with McKesson and Per Se at the same time, but I think that we have listened to some possibilities here tonight. There's two or three things, and to just simply dismiss them as untenable and unworkable, not even to even look into them, swapping land, you know, with, that has been suggested by the Cemetery Superintendent and the Commission. I think those are things that we should, you know, we don't have to be in a hurry here. Per Se's not going to pack up and leave tomorrow, any more than they're going to add 100 employees tomorrow, either. I mean, we can cut each other a little bit of slack here before we make the decision going forward here. So, I don't know what you guys want to do. Do you guys want to add some more, stir the pot some more. MS. BITTER-Well, I just wanted to respond to those comments, and I appreciate where you're coming from, that you don't want to be under a time restraint, but I know that Joan was present for Mr. Dutch's comments last night, and the position that Northway Plaza is in, unfortunately we are at a crucial time. Although this Board hasn't been involved in the planning of this project, this project has been going on for a long time, I mean, just with regards to the stormwater management piece, that we really haven't even touched upon, the details that have gone into that have been many years in the making. We're coming at a point in time which if these things don't start to line up, we're really in a seriously difficult position. I mean, the letter that was written by Per Se was in November, and obviously, you know, they have every opportunity to explore other lease options which they could very well be doing right now. So, you know, if we're not able to entertain what they're indicating is their requirement at this time, we're pretty much, you know, signing the deal, and, as for the buffer, I know we're looking at significant details as to the 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) parking and, you know, yes, we don't have alternatives right now, and we're looking at it saying these are not things that we can incorporate. As we had mentioned earlier in the meeting, the buffer is something that the Planning Board has the option to waive. So obviously we have to discuss with them those details as well. This is not the only step in which the additional parking or the alternative parking possibilities are going to be discussed, and I know the Planning Board already presented their case last night that that's something we'd have to present, which we're aware of. The permeability, though, I don't believe, I mean, I'm not the engineer, but the permeability's still going to be a factor, because we're increasing the parking spaces. So the variance that we're requesting tonight is still going to happen, regardless if we modify the parking, only implement a certain imposition on this buffer or not, but the permeability is still something that it's going to be required. So I just want to make sure that this Board is aware, we do understand that this buffer issue isn't the end of the line tonight. We do understand that there's going to be some sort of modifications that may have to be made to parking because the Planning Board has already told us that that's going to happen at Site Plan. MRS. JENKIN-But I don't understand. If you don't extend that 25 feet into the buffer zone, why are you still going to need the permeability? Because everything else is all asphalt and concrete already. MS. BITTER-If we don't extend over there? MRS. JENKIN-If you don't extend into the buffer area. MS. BITTER-There's already and increase with regards to the footprint of the buildings. I mean, we're adding two additional buildings. We are demolishing 8,000 square feet, but we're still adding 15,000. I don't have the numbers in front of me. So the permeability is still increasing regardless, because the way the Plaza exists right now, there is a deficiency. So, yes, I mean, we're going to, I am not, obviously, the applicant, but I can tell you that there's going to be an increase in the parking area in this side regardless, if we come to a compromise or not with regard to the buffer to the Planning Board's perspective, but the permeability variance is still going to be required. MS. HEISER-It's also not the only new parking. With the land swap that's happening down at the corner piece, Bill Dutch is acquiring some, a piece of land, which is green space where the trees are now, and where the basin is going, so some of that is also, which is green space now, is going to become parking, because that's, when Mr. Dutch builds that basin for the State and the County, their swap is, they're going to give him that small triangle piece of land. So they can accommodate the, fit the parking accommodate it correctly. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. I see. MS. HEISER-So we'll, no matter what, increase. MS. BITTER-It's on the last sheet, Joan. MRS. JENKIN-Right. Okay. MR. OBORNE-I do say, the best sheet, really, to look at, if you have your plans with you, is C1.1. It shows, it's superimposed with the existing conditions, with proposed conditions, and they are correct that there is increased permeability, but a lot of that increased permeability is due to the added land also, if this was to be denied. So you would have to come back with a new set of numbers, at the direction of the Zoning Board, as to what they give you or not give you. MR. URRICO-So we don't know, right now, what the permeable, what the percentage is right now? MR. OBORNE-I'm confident as to what the percentage is. MR. URRICO-What is that? MR. OBORNE-It's at one percent. MR. URRICO-It's at one percent. MR. OBORNE-To be exact, it is at 24,848 square feet additional impermeable area is what they are before you right now for. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) MR. CLEMENTS-And that includes the triangular piece, plus the piece that they're looking at to? MR. OBORNE-That includes all that land, the proposed land, which has yet, that's not really an issue at this point. It is lumped into the permeability though, absolutely. MRS. JENKIN-But most of that one percent is that 25 feet that they're going to take all along the buffer zone? MR. OBORNE-I would say 80%. I hate to put a percentage on it, but a large chunk of that would be, yes. MRS. JENKIN-So that is most of the one percent. Okay. So that is, that's really what we're talking about then. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. URRICO-Here's my concern right now. We sent a motion to the Planning Board, asking for a recommendation. They gave us a recommendation, and now we're still debating the issue. So why did we send it to the Planning Board in the first place? If we have to make the decision based on a set of criteria, then either we shouldn't have sent it in the first place, or we should go by the recommendation of the Planning Board once we sent it to them. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I think what we were looking for from them was some succinct guidelines as to what they thought was reasonable, and they did not elaborate the buffer zone, and I think specifically we were looking at the buffer zone area and its effect on the cemetery. That seemed to be the major concern of our Board, and I don't think that questions, been answered, other than it was just simply dismissed, you know, as, well, maybe we can work this out, maybe we can't. I think it's, ultimately, it's our decision as a Board what we do here in this regard. I mean, we asked for a recommendation. We got sort of a nebulous recommendation that didn't really specify what exactly they intended to do. Well, we'll be making further changes, you know. I mean, that's sort of up in the air as far as I'm concerned. So, I think, based upon what's been presented to us, and we all have these plans that we received here this evening. MR. URRICO-And they're changing by the minute. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, right. So, in other words, we can discuss possibilities. We've listened to the party that's most affected, the cemetery, and what their concerns were, and I think that, at this point in time, we can wrap things up here and just simply poll the Board, poll us and vote, you know, we're not going to sit here all night and hem and haw about it. So, anything else you would like to add at this point? MS. BITTER-Well, I think you indicated that the recommendation didn't actually provide that they were recommending for the variance, but I would just argue, in fact, that it was, because that was what was before them. They obviously know that this buffer is something that they have the responsibility to look at and determine what exactly is going to be impacted, and when they discuss with us the landscaping and the parking, like I said, they realized we were going to be back before them for Site Plan Review. So, you know, that was why they indicated that these were going to be their issues, and those were the significant things that they were going to be discussing. MR. URRICO-But the variance is forever, and once we give the variance, that's going to be there forever. So we have to be sure that we're making the right decision. MS. BITTER-You're absolutely right, but they're the ones that obviously have to do the waiver for the buffer. I just want to make sure that that's on the record. MR. OBORNE-I just want to make this perfectly clear. If the Planning Board allows any change to the buffer and that increases the impermeability, you have to come back here. MS. BITTER-Right. Absolutely, I understand that. Because we're only talking about one percent. MRS. JENKIN-But you're talking about the total of what you need, and if we give the approval for the variance, then you can essentially go ahead and cut out that 25 feet, and you have to have, the Planning Board will have to give their approval, but you still can 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) make that 25 feet into the buffer zone impermeable, because we've given you the okay to do that. MS. BITTER-Right, but only, like you said, if the Planning Board allows us to do that, which is a significant step. MRS. JENKIN-No. They can make, they can say we'll put a tree here and there, and break it up a little bit, but it still will be done 25 feet into the buffer area, and that's where it will sit, because that's the impermeable area we're approving. MS. BITTER-Right, well, I guess where we disagree is that you're approving the percentage. You're approving the number, but the Planning Board is obviously going to be improving the encroachment in the buffer, and if the Planning Board doesn't necessarily approve that, then we don't have that development, we don't have that, and I think that's what Keith had explained in the beginning of the meeting. MR. CLEMENTS-Excuse me, Keith, do you agree with that argument? MR. OBORNE-I don't agree with it, and the reason I don't agree with it is, Number One, it's a 50 foot buffer, okay, and any increase in impermeability, because currently you are not compliant with the permeability, any increase in impermeability has to come back to this Board. If they want to change the attitude of the buffer, if they were going to cut down trees, they can do that. They cannot increase the impermeability without the approval. MS. BITTER-Right, and I was saying that they can only allow the project as it exists. MR. OBORNE-Correct. MS. BITTER-But they're the ones are going to have to determine whether or not that buffer's even going to be able to be encroached upon. They're the ones with the authority to actually grant that waiver. MR. OBORNE-True, and there are portions of this that will require relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals, specifically for Walgreens parking and that aspect of it, and that would be consistent with what the Cemetery Superintendent would be willing to give up, as I'm looking at the plan, but any change in impermeability, as applied for, which is before us right now, any change requires a variance. MS. BITTER-Right, but I think my position was saying, this is the worst case scenario, and the only way that that could be approved is if the Planning Board approves that, approves this plan. MRS. JENKIN-That's exactly what you're saying. This is the worst case scenario. So we are giving you the maximum, this one percent is the maximum that you need. So we're giving you approval to cut into this buffer and increase the permeability, and if we give the permission for this, then you can go ahead and do this. MS. BITTER-Only if the Planning Board allows it, and that's the only reason that we have the distinction. I mean, obviously we can be before the Planning Board for a year and then they can deny it. MRS. JENKIN-So they can cut down on the amount of permeability that you actually get, then? MS. BITTER-They can say that we don't approve the Site Plan. MR. OBORNE-That's true. You can approve the permeability, or impermeability, and then if they don't like a certain part of the Site Plan, they can change that as a condition of approval. MR. UNDERWOOD-How about, can we condition our approval also? MR. OBORNE-You can condition your approval based on the permeability. MR. UNDERWOOD-So why don't we just do that? All right. Why don't we do this. If that's going to be it, then, I think what I'm going to do is poll the Board and see where everybody's at, and I guess I'll start with you, Brian. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) MR. CLEMENTS-Well, thank you. I think that in the interest of moving this along, and seeing that the Planning Board will have some say about buffer, and Pine View Cemetery people also saying that they would have some area there to move around, to wiggle, wiggle room, I guess, I would be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan? MRS. JENKIN-Well, the thing that concerns me is the balancing test that we are supposed to consider, and if the benefit's can be achieved in other means, if there's an undesirable change in the neighborhood, or to nearby properties, whether the request is substantial. Because of the buffer zone, I feel it is substantial. Whether it will have adverse physical or environmental effects, it's cutting down on the amount of natural areas. There will be probably more runoff. You are making a huge, huge improvement with the septic, with the drainage and everything, and I think that that's a good thing, but the other four, I just can't, I just can't, I don't think that it covers the balancing test. So I guess I'm sorry, but I have to say no. MR. UNDERWOOD-Rich? MR. GARRAND-Okay. Looking at this long and hard, I'd love to see this project move forward, too, but also, by the same token, the people who own the lots in the cemetery, they have rights, too. I can definitely see where increasing the impermeability here is going to adversely effect the physical impact on the neighboring properties. If the applicant was willing to adhere to the conditions requested by Mr. Genier, I would be in favor of it, if they could adhere to that, I'd grant their request. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Okay. I'm tossing and turning about this one, and for a few reasons. We've suggested some feasible alternatives. I don't know if they're feasible, but they are alternatives that need to be considered before, I think, we move along. There's a sea of parking out there. It may be on the other side of the building, but it seems like everything is being condensed into this lower portion of the property, and that's the culprit in this whole scenario, and it seems like there's another solution out there that involves the parking on the other side that we can't seem to get to. So, that's a bothersome issue for me. The undesirable change in the neighborhood, because of the cemetery proximity to it, the possibility of there being some issues there that may affect the privacy of the people that have plots there or may consider plots there, the fact that we've been down this road before, in terms of permeability with this property, and we've addressed it, and now it's coming up again, and I understand the economic situation, but I also understand we have to proceed with caution when we make these kinds of decisions. So I think the request in this case is substantial enough for us to pause and see if there are other solutions. I do believe that there will be a positive environmental effect, as a result of what's going to take place there, but I think the issue is also self-created, and at this time, I would say no, but I think it's possibly going to move forward with some pursuit of other alternatives. MR. UNDERWOOD-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. This is a difficult decision. I hate to see the percent permeable land reduced. It's already over the limit, and yet I can see the benefits. My concern is that if we give the one percent permeability, we're sort of giving carte blanche. We have no more say over what happens. So I think I have to agree with, I would go along with it, but I would want conditions. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. In reviewing what we've done here this evening, the Planning Board has made a positive recommendation on the one percent permeability issue, but they also, in their resolution, recognize that the Planning Board further will contribute that there will be significant Site Plan Review issues including the maintenance of the buffer and landscaping, but we would make a positive recommendation on the permeability. I think that all of us recognize the permeability issue is a slight change from what's presently on site. As recognized with the swap of that land with the County out on Route 9 on the corner there, and the infrastructure that's going to go in on that stormwater prevention plan, you know, major project that they're going to be building out there. At the same time, I think that we need to recognize, you know, what came first, the cart or the horse, and the cemetery pre-exists this site here. I think that there's significant concerns that were raised by the cemetery people about that buffer zone, and regardless of whether Per Se wants parking in the back there or not, there are, as has been pointed out by the Board members, significant other alternatives 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) available. I would approve this tonight, but I would only do it with conditions, and that is that preservation of that buffer zone, minus the 20 spots that would be added down there, as suggested by the Commission on the Cemetery. I think the one percent is a reasonable change. You're way over the top as far as permeability, but anything that's been done up there with Home Depot or any of the improvements up there have been a positive going forward, and I think we recognize the positive going forward with the project that's going to come in on the corner there. So I would only do this, you know, with that caveat in there, and I don't want to go into what the other alternatives are. I don't think that we want to surmise what possibilities, where you might gain the other parking that you need in that parking lot. It could be as simply as running a van during peak times when people are coming and going out to take people out to their cars over at Home Depot, or working out some kind of a swapperoo with parking that's, you know, a vacant, blacktop area that's, you know, consistently, you know, not being used. MS. BITTER-Can I just make a suggestion that would meet you half way? MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MS. BITTER-Is it possible that you would condition it that we would work with the cemetery to seek a resolution? I know that they have something presented to us. We don't necessarily how those work with the numbers, but with the understanding that we would work with them, not leaving them totally out in the open or not, you know, working on a condition. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I would think an understanding on your part, also, in representing them going forward, the whole project, that, you know, you recognize the significance of preservation of that buffer along there. You would gain those 20 spots. You're going to be gaining other spots back there, too. I mean, it's not like a complete net loss on the part of what you've proposed here, but I think there has to be compromise. I would be willing to go along with that, as long as you are. MS. BITTER-Right. We would be willing to work with the cemetery. I know we've reached out, and I've even told the Superintendent we would go to the Commission, if that was the word. MR. GARRAND-Reached out. I mean, who would have final say? We can't have. MS. BITTER-Well, we'd obviously, it would obviously have to be a compromise. MR. GARRAND-Yes. We can't have a contractor out there just arbitrarily cutting things down and Mr. Genier coming to work one day and finding out that his buffer zone is gone. I mean, if he could have, you know, perhaps final say as to how much is removed, and what suits him, I'd be willing to go for it. MS. BITTER-I'm sorry, Chris just whispered in my ear that the idea that obviously the Planning Board would be the negotiator in this, understanding that your condition is that we work with the cemetery, and that the cemetery's position as they have. Hopefully we can see if we can work with something like that, or modify the site to incorporate additional parking, so that they're proposing could work with what we're presenting. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So, do you want me to do this? MR. URRICO-To me, working with sounds nebulous to me, and vague. What does that mean? We're basically ceding the responsibility to the Planning Board, again, for making this decision. I think we either have to make a decision, or ask the applicant to come back with something different. MR. UNDERWOOD-How about that we approve the one percent increase, but at the same time, that our recommendation is that we would only go along with this with the preservation of that buffer zone, minus the 20 spots as suggested. MRS. JENKIN-But, Jim, you can't preserve the buffer zone and give them the extra 50 feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, they're not going to gain any of that lower parking that they're proposing down there, as far as I'm concerned. MRS. JENKIN-Well, then you're not approving the one percent permeability, then, impermeability. You can't approve that if you say that the buffer zone is going to stay. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then let's do this, all right. You've heard where we're at, okay. You're going to have to go back and reconfigure and come back with a number, and I don't want any mention of cutting of that buffer zone, other than what was suggested by them, that 20 spots down there. So you go back and hack that off the plan, and then come back to us and you'll probably get your less than one percent increase that you're proposing. MRS. JENKIN-Could we table it? MS. BITTER-Well, the problem is that we're in a serious time issue. If we table it, the only request that I would really stress is that we would have to put it on a March meeting, if that's possible, because, it's coming to a point that we're in some serious issues time wise. So I understand that what you're presenting is you're not happy with the project, what we're proposing, other than the buffer issue. MRS. JENKIN-Yes, absolutely. MS. BITTER-So, I mean, I know that you guys don't want to see this project die any more than we do. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I mean, I think it's a simple thing of counting 20 spaces down there and drawing a line through the rest, like it or not. MRS. JENKIN-I'm sure it isn't that simple. MS. HEISER-It's not. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. So I guess what we're going to do is make a tabling motion, then, at this point in time. MS. BITTER-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-And we will table you to, which one in March, the first one or the second one? MS. BITTER-The first one, if you could. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then we'll table you to the first meeting in March, and anything that you come back with should reflect the comments that have been made by the Board here tonight, reflecting our desires, buffered by the comments from the Cemetery because they're the most affected party, and I think that you understand that, you know, we're okay with the buildings, etc. It's the parking issue, and what was proposed down there, you know, so you're going to have to figure it out. Per Se's going to have to be reasonable. MR. OBORNE-If I could, if you could be specific on what you're sending them away to do. So it sounds like you want them to reconfigure without the buffer, without encroaching on the buffer? MR. UNDERWOOD-Without any kind of encroachment on the buffer going forward, except for possibly those 20 spots. MS. BITTER-If we talk to the Cemetery and obviously we're trying to work a plan, you understand that we would be obviously coming back. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, but I'm saying, at the same time, I understand, because you've got a retaining wall in, that that's going to be a major re-do, you know, to remove what you had proposed, because it was going to be that tiered climbing up the hill deal. MRS. JENKIN-Probably what we are asking for is a reduction in that one percent impermeable. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and that would be reflected by the buffer preservation and the finding of parking elsewhere on site, in the Plaza, including Home Depot, or some of the other suggestions that were made here this evening. Okay. So I'll need a second on that. MRS. JENKIN-I'll second. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 77-2008 NPA II, LLC (NORTHWAY PLAZA ASSOCIATES~CHILI'S RESTAURANT], Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joan Jenkins Applicant to go back and reconfigure and come back with a number, with no mention of cutting of that buffer zone other than what was suggested by them, that 20 spots down there. So the applicant should go back and hack that off the plan, and then come back to the Zoning Board and the applicant will probably get their less than one percent increase that the applicant is proposing. The applicant to count 20 spaces down there and drawing a line through the rest. Tabled to the first meeting in March, and anything that the applicant comes back with should reflect the comments that have been made by the Board here tonight reflecting our desires, buffered by the comments from the cemetery because they're the most affected party, and I think the applicant understands that, you know, the Zoning Board is okay with the buildings, etc. It's the parking issue and what was proposed down there. So the you're going to have to figure it out. Per Se's going to have to be reasonable. Reconfigure without any kind of encroachment on the buffer going forward, except for possibly those 20 spots, but at the same time, because you've got a retaining wall in, that that's going to be a major re-do, you know, to remove what you had proposed because it was going to be that tiered climbing up the hill deal. We're asking for a reduction in that one percent impermeable, and that would be reflected by the buffer preservation and the finding of parking elsewhere on site, in the Plaza, including Home Depot or some of the other suggestions that were made here this evening. Duly adopted this 18t" day of February, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Drellos SIGN VARIANCE NO. 87-2008 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED THE SIGN CENTER AGENT(S): THE SIGN CENTER OWNER(S): PYRAMID MALL OF GF NEWCO ZONING: ESC-25A LOCATION: 578 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES AN ADDITIONAL 47.3 SF SIGN ABOVE THE ENTRANCE TO FRIENDLY'S RESTAURANT. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE SIGNS AND MAXIMUM SIZE OF SIGNS FOR THIS BUSINESS. CROSS REF.: BP 08-351, 348, 350, 349 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 12/10/08 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: N/A LOT SIZE: 37.49 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.5- 1-92.11 SECTION: 140-6 JAY KAHN & JOHN SYPEK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-Again, that was the sign that's over the main entrance into the building. They currently have two signs, both allowable, and the third sign would be in excess of what is permitted at the present. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 87-2008, The Sign Center, Meeting Date: February 18, 2009 "Project Location: 578 Aviation Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes an additional 47.3 square foot sign located on the east elevation of the Friendly's Restaurant in Aviation Mall. Relief Required: Relief required for one (1) additional wall sign per §140-6 of the Sign Ordinance. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor changes to nearby properties are anticipated as a result of 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) this proposal. However, this proposal may initiate additional sign requests for Aviation Mall, resulting in increased Sign Variance requests. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant could remove one of the two existing wall signs to become more compliant. However, feasible alternatives appear to be limited. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for a third wall sign or 200 percent relief may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. However, the two sign in place are considered existing as they both have approved sign permits. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): A.V. 63-2008 Rear setback relief for a proposed 11,500 sq. ft. structure-Approved 9/ 17/08 S.P. 40-2008 Aviation Out parcel expansion not too include Friendly's-Pending Staff comments: Friendly's Restaurant is located on Aviation Mall property and as such is considered part of a business complex. The wall sign associated with this application is located on the east elevation, adjacent to the front entrance and is viewed by vehicles traveling west on Aviation Road. The sign is lit by up lighting attached on the wall, below the sign. This sign is the third wall sign for this building, with the second non-compliant sign previously issued a permit, thus allowed to be replaced without a variance. SEAR Status: Unlisted -The Zoning Board of Appeals must make a SEAR determination. "Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form December 10, 2008 Project Name: The Sign Center Owner(s): Pyramid Mall of GF NEWCO ID Number: QBY-08-SV-87 County Project#: Dec08-25 Current Zoning: ESC-25A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes an additional 47.3 sq. ft. sign above the entrance. Relief is requested from the maximum allowable number of signs for this business. Site Location: 578 Aviation Road Tax Map Number(s): 308.5-1-92.11 Staff Notes: Sign Variance: The applicant proposes to replace an existing nonconforming sign for Friendly's restaurant. The sign is to be 47.3 sq. ft. the applicant has indicated the sign will identify the main entrance of the restaurant. The plans show the location of the existing and proposed wall signs. Staff recommends no county impact based on the information submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law Section 239 L applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board Recommendation No County Impact" Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 12/12/08. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Go ahead. MR. KAHN-Thank you. I'm Jay Kahn from the Sign Center, and John Sypek, Restaurant Development Manager for Friendly's, is also here with us tonight, so that he can answer questions relative to this project, and the history over the past 10 years. I thank the Board for hearing our application and also for our continuance as we hit bad weather last month and made it a difficult travel night. As the application and the reading into the minutes have identified is this is a sign that was pre-existing and was there for the prior 10 years. Ten years ago Friendly's leased this space from Pyramid as a former Sambo's, and this is not a build out of a typical Friendly's, and so we're talking about that gable parapet that was added to this building to add the architecture to identify the brand for Friendly's in typical use of their buildings, and so it is a key piece, as well as being the restaurant, it is the only piece of the building that is a brand ID for their own architecture. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) The building had all of these signs and more prior to this refurbishment. Last Fall, Friendly's reinvested into this building basically to bring it up to date. The old picture, and it's small and I can pass this around, was this was what was there. Not nearly as attractive as it is now, because it was both tired, and the change in the architecture over the 10 years. There is also the removal of a mural that was a wall mural and lettering that is sitting underneath. So all of that is gone, to have a net reduction. The two existing signs are 29 square feet each, for a total of 58. They sit in the sign band. One is facing the street, and one is part of the entrance of the Mall, and so those are the two sides. You drive around to the parking lot side and the main entrance, which is the side we're talking about, in the application process, we applied to replace all the signs, and that's when we learned, reviewing both Code and the pre-existing condition for this building. I think this is the only out building on this Mall pad. I'm not 100% sure of that, but I believe this is the only out building in the whole parcel, and so other conditions is the rest of the building is the Mall itself. It obviously is a commercial Mall property. It does not injure others or decrease the value. We certainly believe it's architecturally pleasing, as it fits the structure, and quite frankly is incomplete without it, is that, if you were to look at the building now, this side of the building actually looks a little bit odd without signage over the main entrance. The landlord has approved this, both in terms of the formality of the application and is in support of the application. It was a pre- existing condition for 10 years. So in terms of injuring others, it was the condition. I do not know the Sambo's condition. I don't know if this replicated what was there and has been there for 30 years, or it's a condition from 10 years ago. The square footage of the building, to have a 100 square foot maximum, they have the lineal footage to get the 25% to go over that, because of, it's approximately a 70 by 70 building, and so they would hit the 100 foot maximum. The three signs combined only hit 105 square feet, and if 100 were the breaking point, we certainly would reduce, before this sign, the couple of inches that it would require us to get that five square feet out of the sign. We don't think it's contrary to the spirit because of the architecture of the building, the street frontage, the Mall entrance egress, and the fact that entrance to the restaurant and the parking lot side is the opposite side. The gable, as already identified, is the brand architecture for Friendly's. If it was a grounds up building, you would see two end gables and a gable on the front of the building to support their colonial position of a New England family restaurant. We believe that the undesirable change, when you had 10 years of pre- existing, and we presume no major additional applications because of it, demonstrates that it is anon-significant, non-substantial impact on your Ordinances. It is somewhat self-created because of, again, I'm not familiar with what the Sambo's condition was before, but it was the key sign for the architecture both for the restaurant entrance and that building ID for the brand. We look forward to your support and any questions that you may have. MR. UNDERWOOD-So all the signs that are currently on the building, including this one here, have been there for over 10 years? MR. KAHN-That's correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-And the only simplification is you're taking off the neighborhood restaurant from down below. MR. KAHN-There was a mural on that wall, too. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. I remember. MRS. JENKIN-So that's what you took off. You've never had a Friendly's sign on that side at all? MR. KAHN-No, it was there. It was there for the past 10 years. MR. UNDERWOOD-That's what it looked like. MRS. JENKIN-So you've taken that one down. MR. KAHN-Correct. MRS. JENKIN-Why did you take that one down? MR. KAHN-It was part of the rehab of the project, and so we were just replacing. So it was taken down as part of the rehab, and the permitting process is when ran into needing the variance for the third sign. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) MR. SYPEK-Right. My name is John Sypek. I'm the Manager of Development for Friendly. What had happened is, ten years or so ago, we inadvertently put up a sign that we probably shouldn't have. It's been up there 10 years. We went back in for our permits, like we always do. MRS. JENKIN-For the building. MR. SYPEK-Just to change the existing signs, and that's when we found out that something wasn't followed through. Everything was written up in the file folders and we went through all our file folders, found out we needed a variance. We couldn't find a thing in there but the sign went up and it had been up there for 10 years. So that's when we said, well, let's take it down, and go through the proper process and make sure everything's all right, and that's why this sign has been down since July. MR. KAHN-And had Friendly's not chosen to reinvest in the building, make it cleaner, more appealing, that sign would be on the building today. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Board members have any questions? Everybody understands the situation. Why don't I open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence at all? MR. URRICO-I'm looking right now, but I don't see any, no. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anything else you guys want to add? Otherwise, we'll have at it. Okay. I'll close the public hearing, then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-I'll start with you, Rich. MR. GARRAND-I've gone by this building a million times. I remember it with the other sign up. It was pretty much non-noticeable. Any time you drive by this building, you're never going to see more than one sign when you drive by this building from any direction, whether you're going north, whatever, you don't see any more than one sign. I don't think it's too terribly obtrusive. Also the fact that it was pre-existing and basically I never knew it was there. Like, I've walked in that building hundreds of times and never known that sign was there above the awning. I don't think I'm going to notice the sign that you want to put up here now. So at this point, I'd support this application. MR. UNDERWOOD-Joan? MRS. JENKIN-I actually agree that it does look odd. It looks empty. It doesn't look right without something there, and I agree with Rick, as you go around the building, you just see the one sign. I've driven past it many, many times. I think, for that exposure, I think that actually your signs and the placement of the building, the worst part about it is the freestanding sign of the Mall that sits right beside the building and it really takes away from your building. So I would be in favor. I think that it fits all the balancing test and I would be in favor of the variance. MR. UNDERWOOD-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-Thank you. I would also be in favor of it. I think that if you just look at the lettering on the old sign and the lettering on the new sign, it actually takes up less space, and I think it looks better. So I'd be in favor of this MR. UNDERWOOD-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. My first reaction was the third sign is a bit much, but, as you pointed out, the three signs together don't come to much more than 100 square feet. So I would be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy? MR. URRICO-I can see why, 30 years ago, that the Board, whatever existed at the time, would rather have a sign that says Friendly's than Sambo up there. So they probably 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) would have put up three or four signs to replace that one that was there. I would be in favor of this. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Only in Queensbury is less more. So, in this case here, I would be amenable to what you're requesting here. It's a net loss of signage as far as I'm concerned by cleaning it up and everybody should have the opportunity to upgrade, and if they didn't notice it for 10 years, I don't even notice it now either. So does somebody want to make the resolution? MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me. I think you have to do a SEQRA. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, we have to do SEQRA first. All right. Can I do it just based upon that statement that we can do on SEQRA now, based upon? MR. OBORNE-Yes. You can say, go ahead and make a resolution that it's a Negative Declaration. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. 87-2008 THE SIGN CENTER THAT THERE IS A NEGATIVE DECLARATION BASED UPON GOING THROUGH THE SEQRA PROGRAM. THERE IS NOTHING THAT WILL BE A NET CHANGE. IF ANYTHING IT WILL BE LESS SIGNAGE THAN WHAT WAS ON THIS BUILDING PRIOR TO THIS UPGRADE OF THE BUILDING HERE, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: Duly adopted this 18t" day of February, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Drellos MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So, Rich, do you want to do that? MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 87-2008 THE SIGN CENTER, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 578 Aviation Road, in front of Aviation Mall. The applicant proposes the addition of a 47.3 square foot sign located on the east elevation of the Friendly's restaurant, Aviation Mall. The applicant is requesting relief for one additional wall sign from the limit of two. For the balancing test, whether benefits can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. In this case they can't. They've actually shown a reduction in signs here. Will this produce an undesirable change in neighborhood or character to other properties? We do not believe it will change the character of the neighborhood in any way, shape or form. Is this request substantial? I would deem this request moderate at best. Will this request have adverse physical or environmental impacts on the neighborhood? I can foresee none whatsoever. The alleged difficulty may be deemed as self-created. So I make a motion we approve Sign Variance No. 87-2008. Duly adopted this 18t" day of February, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Drellos MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. MR. KAHN-Thank you very much. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2009 SEQRA TYPE II THOMAS W. PENDERS OWNER(S): THOMAS AND VALERIE PENDERS ZONING: SFR-1A LOCATION: 51 COUNTRY COLONY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 24 FT. BY 30 FT. DETACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM REAR YARD SETBACK 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) REQUIREMENTS AND RELIEF FOR A SECOND GARAGE. CROSS REF.: BP 2008- 344; BP 696 YR. 1970 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.58 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.11-2-26 SECTION: 179-5-020; 179-4-030 TOM & VALERIE PENDERS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 5-2009, Thomas W. Penders, Meeting Date: February 18, 2008 "Project Location: 51 Country Colony Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to erect a 720 sq. ft. second garage with workshop within the rear setback. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from number of allowable garages per 179-5-020(D). Further, requests 10 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement for rear setbacks in the SFR-1A zone per §179-4-030. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor changes to nearby properties are anticipated as a result of this proposal. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant could build in a more compliant location or reduce the size of the project. Specifically, the garage could be moved forward and south of its proposed location. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for an additional garage or 100 percent relief may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. The request for 10 feet or 50 percent relief from the rear setback requirements of the Single Family Residential 1 acres zone per §179-4-030 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None since 1970 Staff comments: The applicant states in his narrative that the garage under the bedroom seeps exhaust through the ceiling and is the overriding reason for a new garage. The location of the proposed garage/workshop appears to be the most logical given the restraints of the property. SEAR Status: Type II - No action necessary." MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. PENDERS-Good evening. I'm Tom Penders. This is my wife Valerie, and we're looking to build a garage in the back of our property, mostly because, like all of us, we've collected toys over the years and we're running out of room, and the existing garage we have right now is under our bedrooms, and we just cannot use it. We haven't used it in the last 15 years because of the fume problems. Even though the ceiling is insulated, it 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) still breathes those fumes up into the bedroom. Also the second reason we cannot use it is because of the way the driveway comes up. It takes a, well, you can't see it there. I think you have pictures of the driveway, maybe. When you come up the drive, you'd have to take a sharp 90 to get into the garage, either space, and of course we have two garages and just, it's physically impossible for her or myself with the big truck to get into that garage. So if we had the garage out in back, we could just pull in straight through and it would be a lot more convenient. MRS. PENDERS-We do have a letter from our neighbor that owns the property behind us. MRS. JENKIN-That's good. MR. PENDERS-And he's given the okay to, he's all right with the 10 foot variance, and of course this would be like amulti-use garage. Well, we have a boat. I'd like to store that there at times of the year, and the snowmobile and all the tools, and of course a little workshop and what have you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any concerns, Board members, any questions? MR. GARRAND-Are you going to be closing off any of the existing garage? MR. PENDERS-Well, we didn't want to go that route because we still would use that for storage, fire wood. MRS. JENKIN-Had you considered using that for your workshop? MR. PENDERS-The existing garage? Yes, I have considered that, but. MRS. JENKIN-But then it wouldn't be a garage anymore. Then you wouldn't have two garages. MR. PENDERS-Exactly. MR. GARRAND-Does your truck even fit in that existing garage? MR. PENDERS-I could probably squeak it in there, but it wouldn't be convenient, and like I said, with the way you have to go up the driveway and make a 90 degree turn, it's very tough. MR. GARRAND-You need 4-wheel drive to get in there. MR. PENDERS-Well, it's a flat area. To get up the driveway, you need 4-wheel drive at times, yes. MRS. JENKIN-I went to visit your property, and I saw the shed, and if you're taking the shed down. MR. PENDERS-The shed is coming down. MRS. JENKIN-Yes. It looked to me as if you could pull that garage, even the 24 by 30, that size that you have, you could pull it forward and over a little bit where the shed is, and even save five feet of relief. We have a problem in that granting relief, it goes with the property. We try to grant the least relief possible, and so I was trying to think of some way that you could, right now it's a 50%, and if you could even move it forward five feet, that would make a big difference to us. MR. PENDERS-Well, our main concern there was, I don't know if you noticed the terrace stop retaining wall. We have a high spot at our backyard and low spot, and the retaining wall, when it comes to the back, it kind of hooks around a little bit, and in order to access that with the lawnmower or what have you, to bring that garage up any farther, and we kind of, you know, took measurements and stuff, and there just wasn't that much room to get around it, and to go to the south, I don't know if you noticed, but I tried to fill in behind the shed with leaves and grass or whatever, but that is quite a slope there, and most of that is very soft fill on that lower part, and of course on the northern end is the big hill there. So we've looked at all different kinds of ways, and that was the only, the easiest spot we could think of. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) MRS. JENKIN-Because I was thinking, because this is property owned by someone else and you're encroaching into their, more or less, territory, I guess, but you have the letter which makes a big difference. MR. PENDERS-And I don't know if you know the name, Art Norton. He was one of the original members on the Planning Board. If that makes any. MR. CLEMENTS-Would you be able to, where this is placed in the back, would you be able to, as I'm looking at this diagram here, back up and turn around so that you could come out of your driveway forwards instead of backing out? I mean, if you went into the garage, if you backed it out, frontwards, backed out of the garage, could you turn around and come back out? MRS. PENDERS-Turn around there, so you wouldn't have to back around? Yes. MR. CLEMENTS-Right. If you had it forward, would you be able to do that, if you had it closer to the road? MR. PENDERS-You are talking about the new garage? MR. CLEMENTS-Right. I'm talking about the new garage. MR. PENDERS-I'm missing you there. MR. CLEMENTS-If you pulled it back away from there, your back line a little bit more, would you be able to go into your garage and then come out and turn around and then go out of your driveway? I'm looking at that retaining wall on the side, and it looks like if you pulled, I'm trying to help you out here, if you pull that garage forward, would you be able to come out of your garage and turn around, or would you hit that retaining wall on that side? MR. PENDERS-If we backed in over towards the left, you could do that, yes, but that still, to bring the garage out any further, it would be so close to that retaining wall that we wouldn't be able to access the upper part with like a lawnmower. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. MR. PENDERS-And that was the main concern there. Because the rest of it is all solid right to the house, with a stairway. MRS. JENKIN-Well, that's reasonable. MR. PENDERS-And it's tough hauling that lawnmower up that stairway. MR. GARRAND-It looks almost big enough to fit a bucket truck in there. MR. PENDERS-I wish I knew where there was one. I thought you looked familiar. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Any other questions from Board members? I guess I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-We do have the one letter. MR. URRICO-I'll read it in. "To Whom It May Concern: We are sorry we cannot attend this planning board hearing. Being the owner of the property to the rear of the Penders property to the rear of the Penders property, Tax Map #289.11-1-58, we give our consent to allowing for the ten foot set back variance in order for them to build their garage. Thank you, J. Arthur & Phyllis E. Norton 55 Country Colony Road Queensbury, NY 12804" MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. URRICO-Is Art Norton, did he design the garage? MR. PENDERS-No. He's just my neighbor. MR. URRICO-He's an architect, though, isn't he? 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) MR. PENDERS-Yes. I've heard that a few times. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess I'll close the public hearing then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-And I guess I'll poll the Board and see what you guys think. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. Thank you. Yes. I think this is pretty straightforward. I think because of the restraint of your property, there really is no other place to the garage, and I can see where you wouldn't want to have cars parked in your garage if you're having fumes in your house. Though it is substantial, I think it's reasonable, and I would be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I would be in favor of it for the same reasons. I think it satisfies most of the criteria. The only one that would be in question, in my mind, would be the request being substantial. The rear setback, and I believe that it's being placed in the best location possible. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich? MR. GARRAND-Going through the balancing test, I can only see two things on here that you would fail the balancing test on. The other three would pass, so I'd be in favor of this. MRS. JENKIN-And I also go along with this. I don't think you have many alternatives, and it certainly, so you don't have any other feasible means to do this, and I understand that the garage is very, very difficult to get into, and so this would help you a lot. So I'd be in favor of it, too. MR. UNDERWOOD-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I agree with the rest of the Board. I would be in favor of this. I think that it passes the balancing test, and I think it's a good project. MR. UNDERWOOD-I'll go along with everybody else, too. I think that the recommendation is that, the Board is reasonable. We've listened to what your argument is, and it certainly seems plausible, what you've proposed here. Your neighbor that's going to be affected by the setback variance that you're requesting doesn't have a problem with it. I don't have a problem with it, either. I think in most cases here, when people request second garages, if they've got enough room, if they're not really going to bother anybody with their project by doing it, you know, I mean, that's really the main concern. On smaller lots, you know, certainly it does become a concern with us, and we don't like to give second garages to everybody, but you really can't utilize what you have there as a garage now, so as far as I'm concerned, it's not really a useful garage in existence. So does somebody want to make the resolution? MRS. JENKIN-I'll make one. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2009 THOMAS W. PENDERS, Introduced by Joan Jenkin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: 51 Country Colony Road. The applicant proposes to erect a 720 square foot second garage with workshop within the rear setback. The applicant requests relief from the number of allowable garages per 179-5-020D. Further requests 10 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement for rear setbacks in the SFR-1A zone per 179-4-030. The criteria for considering an Area Variance. In making a determination, the Board did consider whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this Area Variance. There's no detriment to nearby properties. It's an empty lot and the property owners are conducive to this happening. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an Area Variance. There really are no other feasible alternatives. They've placed it where it is most convenient in the back of the property and won't be noticeable, really, to the road or to neighbors I don't think. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial? The 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) request for an additional garage or 100% relief may be considered severe. The request for 10 feet or 50% relief from the rear setback requirement for the Single Family Residential One Acre zone may be considered moderate, but the second garage actually is a safety factor because the present garage under the bedroom is not useable and is not usable and is very, very hard to enter. The 50% relief, because of the restraints of the property, is not considered, it is considered moderate. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? There's minor impact on the physical or environmental conditions. The alleged difficulty was not self-created because you did not build the house and you bought the problems and you're trying to solve the problem of the second garage. So I move to approve Area Variance No. 5-2009. Duly adopted this 18t" day of February, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Drellos MR. UNDERWOOD-Get building. MR. PENDERS-Okay. Thank you all for your time. AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II JUDITH M. RICCIO AGENT(S): TOM ALBRECHT/HILLTOP CONSTRUCTION OWNER(S): JUDITH M. RICCIO ZONING: RR-3A LOCATION: 1208 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 594 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR ADDITION ABOVE PRE- EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE AND FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF.: BP 2008-575 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: FEBRUARY 11, 2009 LOT SIZE: 1.81 ACRE TAX MAP NO. 279.18-1-11 SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-13-010 MR. UNDERWOOD-We did receive a letter from Hilltop Construction, Tom Albrecht, and it reads as follows. This was received on February 5t" at the Town office. "Please move my scheduled appearance at the Zoning Board meeting to the 1St March meeting & 1St on the agenda. Send confirmation that this works. Best, Tom" Okay. So I think what we'll do is a tabling motion until the first meeting in March. MRS. JENKIN-I have a request. I was in and saw Keith and I was discussing the floor plans, and I would like to request a complete floor plan of the first floor of the existing first floor, because I didn't feel that the information that they gave us really showed where the new bedroom would be, where the bathrooms would be located, and the changes that they're going to make. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is that something reasonable? MR. OBORNE-Well, we had discussed that. That is not what's under this Zoning Board of Appeals. It is a request and the whole Board would have to approve that in order for me to go to the applicant and ask that, after the fact. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I mean, we're looking at multiple requests here for side and front yard setback. MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is that reflective of the changes they want to make? MR. OBORNE-It is reflective of the second story that they're adding to it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. OBORNE-The first floor doesn't add to it, but I understand where Mrs. Jenkin's concern is with this, absolutely. MR. UNDERWOOD-But we're essentially on a single footprint and we're adding a second story, not changing. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) MR. OBORNE-Right. It's pre-existing, nonconforming on the first floor, and it's the second floor that you should be concerning yourself with. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. MRS. JENKIN-Except that in your notes you mentioned they might be changing to a four bedroom, and that is not reflected in the plans that you gave us. MR. OBORNE-And I can't disagree with you on that. I cannot. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Okay. Then maybe we can ask them for confirmation at the meeting regarding the plans for the additional bedrooms. Would that satisfy you as far as knowing what they're going to add, how many? MRS. JENKIN-I guess so. They could, from the floor plan that is it, they could identify which rooms are what. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Maybe they can do that, just the night of the meeting, hand that to us. MR. OBORNE-If that's fine with you, in your tabling resolution, mention that, because they will be getting a copy of that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. All right. I will be tabling Area Variance No. 6-2009, then, until the first meeting in March. They've asked to be placed first on the agenda. I think we already have somebody first, though. Don't we have Northway Plaza NPA on there first, or not? MR. OBORNE-Yes, well, that has not been. MR. UNDERWOOD-We can put them first, because that'll be, we'll go ahead and get that over with. MR. OBORNE-Well, they do have septic issues. So this, I don't know how, why, this is even here, but at the same time. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I mean, is that going to be a Town Board of Health issue? MR. OBORNE-It's looking like it. MR. UNDERWOOD-That's in the works. All right. So indeed they may not be ready by March, as far as we know. MR. OBORNE-That is correct, yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. We will then table them until March. We've asked for further clarification as to the first floor plan as it exists and as it will exist. MRS. JENKIN-Well, right, whether there is a change from three to four bedrooms in the plan, because that does make a difference. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. OBORNE-Would you like to see an existing and a proposed? MRS. JENKIN-I would like that. MR. OBORNE-I know they have that there, but I agree, it is ambiguous. Absolutely. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think that will have a reflection as to whether they have to go to the Town Health Board because of their constraints on site for septic, right? MR. OBORNE-The narrative states that they are going from three bedrooms to four bedrooms. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Right. So second on that from somebody? MR. URRICO-Second. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-2009 JUDITH M. RICCIO, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption Roy Urrico: 1208 Ridge Road. Until a meeting in March. They've asked to be placed first on the agenda. We've asked for further clarification as to the first floor plan as it exists and as it will exist. We'd like to see an existing and proposed plan. Duly adopted this 18t" day of February, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Drellos SIGN VARIANCE NO. 7-2009 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED WARREN ELECTRIC/RYAN NUDI AGENT(S): SIGN PRO OWNER(S): RYAN NUDI ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 281 DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 56.7 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT SETBACK AND MAXIMUM SIGN SIZE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 2000-606 OFFICE SPACE & SHED ADDITION; BP 2000-558 SEPTIC ALT.; BP 91-773 INT. ALT.; BP 89- 629 WAREHOUSE; BP 88-479 POLE BARN; BP 87-808 ADDITION (OFFICE & SHOWROOM) WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: FEBRUARY 11, 2009 LOT SIZE: 2.01 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.15-1-4 SECTION: 140-6 BRIAN MC CUSTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 7-2009, Warren Electric/Ryan Nudi, Meeting Date: February 18, 2009 "Project Location: 281 Dix Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove a 32 square foot conforming freestanding sign and replace with a 56.7 square foot non-compliant sign. Relief Required: Applicant requests 14 feet of setback relief from the 15 foot minimum front setback requirement per §140 of Town Code. Further, the applicant seeks size relief of 6.7 square feet from the 50 square foot maximum per §140. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor changes to nearby properties are anticipated as a result of this proposal. However, an increase in sign variances for size and setback relief may be a result of granting this variance. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant could build in a more compliant location and/or reduce the size of the project. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 14 feet or 93 percent relief from the 15 foot minimum front setback requirement may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. The request for 6.7 square feet or 13.4% of relief from the 50 foot maximum sign size may be considered minor relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated as many existing business's free-standing signs are well within the front setback requirements of Chapter 140. 5.. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): S.P. 5-2000 5,460 sq. ft. addition Approved 7/25/00 S.P. 50-90 Building addition Approved 7/17/90 Staff comments: The applicant proposes to remove an existing 32 square foot freestanding sign that is located outside the front setback. According to the applicant, the approximate height of the existing sign is 35 feet, 10- feet in excess of the 25 foot maximum for freestanding signs. The proposed new freestanding sign has as height of 17 feet, 8 feet less than the maximum allowable height for freestanding signs. The applicants stated purpose as to locating the sign close to the front property line is for visibility. SEAR Status: Unlisted -The Zoning Board must make a SEAR Determination concerning this application." "Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form February 11, 2009 Project Name: Warren Electric/Ryan Nudi Owner(s): Ryan Nudi ID Number: QBY- 09-SV-07 County Project#: Feb09-24 Current Zoning: HC-Int. Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 56.7 sq. ft. freestanding sign. Relief requested from front setback and maximum sign size requirements. Site Location: 281 Dix Avenue Tax Map Number(s): 303.15-1-4 Staff Notes: Sign Variance: The applicant proposes construction of a 56.7 sq. ft. freestanding sign. Relief is requested from front setback and maximum sign size requirements. The new sign will exceed the 50 sq. ft. maximum size allowed and will be located 1 ft. from the front property line where a 15 ft. setback is required. The information submitted indicates the existing sign will be removed. The applicant has indicated the existing sign is obscured by the trees and the required setback would interfere with the travel pattern. The plans show the sign location and type. Staff recommends no county impact with the condition request clarification to determine if the sign location is within the right-of-way, applicant to contact Warren County DPW. This is based on the information submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law Section 239 L applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact with Stipulation The Warren County Planning Board recommends No County Impact with the condition clarification is required to determine if the sign location is within the right-of-way, applicant is to contact Warren County DPW." Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board, 2/13/09. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Go ahead. MR. MC CUSTER-Hi. My name is Brian McCuster. I'm the General Manager at Sign Pro in Latham, and this is Tony. TONY GAMMORY MR. GAMMORY-My name is Tony Gammory. I'm the Sales Manger. I apologize. Ryan Nudi couldn't make it because he was in Albany with the weather. So I'm sitting in. MR. MC CUSTER-The biggest thing is I've had the pleasure of working with Warren Electric. I think ultimately their goal is they've changed their logo. That was one of the things that they've done recently, and we've had the distinct pleasure of helping them, not only on this location but several of their locations around the area as well, from Kingston through Queensbury, and this one's up next. The biggest issue with this sign here is, if you're coming down Dix Avenue, you can't see it. There's trees as you come down Dix Avenue that come April, May, you will not physically be able to see this sign. This sign is also located very close to the building, the existing sign that's here, so we're looking to, a little relief. The Ordinance was for 50 square feet of sign. If you take a look at the drawing that's in the proposed proposal there, the additional square footage, it makes up the Energy Star logo that is underneath. That is one of the vendors that Warren Electric works with, and one of the partners that is helping them in helping pay and subsidize the cost of their sign. What we're proposing is to put this sign out near the road. We are going to be taking down a, proposing to take down a tree near the road, cleaning up the area there with additional landscaping and greenery, whatever suffices the Town requirements here. That tree there basically blocks, that's pretty much where we're planning on putting the sign, yes. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) MRS. JENKIN-So you're taking that tree down. MR. MC CUSTER-Taking the tree down. MRS. JENKIN-That's a good idea. It doesn't do much there. MR. MC CUSTER-Yes. The salt from the parking lot over the years has actually been killing the tree a little bit at a time. There is existing power under the tree there, so we could easily tap power to get electricity to this sign, and that's about it, unless there's any additional. MRS. JENKIN-Is your property line the fence? MR. MC CUSTER-The fence is on Warren Electric's property, yes. MRS. JENKIN-No, but the property line isn't. Where is the property? MR. GAMMORY-I think it goes over to the left a couple more feet. I'm not sure on that. Again, I don't have those dimensions. I think it goes a couple of more feet over. MRS. JENKIN-So the light is on your property? MR. GAMMORY-The light is definitely on our property, yes. We have another one on the other side of that tree, too, and stuff like that, and that's another thing, that tree does block our showroom. If you've been in front, our showroom and everything, and we're just trying to come up with a new look. Warren's been in business for 25 years, started here. We just opened our eighth location last week in Poughkeepsie. So we've got a whole new look for 2009, and this is part of it. MR. URRICO-If you take down the tree and replace it with the sign, won't the sign block the showroom? MR. GAMMORY-No, because the bottom of the post there is a little thinner and stuff. Possibility, maybe it will. It's going to be smaller than that tree. That tree is huge. MRS. JENKIN-Are you planning to put the sign on the inside of the fence? MR. GAMMORY-We're looking at taking down the fence, too, and just have this freestanding with all new landscaping in front, and no fence at all. MR. MC CUSTER-But to answer your question for now, the sign pole would be placed on the other side, on the street side of that fence. MR. GARRAND-That would be closer to the road than just about every other sign on the entire road. MRS. JENKIN-Right. MR. GAMMORY-It'll line up with all the other signs down the road. MR. GARRAND-Well, the other signs down the road are closer to the buildings. If you go down to like Addecca, in that area, those signs are all way closer to the buildings than they are to the road. I mean, they have a lot more setback. MR. MC CUSTER-There's a car dealership right down from there. MR. GAMMORY-There's a carwash and a car dealer, and all those signs are lined up, and this would line up with them. MR. MC CUSTER-Correct. We're proposing to keep this sign in line with the, conforming with the other sides on the road there. MR. GARRAND-Because I thought the carwash sign was farther in towards the building, towards the property, than this sign's proposal was. MR. MC CUSTER-You probably know that better than I, Tony. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) MR. GAMMORY-Well, you can see the sign right there, and the carwash, that yellow one down further, and basically our sign is, well, the way we had it planned was to line up with that. Now I don't know if their front property is longer than ours, in the front there where that sign looks closer to their building. I'm not sure on that. MR. MC CUSTER-To meet the desired setback, and I took the measurements a couple of times, I mean, we are very, very close to that fence line, as far as where the pole would go. We may possibly need to remove one or two of the posts in order to get the pole properly planted. MR. GARRAND-While I agree that, you know, 15 feet into your property line will stuff that right in the middle of your parking lot. That's kind of unreasonable. People would be hitting the thing all the time. I don't care how much curbing or whatever you put there, curbing or landscaping, whatever, you know, something more reasonable would be something that, you know, does line up, as you go further up Dix Avenue, the signs aren't crowding the road at all. I mean, they do have some setbacks to them, and while they may not be totally compliant, they are more compliant than what you're proposing here. MR. MC CUSTER-I understand what you're saying. What we're proposing is with the placement of the sign on the edge of the five by ten sign there, the box that we're proposing, it would encroach a little bit into their parking lot. That is that they're, you know, it is going to encroach a little bit into their parking lot. However, there is no parking spaces on that section of the parking lot there, and in talking with Warren Electric, they don't have any big trucks or anything that come in and deliver. MR. GAMMORY-Yes. No trucks go by there, and they go around the right side and to the back there. So as far as a car backing up, I don't see that to be a problem. MR. GARRAND-Now you're asking for 14 feet of relief for this sign. Is the post going to be one foot from the property line? MR. MC CUSTER-The post is going to be, yes, one. MR. GARRAND-Because that would put the sign way over. MR. MC CUSTER-No, no. I'm sorry. The edge, the leading edge of the sign, the edge of the sign, is going to be on where the relief is there, and then in from there. I don't know if I'm explaining that correctly. MR. GARRAND-Yes, because if you're asking for one feet of relief, you know, the edge of that sign has to, you know, be right there. You can't have the posts here and then the overhang. MR. MC CUSTER-Correct. Right. I understand. The edge of the, the end of the box, the end of the, the box would be at that relief and then in from there. MR. UNDERWOOD-That's just about four feet back to the post it looks like to me. MRS. JENKIN-So in relationship to the fence right now, where will it be. MR. MC CUSTER-The post, again, the edge of this leading sign is going to be at about the tree line where the existing tree is currently. MRS. JENKIN-The post will be. MR. MC CUSTER-I'm sorry, the edge of the box, the edge of the box is going to be about where the edge of that tree, well, the tree flows over the fence. The leading edge of the sign is going to be about where that tree is now, and then back from there towards the building. MRS. JENKIN-So where would the post be then? Could you get up and just point to it? MR. MC CUSTER-Sure, absolutely. The post is literally going to be just about there on the line. The box would come out a little bit, and extend a little bit towards the parking lot, but not substantially where it'll block significant traffic coming through, and what we were proposing on doing, too, is just putting a height on the sign, so that the cars coming in and out would have a clearance so that they know exactly. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) MRS. JENKIN-Okay. If you're considering putting more shrubs in, and doing some landscaping along there, would you consider making a little bow out, a little semi circle, and then placing the sign a little bit farther and maybe a couple of feet, two, three feet farther in and putting shrubbery around there and making that part of your landscaping? MR. MC CUSTER-Yes, because that was part of our landscaping that we're looking at, because we have one of our vendors who's going to give us some landscaping, lighting that we're going to put out there to display. So if a customer wants to go by and look they could go right outside and take a look or come one evening when they're on, you know, just some low level lights there, and they'll be part of our landscaping thing. MRS. JENKIN-So you would consider moving it farther in and putting a semi circle around it? MR. MC CUSTER-Absolutely. Absolutely, and again, Ryan Nudi did say that basically they'll even put it in writing in a letter to the Board to let you know that they'd be willing to conform to that. MR. UNDERWOOD-So what's your suggestion, Joan? MRS. JENKIN-Moving it farther in toward the building, maybe three, four feet, and then putting the landscaping, the fence is going, the shrubbery is going to be new, it would actually add to it because it would give a little bit of a curve, and it would be quite. MR. MC CUSTER-And with the proper lighting, I think it would add significant curb appeal to the building itself. MRS. JENKIN-It would be very nice, rather than just a straight line. MR. MC CUSTER-Yes. MR. CLEMENTS-Along with that, you're only, your height is 17 feet, that's eight feet less than the maximum allowable. So if you had a truck or cars or something like that, you still really have some movement to put that sign a little bit higher if you wanted to. I mean, if you're going to move it in and you have a problem with, you know, things going through there. MRS. JENKIN-That's a nice height. MR. MC CUSTER-Well, that's true. So we could get it a little higher. MR. GAMMORY-Yes, we were trying to keep it looking nice, the height. We didn't want to go too high, you know, it just took away from the look, but no trucks, definitely, don't go by that way. So it's basically cars pulling into the showroom. MRS. JENKIN-So then what you would be asking for would be maybe 10 feet of relief, rather than the 14? MR. UNDERWOOD-Is the Energy Star part going to be lit up also? MR. MC CUSTER-No, it's not. MR. UNDERWOOD-That's just going to be. MR. MC CUSTER-We thought about that afterwards. I thought about that afterwards. We could have done that, but for purposes of this, for this sign, no, it's not going to be lit. MR. GAMMORY-That's there for us to get coop dollars, because they're a partner with us on quite a few things. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I mean, the size, 19 by 23 inches, is minimal anyway. Any other questions? All right. I guess I'll open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence? MR. URRICO-I do not see any correspondence. 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I'll close the public hearing and poll the Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-I'll start with you, Roy. MR. URRICO-Yes. I guess the only concern I had was the proximity to the road, but they're willing to compromise on that, and that seems a satisfactory compromise to me. The size of the sign doesn't bother me, seeing that it's the Energy Star sign. It's not really too glaring anyway. So I think, considering the criteria, I'm satisfied that they satisfied most of them. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I, too, I agree with Roy. You made some concessions here. I think it's a nice looking sign. I think moving it back away from the road a little bit would be a good idea. So I'd be in favor of this, too. I'd like to know what the actual measurement would be, though. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are we going to go three feet or four feet back more? MRS. JENKIN-Well, they're asking for 14. If we changed it to ten, that would be four feet in. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So four feet back further in. MR. MC CUSTER-Four feet back further than we were just talking about there? MR. GARRAND-Yes, so it's a total of five feet from the property line. Correct? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. MC CUISTER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Is that the pole, or is that the sign? MR. UNDERWOOD-That's the post. MR. URRICO-The post. MR. UNDERWOOD-The lower post. So, I mean, that's still not going to do, I mean, if we move that in, it essentially moves the top back the same distance. So, I mean, it's easier to do the bottom than it is up in the air measuring. That's hard. Okay. So, Joan, you were all set with that, right? MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I'm fine, with landscaping. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich? MR. GARRAND-I'll have to agree with what Mr. Urrico said on this. I agree with everything he said, so I'd also be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I'd have to agree. I think it's a big improvement over the old sign, I mean, that pylon sign. MR. MC CUSTER-Well, we appreciate that. Thank you. MRS. HUNT-And I also am glad to see you're putting the street address on the sign, because a lot of times, looking for places, nobody puts their street number out. MR. MC CUSTER-Keith was nice enough to tell me that that's not part of the additional square footage on the sign. MRS. HUNT-I'd be in favor. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) MRS. JENKIN-I have one more question, Jim, or maybe Keith. Does this have to go in front of the Planning Board? MR. OBORNE-No, ma'am. MRS. JENKIN-For the lighting or anything? MR. OBORNE-The lighting? MR. MC CUSTER-The landscaping lighting are you talking about? MR. OBORNE-No, that wouldn't require a permit. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, and I, too, will go along with your request here, recognizing that you've modified from what you originally had intended here. We've got to do the SEQRA. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. 7-2009 WARREN ELECTRIC/RYAN NUDI WE WOULD OFFER A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. I THINK THAT WE RECOGNIZE THE IMPROVEMENTS. THE CURRENT SIGN IS 35 FEET UP IN THE AIR. THIS ONE IS GOING TO BE 17 FEET. THE ONLY CHANGE IS THEY'RE GOING TO MEASURE FIVE FEET BACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. SO THAT'S GOING TO MOVE THIS SLIGHTLY BACK, AND WITH THE LANDSCAPING AND THE LIGHTING, IT'S DEFINITELY GOING TO BE AN IMPROVEMENT, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: Duly adopted this 18t" day of February, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Drellos MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, and so we'll need a resolution. Does somebody want to do this one. MRS. HUNT-I'll make the resolution. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, and I think all you've got to make sure is just say that they're going to need 10 feet of relief. MRS. HUNT-Right, 10 feet of relief. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 7-2009 WARREN ELECTRIC/RYAN NUDI Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joan Jenkin: 281 Dix Avenue. The applicant proposes to remove a 32 square foot conforming freestanding sign and replace it with a 56.7 square foot noncompliant sign. The applicant requests 10 feet of setback relief from the 15 foot minimum front setback requirement per Section 140 of Town Code. Further, the applicant seeks relief of 6.7 square feet from the 50 square foot maximum per Section 140. Will there be an undesirable change produced? I don't think so. The two nearby businesses have signs at that position of the road. The applicant has made concessions and is asking for four feet less relief than he had originally. The request of 10 feet, which is two thirds, might be considered moderate to severe, but there was a compromise. The request for 6.7 square feet from the 50 foot maximum is minor. I think there would be a positive effect on the area with the pylon sign being taken down and this new sign with the landscaping. The difficulty was self-created only in the fact that Warren Electric wishes to upgrade their image and the front of their building. So I move we approve Sign Variance No. 7- 2009. Duly adopted 18t" day of February, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) ABSENT: Mr. Drellos MR. UNDERWOOD-You're all set. MR. MC CUSTER-Thank you very much. MR. GAMMORY-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II SERGE & HOLLY SHISHIK OWNER(S): SERGE & HOLLY SHISHIK ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 325 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF EXISTING 1,190 SQ. FT. STRUCTURE WITH A 218 SQ. FT. PORCH AND CONSTRUCTION OF 1,317 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH A 378 SQ. FT. PORCH. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT, SIDE YARD SETBACK AND FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: FEBRUARY 11, 2009 LOT SIZE: 0.09 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-38 SECTION: 179-4-030 SERGE SHISHIK, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 10-2009, Serge & Holly Shishik, Meeting Date: February 18, 2009 "Project Location: 325 Cleverdale Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of a 1,469 square foot two story single family home to be replaced with a 1,952 square foot two story single family home. Relief requested from front, side yard setbacks and floor area ratio (FAR) requirements per § 179-4-030. Relief Required: Applicant requests 17.31 feet of relief from the required 30 foot front setback, 5.16 feet from the required 12 foot north side setback requirement and 2.49 feet from the 12 foot south side setback requirement per §179-4-030. Further, the applicant requests 1085.76 square feet of Floor Area Ratio relief per §179-4-030 in order to create a 49.6 % FAR for the property. The FAR maximum for this zone is 22%. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Moderate changes to nearby properties are anticipated as a result of this proposal as the size of the house may be considered out of character with the neighborhood. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant could build in a more compliant location or reduce the size of the project. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 17.31 feet or 57.7 percent of relief from the 30 foot front setback requirement may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 5.16 feet or 43 percent of relief from the 12 foot north-side setback requirement and the request for 2.49 feet or 20.75 percent of relief from the 12 foot south-side setback requirement may be cumulatively moderate relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request fora 49.57 percent FAR or 1085.76 square feet of additional FAR relief from the requirements for this zone may be considered severe to acute relative to the ordinance. 1952.0 sa. ft. house = 3937.45 sa. ft. lot = 0.4957 x 100 = 49.57 % FAR 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Moderate impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated. However, the project does propose a compliant waste-water system and storm-water control that do not currently exist on site. 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None since 1950 Staff comments: The applicant states that this is a seasonal dwelling used during the summer months and it is understood that this new dwelling is also for seasonal use. The Zoning Board of Appeals may wish to verify this statement. SEAR Status: Type II - No action required. "Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form February 18, 2009 Project Name: Shishik, Serge & Holly Owner(s): Serge & Holly Shihik ID Number: QBY-09-AV-10 County Project#: Feb09-22 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes demolition of existing 1,190 sq. ft. structure with a 218 sq. ft. porch and construction of a 1,317 sq. ft. single family dwelling with a 378 sq. ft. porch. Relief requested from front, side yard setback and Floor Area Ratio requirements. Site Location: 325 Cleverdale Road Tax Map Number(s): 226.12- 1-38 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes demolition of an existing 1,190 sq. ft. structure with a 218 sq. ft. porch and construction of a 1,317 sq. ft. single family dwelling with a 378 sq. ft. porch. Relief is requested from front, side yard setbacks and the Floor Area Ratio requirements. The home will be located 14.38 ft. from the front setback where a 30 ft. setback is required, 10.29 ft. and 9.51 ft. from the side yard setbacks where a 12 ft. setback is required, and 27.08 ft. from the rear setback where a 12 ft. setback is required. The plans show the existing and proposed home. The plans include an updated septic system. The information submitted indicates there will be stormwater controls but they are not shown on the plans. Staff recommends no county impact with the condition that plans include stormwater control measures. This is based on the information submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law Section 239 L applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact with Stipulation The Warren County Planning Board recommends No County Impact with the condition that plans include stormwater control measures." Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 2/ 13/09. MR. UNDERWOOD-How long have you owned the property? MR. SHISHIK-Seven years now. MR. UNDERWOOD-And no sanitary stuff on site at present? What do you have for septic on site? MR. SHISHIK-No, we have a septic system. It's an older system. MR. UNDERWOOD-But what's the approximate vintage of the house? MR. SHISHIK-Some of my research lead me to about 1932. MR. UNDERWOOD-So it's been there forever. MR. SHISHIK-It's actually got a really interesting history. MR. UNDERWOOD-Was this an association, all those homes there in that area at one time? MR. SHISHIK-This was given to Mason Alger as somebody was re-doing their property on the lake, most likely, and actually dragged to its current location. Yes, he owned, at one time I think there was a dozen camps along the line. MR. UNDERWOOD-So they were all rentals probably in the old days, people came up and rented them for a week. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) MR. SHISHIK-And then eventually they were sold off throughout the years, because we're all on the same kind of water line and such. MR. UNDERWOOD-So that's all drawn off lake water, then, for you people, then? MR. SHISHIK-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, okay. Is there any sense of the greater neighborhood? I mean, obviously the trend is to upgrade everybody from these primitive dwellings to usable dwellings at some point in the future, but I'm thinking in the sense of the density, you know, with the closeness of the houses and stuff, is there anything in the works with the Town as far as septic, because it's going to be awfully hard to meet your setback distances from each other. It would seem that the Town ought to get on top of the situation before it starts to multiply like bunny rabbits out there. MR. OBORNE-Yes, there's nothing on the drawing board at this time for a sewer line or anything along those lines. MR. UNDERWOOD-Everybody does this and goes ahead, right? MR. OBORNE-Currently, yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is this going to need any kind of approvals because of the setbacks with their septic for Town Health? MR. OBORNE-I believe that you are now compliant with the setbacks, because he's putting a slab in on the back end of it, which basically gives him that 10 foot setback to his tank. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And he's got two laterals that, I think you have one bathroom in there, that what it is? Two bedrooms? MR. SHISHIK-One and a half. Yes, two bedrooms. Yes, we were able to work an engineer and fit a septic, a compliant septic system in there. MR. UNDERWOOD-So you're basically just going to have a couple of bedrooms upstairs and then the downstairs is going to be your living and all. MR. SHISHIK-That's correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Okay. Any questions from Board members? MR. CLEMENTS-How many bedrooms would you say it is now? MR. SHISHIK-There's four. MRS. JENKIN-Four bedrooms in that house? MR. SHISHIK-There are. There's two upstairs. The roof line, you know, creates a smaller ceiling height, but there's two bedrooms upstairs, and that's all, really, that is upstairs, and then there's two downstairs and the kitchen is extremely small and the bathroom is tiny. MRS. JENKIN-My impression, when I look at the house that you're planning, a full two story house, and looking at all your surrounding neighbors and everything that are the most that they are is one and a half, is that you might accomplish a more agreeable floor plan or house in that area if you even went to a cape cod, a cape house, which you would get your two bedrooms very nicely upstairs, but it still wouldn't appear to be this vertical elevated house amongst all the little one story houses. MR. SHISHIK-Yes, we considered that. The house to the left of me is two stories, but it's incorporated into the roof line. I think they have like a gabion or I don't know the term. Really the goal was to get the view of the lake, because it's just, there's a tremendous view of the bay, sandy bay there, and then Rockhurst from that higher location. 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) MR. GARRAND-But by building this at a 50% Floor Area Ratio, you're basically trying to change the character of the neighborhood with such a huge house on such a small piece of property. MR. SHISHIK-Yes. I mean, it wasn't my intention. A lot of things happened simultaneously, you know, what type of house do we want to build, get on the footprint. It wasn't the intention at all to come in with such a high request. You just don't know how things are going to play out. I'm not a planner. There's no, absolutely, I don't want to change the character of the neighborhood. It's not my intention at all. When you talk neighbors, there's two very clearly distinctive neighbors, people on my side of the street and people on the other side of the street, and. MR. GARRAND-Your side of the street is tough (lost words). MR. SHISHIK-We're inlanders. A lot of the properties that are going up all around us there, are high or tall or a full two stories. MRS. JENKIN-But there's a couple that are very close to you that are in actually very, very good condition, and they probably won't change, and they're one story homes. MR. SHISHIK-Yes. The one to the right of me is one story, and then two properties up is a full two stories, is the property there. The property immediately behind me is a two story property as well. The two properties to the left of me, no, the one immediate left of me is two stories. The immediate right is one story. I mean, I would love to take a picture of the landscape and see how it would look there. I don't think the 26 foot height, I'm not sure what my neighbor's height is, you know, how it would look. MRS. HUNT-How does this new building conform to the footprint of the existing house? MR. SHISHIK-It's pretty much on the footprint as it is. It's actually, some of the side setbacks are a little bit diminished because we're removing a side porch there, but it's not any further. MRS. HUNT-So it's the fact that it's a second floor. Because I figured out you now have a little over 37% of FAR. MR. SHISHIK-That's right. I think my math came out at that as well. MRS. HUNT-And you're going to 49%. That's a big jump. I mean, when 22% is required. MR. SHISHIK-I know. Well, like I said, you know, it wasn't the intention to come at it that way. In fact, I wasn't even really sure how to do the calculation. I thought I was coming in at 41 %, because I thought it was floor, but then Craig, you know, we moved the numbers around. Keith helped as well. I didn't realize it was the external walls and all that. I know. MR. URRICO-You understand that we're trying to say in a nice way that we're going to need you to scale this down a little bit. MR. SHISHIK-Yes, and I understand that. I did actually, I did some math and I have some forms here, and you just, you hate to go back to the drawing board because it's another bill from Van Dusen and Steves and it's another month and it's a this, that, but I did, I didn't make enough, probably, for everybody here, but I am, I would, you know, be more than happy to reduce the sides by two additional feet, and that would do, actually, you would reduce the floor area, unfortunately not a (lost words), but by reducing the sides two feet, you know, I have three small children, too, so, and they're growing, so we need to all fit in this house. So that, you know, reducing the two feet on each side would bring the building, it would narrow the building down, the floor area ratio would drop to 42, I didn't keep one for myself, now, 42.2, and it would also eliminate one of the side setbacks, because I would be within the 12 feet, and then it would drop the other side setback to a nominal, I forget the number on there. MRS. JENKIN-But the problem is, if you're making the house narrower and not, it still, it will look even taller, but the proportion of the house would not. MR. SHISHIK-Agreed. 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) MRS. JENKIN-Then it would be even worse, compared to the homes around you. It's the height of the house, when you've got, you've got two and a half stories here, really, when you consider the full attic. MR. UNDERWOOD-If we were looking at a compliant building, Keith, we'd be looking at like 12 by 18 to make it? 12 by 18 would. MR. OBORNE-As far as the square footage goes. MR. SHISHIK-I think it was 866. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-You would barely, barely meet the qualification for a dwelling. Right? MR. OBORNE-He's got an incredibly small lot. Probably one of the smallest lots I've seen up that way, and .09, I think it is, acres. MR. GARRAND-And that definitely limits what you can build there. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because we've made the argument before, you know, like when we get down to these miniscule lots that, you know, like why don't we require people to purchase two lots, you know, and make it, you know, I mean, if we're always just going to keep improving. MR. OBORNE-That's always an option, obviously. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, but I mean, it gets to the point of, you know, you've got to be realistic, and if you interpolate the whole street, you know, every tiny lot up on the lake, based upon evaluations, you know, it goes crazy. You wouldn't allow a trailer park to do this, you know, in some obscure part of Town. We're supposed to be up in Waterfront Residential, and it's a long ways from there. MR. GARRAND-Basically what the Code is trying to do is the Code's trying to reduce the density of the area, so that, you know, basically it's not exceeding the carrying capacity of the land, and that's basically the way the Code's been moving. I mean, these places were built back before there was a Code, and what some of the residents up there have done is actually gone out and bought the, you know, bought an adjoining lot so that they can create the house that they want to put there, which, you know, in your situation would be great, if you could buy an adjoining lot, you know, you'd be right there with floor area. MR. SHISHIK-Well, we've approached them. I mean, they people behind us are just not. MRS. JENKIN-And then your taxes would go up. MR. SHISHIK-Yes, and all these great things that would come with that. MRS. JENKIN-Maybe a smaller house would be the thing. MR. SHISHIK-I mean, the Floor Area Ratio, as Mrs. Hunt said, is at 37.5, as it stands today. I mean, 42, which is the reduction of the, you know, with the reduction that I propose there, I mean, I just, I don't know how, you know, the numbers seem daunting, but we're dealing with small values. So the percentages do escalate pretty quickly. MR. GARRAND-That's exactly right. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, if you think about going on vacation and everybody fits in there. You can really shrink and shrivel down to a pretty miniscule size and have your family still not kill each other while you're there on your week's vacation. So, I mean, I think the recommendation from the Board should probably be that you go back and, you know, reconfigure and try and come in with something a little more compliant because, you know, we're only supposed to give you the minimum and, you know, based upon what you've got there, we don't have to give you any more than what you have right now at 37, as far as I'm concerned. MR. CLEMENTS-What was the square footage of the changes they made to the Takundewide, stayed on the same footprint. Weren't they around? 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) MR. GARRAND-They're up to 1536 square feet, 1536, two stories. MR. CLEMENTS-Two stories, two bedrooms. MRS. JENKIN-But the problem is is Takundewide is one thing and this is another thing, because you still have to look at the homes around you and you have to fit in to that, and when you look at the small homes right around you, putting a two and a half story house in right amongst your neighbors would make an undesirable change in the neighborhood. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, you may end up with a one and a half story with a sleeping loft or something. MR. CLEMENTS-Well, the Takundewide's are like that. MRS. JENKIN-They're not capes, though. MR. CLEMENTS-Yes, the walls come down like that on the second floor. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. Well, a cape is actually one story on the front, but then it can have either dormers or you can have a raised thing on the back, which then gives you the space, but it doesn't look so imposing. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think you could do this with like four foot knee walls upstairs and, you know, an 8 12 pitch roof, something like that. It would significantly make it fit the postage stamp size of that lot, you know. I mean, we're trying to get something that works, because, you know, it's not unreasonable what you did, what you propose, but at the same time, you know, you've got to look at the whole neighborhood and if everybody does that on the whole street, it's going to be like cottage land, you know. MRS. JENKIN-You were planning to have an area up on the third floor where you could sit and look at the lake? MR. SHISHIK-No, no, just on that balcony. MRS. JENKIN-But it's a balcony. MR. SHISHIK-No, that's just the ceiling there. MR. UNDERWOOD-You're talking above. MR. CLEMENTS-No, he doesn't mean, he means down one. You're looking at three balconies. This is not a balcony. MRS. JENKIN-This is just the front of the house? It's not the balcony? MR. SHISHIK-Correct. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, I think you can make it one and a half stories with knee walls for that second story and accommodate your bedrooms and your bathrooms that you need up there, and at the same time, shrink it, you know, it's got to have the shrink ray applied. MRS. JENKIN-Yes, because we understand that you're probably going to have to come in for variances, but for even a smaller home, but if it fits the neighborhood better, if it's more conducive to the other homes that are around you. MR. SHISHIK-Like I said, we just really wanted to get out, to be able to view the lake. MRS. JENKIN-Well, you're by the lake. You're on the lake. Do you have lake rights? MR. SHISHIK-We share an eight foot lake right of way with the nine other camps that were part of that. MR. GARRAND-That's a deeded easement. 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) MR. SHISHIK-Correct. MRS. JENKIN-See, I don't have any sympathy. We have a place on the lake, too, up in the northern end, and we're way up the hill from the lake. We come down, we sit on the dock and then we go back up to the hill, and we're across the lake, and we're not on the lake, and it's fine. MR. SHISHIK-Yes, we're actually, we're not even allowed to sit down there. MRS. JENKIN-No, I understand that, but you have your property, and you have to fit your property. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and I think, you know, there's so many, if you go down to like the bookstore, there's all kinds of these little mini cottage books that, you know, with a bunch of really cool, cute, designs that would much better fit the size of this lot. So do you want us to just table you until you figure out what you want and then run the plans by? I mean, I think we're looking at one and a half stories rather than two plus, like what you have now with the dormer up above there. MRS. JENKIN-It would still give you two big bedrooms upstairs. MR. URRICO-Jim, I would open the public hearing. I have a couple of letters here that might be valuable to the applicant. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Why don't we do that, then. I'll open up the public hearing, and you can read those two in. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-All right. The first letter is addressed to Mr. Underwood. "The Lake George Water Keeper has reviewed the submission for the above referenced variance application and would like to offer the following comments for consideration: 1. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the proposed 1952 sq. ft. rebuild of asingle-family dwelling (SFD) is over 50%, well in excess of the 22% allowed. The applicant has calculated an existing FAR of 37.5%. The proposed SFD appears to exceed the ability for the lot to adequately handle this development. Reduction fora `stairway opening' is noted on the proposed FAR calculation, but has it also been subtracted from the existing SFD's FAR calculation? The Planning office recently seems to be using this to reduce the FAR calculation when necessary, although there is no indication in Queensbury Zoning Ordinance Chapter 179 that this practice should occur (definition from Chapter 179 Zoning Ordinance - "TOTAL BUILDING FLOOR AREA: All floors ofthe,orimarystructure and covered,oorches, as measured from outside walls, including the basement when at /east three feet in height of one wa// is exposed...'). 2. Any expansion of impermeable surfacing on this 0.09 acre lot should be discouraged. An increased SFD footprint, proposed parking area, large front walkway and the onsite waste water treatment system (OWTS) in the back yard almost completely fills this small lot. Building rendition drawings show a stone slab walkway, but can this retain its permeability and is this being proposed for the parking area? stormwater management is not included on S-1, although should be discussed when considering redevelopment of anon-compliant lot. The existing impermeable calculation appears to have an error, in that the "Building Footprint' includes the porches and accessory structures, and then the accessory structures are added in again (a calculated total existing impermeable area of 26% should actually be 24% vs. the 27% proposed). 3. All renovations of a SFD on or adjacent to the shoreline of Lake George should require appropriate stormwater management to infiltrate runoff, including use of native vegetation in bio-retention cells or rain gardens. There are no details submitted of any proposed vegetation or plantings on this parcel, except lawn. Runoff problems and high nutrient levels can be mitigated by replacing existing lawns, (which do not adequately infiltrate and treat stormwater) with native vegetation and eliminating use of fertilizers. Evidence of algae blooms off this shoreline requires immediate action by the community and individual homeowners. Thank you for discussing construction within a Critical Environmental Area (CEA) and the cumulative effects development has on Lake George. The Lake George Water Keeper looks forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals in defending the natural resources of Lake George and its watershed. Sincerely, Kathleen SL Bozony Natural Resource Specialist/Lake George Water Keeper" Okay. And this says, "The Shishik property is directly behind a vacant lot that we own. This lot we have intentionally kept green/lawn covered and use as a parking area for vehicles during the summer months. The property slopes downward toward Cleverdale Road and drops approximately three feet from Mason Road to the edge of the Shishik property. 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) The new, larger residence that the Shishiks are intending to build will undoubtedly have additional septic usage and we are concerned about the run-off from a leach field and whether or not the back of our lot will suffer from increased water in the ground, making the area wet, unwalkable, and unusable. The topography of this side of Mason Road has already been altered with an expanded septic system and retaining wall north of our lot. We still do not know what the drainage effect will be on our lot from this change as permanent occupancy has not occurred yet. Furthermore, where will general run-off go? Here is another burden being imposed on a small piece of property. Once again on Cleverdale a building is being planned fora lot which cannot sustain increased development without adversely affecting adjoining property. Repeatedly we taxpayers bring to the Queensbury Zoning Board the exploitation of the limited land on Cleverdale. Some people are summarily denied any possibility of changes to their properties, and yet others are allowed to harm the land with no penalty of any kind. We do not understand how the issues mentioned in this letter can be overlooked. Sincerely, Sarah W. Wheeler D. Billings Wheeler 83 Mason Road" MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So I guess the recommendation from the Board is that we're going to table this. I mean, how long do you think you're going to need to come back with something, some other? MR. SHISHIK-I guess that depends on what the application really needs to look like. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think my recommendation would be that we look at a one and a half structure, you know. MR. SHISHIK-I understand. What I mean, is, I mean, can we conceptualize something and get it. MR. UNDERWOOD-You mean as far as the actual requirements for the size of it. I mean, let's do this. We all recognize the fact that this is like the smallest lot that we've probably ever had before us, bar none. MR. URRICO-Pretty close. There's one down at the end of, you know, the one I'm talking about down by the. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Number Two, everybody's concerned with what works, what's really reasonable to put on a property this small, okay. So the recommendation is this, you came in with a two story structure that everybody probably unanimously would feel would be way too tall, way too large, with a Floor Area Ratio requiring, you know, massive relief on this lot here. Right now you've got something that has, what, 37%, is that what currently it is? MR. OBORNE-Thirty-seven percent, Serge? MR. SHISHIK-Thirty-seven and a half. MR. UNDERWOOD-37.5%. MR. GARRAND-We've never even granted, since I've been on this Board we've never granted that. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. The only other one I can ever imagine that we did before was, you know, somehow the Board, that Rolf Ahlers project, there. That one came in at like 44%, on a much larger lot, you know, that's the one up on Knox Road there. So we have granted large relief before, but we have to keep in mind, in this instance here, this is a tiny lot. I mean, it's almost too small for anything. So something that's going to be proposed here probably has to be, should reflect, I think, a cottage look, maybe a single story cottage, maybe a, you know, something with day beds in it even. Something even that small. Your only other option is to keep what you have there, and as you've said, you've got four tiny bedrooms in there at the present time, but I think two bedrooms would be the maximum that we would allow. That could be accomplished with, you know, you wouldn't necessarily need to have separate bedroom. You could have it be a one bedroom house, you know, so a loft upstairs with a single bedroom, maybe you've got a couple of day beds downstairs for the kids or something like that. MR. OBORNE-I think you can only fit two bedrooms in that house, based on the septic that you have designed. MR. SHISHIK-Yes, because the septic is so tight. 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) MR. UNDERWOOD-So in other words, think real small. MR. OBORNE-I mean, he is allowed 28 feet in height, per the Code. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, sure. MR. OBORNE-Obviously you would want him to keep it to .22, which would give you an 800 foot house, that would just not. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we mentioned, you know, if it were going to be compatible new construction, if nothing existed here, and we were actually looking at being constructive and going forward, that a compatible building on site would be approximately, what 18 by 12. I mean, you're talking like the size of a bedroom. So, I mean, in a practical sense here, whatever's proposed going forward ought to be something very, very small, and very, very informing, much more, keeping in mind that 22% is what we're looking at. We realize you're never going to get there. MR. SHISHIK-Smaller than what we have? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. GARRAND-Yes, that's 37%. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think so. I mean, I think you ought to be looking at maybe 30% Floor Area Ratio, whatever you get with that. I think that's reasonable. That would be a lot of relief, much more than we would grant for anybody else. I'm just throwing out the idea. What do you guys think? MR. SHISHIK-It would be hard for me to justify reducing my property. MR. UNDERWOOD-Exactly. Yes. MR. GARRAND-You might want to look at other alternatives, in the meantime. MR. SHISHIK-I mean, we did, and we didn't want to get into what the Livingston's got into, by a renovation. We would renovate the property. MRS. JENKIN-No, it didn't look like that house is renovatable. MR. SHISHIK-Well, the renovator is getting older and tireder. MRS. JENKIN-But the existing footprint, that is larger than the 12 by 18 that you're saying, correct? MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, but I mean, I don't think we want to go to something that's twice, you know, we're nearing, in the request that we had here tonight, we were at almost twice the Floor Area Ratio that's allowed. MRS. JENKIN-Right. We can't do that. MR. UNDERWOOD-So, I think if anything, we should be looking for something more conforming than what presently exists, and even though that can be considered a burden, it's, hey, you bought a tiny lot. I mean, the other consideration is we could say, no, and that you had to go purchase more property and build yourself a conforming lot, out of pieces of a puzzle, but that's not easy to do either. MRS. HUNT-But you're saying 30, you would go along with 30%, that would be 1200 square foot house. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, you know, and for a cottage usage, I don't think that's unreasonable. I mean, you don't get a motel room that big, as I mentioned before. MR. SHISHIK-You don't stay in a motel room all summer. MR. UNDERWOOD-I know, but I mean, you've got to go, I don't think we want to keep creating the situation like we did on Rockhurst and places like that, you know, where we allowed it to happen, and then we're kicking ourselves later saying, why did we ever, you know, prior to zoning. 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) MRS. JENKIN-If you put dormers on a house, Keith, or you make a cape, so that you did have the footprint that you're wanting, but the upstairs was, looked like it was one floor on the front, but then the back of it was up farther, so you really didn't notice, would that increase the Floor Area Ratio? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Yes. The dormer would, absolutely. MR. URRICO-If you didn't have windows, it wouldn't. MR. OBORNE-It would still increase it, absolutely. MR. CLEMENTS-I guess I'd say, and I'm a little bit different than you guys, but just since we're throwing it out here, I would agree to the same footprint, minus the screen porch on the side, and staying in the, you know, 1469, 1500 square foot, I mean, that's what he has right now. MRS. JENKIN-That's a big house, 1600. MR. CLEMENTS-Well, it's 1469 right now. It says demolition of a 1469 square foot. If he stayed within that, I don't know how you guys feel about that, but I would be okay with that. MR. GARRAND-Yes, but that's not before us tonight. MR. CLEMENTS-Well, I'm just trying to give him some direction. MR. SHISHIK-What if we table and I come back with replacing the same exact thing, with the exception of the porch? MRS. JENKIN-That's not a bad idea. MR. SHISHIK-We might have to extend it a little deeper into the lot, just to accommodate a bit more of a kitchen, but we're not looking for a side setback, well, then we get into the Floor Area Ratio. MRS. JENKIN-But if you're replacing what's existing, and the existing house does fit into the neighborhood. MR. SHISHIK-You wouldn't make me do the dip in the roof, would you? I could square it off. MR. GARRAND-That property in the summertime, it's damp down there in the summertime, and part of that reason I think is the fact that there's so much of a density in that area. MR. SHISHIK-Well, I'm in a hole, too. MRS. JENKIN-So your property is damp? MR. SHISHIK-I'm in the hole, yes, everybody comes into me. MR. UNDERWOOD-So, are we going to consider this a new application, then? Or just? MR. SHISHIK-Well, see that's my question. MR. URRICO-Well, give him the option. I mean, he has the option of tabling it. MR. UNDERWOOD-We'll table it. Why don't we table it for, I mean, you're going to want to give it some thought as to what you're going to do. So why don't we table you for 60 days, and have you come back in May. MR. SHISHIK-Well, that would really kill me, in the event that I'm trying to get this done this Spring. MRS. JENKIN-So would you be ready to come back for the second meeting in March? 48 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) MR. SHISHIK-Well, I mean, that's actually my question, you know, what does the application itself need to look like? I mean, is a floor plan and an elevation that I come up with, or do I need to go to Van Dusen and Steves and move the numbers all around, move that all around? MR. OBORNE-I think that your cost, as far as Matt would be charging you, would be minimal in this case, because the main survey's already done. You just have to place the house that you want on there. MR. SHISHIK-Yes. It's a standard $150. MR. OBORNE-Yes, true. If the Board gives you a tabling, give the applicant parameters, say up to 32% or 1400 square feet, something so he can work with it and then re-submit, or deny and have him re-submit again. MR. SHISHIK-I mean, I'd much ratherjust, you know, get the definitive's to work with. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So what do you want on square footage, guys? MR. GARRAND-I won't know until I see it, honestly. MRS. JENKIN-If you did similar to what you have now. MR. SHISHIK-Similar to what's there. MRS. JENKIN-Yes. MR. SHISHIK-Even though that's at 37 and a half? MRS. HUNT-I would go along with that. MR. SHISHIK-Because there's no way I could get all three kids in the bedroom upstairs, the way it is now with the knee walls, because you're taking down the size of the bedroom. MRS. JENKIN-Where do the kids sleep now? MR. SHISHIK-Our master bedroom's in the front. My oldest is in the back, and then the twins are upstairs in those small bedrooms with the bats. MRS. JENKIN-Do they fit? MR. SHISHIK-Yes, but we have virtually no kitchen. MRS. JENKIN-I see. MR. SHISHIK-So we would probably remove the back bedroom and make the kitchen along the back, and that would push, you know, the two bedrooms upstairs. MR. URRICO-Keith, in reference to the letter that the Lake George Water Keeper submitted, are we including the staircases? MR. OBORNE-We only include the staircases once. You can't include an area that has no floor. That's why it's only included once. MR. URRICO-So it hasn't been included in the calculation. MR. OBORNE-It never is. MR. URRICO-Okay. MRS. JENKIN-Is that a chimney or a dormer? MR. SHISHIK-Well, I don't know what you're looking at. There is a chimney. There is a fireplace. MRS. JENKIN-That's the chimney. MR. SHISHIK-That is a dormer, correct. 49 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) MRS. JENKIN-That's a dormer? MR. SHISHIK-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So we will table you for up to 60 days and come back with something different. I mean, that's about all we can say because we don't know what you're going to come back with. We can only say, we made some suggestions about one and a half stories or replacing what you have with something similar in design. MR. URRICO-I think you have to be close to what you have now. MRS. JENKIN-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. SHISHIK-Okay. So can I make a request to get on the March meeting now? MR. UNDERWOOD-You're not going to be able to make submittals in time. MR. OBORNE-The deadline's already past. MR. UNDERWOOD-You already past February 15tH MR. OBORNE-Yes, you're into April at this point. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. The first meeting in April, then. MR. OBORNE-The first meeting would be the 15t", which is asemi-bonus. Typically it's deeper down. So it would be the 15t", or you give him special consideration in March. MRS. JENKIN-So he has to submit by what time? MR. OBORNE-By the 16t" of March. MR. UNDERWOOD-Why don't you do it this way. If you can get it in ASAP, then we'll put you on for the second one in March. Otherwise we'll see you the first weekend in April, all right? I mean, don't just be out there. MR. OBORNE-Can he turn it around? MR. UNDERWOOD-Can you do it by then? MR. SHISHIK-Well, it's got to go to. MRS. JENKIN-Give yourself time. MR. SHISHIK-Well, it's got to go to my board, and she couldn't make it tonight, and that board is kind of as tough as you guys. MRS. JENKIN-You better give yourself some time. MR. SHISHIK-We did want to try to get it done this Spring. MR. URRICO-You're talking about a two week difference, though, between the last meeting in March and mid-April. MR. OBORNE-If you want to do it for the 2nd of March for submittal to the 24tH MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Does that work, or the 25t", sorry. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. So I'll make a tabling motion for the second meeting in March. 50 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/18/09) MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-2009 SERGE & HOLLY SHISHIK, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: 325 Cleverdale Road. Tabled to the second meeting in March, March 25t", with a submittal date of March 2nd. To come back with something different. There were suggestions about one and a half stories or replacing what you have with something similar in design, close to what you have now. Duly adopted this 18t" day of February, 2009, by the following vote: MR. SHISHIK-And, Keith, I'm sorry, that meeting would be March 25tn~ MR. OBORNE-That meeting would be March 25t" and you need to submit by Monday, March 2nd, if that works for the Board. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. OBORNE-We should be able to turn that around for you. MR. SHISHIK-I appreciate it. MS. GAGLIARDI-And you're leaving the public hearing open? MR. UNDERWOOD-I'll leave the public hearing open, yes. AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Drellos MR. SHISHIK-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. We did get a letter in from Dennis MacElroy regarding the Rolf Ahlers project, and they've yanked that one, again, for, this must be the third time now. So I guess we'll see it in some other rendition coming forward at some point. That was the one where they wanted to do that, they wanted to put that covered porch on the front. MRS. JENKIN-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-They were at 44% Floor Area Ratio and that was going to jump them to. MRS. JENKIN-They withdrew it, didn't they? MR. UNDERWOOD-That's withdrawn. MRS. JENKIN-Yes. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, James Underwood, Chairman 51