The URL can be used to link to this page

1996-07-31 ----- ORr:JNAL '~ QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPBALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING (RE-SCHEDULED FROM 7/17/96) JULY 31, 1996 INDEX Area Variance No. 38-1996 Tax Map No. 6-1-5 John A. Shaffer 1. Use Variance No. 50-1996 Tax Map No. 136-2-7, 8.2 Jay Curtis 9. Jon Hallgren Area Variance No. 56-1996 Tax Map No. 22-1-1.1 Robert L. & Shirley Hausler 29. Area Variance No. 64-1996 Tax Map No. 121-1-42 Cheryl Sipowicz 33. Area Variance No. 57-1996 Tax Map No. 11-1-1.11 John Jr. & Janet Hickey 37. Area Variance No. 61-1996 Tax Map No. 110-1-13 NUTECH Industries, Inc. 39. Area Variance No. 55-1996 Tax Map No. 13-1-16 Angela Kladis _54. Area Variance No. 53-1996 Tax Map No. 40-1-19.2 Stephen C. Miller 59. 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. I ; I . \.L. '--./ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING (RE-SCHEpULED FROM 7/17/96) JULY 31, 1996 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT, FRED CARVIN, CHAIRMAN CHRIS THOMAS, SECRETARY DAVID MENTER WILLIAM GREEN ROBERT KARPELES BONNIE LAPHAM PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-1996 TYPE II WR-1A CEA JOHN A. SHAFFER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD, APPROX. 4/10 OF A MILE UP ON LEFT FROM INTERSECTION WITH ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH EXISTING DWELLING AND GARAGE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW DWELLING. THIS ACTION REQUIRES RELIEF FROM THE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179-16C. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING TAX MAP NO. 6-1-5 LOT SIZE: 0.32 ACRES SECTION 179-16C JOHN SHAFFER, PRESENT MR. CARVIN-I'm not quite sure what the status of this one was. MR. THOMAS-It was tabled. MR. CARVIN-It is tabled. MR. THOMAS-Yes, at the June 12th meeting. MR. CARVIN-Why don't you read the tabling motion, if we've got one. MR. THOMAS-The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and resolved the following, the meeting date was June 12, 1996, the variance file number is 38-1996 for an Area Variance, tabled "MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-1996 JOHN A. SHAFFER, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Until July, the first opportunity, to allow Mr. Ford to be brought up to speed, and this Board can review all of the pertinent facts to render a decision at some point in July. Duly adopted this 12th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford" MR. CARVIN-Okay. I think everybody's familiar with this particular application, are you? As I remember it, we have had, essentially, a locked Board. In other words, I don't think we've been able to come to a consensus one way or the other. MR. HILTON-Do you have the new correspondence that was sent on June 26th? MR. CARVIN-Yes, and I'm assuming that all the Board members have received a letter dated June 26th from the applicant Mr. John - 1 - .-/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) Shaffer, with some new proposals. Do you have that? MR. THOMAS-Yes, I do. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Why don't you read that into the record. MR. THOMAS-A letter dated June 26, 1996, addressed to the members of the Board "In order to address the concerns of some members of the Board and one of our neighbors over our proposed home on Assembly Point, we asked our designer to look at downsizing the house while still meeting our needs. As a result of his effort we have developed a house plan which is considerably smaller than the first plan we submitted. The new floor plan (attached) has 2,365 square feet for living space and a total of 2,869 when the garage is added. This compares with a total square footage of 2,329 for our present camp. In addition to reducing the square footage of the house we were also able to reduce the height from 29 feet to 26.5 feet. As you will note on the proposed floor plan the two offices have been eliminated in favor of a loft which essentially makes the house a two-bedroom home, whereas our present camp has four bedrooms. I also would like to mention that in considering the impact of our new home on the surrounding neighborhood, it should be kept in mind that there is really only one immediate neighbor (the Baertschi and Lamparella family) that objects to the project. On the contrary, our immediate neighbor to the north (Weinman) has no problem with the proposed house or setbacks, as indicated in a letter presented to the Board at its meeting on May 23, 1996. We trust that this new plan shows our sincere desire to address the concerns of the Board as well as those of our neighbor. Sincerely, John A. Shaffer" MR. CARVIN-Has everybody on the Board received this letter and understand what the applicant is now proposing? Are there any questions of the applicant? MR. MENTER-Side setbacks, unaffected? MR. SHAFFER-Yes. MR. MENTER-So we're lowering the projected height to 26 and a half feet? MR. SHAFFER-That's correct. MR. CARVIN-Does Staff have any comment on this new proposal? MR. HILTON-Only that I agree with the square footages that are proposed in the letter. It indicates that about 18% of the lot will be covered with garage and proposed square footage. I don't know if there's any way that maybe one of the side setbacks could possibly be reached, maybe trimming back the home to reach 20 feet on one of the sides. That might be my only other comment. LEON STEVES MR. STEVES-You mean 20 feet? MR. HILTON-On one of the sides. MR. STEVES-As opposed to the requirement of 25 feet? MR. HILTON-Well, there's a 20 and 30 split right now. You need at least a minimum 20, and if we can maybe reach one of those setbacks. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm going through my notes, which are at this point allover the place. Okay, we're still talking square footage, right, footprint, or is this total living area? - 2 - I .1-, ~d (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) MR. SHAFFER-This is total living area, in the letter. Total living area including the garage is 2869, without the garage it's 2365. MR. CARVIN-Okay, 2869 is the total living area. MR. SHAFFER-Including the garage. MR. CARVIN-Including the garage MR. SHAFFER-Right. MR. CARVIN-And I had a couple of figures down, did we ever come up with a figure of what you currently have for living area? MR. SHAFFER-That's in the letter, 2329, including the garage. MR. CARVIN-Okay, because I've got a couple of other figures of 2635, and I'm just wondering. MR. SHAFFER-Did you have it backwards? 2365 is the. MR. MENTER-I have the same numbers, though. I had the 2635. MR. CARVIN-You had the 2635, also? MR. MENTER-Not well noted either. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm not sure how we came up with that. MR. SHAFFER-I go by the numbers in the letter. We've double checked those and measured everything in the old house. MR. CARVIN-Okay, ladies and gentlemen, what's your pleasure on this? Are you up to speed on this, Bonnie? Have you read the new letter that the applicant has proposed? Okay. MR. MENTER-I have a question for the applicant. In terms of the elevation, the visual elevation of the house, where is that gain, or decrease in height going to show when you build it? I mean, structurally, what's going to change? MR. SHAFFER-The roof line's going to come down two and a half feet. MR. MENTER-You're just decreasing the pitch? MR. SHAFFER-We're decreasing the pitch because the depth of the house has been reduced by six feet. So that brings the pitch down, and the first floor was nine feet, and we brought that down to eight feet. So the combination of reducing the depth of the house and then changing that first floor from nine to eight brings that pitch down. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Am I correct in assuming, I'm just looking through the minutes of the 5/23/96 meeting. Your current building is 21 feet high? Is that an accurate figure? MR. SHAFFER-21, yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So we're proposing to go up a maximum of about four and a half feet, or five and a half feet. MR. SHAFFER-Five and a half. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does anybody want the public hearing opened? Anyone here on the Board want the public hearing opened? It is, I believe, closed. Okay. We're in the final processes on this. Do you want to open it up, Bob? - 3 - -~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) MR. KARPELES-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Yes. comment. I'd like to hear and see if there's any public MR. CARVIN-Okay. In that case, I'll open up the public hearing on this particular application. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED EDWARD BAERTSCHI MR. BAERTSCHI-My name is Edward Baertschi. I'm the neighbor that lives across the street from where this proposed dwelling is to be. I'm still in objection to the fact that the present house is at 21 feet, and going up another five and a half feet, it's still going to take my lake view away. There's no question about it, and I believe, not the last meeting but the meeting before, I had submitted a photograph showing what I could see. My view is limited as it is right now at 21 feet, and going up another five and a half feet, it doesn't make any difference if he went 100 feet in the air. Going up the five and a half feet is going to be taking my view away. Definitely. That's our objection to this here. We firmly object to that. We've been up there for over, almost 25 years, and we've had that view. Now we're going to lose it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anyone else wishing to be heard? CONNIE LANGFORD MS. LANGFORD-My name is Connie Langford. I live on Assembly Point at 254 Lake Parkway. Although I am not immediately adjacent and won't be specifically affected by this, I guess I'm speaking from the standpoint of the use of a variance. If you provide a variance for this person, then this person, then this person wants it, and then pretty soon everyone has a variance and the whole zoning code is kind of rendered useless. Now I understand that the Town of Queensbury is proposing a possible change in zoning to be even more restrictive. So from that I'm assuming that you understand that there are problems with variances and people not complying with some of the restrictions that are really necessary for the quality of the lake. My main concern is that you're asking for a small, the Shaffer's are asking for a small piece of property to do the job that perhaps a larger piece of property needs to do. The Town of Queensbury, from my experience, has good zoning laws. They work with you. They're very easy to work with. They're very kind and they're very considerate, and from my point of view, we had a tragedy about a year and a half ago, and it had a fire, and we also have a small piece of property, but we managed to do what we needed to do within the confines of the zoning restrictions as they are without asking for a variance, and I think most people, most people, can probably do that. I don't know what the exact lot size is, dimensions of the Shaffer property, but for the total square footage is approximately the same as ours, and all I can say is that I hate to see zoning variances used when there isn't a real compelling, urgent reason to use them. Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Anyone else wishing to be heard? NORMA BAERTSCHI MRS. BAERTSCHI-My name is Norma Baertschi. I'm the one that lives across the street. I would just like to make one comment. There are several neighbors in our area that are very opposed to this, but because of age and health conditions, they are not able to come, but they are very opposed. So it's not just us, and I would like that in the record. - 4 - ~ "--"" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) MR. CARVIN-Okay. correspondence? Thank you. Anyone else? Any additional MR. THOMAS-Nothing new except the Shaffer letter. MR. CARVIN-Any other public comment? Seeing none, hearing none, public hearing closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay. We've had plenty of opportunity to, this is the second or third time that we've looked at this. How about it, Bob, what's your feeling on it? MR. KARPELES-Well, I don't think my feeling has changed since the last meeting. I kind of agree with the last lady that spoke here. Most of the time I think people should be able to live within the requirements of the zoning, especially when it's going to be objectionable to one of the neighbors. MR. CARVIN-Okay. How about you, Dave? MR. MENTER-I don't think my position has changed either. I see it as, overall, an improvement. I mean, he's decreasing the impermeable area. He's increasing the side setbacks. He's decreasing the footprint of the house. I think he's made a gesture in lowering the height of the house to 26 feet, which is certainly not excessive in height, and I just don't see a huge impact from this project, even the height of the project. MR. CARVIN-Okay. How about you, Chris? MR. THOMAS-Well, Mr. Shaffer's made an attempt to reduce the neighbor's concerns, but it sounds as though he hasn't gone quite far enough, and looking at the revised print here, it shows that the building to be 40 feet across the front. To me, I think if you knocked that down another eight and made it 32 feet, which is probably what a normal house is, or an average house, not a normal house, that he might be able to do, not only bring in the side setbacks, but he might be able to do something with lowering that roof again. So, I applaud him for his effort to try and appease the neighbors. MR. CARVIN-How about you, Bill? MR. GREEN-I don't have a real big problem with it. I'm sorry. I think that we've, it's a definite improvement over the lot as a whole. We're going to have a new septic and Mr. Shaffer, as Dave has said, is bringing the house down. I have to go along with it. MR. CARVIN-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I have to say I share the same thing as Dave and Bill, that I think the new septic means a great deal around the lake. I think Mr. Shaffer has made a huge effort in bringing the house down to a more acceptable size, and I would really not have a problem granting a variance to this new plan. I went up and I looked, and in deference to the Baertschi's, I looked and I stood and I walked around and I just couldn't see that much of a view there that they were losing. They have a mountain view now more than a limited lake. At 26, they might still have some of the mountain view. So I don't have an objection to the new plan. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Chris, you think there's still some alternatives here? MR. THOMAS-I think there is, even if they move the house forward toward the lake a little bit, because they're going from a 64 foot setback now back to the 75 which is required by the Ordinance, at - 5 - ---) ~' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) this point in time. As you've seen out on the property where the house is going sits right on top of a knoll. So I think if this house got pushed forward a little bit toward the lake where it sits now, that it would lower that roof line. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Do you think if we had a 50 foot? MR. THOMAS-I think if we had a 50 foot, I think Mr. Steves said that it would drop that roof line about four feet, if I'm not mistaken. Is that right? MR. STEVES-I believe that's right. MR. THOMAS-Something like that. That's what I'm looking through the minutes here trying to find. MR. CARVIN-Then that's four feet from the 29 feet? MR. THOMAS-It would be from the peak. MR. STEVES-It lowers the elevation. MR. THOMAS-It lowers the elevation, not the height of the buil~ing. Because the existing building sits on a knoll now, okay, and at this point in time if they went from 29 and a half feet down to 26 and a half feet, with the height of the building. So if they moved it forward and lost four feet in elevation, they would be down to 22 and a half feet. MR. CARVIN-And still have a 26 foot building. MR. THOMAS-That would still have a 26, but it would only appear to be 22 from the highest point on the grade of the lot. MR. MENTER-So you're talking about decreasing the already nonconforming setback on the lake. MR. THOMAS-That's right. Move it forward, it drops it down. The building now sits 64 feet from the lake. MR. MENTER-Right, which is nonconforming. MR. CARVIN-We have to be guided by the current Ordinance. MR. GREEN-Yes. I would have a real difficult time. MRS. LAPHAM-I think the height is less offensive than closer to the lake. MR. CARVIN-I'm on the horns of dilemma. Unfortunately, you've all made some very convincing arguments. George, is that lot, we're looking for 12 feet on one side and two and half feet on the other? I know, Chris, you've indicated that you think he could make the house narrower and make it in compliance, do you? MR. THOMAS-Well, according to the new drawing, it's 40 feet. If they narrowed it up eight feet and made it 32 feet, that would bring it back four feet on both sides, if they kept it centered in the lot, and I think that would be enough to bring it on that one side line setback, but I don't know what that does to the house itself, how that affects the inside of the house. MR. SHAFFER-But a roof goes in the other direction, though. MR. THOMAS-The peak of the roof is parallel to the lake? MR. SHAFFER-If you shorten the sides, it doesn't change the roof. MR. THOMAS-It doesn't change the roof, but we're looking for, we're - 6 - ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) talking about side line setback now. MR. SHAFFER-Okay. MR. CARVIN-Well, the point is that if he has a 32 foot house, he could probably build it 35 feet tall. Is that right, George? If he meets all the setbacks, there's no reason why he couldn't put a 35 foot tall house there. MR. HILTON-If he meets the setbacks, the current setbacks, he could go to a height of 35 feet. MR. CARVIN-What's the proposed heights under the new Ordinance, George? Is it 28 feet or 25? MR. HILTON-Twenty-eight. MR. CARVIN-Twenty-eight. Boy, I don't know. This is going to be 75 feet back, isn't it? MR. SHAFFER-From the water, yes. conforming. We moved it back to be MR. CARVIN-I'm going to ask George a hypothetical question because I don't know the answer, but lets say we grant a variance and next week the new Ordinance is put into place, does that make all of this, I mean, then he could build a house 50 feet, right, 28 feet high? MR. HILTON-Then he could. MR. CARVIN-Or is he conditioned to the 75 feet? MR. HILTON-No. He has a variance for these specific setbacks. If the rules change and he hasn't acted upon his variance or received a building permit, he can then come in with a building permit application, and if it met all the setbacks of the new rules, he wouldn't need a variance for those new rules. He could just go ahead and build. MR. GREEN-If they only change the front setback, per se, and he just wanted to slide it forward, he'd still need to come back. MR. CARVIN-No, because it's only 50 foot. MR. MENTER-And it's only the side setbacks that would be an issue. MR. HILTON-Right, and you would have granted relief for side setbacks. MR. GREEN-Wherever that is set, depending on the front setback regulations. MR. HILTON-Right. So he could go up to the 50 feet. MR. CARVIN-Because I think for the lack of about two weeks I think you're right. If you move it forward a few feet, he gets a higher house and the Baertschi's get their view. MR. THOMAS-That's right. They keep their view, and Mr. Shaffer gets the height of the house that he's proposed. He could actually go back to the house that he originally came in with, except for the side line setbacks. MR. CARVIN-What does the applicant feel? Do you understand what's happening or what we're discussing? MR. STEVES-Yes, I do, but we would still have to come back for - 7 - ',~ (' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) relief from the side line setback, even if we are in compliance with the shoreline setback. MR. THOMAS-But then again, too, by narrowing the house up and getting, depending on what the new side line setbacks are. MR. CARVIN-But on the other hand, if you have a three, three, you have a no decision. MR. STEVES-Yes. I know, we've been down that road for months now, and I understand you don't have a seventh member yet. MR. CARVIN-Well, we're going to go to a five member Board here in another month. I understand there's two in the wings. So you won't have me to kick around much longer. MR. SHAFFER-Are you saying in two weeks the Board is going to act on? MR. CARVIN-The Board is meeting possibly. I don't know. That's, the Town Board has got their own agenda. MR. HILTON-Yes. The Board is setting a public hearing on August 5th, meaning they're going to set a date, and I believe that date is the 19th, and at which time they will re-hear the Waterfront changes and anything can happen. They can enact it that evening. They can put it off again. MR. SHAFFER-There was a lot of opposition last time. I was at the meeting. There was an awful lot of opposition to it. MR. CARVIN-I just don't see a win/win situation here. I really don't. I think we're just re-arranging chairs on the Titanic. I think the applicant has made an honest effort. I'll be honest with you. I like the fact that you brought the house down four feet. I can sympathize with the Baertschi's, their dilemma. This is a small lot, and I'm not sure a 32 foot house is a normal house. I think a normal house is probably 40, although 32 is not an unusual figure. I just think that, well, I guess this is probably the best. If somebody will make a motion, and we can keep it at 26 and a half feet, give them the side setbacks. It's got to be 75 feet back. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-1996 JOHN SHAFFER, Introduced by David Menter who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: With amendments discussed this evening. The applicant is proposing to remove an existing home and garage and replace them with a new single family dwelling, requiring relief of side yard setbacks, Section 179-16C. Relief required would be 8.25 feet from the north lot line and 10.5 feet from the south lot line. Also required would be an 18.7 feet total setback relief. The benefit to the applicant would be that he would be able to construct a new dwelling with new and improved septic on this limited lot. There don't appear to be feasible alternatives with the current regulations that would achieve this goal for the applicant. The effects on the neighborhood and the community overall would be marginal, as the proposed house would maintain a 75 foot setback from the lake and it does not appear as though it would, to a great extent, change area views. Neighbors have stated that they would experience a loss in mountain views, and Mr. Shaffer has redesigned and lowered the building to help address this. The applicant, with his proposal, would be increasing permeable area on the property, decreasing the footprint of the existing house and increasing the current side setbacks as well as the lake setback. In addition, the new septic system would be an advantage also. This motion would be conditioned on the applicant maintaining his proposed - 8 - ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) height of 26.5 feet, no greater than 26.5 feet, and no more than 2869 square feet of living space, including the garage. Duly adopted this 31st day of July, 1996, by the following vote: MR. CARVIN-Before the vote, I just want to state that I think that this is a minimum relief situation, because if the new Ordinance does not go through, I think this will have the least impact upon the neighborhood and the neighbors, and if the new Ordinance does go through, I would ask the applicant to maintain as close as possible these numbers, yet consider moving the building forward and giving consideration to the Baertschi's behind you. I don't know if the new Ordinances are going to go through, but if they do, I think within the time frame before you start building, I would ask you to give some neighborly considerations there. Okay. AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Carvin NOES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas USE VARIANCE NO. 50-1996 TYPE: UNLISTED CR-15 JAY S. CURTIS JON HALLGREN OWNER: FRANK J. PARILLO BIG BAY ROAD, BEHIND SUPER 8 MOTEL APPLICANTS ARE PROPOSING TO USE TWO VACANT LOTS AS A CURTIS LUMBER BUILDING SUPPLY AND LUMBER RETAIL CENTER. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE USES ALLOWED IN SECTION 179-24. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/12/96 TAX MAP NO. 136-2-7, 8.2 LOT SIZE: 2.57 ACRES, 8.98 ACRES SECTION 179-24 JOHN RICHARDS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. THOMAS-I'll read the tabling motion. The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following. The meeting date was June 19, 1996, variance file number is 50-1996 for a Use Variance was tabled "MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE NO. 50-1996 JAY S. CURTIS JON HALLGREN, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: To allow the applicant to develop significant and accurate traffic counts, maybe possibly explore alternative entrances and exits to the property, and also see if we can get either from the applicant and/or Staff some kind' of engineering report of the road out there, whether that road is going to be able to handle an increase of traffic. Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: Mr. Karpeles ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Menter" MR. CARVIN-Okay. When last we met, we had requested some traffic. The public hearing is closed on this. I did check that. I see that we've received at least three or four pieces of correspondence, and they all look like they're relating to traffic. I guess, Mr. Richards, lets see. I've got a letter dated July 17th. Is this your, Transportation Concepts, is that your? MR. RICHARDS-Right. Mr. Carvin, that is a firm that was employed by Curtis to provide the data that you had requested at the last meeting. Would you like us to set up the Sketch Plan for orientation purposes? MR. CARVIN-Yes, if you don't mind. MR. RICHARDS-Okay. - 9 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) MR. CARVIN-I also have a letter from Paul Naylor dated July 17th regarding the Curtis Lumber. I'm assuming all the Board members have this, and then I have a letter addressed to the Zoning Board from a Lorraine Troy, which I'm assuming is a resident. Are you Mrs. Troy? LORRAINE TROY MRS. TROY-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and I'd ask that these three letters be read into the record, at least initially. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and there's another letter from James Martin in here, too, with no date on it. MR. CARVIN-I think that's not necessarily in direct relation to traffic. I think this is an opinion stated by Mr. Martin. MR. HILTON-This is something that I know Jim had prepared and wanted read into the record for information purposes. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I don' t think it has anything to do wi th/ the traffic. I think it's an opinion that we'll read in later. MR. THOMAS-Okay. A letter dated July 17, 1996 regarding Curtis Lumber "I have reviewed the plans for the proposed Curtis Lumber on Big Bay Road. In my professional opinion, this would not result in a major impact on Big Bay Road. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my office. Respectfully, Paul H. Naylor Highway Superintendent, Town of Queensbury" MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm going to stop you right there for a second. I know I had asked Staff, in going through the minutes, one of illY concerns was the possible degradation of that road. Unfortunately, Paul did not address this. Did you have an opportunity, or do you have any comments with regard to that? MR. HILTON-Well, the purpose of this letter, we spoke to Paul, we spoke to Mr. Richards, and we had asked Mr. Richards to seek Mr. Naylor's opinion on exactly what you just mentioned, whether or not the road would be able to withstand the traffic, and whether or not it would just physically deteriorate or what would happen to that road. Unfortunately, Mr. Naylor, it appears, maybe wasn't too specific with his comments. I have no personal comments. He's the Highway Superintendent. He knows more about the road than our Planning Staff, and I can only read where it says it would not result in a major impact. He was aware of the situation and what we were asking him. I can only assume that he thinks the road would be able to physically withstand the traffic. MR. RICHARDS-Mr. Carvin, I met with Mr. Naylor, if you'd like me to address the Board on that? MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. RICHARDS-I did exactly as the letter says. I did show that plan to him, and explain what was intended and the proj ected traffic and he was very vocal that there would not be any problem at all with the traffic, the proposed traffic. As a matter of fact, he said a number of times that the Town vehicles use that road, their use is far heavier than ours would be, and I can honestly say that he was adamant that it would not be a problem. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So I guess what you're saying is we should take a broad interpretation of no major impact on Big Bay Road? MR. RICHARDS-I think that's the way it was intended. I was there, - 10 - '~ -..-'"' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) went over the whole thing with him. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Chris, I'm sorry. MR. THOMAS-That's quite all right. A letter dated July 17, 1996, addressed to Mr. Jon Hallgren, Curtis Lumber Company. "Dear Jon: The following letter has been drafted to provide a general overview of the impact to the adjacent transportation system of issuing a Use Variance for Light Industrial development on an existing Commercial Residential (CR 15) zoned parcel. The 6.724 acre site is located on the east side of Big Bay Road just south of Corinth Road in the Town of Queensbury, New York. The development is planned to consist of a 20,000 gross floor area (GFA) Retail Store (12,000 GFA Retail + 8,000 GFA storage) with a detached 42,000 GFA drive-through warehouse. Local trip generation rates were developed from Bellevue Builders in Rotterdam, New York, which has similar retail and drive-through warehouse facilities as those proposed by the Curtis Lumber development. The local trip rates, per 1,000 GFA, were determined to be: 2.3 Retail/1.0 Warehouse (AM Peak Hour), 3.7 Retail/O. 6 Warehouse (PM Peak Hour) and 5.9 Retail/0.7 Warehouse (Sat. Peak Hour). As determined by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 5th Edition trip rates estimates are: 2.1 Retail/0.6 Warehouse_ (AM Peak Hour), 3.3 Retail/O. 7 Warehouse (PM Peak Hour) and 5.9 Retail/0.1 Warehouse (Sat. Peak Hour) per 1,000 GFA. Our findings indicate that traffic generated by the proposed development, using either local or ITE rates for each of the peak hours mentioned, will not adversely affect the Levels of Service at the Big Bay Road and Corinth Road intersection. Land uses consistent with the existing Commercial Residential (CR 15) zoning have higher trip generation rates (up to 62 trips per 1,000 GFA) and were found to have a greater impact on the adjacent transportation system than the proposed use variance of Light Industrial development. This concludes the summary of our preliminary analysis for this project. If you should have any questions or comments in regards to this matter, feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, TRANSPORTATION CONCEPTS, L.L.P. Mark Gregory, Project Engineer" MR. CARVIN-Okay. Let me ask the applicant, because I'm a lay person and these are very impressive numbers, but do we do the math on this, or how is the math done? I mean, what is it in english? MR. RICHARDS-Okay. We do have the Traffic Engineer here if you need it, if you need him to explain it in more detail than I can, and Mark you can certainly correct me if I'm wrong as I go through. Basically, these are peak rates per thousand square feet, and of course they vary between a retail facility and the warehousing facility, but what they're saying is that, if you multiply by 1,000 square feet the peak vehicles per hour, you get the expected vehicles per hour, and that would give you an idea, again, at the peak hours. So it gives you the hourly rate maximum, it also says that there are alternate uses that, just eyeballing it up to 62 trips per thousand, the rate could be 20 times what a retail store would be. MR. CARVIN-Well, let me ask you this. How many cars are we talking an hour, and what's our square footage? MR. RICHARDS-Just what it says. You've got 42,000 warehouse, and 20,000 combined warehouse and retail. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So lets just, and you're going to have to take it slow, because I'm thick as a brick. Okay. The local trips per 1,000 was determined to be 2.3 retail and one warehouse on the morning peak hour. So I'm assuming that we've got a 42,000 square foot warehouse? MR. RICHARDS-Mr. Carvin, if I could just interrupt, I've asked Mark - 11 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) Gregory to come up. He's the engineer that prepared this letter and could get you some more accurate figures than I did. MR. CARVIN-So during the morning, we're expecting 42 cars per hour? MARK GREGORY MR. GREGORY-Just for the record, my name is Mark Gregory, and I work for Transportation Concepts. The AM Peak Hour, is that what you asked for? MR. CARVIN-Well, you're saying 2.3 retail/1.0 warehouse AM Peak Hours. MR. GREGORY-That's correct. MR. CARVIN-All right. 42,000 drive through multiply it by 42, it the morning hours? Now, my simplistic math says that you've got warehouse. So if I take .1 warehouse and comes up to 42 cars per hour, or is that over MR. GREGORY-It's just during the peak. When we analyze any highway system, we're concerned with the peak hour of traffic. MR. CARVIN-Which would be? MR. GREGORY-For the AM Peak Hour it's generally between 7 and 9 a.m. in the morning. MR. CARVIN -Okay. So we're talking, somebody write this down because I'm going to get this confused, I can just tell. Okay. So what you're saying, I want to make sure, is between 7 and 9, you're talking 42 for the warehouse. MR. KARPELES-Seven to nine what, a.m., p.m.? MR. GREGORY-No, it's a.m. MR. THOMAS-Then you've got another 20,000 for retail. MR. GREEN-That's 22 cars per hour. MR. GREGORY-Just for the peak hour. JON HALLGREN MR. HALLGREN-For one hour, not seven to nine, in theory. MR. MENTER-Right, that's the rate. MR. GREGORY-Right, it's just for a peak hour, trying to establish a worst case scenario. MR. KARPELES-How many cars per hour? MR. GREEN-Forty-two. MR. CARVIN-Forty-two between seven and nine. MR. THOMAS-Now, that's just the warehouse. MR. CARVIN-That's just the warehouse. MR. THOMAS-I think the 42 is short, because we've got 42,000 and 20,000 on the retail store. So, to me, that adds up to 62,000. MR. CARVIN-No, different uses. - 12 - '-"" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) MR. GREGORY-For both uses, using 42,000 for the warehouse and 20,000 for the retail store, for the AM Peak Hour we had a total of 87 trips generated. MR. HILTON-I just did the math and came up with the same number. MR. CARVIN-Eighty-seven. MR. GREGORY-And that is 51 entering vehicles. MR. CARVIN-All right. Now that's seven to nine. MR. GREGORY-When I say the Peak Hour, what we do is we manually count the existing condition out on the road way at the intersection Big Bay and Corinth Road, and during that time, the period of seven to nine, we find, which is the worst hour, as far as traffic volumes for that intersection. MR. MENTER-That would be your anticipated rate. MR. GREGORY-Right. MR. CARVIN-Again, I want to keep it simple. this between seven and nine in the morning. is what you've indicated? 87, and I'm bracketing Is that the Peak-Hour MR. GREGORY-Yes. I could probably find exactly when that peak was. MR. THOMAS-Eighty-seven per hour. double that. Between seven and nine you MR. CARVIN-Yes. talking 174. So, okay. We're talking two hours. So you're MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. GREGORY-Well, our analysis is based on the peak hour analysis, and what we do is apply the peak hour rate to the existing peak hour and determine a Level of Service based on that, and that's industry standard, how that's developed, and you generate a Level of Service, it goes anywhere from A to F. For an unsignalized intersection it gives you some bearing as to how to measure an intersection. So it's going to generate 87 trips, in the a.m. peak hour, which is 51 trips entering and 36 trips exiting. MR. RICHARDS-It's not 87 different vehicles, necessarily. It's 87 trips. MR. GREGORY-Trips, entering and exiting. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. GREEN-So each way you go, it counts as a trip. MRS. LAPHAM-Right. period, either. So it wouldn't be 116 cars for the two hour MR. GREGORY-No. You can't really say that. MR. RICHARDS-The human tendency is just to multiply it, the lay tendency like mine is just to multiply that, and that's not how this works. I'm just trying to show what's the maximum capacity that this would, or maximum stress, lets say, that this would put on the capacity of the road at anyone time. MR. GREEN-And you said a trip is one direction. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. If you go to the Lumber store, that's one trip. - 13 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) MR. GREGORY-That's correct. MR. GREEN-So we aren't talking 87 cars. something. We're only talking 40 MR. CARVIN-Right. I think I got that. MR. GREGORY-I think, to clarify this a little better, to develop the trip rate, we used the local Bellevue Builders, and from that we found a peak hour with that building. Now during that time, obviously that rated varied between whatever these rates are here, higher or lower. MR. CARVIN-Again, would it be a safe assumption, if we have 87 trips, that we have roughly 43 cars in and out? MR. GREGORY-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. That's a safe assumption? MR. GREGORY-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. ~- MR. GREGORY-At the peak hour, worst case. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. HILTON-I have a couple of questions for the may. First of all, you have rates for the warehouse. I'm just curious, are there any ratios to the storage area? applicant, if I retail and the that would apply MR. GREGORY-Within the retail? MR. HILTON-Well, you separated out in the beginning, retail storage and warehouse, and you give figures for the retail store and the warehousing portions of the project, and I'm just wondering if there are any rates that you can apply toward the storage area, toward the storage portion of the project? MR. GREGORY-We could have, but we used the 20,000 for the retail portion of the store, because that was a more conservative number. It was a higher trip rate than if we broke that out. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. RICHARDS- In other words, you could have diluted the rate a little bit. MR. GREGORY-Yes, but for a conservative estimate, I used 20,000 for the rate. MR. CARVIN-Okay, now, let me ask you this. These 87 trips, these are not differentiated between tractor trailers, pick up trucks or cars. A trip is a trip, whether it's by a semi or a Volkswagon? MR. GREGORY-That is true, but in our analysis, we included heavy vehicles. We counted existing heavy vehicles and we added that to our analysis. So that has been included in the analysis for Level of Service. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now, moving right along, 3.7 retail, .6 warehouse P . M. peak hours, or peak hour, and again we use the same math there, I guess. So we're talking 20. So we're talking? MR. GREGORY-It comes out to 101 total trips, which is 52 entering. The peak hour is between four and six p.m., is typically when that - 14 - ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) falls, I believe it's somewhere around 4:30 or 5. MR. CARVIN-All right. Now these are week day rates, as it were. MR. GREGORY-That's correct. MR. CARVIN-What about, I'm assuming that we have, do we have the middle hour some place? I'm sure we do. MR. GREGORY-We have Saturday. Typically in a traffic analysis you look at A.M. Peak Hour, and people are going to work, P.M. Peak Hour when they're coming home, and Saturday when there's a lot of trips taking place. So we looked at Saturday and found 148 total trips. Saturday peak hour is between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. GREGORY-And the distribution varies for each of those. That's, before you had mentioned with the a.m. peak hour there was 87 trips, and you had wondered whether you could assume that 43 coming and going was a fair assumption. Here again, based on the local estimate of Bellevue Builders, we found entering and exiting percentage, which we applied to the distribution with these rates. So I just want it to be noted that you can't, necessarily, split the traffic. It's based on a distribution as compared to local use. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now you have, like .6 warehouse a.m. peak hour, and 3.3, I mean, what's the rest of these numbers? MR. GREGORY-The other ones were provided as basis for comparison. ITE, the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Book is an industry standard. That's what's commonly used to develop trip rates for any type of development. There's a whole list of land use codes and we use that to generate trips. In this case, since it is a specific use with a warehouse and a drive through warehouse at that, retail hardware store, that we felt it was necessary to generate a local trip rate and see if, possibly, the trip rate is higher than what is offered through ITE. MR. MENTER-Which in this case it is. MR. GREGORY-Yes, it is. Slightly, but it is higher. We found out, that's why we listed both of them, just to give you, to see that we were showing a conservative estimate, and those numbers that I gave you, the 87 for the a.m. peak hour, 101 for p.m. peak hour and 148 for Saturday peak hour, were based on a higher conservative trip rate. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now let me ask you this. You gave us just peak hour. Is there any way we can determine what the non peak hour traffic might be? MR. GREGORY-Yes, you could. I could just say that it would be less than the numbers I've presented. These represent a worst case scenario for the morning peak hour, p.m. peak hour and Saturday peak hour. MR. CARVIN-Again, I don't want to, we're talking on a worst case, I guess, on a, what is this, 188 trips between the morning peak hour and the afternoon peak hour. Is it a safe assumption to say that during the course of the rest of the day we would have at least 188 trips spread over the ensuing hours, or we would have substantially more or substantially less than that, if we talk an aggregate? MR. GREGORY-Additional 188 and then 188, is that what you're asking me? - 15 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) MR. CARVIN-I'm saying that your peak A.M. hour is 87 and your peak P.M. hour is 101. MR. GREGORY-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Which is 188 if you add the two. All right. So if I take a morning peak and an afternoon peak, I know I've got 188 trips of some fashion or form, but we also have, that takes car of two out of an eight hour or ten hour day, depending on how long they're open. MR. GREGORY-That's correct. MR. CARVIN-So, what I'm saying is, is it an unrealistic expectation to see another 188 trips spread over a three hour time frame, a five hour time frame, for the non peak hours? MR. GREGORY-It's hard to say. I would have to go to the local use that Bellevue Builders probably, and take a look at that and see if that is in fact the case. I don't know off hand without studying it, to tell you that for a fact. It's hard to say. It could be less. It could be more. It could be the same. I don't know without studying that. MR. GREEN-That might be a better question for Curtis. They know what their busiest morning is and afternoon, and then how much business they generate during the middle of the day, versus the morning and the afternoon. I mean, they know their own business. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I didn't know if there was a standard. If you've got 190 for peak hour morning and afternoon. I mean, you multiply it by 2.1 or 3.7 or 9.2 or some ratio? MR. GREGORY-Not really. Typically we like to look at the A.M., you know, when contractors come in or their supplies or P. M. when people come home from work, and are apt to make a stop from work, on their way home, or on the weekends when they're out, in the middle of a project. We try and look at the worst case scenario. MR. CARVIN-It's interesting that you generate almost as many trips, just Saturday morning, as you do the whole peak hours of a week day. You're talking 148 during the peak hour just on Saturday morning. MR. GREGORY-That's in comparison, when we look at Level of Service analysis for this project, what we found is the a.m. and p.m. peak hour, obviously the traffic on Corinth Road is much higher, and when you look at Saturday's values of 148 and compare that to the lower volumes on Corinth Road, it has less of an impact. MR. CARVIN-Well, I would think in this type of business, I mean, if you're waiting until 12, 1 o'clock to go get your two by fours, you've lost half the day of your project. So I would think that you're, at least my reasoning would be on a Saturday morning you'd have a higher peak hour in the morning. I talked to a paint store owner one time. He says, if they're coming in at twelve o'clock to buy the paint, they're not going to do it today. MR. HILTON-I just have another question of the applicant. We've been talking about Levels of Service. Do you have any figures for the present condition of the road and the proposed use of the road, like an A or an F, or a C, for that matter? I mean, I don't know. MR. GREGORY-Yes. We did a preliminary analysis, the unsignalized intersection of Big Bay and Corinth Road. Existing conditions, what that measures, for anyone that's not aware of this, is critical movements at an intersection, and for this intersection, being that it's unsignalized, the critical movements would be when - 16 - '-- .,-", (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) a vehicle has to either cross a lane or enter a lane of traffic and may experience other movements of traffic in that same lane. So the critical movements for this intersection would be exiting, making a left from Big Bay Road onto Corinth Road, or making a right from Big Bay Road onto Corinth Road, or making a left from Corinth Road onto Big Bay Road. Those are considered the critical movements for the intersection. Levels of Service range from A to F, and we found, I think the existing, for the critical movements in the A.M., we found that all but the north bound left were Level of Service A, and the north bound left was a Level of Service C, existing. Proposed, those values don't change. They stay the same, with the added trip rate that we had provided, and distributing the traffic through that intersection. For the P.M. peak hour, the same condition applies, except the existing condition for the north bound left is existing as a D, and it stays a D, with the proposed development. D is still a good Level of Service, for anyone that's not aware of that. The other movements for the P. M. peak hour are Level of Service A again. For the Saturday peak hour, again, at good Levels of Service, with the north bound right and west bound left, off of Big Bay Road, would be Level of Service A, and the north bound left off of Big Bay Road went from a C to a D. So all the Levels of Service are still good. MRS. LAPHAM-How do you determine which Level of Service is which, by the number of cars, the number of turns? MR. GREGORY-It's based, there's a bunch of theoretical equations, and it's based on the perception of a gap in traffic, and when someone's sitting at that intersection, what is theorized is that they have to cross, either cross a lane of traffic or two lanes of traffic, and merge into already moving traffic at a certain speed, and what they call acceptable speed is 85% of that moving traffic. So when someone's sitting at that intersection, the Level of Service is based on their perception of a gap, and if that gap is large enough for them to make that movement, and based on how large that gap is or how many vehicles are on that existing roadway. That determines the Level of Service. So a Level of Service A, you would assume that the volume would be lower. They would have a lot more room, a larger gap to make that move and get up to 85% of the speed of that traffic lane, and so on down. It depends on the volume of the major road. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Again, to keep it in something that I could almost understand, what you're saying is that an A Level is very acceptable, so that nobody should have a problem coming off Big Bay? MR. GREGORY-Right. MR. CARVIN-In either direction, at the peak hour? MR. GREGORY-That's correct, for critical movements, that's correct. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and you said that in the afternoon that it was a D? There was one that you said, or was that Saturday? I don't remember. MR. GREGORY-Well, probably to make it the most clear would be, for A.M., P.M. and Saturday, in both the existing and the proposed condition, we found a Level of Service A, from Big Bay Road turning right, and from Corinth Road making a left, those two critical movements. That's all Level of Service, regardless with the existing condition and with the proposed condition. MRS. LAPHAM-And that's very comfortable, easy, you don't have to feel you're worried? - 17 - ---../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) MR. GREGORY-Right. It's based on perception. D is actually good. It's considered good in the industry. It's a matter of how a driver feels, how large the gap is, whether he's ready, willing to take a risk and move across traffic. MR. CARVIN-Well, I have a perception of both those intersections, Big Bay and Big Boom. MR. GREGORY-What happens as well is that this is also a peak condition, and you'll find that as cars wait, and the longer that their perception changes. When you first get at an intersection, you have to take a few minutes to analyze the movement. After they wait awhile, sometimes their perception, what's theorized is perception changes and they will make a move that they probably wouldn't initially make, but anyhow. MR. RICHARDS-The bottom line is the rates that are there now will not be effected by the proposed use. That's what you could say. I think one thing I should put in perspective, if I may, Mr. Chairman, is with regard to these rates that we've been going over. Just keep in mind, as we say, Mark says later on in the letter, take a Stewarts convenient type store, with gas pumps, according to the ITE rates, as Mark explained to me, would generate 62 trips -per thousand square feet, or about 20 times some of our rates, or another one would be for instance a grocery store shopping area, Shop N' Save type thing, which that area I believe could handle without a variance, I think an 87,000 square foot facility and the rate on those is, I think, three times, roughly, some of the rates we're looking at here. So some of these numbers may sound like a lot, but they're really not very much versus other uses that could go in there. It's certainly nothing that the road couldn't handle. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does anyone else have a question on this particular portion? MR. GREEN-Were these estimates shown to Mr. Naylor, these trip estimates? MR. RICHARDS-I can't recall if I came almost simultaneously. discussed, we were discussing honestly don't know, sir. had this letter when we met. I honestly don't remember. truck traffic a little bit. They I I MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does anybody else have any questions of this particular? Does everybody understand, as best we can, what they're saying? Okay. Why don't we read this third letter in, from Lorraine Troy. MR. THOMAS-A letter dated July 16, 1996, regarding Curtis Lumber and Frank Parillo subdivision proposal, "Members of the Board: It was suggested at the meeting on June 19, 1996 that Curtis do a traffic survey since traffic was of paramount concern to the residents on Big Bay Road should the variance be granted for Curtis to construct a retail store and lumber yard. On June 20, 1996 from 9:30 a.m. until 11:30 a.m. I tabulated 112 cars and similar vehicles as well as 29 heavy duty vehicles; i.e. dump trucks, tractor trailers, lowboys; lawn and garden trucks with chippers attached travelling the road. From 3:30 p.m. until 5:30 p.m. the tally was 182 cars and 20 heavy duty vehicles. On June 26, 1996 between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. a total of 69 cars and 19 heavy duty vehicles were tallied. The above count does not include any school buses nor does it include a count of the Town of Queensbury Highway trucks and snow plows which will of necessity travel Big Bay Road at other times of the year. Neither does it include the customers of the vegetable stand on the corner of Big Bay Road and the corinth Road, many of which turn on to Big Bay Road to make their purchases. There are at least 8 small children residing between - 18 - '-- ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) the Corinth Road and the proposed Curtis site. Additionally it has been rumored that should the Town of Queensbury develop a recreation area along the Hudson River a proposal has been made to make access to the other side of the Northway from Big Bay Road so children would not have to challenge the traffic on Big Boom Road. Should this become the case, it would mean additional traffic on Big Bay Road and could very well mean more children riding bikes to access the spot, thus endangering their safety. Mr. Halleran has stated that Curtis wants to be a good neighbor. I would like to remind Mr. Halleran that the children of today could well be his customers of tomorrow and every consideration should be given for their safety and welfare. Since the meeting three of my neighbors have put up their property for sale. We are gravely concerned with the residential devaluation of our property. Will our homes be reassessed? These are all questions which I feel should be addressed. Respectfully submitted, Lorraine Troy" MR. CARVIN-Okay. I think Mrs. Troy is here? LORRAINE TROY MRS. TROY-Yes, I am. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does the Board have any questions of Mrs. Troy? Was this just a visual count? MRS. TROY-Yes. I did that from my home, and I only live five hundred. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Again, this was just a visual tally, was it? MRS. TROY-Yes. I had a pad, and I marked little ones for each car, and I made a separate count for the heavy duty vehicles, and it was done right from my home, which is only five hundred feet down from the corner of the Corinth Road. MR. CARVIN-Okay. June 20th is what day? MRS. TROY-I don't remember now. It was a Thursday. It was the day after the meeting here~ MR. CARVIN-Okay. So June 20th was a Thursday and June 26th. MRS. TROY-Must have been a Wednesday. MR. CARVIN-It was a Wednesday. Did you get any Saturday counts by any chance? MRS. TROY-No. I was working Saturday. MR. CARVIN-Is this figure correct, 9 a.m. to 11:30 ~ only 112 cars? MRS. TROY-Yes, whatever I have down there. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. THOMAS-So you're talking a 14 hour span? MR. MENTER-Nine in the morning until eleven at night is what this says. MRS. TROY-No. It was a.m. I'm sorry. MRS. LAPHAM-Nine-thirty a.m. until eleven-thirty a.m.? MRS. TROY-Yes. - 19 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) MR. CARVIN-I was going to say. I wanted to make sure I got all my a.m.'s and p.m.'s correct here. MRS. TROY-I'm sorry. Typographical error. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Do you know if anybody else did a traffic survey by any chance? Any of your neighbors? MRS. TROY-I really don't know. MR. CARVIN-Does anyone else have a traffic survey? Okay. DEBORAH BACON MRS. BACON-Deborah Bacon. I did a couple, as I work a lot of hours. On Thursday, June 20th, between four and five p.m. in the afternoon, when I got home from work, in one hour there were 86 cars and there were 11 commercial vehicles. On Monday, July 1st, at 7:20 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., in 40 minutes we had 46 cars and we had 13 commercial vehicles, and the 13 commercial vehicles were within 10 minutes time, and that is very early in the morning, and they're heavy duty commercial vehicles. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I have a question of Transportation Concepts. Having heard these numbers, are these in line with your projections, or, this is what Curtis Lumber is projected to generate, is that correct? MR. GREGORY-The numbers I presented for trip rates are based on the square footage of Curtis Lumber, that's correct. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. GREGORY-But to answer your question, I just got a copy of the letter right here, the first letter from Lorraine Troy. The second letter I have not seen, but one thing I've noticed, the hour, the time of day that they're counting vehicles, on June 20th, is typically what's outside the peak hour of the existing intersection of Big Bay and Corinth Road. That peaks between seven and nine, and this tally that they have is well after that peak hour. MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm more interested in the June 26th eight a.m. to nine a.m., because I believe that does correspond somewhat to your peak hour projection. MR. GREGORY-That's correct. MR. CARVIN-As does, all right, now the four to five, is that the afternoon hours? MR. GREGORY-Yes. MR. CARVIN-I believe that's what you said, four to six. So, in other words, on the June 20th, I think Mrs. Bacon had indicated 86 and 11, all right. I'd ask the other two, were these just going one way, or was it both ways? MRS. TROY-Both ways. MR. CARVIN-Both ways. So these would, we could consider these in your. MRS. TROY-This is on Big Bay itself. It has nothing to do with the intersection, the corner. MR. CARVIN-No. I'm just saying, if a car went down Big Bay, and then a car went up Big Bay? - 20 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) MRS. TROY-Forty cars in and forty cars out. MR. CARVIN-All right. These are trips. So I guess we're looking at 86 and 11 trips. MR. GREGORY-Was that 11 part of the 86, or in addition? MRS. BACON-No. That's separate from the cars. commercial vehicles separate from the cars. I did the MR. GREGORY-Okay. I feel that's a necessity on what we're coming down to in the traffic problem. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and I guess my basic question is, you're indicating that Curtis is going to put, during the afternoon peak hours, 101 trips, and I realize this is only a one day study, but we're looking at 97. Is your feeling still the same that that intersection will take almost a doubling of the trips on Big Bay at that corner? Do you still feel that this would rate A or B or C, seeing that we're going to be doubling the amount of trips, at least in that time frame, and it looks like about the same in the morning. ~' MR. RICHARDS-But you were there, right, Mark? You took your own accurate counts. MR. CARVIN-So it's 88 trips, right, according to Mrs. Troy. MR. GREEN-Those are two hour spans, not one hour. MR. CARVIN-Well, no, she's talking eight to nine a.m., on the 26th. MR. GREEN-Okay. MR. CARVIN-She had 69 and 19. That's 88 and he's saying 87. So we're basically doubling, just by putting Curtis in there, the number of trips on that road currently. MR. GREGORY-What was the other day, the 86 trips? weekday? Was that a MR. CARVIN-That's Wednesday. MR. GREGORY-Wednesday. MR. CARVIN-Wednesday, June 26th, she said eight a.m. to nine a.m, 69 cars, 19 heavy duty vehicles, and that's 88, and you're giving us a figure that they would anticipate generating approximately the same time frame about 87. MR. GREGORY-Right. MR. GREEN-Let me ask on question, Fred. In your study, you did count school buses, highway trucks, snow plows? MR. GREGORY-That's correct. MR. GREEN-And in Mrs. Troy's count, she didn't. MRS. TROY-How do you count snow plows this time of year? MR. GREEN-Not snow plows, but other, the items that you specifically did not count were included in the other study. So your count, in theory, could be higher? MRS. TROY-Right. MR. GREEN-Okay. Yours is less, but it should be higher. So it may - 21 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) be less than double. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, again, I'm still posing a question. I mean, we have, granted, a limited set of statistics based on a one day, and you're giving me a general statistic. Do you still feel the same, that based on these comparisons, that we're essentially looking at a doubling of the number of trips on that highway, at least during those peak hours. MR. GREGORY-Well, our comparison, we measured traffic on Big Bay as well. Our numbers weren't quite as high, I'll be honest, for the a.m. peak hour, but they were at 51 for the a.m. peak hour, 61 for the p.m. peak hour. MR. CARVIN-Do you have dates, specific dates by any chance? MR. GREGORY-I don't think I have that information with me. We measured the weekday, between Tuesday and Thursday, which is a common in the industry. You don't want to get a Monday or a Friday because of vacations, or a glitch in traffic. You like to get a steady peak. So that was measured during the weekday between Tuesday and Thursday and Saturday, it was measured on a Saturday when there was no events, like Fourth of July or anything ~like that, but to answer your question before, let me clarify. Our heavy vehicle analysis, we rate anything that's larger than a UPS vehicle, including that, would be considered a heavy vehicle. So all the things that were mentioned before would have been included in our count as a heavy vehicle, in our analysis. As far as adding the trips to Big Bay Road, like I said, our numbers weren't quite as high, but fair close. In my professional judgement, I would have to take a look at exactly what those numbers are and how it effects the rate, the Level of Service for the intersection. Currently, they are Level of Service A, except for the north bound left off of Big Bay Road. So, depending on the distribution of those trips, where they're going, you would see an impact. I don't know if that would change the Level of Service A or not, or if it would change your north bound left Level of Service or not. In the a.m., we're talking a difference of 25 vehicles. It depends on the split on that. It's not likely it would have a huge impact on the Level of Service, just in a general sense. I can't really give you speci,fics on that without doing the analysis. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So I guess what I'm hearing is that you're just not sure, but you can't really, based on this information, will you stick to your guns that that intersection won't fail, if I could use that term in a broad sense, based on all of these numbers? MR. GREGORY-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So you're still comfortable that, even though we're doubling the number of trips there, that it still should not pose a problem for anyone going in or coming off Big Bay? MR. GREGORY-That's correct, should still maintain good Levels of Service for that intersection. MR. MENTER-So, Mark, essentially you took the figures that you came up with on that Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, as the existing condition at that intersection for when you rated it, added the increased traffic proposed, in this proposed project, and the result was what you described to us? MR. GREGORY-That's correct. MR. MENTER-Okay, and the base figures seem a little different? MR. GREGORY-Like I said, slightly different. They're close, but they're not the same numbers. - 22 - ---./ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does anyone else have any questions here? Does everybody understand the traffic, what we're hearing as far as the traffic pattern, which is, I know, one of my major concerns. Okay. MR. RICHARDS-Mr. Carvin, can I just address the Board for one second on one of these things? I just want us all to keep in mind that this is a Light Industrial zone on three sides of this property, all this property on Big Bay to the west is Light Industrial. To the east across the Northway is Light Industrial. The south is Light Industrial. We've had the Town Highway Superintendent and our own specialist you just listened to indicate that this project would not be a problem. We did contact, I know Mrs. Troy and Mrs. Bacon had indicated their concern about the traffic. I just want the Board to know that Mr. Hallgren or myself have been in contact with many of the adjacent owners, and the vast majority of them support the project, and I do have a graphic here that indicates that, if I can present that to the Board in response to Mrs. Troy's letter. MR. KARPELES-How was this information gathered? MR. RICHARDS-I have signed statements by some of those, Mr. Karpeles, which I can present to the Board, and some were verbal telephone conversations, but most were signed statements. L!ll bring up what I've got here. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I think this is getting into another area that I don't want to get into at this point. MR. RICHARDS-I just want to address Mrs. Troy's letter, because she had indicated there were, I didn't want the Board to get the impression there was wide spread opposition from everyone on Big Bay Road, because that's not the case. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now, the public hearing has been closed on this. We have been presented with, I think, quite a bit of additional information with regard to traffic. I would ask the Board if, first of all, you have to be guided by the guidelines for the Use Variance. The applicant has to demonstrate certain criteria before we can grant a variance. Does anyone want or wish to open up the public hearing, or is everyone satisfied that they have enough inform~tion to make a determination with regard to this particular application? MR. MENTER-I'd like to address another issue relative to this, being as I wasn't here the last time. MR. CARVIN-I forgot to ask you if you're up to speed on this. I'm sorry, Dave, you weren't. You're right. Do you feel comfortable? MR. MENTER-Well, the only issue I would like addressed would be the reasonable return issue. I'm sure I missed the discussion, but if you could describe to me the attempts and whatever. MR. RICHARDS-Actually, I can. I was trying to gear my presentation to the questions that came out of the last meeting. So I don't have extensive information, but I did contact Mr. Parillo, in case someone like yourself wanted more information, and I did get this letter from him this afternoon which I could present to the Board that outlines the sale attempts, and the fact that this property is costing in excess of $2,000 per year in taxes, I should say this property and some of the adjacent property, because it's not assessed as a separate parcel, and other expenses he's undergone, anyone who's gone by there has probably seen the "For Sale" sign that's been there for some time now. He's had numerous efforts, I can tell you, trying to sell it, and absolutely no buyers until Mr. Curtis. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Again, I'm going to ask, does anyone want to open - 23 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) up the public hearing? Do you feel that you have sufficient information? Bonnie, have you made up your mind on this, or do you want to have the public hearing opened? MRS. LAPHAM-I haven't made up my mind, but I'm not sure I want the public hearing opened, because we've pretty much, the people that are here we've heard from. MRS. BACON-I would just like to show a graphic, though. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I understand Mrs. Bacon, out there, you have a traffic study? MRS. BACON-Well, I wanted to show you one of the tractor trailers coming out of Big Bay Road that I put on a poster, I printed out, that almost hit me head on when I was coming home one evening, my husband and I, and he was going out to Big Bay Road. He was an Encore Paper Company, I'm sorry to interrupt like this, but this is major concern for me and my kids. He was coming out and he was in the opposite lane coming out of Big Bay Road making a right hand turn heading toward Glens Falls. He crossed the double line, I've got it all written down right here, into oncoming traffic right toward my van. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, we'll take the photograph, but this sounds like an enforcement problem that I think if you've got a problem with a specific truck, that you should contact the Sheriff. MRS. BACON-All tractor trailers have to do that because the road's not wide enough, is what our concern is. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but this concern has been brought up, so, again, like I said, we will take the photograph. As far as the other comments are concerned, that's not under the, I can't zone away stupidity. MRS. BACON-Right. traffic. No, but our concern is the impact of the MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, again, I think the Board is aware of the concerps, and again, I don't know, Bill, do you want to open up the public hearing? Is there anything that you want additional? Are you comfortable looking at all of this? MR. GREEN-I guess I would just as soon not go through what we have already, but if there was any way to, I guess, ask if there's any new, different comment. MR. CARVIN-Well, without opening the public hearing, we'll never know. MR. GREEN-I would just request that it be new and different, more informative than just a re-hashing of anything we've been through? MR. CARVIN-Dave, are you comfortable? MR. MENTER-Yes, I don't think it's necessary. MR. KARPELES-I don't care about the public hearing. I have a question for Staff. I see Jim Martin has taken a pretty strong position on this, that we didn't have the benefit of the last time. Could you expound upon this? What is he saying? Is he saying that he thinks the zoning is wrong? MR. HILTON-Well, first of all, we should probably read the letter, or have the letter read into the record, and then I can provide some comments, if you'd wish. - 24 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) MR. CARVIN-Why don't YOU read the letter into the record. You were asked the question. MR. HILTON-Okay. It's a letter from Jim Martin to the Zoning Board of Appeals, regarding Use Variance No. 50-1996. It says "I would like to take this opportunity to provide some comments on the proposal to locate a Curtis Lumber store on property currently owned by Frank Parillo which is located at the southeast corner of Corinth and Big Bay Road. From a Planning perspective, this project is a sound proposal for the following reasons. 1. This proposal would be an extension of light industrial uses which currently exist to the south on Big Bay Road. Presently, Curtis Lumber is located on Western Avenue directly abutting a residential area. This conflict in zoning patterns would be alleviated with this proposal. 2. The applicant is proposing to locate their access points off of Big Bay Rd. This would have the benefit of not opening another curb cut on Corinth Road. Corinth Road is a thoroughfare which presently has numerous curb cuts and access points. Planning staff is interested in consolidating curb cuts and sharing access points along public streets whenever possible. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, James Martin, AICP" MR. CARVIN-Okay. Notes? Can we consider these additions to the Staff MR. HILTON-They're read into the record, they weren't Staff Notes to File. It was just a comment made by Mr. Martin, he just provided for the Board's information. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. HILTON-To answer your question, from a Planning perspective, yes. I think this proj ect, I think Mr. Martin is of the same opinion that this project has some merit. We would be alleviating a situation on Western Avenue where we have an obvious conflict in zoning patterns. The property to the south of this proposal is Light Industrially zoned, and a natural extension of that Light Industrial zoning toward the Northway and Corinth Road would be a use of this nature. I think, from that standpoint, Mr. Martin and the Planning Staff agree with the project and support the project. I think the thing that is tricky here is that you have a Use Variance and then you have a site plan. You have site plan issues that are separate from Use Variance issues, and I think that the criteria that the Board reviews this Use Variance under may be a little different than the site plan. As Mr. Martin stated, from a Planning perspective, it's a sound project, and I think the Board, this Board at least, may have to look at it under different circumstances. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Chris, any thought on the public hearing? MR. THOMAS-I think we've heard about all that, I don't think we'll hear anything new from the public because, to me, from looking out in the audience, it's basically the same people that were here for the first meeting, and we've already had the letters and all their statements and everything read into the record and all printed up. So I don't believe we're going to get anything new from the public. MR. CARVIN-All right. Then I would caution the Board and guide the Board to look at your Use Variance criteria. MR. THOMAS-I'd like to see those charts that Mr. Richards presented, the neighbors surrounding it, in favor of it. MR. CARVIN-Well, it's a color chart. names. It doesn't give you any - 25 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) MR. RICHARDS-But we did submit statements. MR. CARVIN-The names are there. Okay. I'm sorry. MR. RICHARDS-Mr. Carvin, I'm not recommending you open this up. I just want you to know there are people who support the project in the audience, but I don't think it's necessary that we all address you again, but these are people that weren't here the last time. MR. CARVIN-Well, I would submit this to the public, because I'll be honest with you. I've got a little bit of a concern with this, because I think there's some folks in here on opposition. I only see three, and I just want to determine if that's a fair indication. There's a number that weren't contacted, and all the rest are supposedly in favor. MR. RICHARDS-I can address the Board. A couple of statements were signed by the owners of the property directly opposite the southern end of this parcel, who had initially spoken against it and then contacted Curtis and said they had decided to support it, and that is probably the one change you might notice, but that's supported by written statements. MR. CARVIN-Okay. In other words, all the blue are support? MR. RICHARDS-The blue are in favor, yes. MRS. TROY-I would like to add that some of those in the blue up in the Corinth Road own or rent from properties owned by Mr. Parillo, as does the one directly to the north of the proposed Curtis site. MR. RICHARDS-It just matches the names on the application. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. All righty, Ladies and Gentlemen, any feelings? MR. MENTER-I'll tell you what my thoughts are, since you asked. I think it's close to a real nice fit there. I have real concerns for the people that have homes right across the street. There's no question that it's going to affect the traffic and therefore the quality of life and everything else for these folks. The question becomes what are the other alternatives and what's going to happen with the property, outside of this project. So I guess I'll leave it at that. MR. GREEN-I was just looking at those allowed uses in here. I was doing this the last time we were talking about this. I kind of go along with Dave, here, that I think this is a nice idea. There are some concerns, but the road is obviously, the traffic is the biggest one getting in and out of out there, but I'm not sure that we have any, I don't want to say "control" over that, but I've heard a lot of talk about the Town trucks and paper company trucks and other plants that may be going on down the road, and I guess I'm just going down through the criteria here and some of the other things that are allowed, office building, hospital, gas station. I think these would generate an equal amount of traffic. I think it is rather unique, judging from our zone maps. This parcel isn't something, I commented on before how this parcel ended up being zoned the way it is, where it is situated, and so I do believe it is rather unique. Mr. Parillo is showing that it has been for sale for quite some time. I guess I generally feel pretty good about it. MR. THOMAS-I agree with Bill. I was looking down through the same list he was, and looking at some of these other things that could built there without being here before us, hotel, motel, lodge, gasoline station with or without automobile facility repair, a - 26 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) restaurant would generate I think as much, if not more traffic than Curtis, the traffic studies and everything else. He has shown that since the property has been for sale for eight years or more that he hasn't been able to obtain a reasonable return, and as Bill said, it is unique because of the zoning. It's surrounded by Light Industrial, and this Commercial Residential is right in the middle of it. So, to me, it's probably the best thing that could go in there, other than what's listed in the CR-15. MR. KARPELES-Well, I have tremendous sYmpathy for the neighbors, but I've got to agree that there could be a lot worse uses going in there. I think I'm going to have to switch my original opinion. I agree with the rest of the Board, so far. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, my original opinion was based on the amount of traffic that I perceived to be going in there and how much of it I perceived to be really heavy trucks. I think Mr. Richards and the traffic specialist, I think have shown that it's not going to be anywhere near as bad as I thought it was going to be, and as Chris just pointed out, that we could have a restaurant there. That would definitely generate more traffic more quickly than Curtis, and I think it's a fairly good project, but I do feel very badly for the neighbors, and I have to admit, I'm torn. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I've looked at the Use Variance criteria, and certainly I think the applicant meets or exceeds most of them. Obviously, my biggest tripping point was the safety and health and welfare of the community. I wanted to have it on the record that this Board did its homework as far as the safety and health issue. I think the neighbors have done a very good job in their traffic studies. I think it dovetails fairly decently with what Curtis has done. I have a letter from Mr. Naylor indicating he doesn't feel that the Town is in dire position, that the road use is rather broad based terminology shouldn't pose any problems. I personally have some reservations about that, but I think that, unfortunately, that's the direction that Town government is going, in that they want expansion. They want business, and then later on they worry about the infrastructure. So I think this is a situation that the Town, obviously Mr. Martin is saying, and Staff is indicating that this may correct an anomaly in the zoning, because it is an unusual lot. You've got, I believe, Light Industrial right across the street, and you've got it right behind it, and for some reason this was a Commercial Residential, and it's just basically that section of land. I do have tremendous sYmpathy for the neighbors, but as Mr. Richards and the applicant has demonstrated, they have documented that the opposition apparently has been mitigated, under whatever fashion or form. Unfortunately, I realize a lot of people rent, and may not have the same voice as an owner, but it comes down to the ownership of the property. The only thing that I would ask, if a motion is made, that I think the public has a legitimate argument to having the trucks come in at normal times, and I think during our public testimony it was indicated that these trucks, these big trucks, may show up fairly early in the morning, and I would ask any conditions on this, that no deliveries be made prior to seven a.m. Is someone from Curtis here? MR. RICHARDS-Mr. Hallgren's here. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I believe you said that you would not have a problem telling your drivers not to come prior to seven o'clock? I don't know what time you open. JON HALLGREN MR. HALLGREN-The issue was whether or not we would have tractor trailers waiting outside along the road for the residents. MR. CARVIN-Right. - 27 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) MR. HALLGREN-They should easily be able to use the McDonald's parking lot, to wait before they enter our yard, and I feel pretty comfortable (lost words) set that up with the tractor trailer company without a problem. We'd probably have loading hours of seven to six, or seven to five. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Because I do sympathize. I wouldn't want a tractor trailer idling at three o'clock or four o'clock in the morning. PLINEY TUCKER MR. TUCKER-It's against the law. They can't sit there and idol. MR. CARVIN-As I said, so's speeding, but it happens, and not that conditioning our variance is going to be an enforcement, but at least it indicates our desire to have this mitigated as much as possible. Okay. Having said that, I'd ask for a motion, if somebody would make it. MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 50-1996 JAY S. CURTIS JON HALLGREN, Introduced by William Green who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: The applicant is proposing to use the southerly portion of a lot located on Big Bay Road, presently owned by Frank Parillo, to be used as a Curtis Lumber Supply and Retail Center. Relief is being requested from the uses listed in Section 179-24. The property is currently zoned CR-15. The lumber yard, warehouse business is not an acceptable use under this Section. It does seem that a reasonable return from the land if used as zoned could be difficult. Statements showing that the land has been for sale for quite some time, improvements have been made, but still no buyers. It also appears that this property has a unique nature with Light Industrial zones surrounding it. A business of this nature would probably correct an anomaly in the zoning district. It does not appear that because of the surrounding zone that the essential character of the neighborhood would be changed. There has been concerns of 'increased traffic on Big Bay Road and Corinth Road, but I feel that it has been documented that the amount of additional traffic would probably not have a large detrimental effect, if any, to the present traffic patterns. There has been some concern to the health, safety and welfare of the community due to this traffic from the surrounding neighbors, but again, I feel that it has been mitigated to the best possible outcome. I would condition this Use Variance that no deliveries to the business from large tractor trailers be made prior to 7 a.m. or after 7 p.m., and that any tractor trailers arriving before these hours or after these hours not be parked in the neighborhood or on Big Bay Road. It's been recommended by the Curtis people that they would probably park in the McDonalds parking lot area. Duly adopted this 31st day of July, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WOULD INDICATE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AND WE WOULD ACCEPT THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Menter: Duly adopted this 31st day of July, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin - 28 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) NOES: NONE NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 56-1996 TYPE II LC-42A ROBERT L. & SHIRLEY HAUSLER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 2125 RIDGE ROAD (ROUTE 9L), ON WEST SIDE OF RIDGE ROAD, APPROX. 1,000 FT. PAST ROD AND GUNN CLUB APPLICANTS ARE PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE ON THEIR PROPERTY. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACKS AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS LISTED IN SECTION 179 -13C. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 7/10/96 TAX MAP NO. 22-1-1.1 LOT SIZE: 2.28 ACRES SECTION 179-13C SHIRLEY HAUSLER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 56-1996, Robert L. & Shirley Hausler, Meeting Date: July 31, 1996 "APPLICANT: Robert & Shirley Hausler PROJECT LOCATION: 2125 Ridge Rd. Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicants are proposing to construct a detached garage on their property. The garage will have three bays and will have a building area of 864 square feet. The proposed garage would be able to meet all setbacks except one side yard setback. Relief is being requested from the setbacks listed in Section 179-13C. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicants to build a garage on their property. 2. Feasible al ternati ves: There do not seem to be any alternatives that would provide less relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The applicants are seeking 50 feet of side setback relief. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? There do not appear to be any negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The existing zoning makes it difficult for any building to meet the setbacks on this 2.66 acre legal nonconforming lot. Staff Comments & Concerns: This garage would conform to the size requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Permeability at this location will conform to the requirements of the LC-42A zone. The existing zoning at this location makes it difficult to meet the 100 foot required setbacks. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 10th day of July 1996, the above application for an Area Variance to construct a three stall qaraqe (not over 900 Sq. ft.). was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact" Signed by C. powel South, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does everybody understand what the applicant is requesting? Are there any questions of the applicant? Has anybody got a question? I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay. Has anybody got a problem with this? MR. MENTER- I'd like the applicant to describe why 50 feet is required relief. MRS. HAUSLER-Well, we'd like to use our property that we have. Our setbacks originally were 50 foot. When we bought the property it was 50 foot setbacks, and then it was changed, I guess, in 1990, to 100 foot. What we wanted to be able to do is use our land, and in - 29 - ~) '\ ) ~' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) the corner, as you can see, it comes to a point down in the back, which is very, it's useless, I mean, anything back in there. We don't want to take out any more trees or anything, and this way here we could put the garage there in that corner and have land in front of us to use. At this point, we can't use, I mean, we have land in front of the house, of course, but I mean, in the back where you'd want to put your garage, we just feel that it would be more accessible for us. MR. CARVIN-Any other questions? MR. GREEN-I've got another one. I drew some lines on here, 100 feet in, 100 feet off the back, and if you put it, essentially, like right on the corner of, apparently, your paved area, you'd be inside all the way around. MRS. HAUSLER-Our septic tank drain fields come down through that side. See, our septic tank is over on the side of the house on the right hand side. It's in front of the proposed garage, more or less. Actually, it's maybe 80 or 90 feet from the septic tank itself. It's a mound system. Well, it's along in here, see, is where our mound system is. It's on the side of the house. In other words, the septic tank is on the side, and then the drain fields go down to this area. So this is the reason. I mean, it's mounded there and we can't use that property, and we just figure back there it would be out of the way. MR. GREEN-Well, basically, the back side of the garage, where I was just kind of sketching it in here, would be equal with, apparently, the back side of your house, that's 99.5 feet. MRS. HAUSLER-Well, the garage is going to face the front. I mean, it looks like it's this way, but it should be, you know, so it faces the house, is what we planned on doing. Is that what you mean? Is that what you're saying? MR. GREEN-I just took it and apparently just slid it almost north along the same parallel as your back property line, and it comes right up into that back lower right corner of your paved or stone driveway. MRS. HAUSLER-Well, I have another map that, this was just a sketch that we had from before. I don't know if you'd like to see that. See, that didn't have the septic on it. This is when we originally got the building permit, and this is how we set it all up. So if we went with the house closer in here, we can't, because this is all mound. MR. GREEN-This is where I'm saying. MRS. HAUSLER-Right over in there? MR. GREEN-If you go there, you would have your 100 feet off of here. You'd have your 100 feet off of the back. MRS. HAUSLER-See, this is all wasted land. This is the only reason why, actually, we could probably, but we'd have to, yes, we'd have our 100 feet there. MR. GREEN-See, there's your 100 feet that line, 100 feet that line, and 100 feet that line. So there's no real reason, other than aesthetics, that you couldn't put it there. MRS. HAUSLER-Right. I guess you could say that. MR. GREEN-Thank you. No questions. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, what's your feeling, Bill? - 30 - ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) MR. GREEN-We're out here in the middle of nowhere, and there's no reason why it can't go back where they propose it, but I mean, if we could put it within the boundaries, with no real reason not to, other than just not wanting to put it there, I can't go along with it. I mean, if we had some reasoning as to why it can't meet the Code, drain field, big tree in the middle of it, what have you. MR. HILTON-Do you have the drawing that indicates where the leach field is or where the drain field is, because I haven't seen that yet. MR. CARVIN-What you're saying, Bill, is there is a site there? MR. GREEN-I don't think this is minimum relief. MR. MENTER-I think he's saying there's a feasible alternative. MR. GREEN-There's a feasible alternative that would need no variance. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does the applicant understand where he's proposing to put the garage? MRS. HAUSLER-Yes. He's saying right behind the house. In other words, not over. See I just didn't want to have the garage, a three stall garage, sitting right there in the middle, I guess, for my own appearances. See, I just felt that we have all that wasted land because the point, it comes to a point in the back and there's nothing you can do with it, and I thought we might as well have the garage there and have room in front of it. MR. GREEN-I'm sorry. I totally agree with you, but there is a feasible alternative that would need no relief, and, personally, if I don't have any sort of justification why that garage can't go there, and meet the setbacks, I can't say that's minimum relief, because there is a feasible alternative. MR. CARVIN-It's a point well taken. MR. GREEN-There's no reason why it can't go where you have it proposed, but I have to look at my things here, feasible alternatives, and weigh them, benefit to the applicant. MR. HILTON-I'm just looking at the plan here, and if you do take the entire garage and put it on the stone area on the lot, yes, you may be able to meet all the 100 foot setbacks, but then that garage may be, it may somehow obstruct traffic or people coming into their property along the stone drive, and they may not be able to use the back end of that stone drive. That's one thing that may happen. If you were to just put the entrance of the garage right at the edge of the stone, and have the rest of the proposed garage going toward the property line, where right now they're proposing 50 feet, you still would require some relief. MR. MENTER-They'd be reducing it substantially. MR. GREEN-Yes, by just flipping it over. Okay. MR. CARVIN-Does that change your opinion, Bill? MR. GREEN-Well, that would be less relief, and it is an alternative. MR. HILTON-Of course, in that location you may run in, and I just got this drawing two minutes ago of the septic, you may run into some concerns with the location of the septic field. MR. GREEN-Now that you bring that up, I don't know if you could do - 31 - ~ ') (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) that. You've either got to go all the way, or possibly not at all. MR. THOMAS-Well, seeing that this pre-existing nonconforming lot is in the LC-42 zone where the setbacks are very large, being that a 42 acre lot is the minimum lot size, or even an LC-10, where the minimum lot size is 10 acres, if this lot were to sit in a residential zone, 50 feet would be fine. In fact, they could move it 20 feet closer, but to me, this seems fine to me, because this isn't a 42 acre lot. This is a 2.66 acre lot, and it just happens to sit in an LC-42 zone, and I really wouldn't want to get too close to that septic system around there, and come anywhere near it because there is a minimum setback to any building from that, which I do believe is 10 feet. To me, really, that's the ideal place for it is back there in that, toward that corner, even though it does require 50 feet of relief. MR. KARPELES-I agree with Chris. I went up there and I looked at it, and nobody is objecting to it being there, and it looked to me like that property, probably nobody would build very close to that property line. So I can't see any obj ection to it there. I sYmpathize with Bill's position. I like to grant minimum relief, too, but I think it would be cutting that lot up too much if they moved it over. I really don't see any objection to it where it is. MR. MENTER-The size of the lot is a big factor. I think it's important that we discuss the feasible alternative issue, but I think with the placement of the septic and the existence of the stone drive, and the fact that you'd be eating that whole thing up in order to get it into conformity, I think there's justification for this variance. MRS. LAPHAM-I think there's justification for it. First of all, I don't think it's going to bother anyone, and while maybe there's feasible alternatives, I think you have to be very careful to stay as far away as possible from the mound system, because it could be very easily destroyed. So I would have no problem with relief for this. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Again, this is an Area Variance so they don't have to meet all of the criteria. It's not like a Use Variance where it's very strict. I mean, we can be a little bit lax, although I will have to admit, Bill, you bring up some very good points, but having been out there and looked at the property, and I think Chris makes the most sense. I mean, this was a 50 foot setback prior to 1987 or '88, whenever they changed the zoning laws. I think '87 is when they changed it. MRS. HAUSLER-No. We bought it in '87, and it was 50 foot then. MR. HILTON-There may have been some zone change I'm unaware of. MR. CARVIN-I really don't have a problem with this. Having said that, I'd ask for a motion if there's no other discussion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 56-1996 ROBERT L. & SHIRLEY HAUSLER, Introduced by Robert Karpeles who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: The applicants are proposing to construct a detached garage on their property. The garage will have three bays and will have a building area of 864 square feet. The proposed garage would be able to meet all setback requirements except one side yard setback. Relief of 50 feet is being requested for that side setback. This relief would allow the applicant to build a garage on their property and facilitate using the property to the best advantage and most efficient manner. This seems to be the most desirable alternative, although it is not absolute minimum relief. There do - 32 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) not appear to be any negative impacts on the surrounding the neighborhood. The existing zoning makes it difficult for any building to meet the setbacks on this 2.66 acre legal nonconforming lot. The garage would conform to the size requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Permeability of this location would conform to the requirements of the LC-42A zone. The existing zoning at this location makes it difficult to meet the 100 foot required setbacks. Duly adopted this 31st day of July, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Carvin NOES: Mr. Green AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-1996 TYPE II SR-1A CHERYL SIPOWICZ OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CORNER OF BURCH ROAD AND DEAN DRIVE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT AN ABOVE GROUND SWIMMING POOL ON HER PROPERTY. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179-19C. TAX MAP NO. 121-1-42 LOT SIZE: 0.40 ACRES SECTION 179-19C CHERYL SIPOWICZ, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 64-1996, Cheryl Sipowicz, Meeting Date: July 31, 1996 "APPLICANT: Cheryl Sipowicz PROJECT LOCATION: Corner of Burch Rd. and Dean Dr. Proposed project and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant is proposing to construct an above ground pool on her property. The pool will be located behind the existing home on this corner lot. The proposed pool will meet all setbacks except the rear yard setback required in the SR-1A district. Relief is being requested from the setbacks listed in Section 179-19C. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to build a pool on her property. 2. Feasible alternatives: There do not seem to be any alternatives that would provide less relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The applicant is seeking 10 feet of rear setback relief. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? There do not appear to be any negative impacts on the sùrrounding neighborhood. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The size and dimensions of this legal nonconforming lot make it difficult for this accessory structure to meet the rear yard setback. Staff Comments & Concerns: This nonconforming lot contains a building which meets all the setbacks of the SR-1A zone. In order for this pool to be constructed the required distance from the existing home, relief is needed from the rear yard setback. Permeability standards will be met on this lot if the pool were built. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MR. CARVIN-Does everyone understand what the applicant is requesting? Are there any questions? MRS. LAPHAM-When I went out to the site, maybe I have the wrong one, but I saw a pool already there. MRS. SIPOWICZ-That's correct, and I called the Town of Queensbury, and I believe it was John Goralski that I spoke with, and I explained to him when we came to the meeting on the 19th, just two gentlemen were here, and at that time, we spoke with the gentleman that was installing the pool, whom we had a deposit with, and if he did not do it at the date that we had already set up, we would not be able to do the pool until the end of August, which makes no sense whatsoever. When I spoke with Mr. Goralski, he saw no - 33 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) problem, why you should object to this, and I just feel that we've made every attempt, including taking off time from work to attend this meeting prior to setting the pool up, that I just don't feel that there's any reason why we could not put up our pool, and that's why we put it up. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions, and for the record, there were three of us here. MRS. SIPOWICZ-Okay. Well, I do want to let you know, as well, that we are going to be putting a three foot wide decking around the pool, so we can walk around, but there will be a fence totally around the pool, and there will be a door, basically a swing open door, with a lock, as well as the stairs going up when we are not, the pool's not in use. MR. CARVIN-Okay. That was going to be one of my questions. The pool, the 10 foot side setback, is that to the pool, or is that going to go to the deck? MRS. SIPOWICZ-To the decking. I mean, it's coming out three feet, it's to that decking. ~- MR. CARVIN-Then the math doesn't make any sense. MRS. SIPOWICZ-I guess. I don't know how, my husband's not here because he had to work. He took time off from work last time. I'm not doing the construction, but I do know that it's 10 feet from the house. Eventually we're going to have the deck coming off from the rear of the house, but that is, I mean, we're not doing that right now. It's 10 feet, I guess, from the house to the pool. At this time, we're just putting three feet around the pool so that no children can gain access, so we can put a fence up, basically, around the pool. MR. CARVIN-Okay. setbacks? Well, George, what does that do for the side MR. MENTER-It's the rear setbacks. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but the pool has to be, it makes a difference. MR. MENTER-Is it 10 feet from the pool to the yard line, and it will be seven feet from the deck to the yard line? MRS. SIPOWICZ-I believe so, yes. Like I said, my husband knows more about this, but he couldn't take time off from work again. I do apologize. MR. HILTON-If the deck were under 100 square feet, it could go within five feet. I don't have the figures on how big the deck is. MR. MENTER-It would be an accessory. MR. HILTON-It would be an accessory, but any accessory structure under 100 square feet can go within five feet. MRS. SIPOWICZ-It won't be over 100 feet, I don't believe. I mean, like I said, I'm not positive of the math wise. MR. CARVIN-100 square feet, it's 10 by 10. MRS. SIPOWICZ-I mean, if that's required, I'll just tell my husband that we cannot do it any larger than that. MR. MENTER-At three feet wide around the diameter of that pool, it would be substantially over, wouldn't it? - 34 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) MR. CARVIN-I don't know. MR. THOMAS-It's a little over 72 feet around it, times three. So it would be 216 square feet decking around the pool, three foot wide. So, probably 3.1416 times 24, times 3, it's probably closer to 225. MR. GREEN-So he's over the 100 feet. MR. HILTON-Well, if you look at this plan, I just noticed this. The diameter of the pool is going to be 24 feet. With the 10 foot setback from the home and 10 foot setback from the rear property line, this would indicate that the 10 feet would be from the pool itself. MR. CARVIN-That's correct. MR. HILTON-So, from the decking, it would be seven feet. MR. MENTER-Right. MR. THOMAS-To the home and the property line. MR. CARVIN-And that's why I'm saying, I think before the deck goes on, I would want to make sure that that's. MR. HILTON-Well, see, a deck wasn't indicated at'the time of these notes. MRS. SIPOWICZ-Right. We decided that for the safety we want to have something around so that children can't gain access to that. I mean, it's not going to be a deck that we can sit at. It's basically so you can walk around the pool and so that children cannot get in there. MR. HILTON-The problem that presents is that there's another section that says that the pools have to be setback 10 feet from a principal structure, and this wasn't advertised for that. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, that's what I'm saying. I don't have a problem with the pool. I'll tell you that right up front, but before you build a deck, I think you might want to check with the Town, because I have a feeling. MRS. SIPOWICZ-That's fine. We'll do whatever we have to as far as the deck wise. The main reason we want to put that on, like I said, is for safety reasons. MR. MENTER-You see what that does, though? MRS. SIPOWICZ-Yes. MR. MENTER-It goes closer to the house, and the property line. MRS. SIPOWICZ-Right. I understand that. MR. MENTER-We could theoretically say, okay, you can be, we can give you a variance for seven feet from the property line, but then you've got another problem, because now you're within 10 feet of the house, which is a whole separate issue which we're not here to address. MR. CARVIN-That hasn't been advertised. I mean, so at this point, just the pool, and before the deck goes on, you may have to go through the procedure again. MR. THOMAS-Well, with the deck between the pool and the house, I don't think there's a problem there, as long as the pool is 10 feet - 35 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) from the house. I don't think there's a problem with the deck between the house and the pool, but there is a problem between the deck and the rear property line. MR. GREEN-Especially if the deck starts coming off the house. MR. THOMAS-I don't think there's a problem with the deck between the house and the pool, as long as it's 10 feet. MR. CARVIN-I take exception to that, because we've had problems in the past where we've had decks go within two and three feet of a pool and they've had to have variances. So I think that, again, I don't want to bog down on a deck tonight. It's not part of the thing, but I want to caution the applicant, before your husband drives any nails, to make sure that we all get on the same page here. MRS. SIPOWICZ-Okay. MR. CARVIN-I don't have a problem that you built the pool, because I don't have a problem with the pool. I don't know what the rest say, but I think if you start putting a deck on, then that puts a whole different twist on. MRS. SIPOWICZ-Okay. MR. CARVIN-Any other questions of the applicant? I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Are there any other questions of the applicant? Does anybody have a real problem with the pool as it's proposed? MR. THOMAS-No. MR. CARVIN-I'd ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-1996 CHERYL SIPOWICZ, Introduced by David Menter who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: Burch Road and Dean Drive, Queensbury. The applicant is proposing to construct an above ground pool in the rear yard of her home. The pool requires relief from the rear yard setback, as she is locating it 10 feet from the property line. The size of the property and the existing improvements on the property make it necessary to grant relief for this type of pool anywhere on the property, and this location would require the least relief. Therefore, there don't seem to be any feasible alternatives, and given, again, the dimension of the property and the existing improvements on the property, the relief is certainly not substantial relative to the Ordinance. There were no expressed concerns from the neighbors, and it would not appear that this proj ect would have any adverse effects on the neighborhood or community, and given, again, given the lot specifics, it does not seem to be a self created problem. Relief would be granted, then, for 10 feet setback from the rear property line. The distance from the house is to remain at least 10 feet, as is shown on the supplied plan. D~ly adopted this 31st day of July, 1996, by the following vote: MR. CARVIN-Before we vote, I just have one question of the applicant. The pool is 52 inches deep. Is that, what, four and a - 36 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) half feet? MRS. SIPOWICZ-It's 52 inches deep. That's all I know. MR. THOMAS-That's four feet four inches. MR. CARVIN-So, I mean, the pool sides are going to be almost five feet tall. So, I mean, you'd have to have a pretty old child to climb over that. MRS. SIPOWICZ-I have a three year old and a four year old, and I would not put it past them to find a way to get up on there, to tell you the truth, and then you've got other small children in the area. So, I mean, I definitely want to put something up. MR. CARVIN-Well, normally, as I understand it, they have like these A ladders that you take out and remove. I mean, they're not normally permanent, if I remember them. MRS. SIPOWICZ-Right. Well, I just thought, majorly, it would be a concern of yours as well, as far as neighbor children or anybody coming in my yard and basically getting into the pool. MR. CARVIN-Well, normally above ground does not require a fence because it is an above ground, and it normally is assumed that unless you are digging it down through your four feet, in which case that puts a whole new dimension on it. That's not the case here I assume. MRS. SIPOWICZ-Right. MR. CARVIN-Okay. It was just a question. I'm sorry. AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE MR. CARVIN-It's granted, but again, I'm cautioning you on the deck. MRS. SIPOWICZ-Okay. Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-1996 WR-1A CEA TYPE II JOHN JR. & JANET HICKEY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CLEVERDALE ROAD TO HILLMAN ROAD TO ONONDAGA DRIVE; HOUSE NO. 9 APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO BUILD AN ADDITION ON AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-79A,2. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 7/10/96 TAX MAP NO. 11-1-1.11 LOT SIZE: 0.05 ACRES SECTION 179-79A, 2. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 57-1996, John Jr. & Janet Hickey, Meeting Date: July 31, 1996 "APPLICANT: John & Janet Hickey PROJECT LOCATION: Onondaga Dr., House No. 9 Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicants are proposing to construct an addition to an existing single family home. Relief is being requested from the expansion of a nonconforming structure requirements of Section 179-79, A, 2. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to add an additional bedroom and bathroom to their home. 2. Feasible alternatives: There do not seem to be any alternatives that would provide less relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The square footage of the original building was 660 sq. ft., the new addition is proposed to - 37 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) be 768 sq. ft. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? There do not appear to be any negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Additional comment may be made at the public hearing. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The square footage of the existing building is below the minimum dwelling size of 800 sq. ft. for single family homes. Any addition that would result in a moderate size home would require relief. Staff Comments & Concerns: This addition would result in a home with moderate square footage for living space. The unusually small lot size for this home prohibits any outward expansion on this property. SEQR: Type II, no further action required. II MR. THOMAS-IIAt a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 10th day of July 1996, the above application for an Area Variance for the addition to a sinqle family dwellinq from 2 bedrooms, 3/4 bath to 3 bedrooms and 1 3/4 bath. was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact. II Signed by C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. HILTON-For the Board's information, the applicant has informed Staff that they could not attend tonight's meeting. They're not here, but it's been Planning Staff's determination that if we read the comments into the record, opened the public hearing, we could table it and re-hear it in August without re-advertising this. So I think that's the route we're looking to take here tonight. MR. CARVIN-Okay. In that case, I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-The public hearing will be closed. MR. HILTON-Well, okay. You may want to leave it open until we can hear it in August, but either way, it doesn't need re-advertising. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, in that case, I'll leave it open then, in case there is some additional public comment. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. CARVIN-Okay. Then I'll move that we table. MR. GREEN-Just out of curiosity, can we move on this without the applicants here? MR. HILTON-I think you could, but if you had some questions of the applicant. MR. CARVIN-I don't know. Does anybody have any questions of the applicant? MR. HILTON-Well, if you want to do that, I'm sure he'd be thrilled. MR. CARVIN-Well, I'll tell you, I don't have a problem with it. We've done two or three of these. I mean, this is about as simple as they get. MR. GREEN-As I said, I would just as soon go. MR. CARVIN-All right. I don't have a problem with it. If there's no questions of the applicant, and no comment. There's no controversy, and nobody has a problems with it, I'll ask for a motion. Move this along. - 38 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-1996 JOHN, JR. &: JANET HICKEY, Introduced by Bonnie Lapham who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: On Onondaga Drive, Takundewide, House #9. The applicants are proposing to construct an addition to an existing single family home. Relief is being requested from the expansion of a nonconforming structure requirements of Section 179-79A, 2. The benefit to the applicant, it would allow them to grant an additional bedroom and bath. There do not seem to be any alternatives that would provide less relief. The square footage of the original building is 660 square feet. The new addition was proposed to be 768 square feet. There do not appear to be any negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. There has been no public comment against the proposal. The difficulty does not seem to be self created, in that the existing dwelling is below the minimum dwelling size of 800 square feet for a single family home. Any addition that would result in a moderate sized home would require relief. This is not a self created problem, as the existing lot is very small, being only 2288 square feet. Duly adopted this 31st day of July, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-1996 TYPE II HC-1A NUTECH INDUSTRIES, INC. OWNER: JAMES &: WILLIAM BARRETT 437 DIX AVENUE, CORNER OF DIX AVENUE AND QUEENSBURY AVENUE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REHABILITATE AN EXISTING SITE IN ORDER TO OPERATE A CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO PROPOSING TO ELIMINATE A PORTION OF THE 50 FOOT BUFFER THAT IS REQUIRED BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TO THE NORTH. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THIS 50 FOOT BUFFER REQUIREMENT THAT IS LISTED IN SECTION 179-72. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 7/10/96 TAX MAP NO. 110-1-13 LOT SIZE: 1.73 ACRES SECTION 179-72 TIM BARBER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 61-1996, Nutech Industries, Inc., Meeting Date: July 31, 1996 "APPLICANT: NUTECH Industries, Inc. PROJECT LOCATION: 437 Dix Ave. Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant proposes to rehabilitate an existing site in order to operate a construction business. As a part of this application, the applicant is proposing to reduce a portion of the 50 foot buffer that is required between the residential property to the north. Relief is being requested from the 50 foot buffer requirement listed in Section 179-72. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to operate a business with a limited buffer between the residential property to the north. 2. Feasible alternatives: The requirement of a 50 foot buffer along the entire north property line would effect the operation of the proposed business. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The applicant is proposing 315 feet of a buffer less than 50 feet in width. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or conununi ty? The buffering that is proposed would screen this property from an existing single family home to the north. The area of this property that would contain no buffering would have a wood fence as a separation from the property to the north. Additional comments may be made at the public hearing. 5. Is this difficulty self created? Businesses which have operated at this location in the past have operated without a 50 foot buffer. The - 39 - --) '\ '-----" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) applicant seeks to improve the property and include some buffering. Staff Comments & Concerns: The applicant proposes to operate a business at this location and at the same time provide a buffer from the home to the north. The applicant seeks to further improve this site by providing an 8 foot high wood fence to be used with existing vegetation between the remaining vacant property to the north. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 10th day of July 1996, the above application for an Area Variance to rehabilitate existinq structures. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact" Signed by C. powel South, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is someone here from Nutech? MR. BARBER-For the record, my name's Tim Barber. MR. CARVIN-I guess I don't understand exactly what you're requesting. So, if you would spell it out in laYman's terms. MR. BARBER-Do you have a site plan, Mr. Chairman? MR. BARBER-Yes, I do, but I guess I don't understand what you're requesting. Are you requesting no buffer? Are you requesting a 30 foot buffer? MR. BARBER-Partial. MR. HILTON - I can answer that. There's a requirement that commercial properties be buffered 50 feet from adj acent residentially zoned properties. The zoning on this property is, we're looking at HC-1A. The property to the north is Single Family Residential. The applicant is proposing 70 foot of that northerly property line would be buffered 50 feet. The remaining 315 feet would be less than the required 50 feet. So they're seeking relief from that section of the Ordinance that requires a complete 50 foot buffer at the zone line. MR. CARVIN-Okay. In other words, we're talking about this back lot line here? MR. BARBER-Yes, the northerly, east to west line. MR. CARVIN-All right. I understand, here's your 50 feet. That's the first, and then you want to drop it down to, it looks like 30 feet. MR. BARBER-That's correct. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but then what do you want from here to here? MR. BARBER-The property line. MR. CARVIN-Why? MR. BARBER-Well, the narrow proximity of the lot, the existing lot is about 200 feet in depth. If we take 50 feet out of that, that really cuts into the operational room that we're going to have. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I guess my question is, what are you going to be doing in here that you can't at least have a 30 foot buffer? MR. BARBER-There's going to be equipment storage. There's going to be some supplies, a couple of tractor trailers in and out. MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm hearing before, when you were here for the Use - 40 - -..--r '-' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) Variance, that this was not going to be that intensive of a use. MR. BARBER-That is correct, but for the turn around area, you know, if you take a 53 foot trailer, add a 20 foot tractor to the front of that, and we go to make a turn around in that area, and say we have five or six other pieces of equipment up in the general front area of this property, it's going to be awful hard to turn around and maneuver in that yard. Basically what we're looking to do is put, say if there's a crane or a fork truck or something back from a job site, put that toward the front of the property, keep any light gauge metals or form materials in the middle of the property, where they're going to be less obtrusive, and then kind of come up the side line of the property with any small vehicle traffic and then just swing around the loop there. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, I guess my question is, you only need buffering along this line here, is that correct? You don't need any buffering here or here? MR. BARBER-That's correct. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. BARBER-But with taking out any room in that area, have/you visited the site, Mr. Chairman? MR. CARVIN-Absolutely. MR. BARBER-Okay. If you visited the site, you can see the existing storage boxes that Hertz has there presently. There's two left. MR. CARVIN-All right. I'm familiar with this, but I'm assuming you're talking this area. MR. BARBER-There's existing storage boxes along the northern southeast boundary that we're talking about right now. There's two left. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, I'm still not convinced that we can't have some sort of buffering along here, and you still utilize this front portion of the property for what you indicated that you were going to be using it for. I mean, I'm being brutally honest. I have a real tough time with a zero buffer along a residential zone on that piece of property. MR. BARBER-Well, you know, it's going to be hard to facilitate moving around on that property, and keep the property as organized as we would like to keep it, and keep the keep lanes between it. MR. CARVIN-But on the other hand, you've got a variance to allow a certain amount of activity there. MR. BARBER-That's correct. MR. CARVIN-And I know that we had an awful lot of public controversy at that point that they did not want that to really become a parking lot. You sat right there and told us, gee whiz, two or three pieces of equipment, and I'm saying I've got a big chunk of property here, I'm only going to have two or three pieces of equipment. MR. BARBER-I think I said more than two or three, to correct you. MR. CARVIN-Not many more than that. I mean, you sure down played it, and now we're being asked to have a zero buffer zone here. I really don't have a problem seeing a 50 foot. Again, I looked at that property and I'm saying, you know, there would appear to be plenty of room. - 41 - ì '--, (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) MR. BARBER-Well, you know, I'm not going to argue that point, but it is going to make the operations difficult. It's going to crowd the front area. MR. CARVIN-I'm thinking it makes it quite difficult for the residents on the other side. I mean, that's why I'd like to keep it. MR. BARBER-The only residents that are up in the front, and we're trying to accommodate that by leaving a buffer in that front area and landscape that. This is landlocked. I believe it's landlocked. Forest woods, at present use, the upper portions, and all the existing properties, the freight company, they butt up all the way around their existing property also. There's no buffer zone that they're following. MR. CARVIN-Again, I'm just expressing my opinion. Are there any other questions? Has anyone else got any questions of the applicant? MR. BARBER-You figure a 150 foot lot, and if a tractor trailer's 70 to 73 feet long, and we have to turn and back into that area, and we do have a couple of pieces of equipment, whether it be a crane or fork truck or a couple of other pick ups or such, it's going to get a little congested, and we're trying to do our best to accommodate all future neighbors. I mean, we're not a, by all means it won't be a junk yard. It's got to look very aesthetically pleasing. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Are there any other questions anyone? MR. GREEN-Yes. It appears that that vegetation line that is there now runs from, in the easterly corner right about where the lot line is, sort of at a diagonal with the line actually being back, how far would you estimate into the woods now, say on that back corner, on the westerly corner? MR. BARBER-On the westerly corner, it's probably back in there four feet, five feet, maybe. MR. GREEN-And in the middle area, like right behind those box trucks? MR. BARBER-It may be 10 feet there, maybe upwards of 10 feet. MR. GREEN-With the current vegetation, did you plan on taking that out when you put your fence up? MR. BARBER-Only where the fence line would go through, yes. MR. GREEN-Which would be that whole length of it. So you would clear out that vegetation that's there now back to your line to put your fence in? MR. BARBER-Yes. There's not, to my knowledge, there's not too much vegetation back on the, it's. MR. GREEN-Well, I know I climbed through a bunch of it to get back to those pink sticks, especially in the middle area there behind where those boxes are. MR. BARBER-Okay. MRS. LAPHAM-When you say board on board fence, does that mean that, if you're standing in back of this fence, you could not see in to your property? MR. BARBER-That's correct. We're proposing a similar fence to what - 42 - -'--'" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) Wal-Mart has to their new facility, which is typically called a board on board, or referred to as a board on board fence. It's a nice looking fence. It's not your picket, you know, your two and five eighths picket. It's a heavier duty fence. MR. CARVIN-Anybody else? If not, I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED KATHERINE WATERS MRS. WATERS-I'm Katherine Waters, 57 Queensbury Avenue, and I own the property that is on my border line, next to the future construction industry. I'm not in favor of eliminating a portion of a 50 foot buffer which I'm entitled to according to 179-72. Board members, would you want this to be done to you if you lived in a place like that? If he can't turn his trucks around like he's spoke, why didn't he look at the property earlier and find that out? And besides, there's a lot of junk there on my border line, and it's not Barber's. It belongs to Barrett. Jim and William Barrett left a lot of junk behind. I think advantage was taken when the other place was opened up, the Barrett place. I didn't do too much about it at the time, and when I did, no one ,-was considerate, but now that I'm older, and a little bit more alert, I do not want that 50 foot buffer eliminated. I'm entitled to it. Am I not? MR. CARVIN-Well, that's what the Ordinance is. MRS. WATERS-Sure. MR. CARVIN-And what the applicant has to demonstrate is a need to have relief. MRS. WATERS-They should have looked at the property before to see if there was enough room to turn trucks around and this and that and the other thing. MR. BARBER-I think the Board has to realize that we are trying to give as much relief which borders Mrs. Waters' property up in the front northeasterly corner. We are recognizing that. We are putting up a good deal of money in trees and the mound system, up to where her property ends there. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is there anything else? MRS. WATERS-I've lived there 38 years, and God spares me I hope to live there almost 20 more. I love my property. I love my home. I like my home and I like my property, and I don't see why I can't go according to the Section 179-72, with the full 50 foot buffer. That's it, unless you want to ask a question. MR. CARVIN-Has anybody got any questions? MRS. WATERS-I'm not happy. MR. CARVIN-Anyone else wishing to be heard? public comment? Any correspondence? Okay. Any other MR. THOMAS-Yes, one letter. A letter dated July , 96 "We are writing to you because we understand that the property being bought by Nutech is looking for a variance to change the buffer between the homes on Queensbury Avenue. We own property behind the homes and up to the area being sold. This property may be for sale and may alleviate a problem for all concerned. We are unable to attend the meeting and wanted this to be known to both Queensbury as well as Nutech. If anyone is interested, please give us a call. Thank you for your time. Karen Bush Cunningham and Richard E. - 43 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) Cunningham" MR. BARBER-That's the wooded property? MR. THOMAS-Yes. It says it's the, "we own property behind the homes and up to the area being sold". So it must be the property behind. MRS. WATERS-Is that being sold? MR. THOMAS-No. It says here, yes, it says it may be available. "This property may be for sale and may alleviate a problem for all concerned." It may be for sale. MR. CARVIN-I'm not sure what the point is. MR. THOMAS-I'm not either, what the alleviate is. MR. KARPELES-I guess he's saying he could buy the part of the lot and put a 50 foot buffer in there, isn't he? MR. THOMAS-Yes, that's probably what he's saying. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is there any other public comment? Anyone else wishing to be heard? If not, then I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-All right. Any questions of the applicant, anybody? MRS. LAPHAM-What is the depth of your property? Will the buffer you've got proposed take care of the entire depth of Mrs. Waters' property? MRS. WATERS-There was an addition built on to that, some time ago, to that building. MR. BARBER-Mrs. Waters' property is approximately, her southern, eastern to westerly boundary is approximately 200 feet, according to a recent survey. MRS. WATERS-Why do you want to take part of that 50 foot buffer? I can't help if that building was added and made that 63.7 or whatever, 63 feet, and then with the buffer 50 feet over. That leaves you with less than 15. That's your hard luck. MR. BARBER-The impact on that buffer would be minimal. I mean, we're looking to, basically, allow ourselves a little more lay down room to organize equipment or materials and not have them tightly cluttered in a 150 foot area. A 150 feet is not a lot of, basically turning radius is what we're looking for, when we get in there. Most of our jobs are carried out on tractor trailers. We do a lot of out of state work and work that's good travel distance, and with the existing buffer area, that basically takes 25% of the property and makes it non usable. I think that's excessive. Because of the shape of the lot, pertaining to the residential zone, it really puts a huge burden on the property owner. MRS. WATERS-Can I ask a question? MR. BARBER-Sure. MRS. WATERS-Why didn't you look at the lot good before you decided to purchase it. MR. BARBER-I did. - 44 - ---- ''--'' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) MRS. WATERS-But didn't you realize then that you wouldn't be able to turn and all that, and there's a lot of traffic up there. I didn't oppose the industry over there, but I certainly oppose having a 50 feet. MR. BARBER-I can understand, Kay, why you're opposing the way the Barretts basically used it as a junk yard back there. We're not, that's not what we're proposing. MRS. WATERS-Who's responsible for cleaning that up there? MR. BARBER-We're going to. MRS. WATERS-I went out the other day, touring around, and it still is there, and they had taken a lot of advantage, which I shouldn't have let them do. MR. BARBER-It's still their property. That's one thing that has to be taken into consideration, and it is commercial property, and a lot more detrimental uses than what I'm proposing to use on it could land there. MRS. WATERS-You said the septic system was near by? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I'd like to remind that the public hearing is closed. I will entertain questions from the Board. So, if there's any questions, I'd like to move this along. MR. GREEN-Yes. I have a question of Staff, I guess. What constitutes buffer? I mean, could he, for that 50 foot strip across there, including the corner that he's proposing all this trees and vegetation just be flat, barren land? Or does a buffer have to have trees and what have you? MR. HILTON-There was no landscaping requirements, other than the landscaping requirements in our Ordinance. They generally are for surrounding parking areas. Buffer zone, I'm going to read the definition here, or part of the definition here real quick. It says, "An unpaved, natural area without buildings designed to reduce the possibility of adverse impact on the land or water quality and/or conflicts of land use between two or more areas." It can't have any parking or any paving within that buffer zone, but as far as landscaping or planting requirements, there are none specifically. MR. GREEN-My question is, because that 50 foot strip now, it's for all intents and purposes barren. Mr. Barrett is proposing a substantial amount of buffering up toward that front lot. It can be nothing but an improvement for the neighbor in the front corner. I would like to see something better than zero along the back. I do not feel we need to go the full 50 feet, though. MR. KARPELES-I think he's got a good point. It's going to improve it, and I also would like to see something all the way across, at least across this lady's property. I'd kind of like to see the 50 feet along her entire property line, and then from there on reduce down. MR. BARBER-The only reason we brought that back to 30 foot at the face of that building is that would only leave us a 13 foot area. MR. KARPELES-That's just going to be a drive through area, isn't it? MR. BARBER-That is correct, but it's 13 foot with that, there's like a two foot overhang on that roof. That doesn't leave us a lot - 45 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) when we're bringing an excavator or crane to facilitate getting back there. Our proposed site plan to eliminate heavy traffic on Dix Avenue, that's going to be our main gate entrance over on that side, just to ease the burden of having heavy traffic come off the face of that road. MR. KARPELES-You're saying, where you show this building line is not the edge of the overhang? MR. BARBER-I don't believe so. MR. MENTER-That is the distance, though, Tim, as you first pass the building driving in, that is the width that you have. Whatever the distance is from the 50 foot mark, from the side property line to the building, that's 13 feet. You're going through 13 feet right there. MR. BARBER-Right. It would just allow us a little more room to move around the side of that building. We wouldn't be hugging, you know, right up close to it. Maybe we don't need the full 30 feet. Maybe we could knock, you know, go to 40, but I'm just looking to gain a little more room on the side of that building, so that we're not pinched, so we don't have traffic right up close to it. MR. MENTER-I agree with Bob, as far as, you know, certainly having buffer, the 200 feet. If there's a specific reason why it can't be the full 50, you know, I think I see where you're coming from as far as there not being enough width there, but the other thing that concerns me is that other separate piece of property on the other side. MR. BARBER-The one that was referred to as the Cunningham's? MR. MENTER-Yes. Right. MR. BARBER-That property is, I believe, landlocked. There's no access to it. The access was the second part of this parcel that I bought at one point. MR. MENTER-Do we know anything about that? MR. HILTON-About the landlocking of the parcel? MR. MENTER-Yes. MR. HILTON-No. It didn't have frontage on a public road before. It may have had frontage through this lot. MR. BARBER-Apparently at one time this Nassivera owned it. He owned it up to about 200 feet and then Barrett bought another 179 feet from another party and made it one lot. MR. MENTER-According to the map that we have, which is from the Town's map software there, it runs over to Jefferson Ave. That piece of property is not landlocked. MR. BARBER-Is there a road over in there? MR. MENTER-You come up and look at it. Maybe you can shed some light on it. MR. CARVIN-It looks like it does have frontage, yes. MR. HILTON-Well, it says Jefferson, but that's Queensbury Avenue. MR. MENTER-I don't know what the width here is, but it does seem to have some access from the road. See, my concern is you're certainly effecting this property. I mean, it may be an $80,000 - 46 - '--' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) backhoe to you, but it's junk to her. MR. CARVIN-Chris, what do you think? MR. THOMAS-I'd like to see that buffer zone extended along that whole back there. I would consider lessening the width of the buffer, but I would also like to see that eight foot fence along the property line, and then some kind of vegetation, X number of feet in on the property to buffer it, and I think that wooden fence would alleviate some of the concerns, because it wouldn't be all natural 50 feet. Like Mr. Barber says, this lot is narrow, and I don't see where a full 50 feet, especially anything beyond Mrs. Waters' property, back along the Cunningham property there, since it technically is landlocked. They're going to have a very difficult time selling that, I believe. MR. CARVIN-I don't think it's landlocked. MR. THOMAS-You don't think so? MR. CARVIN-No. I don't think that end is the usable end. I don't know. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but to me I think that eight foot fence should go along the entire back length of that property, partly for security, partly for buffering, and then some kind of vegetation in front of that fence, X number of feet wide. MRS. LAPHAM-My major thought is I would want to see the fence. I do think Mr. Barber is improving the property greatly, as was talked about before, although I really felt there was going to be a much less intensive use than what I'm hearing tonight, and I would not feel comfortable granting any relief that does not include at least a 30 foot buffer all the way through Mrs. Waters' property of the 200 feet. The 50 feet in the front is fine, and I guess I could go along with 30, back 200 feet, and then the board fence, but nothing less than that. MR. HILTON-Question, Mr. Thomas. When you say that you want some vegetation in front of the fence, where's the front? MR. THOMAS-The front of the fence being inside the Barber property. MR. MENTER-To ensure non use of that buffer, otherwise you'll have to go patrol it. You don't want that. MR. BARBER-I don't want the Board to be mislead to think that I'm after every inch of this property so I can put 100 pieces of equipment out there. That's not my intention. My intention is just to be able to organize what we are going to put there and not to lose that property on the back and have it cluttered together. I like to see things in rows. We need some alleyways in between those, but the major pieces of our equipment, most of them are, some of them I should say are 50 and 60 feet long, and they don't spend a great deal of time in the shop area, but they may be back at the headquarters a month out of the year maximum. It's just getting them in there. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, we've got to come to some kind of consensus here, folks. Are we at least somewhere agreed that we're going to want a buffer? I haven't heard anybody say that they'd be comfortable going to a zero. MR. MENTER-That's probably accurate. MR. CARVIN-Okay. - 47 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) MR. MENTER-It also sounds like there seems to be some kind of consensus that something in the area of 30 foot should be extended out to 200. MR. CARVIN-Well, I'd like to try to keep as much of the 50 foot as we can, that's for sure, because he is indicating 50 feet for how far, 180 feet, 160 feet. It's hard to tell. Whatever it is. MR. MENTER-Well, yes. Maintaining that 50, I do see a rationale for dropping down to the 30, though, once you get it to the building. MR. KARPELES-I don't know, because how does he get through this gate? The gate is narrower than the opening between the building. MR. THOMAS-Sixty-six feet. MR. MENTER-Well, there is a difference though. I see where he's coming from, when you're moving equipment, I mean, it takes, you've got to have your vehicle all the way straightened out way back here. I mean, it does make a big difference. Driving through five feet of 13 feet is not a big deal, but driving through 30 feet of it is a different story. MR. BARBER-What it will do is it will tend to crowd the driver right up close to that building, and it's a lot harder. MR. KARPELES-How wide do you need? I mean, maybe that's what's got us confused. How wide have you got, and what do you need? MR. BARBER-Some of our equipment is 12 foot wide. MR. KARPELES-And what have you got there? MR. KARPELES-How wide is the gate? MR. BARBER-I believe it's about 13 feet. MR. KARPELES-You've got a gate you're coming in through in the main yard, and that looks narrower than the distance between the barrier and the buildings. MR. BARBER-I didn't quite understand your question. MR. KARPELES-Well, you've got to get through the gate. MR. BARBER-That's correct. MR. KARPELES-And the opening in the gate is less than the opening between the barrier and the building. MR. BARBER-That's correct. That's a fixed point obstacle. It's not a straight line tunneled obstacle. Going through a tunnel is much more difficult, when you're driving a tractor trailer with a piece of equipment hanging way over, than it is. MR. KARPELES-I would think it would be more difficult to make that turn and come in through that gate. MR. BARBER-Well, if I had my way, I'd cut it down, but I'm trying to stay with what I think is the best option. MR. KARPELES-I think we've got to know what that distance is and what distance you need. MR. GREEN-It's about 13'7" between the building and the fence, as it stands. MR. BARBER-From cinder block to, it's on the survey. - 48 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) MR. GREEN-It's 63'7" from the corner of the building to the line. From here to there it's 63'7". So if you take off the 50, you're left with 13'7". MR. KARPELES-Okay, and you say your equipment is, what, 11 feet wide? MR. BARBER-It's 12 feet. MR. KARPELES-So how much do you need clearance? justification for another two feet, isn't it? That's MR. BARBER-Coming through the gate, that's six inches on each side. That's a squeeze. MR. CARVIN-I'd say it's a poorly designed gate. MR. KARPELES-Yes, well, I didn't put the gate there. You're the guy that put the gate there. MR. MENTER-Well, is that gate, is this to scale? I mean, how wide, how big is the opening in your gate? MR. BARBER-The gate will be 13 feet. I see what you're. MR. MENTER-He's saying that gate does not scale to 13 feet. MR. BARBER-Yes. scaled. I'm not looking at the print. That gate is not MR. MENTER-Yes. MR. BARBER-I see where you're coming from now. foot standard gate. That'll be a 14 MR. KARPELES-So if that's right and this is to scale, that's 14 feet. You've really got 16 feet between the barrier and the building. MR. MENTER-The fence is not to scale. MR. BARBER-The gate will be 14 feet, probably, but the building width between the corner of that fence and the building will be approximately 13.7. We brought the fencing in the front part of that property in on our property, as you can see, for, I guess just for a barrier standpoint, so that it would remain the way it's said it's going to be shown. MR. CARVIN-Well, what's the feeling here folks? MR. GREEN-I would like to see the 30 feet along, down to the end of the back property, and then the remainder I could live with as little as a wooden fence and 10 feet in front of it, 10 feet of vegetation, but take the 30 straight out to the 200, with the wooden fence on the line with the 10 feet in front of it. MR. CARVIN-What are you saying, Bill? MR. GREEN-Take the 30 feet and bring it right down to apparently the survey point or the 200 feet of the neighbor's line. MR. CARVIN-Yes, and then what? MR. GREEN-And then back to the line, and then the wooden fep~e continuing on down the property line, as Chris suggested, with y 10 f~et of vegetation in front of it. MR. CARVIN-I'd want to see a 30 foot buffer the whole length. - 49 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) MR. BARBER-That still takes 20% of the property. MR. MENTER-Well, we're not changing anything. MR. BARBER-Right. MR. CARVIN-That's minimum relief. I mean, as far as the other stuff, I mean, I've seen Ben Aronson pull 14 tractor trailers onto a lot that's one fifth the size of this, and they seem to get around that lot on Glen Street with very little difficulty, or whatever that street is, Broad Street, and I figure that your drivers are probably as confident as those drivers are, and I think that with a little bit of planning and some foresight that you could probably use this lot to a pretty good extent, and I think a 30 foot buffer the whole length, I can't see going to a zero, I really don't. I don't see enough indication here, especially after his previous testimony that we're only talking "a minimal amount of equipment" there. MR. GREEN-The only reason that I say 10 feet, Fred, is that you are actually going to, well, not if you go the full 30, I take that back. Never mind. Scratch that. MR. CARVIN-I think 50 feet here, like he's got it proposed, coming into 30. MR. BARBER-I could go along with what Bill has, but I don't think I could live with a 30 foot buffer. MR. CARVIN-I just haven't heard enough or been convinced that there's more benefit applicant and less detriment to the community. I think we've got to maintain some of these buffer zones. I just don't see a zero, I really can't. MR. KARPELES-Well, I could go along with what Bill says, except I would like to see more than 30 feet to the end of this lady's property. I would like to see as much as he could live with, 45 or something like that. MR. CARVIN-I agree. The more I can give this lady here, I mean, I'd be real comfortable with it, but I'm not comfortable going to a zero anywhere along that property line. MR. KARPELES-That's not zero. You're saying 10 feet. MR. GREEN-Ten feet, yes, along the back, past her property, which is about what's there now. I mean, there's about 10 feet of vegetation back into those stakes now, from where those boxes are. I mean, what do we do down the road. What did he get along his back side, at the CWI down there, the buses? MR. BARBER-They're right on the border, I think. MR. CARVIN-I don't remember. MR. GREEN-I mean, it's supposed to be 50 down there, and I think they got. MR. CARVIN-Well, that's the reason that the neighbors are up in arms because the guy before that had a 50, and he just parked on it. MR. GREEN-Well, sure, it would appease them, and we did some things, and I feel that it's better than it was, and I'm certain that this will be, too. I mean, he's proposing an enormous amount of buffering up here in the front. He's agreed to 30 feet along the entire length of that property line. It could be just according to the regulations just open ground. He doesn't need to - 50 - ~ ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) put a darn thing in up here, and have the tractor trailers going right through there and not have any buffering vegetation. MR. CARVIN-Am I hearing a 30 foot buffer with only 10 feet of shrubbery? MR. GREEN-No. Thirty feet full shrubbery back to the survey point, back to her corner. Thirty feet to there, and then from there on ten feet with the fence, and the fence continuing on up through, too. MR. HILTON-If a fence were built with that type of buffering, you realize that at the survey point you would have a jog, because the fence is going to be closer to the business, and so at that point it would jog back to 10 feet and then go. MR. GREEN-The fence stay on the line, and 10 feet of vegetation. MR. HILTON-On the line at your point, but I think what the Board has been looking at is with the 30 foot buffer the fence is going to be closer to the business. So you're going to have it closer to the business, and then when he turns into a 10 foot buffer, the fence is going to go in a perpendicular direction, and then. MRS. WATERS-How far from the fence to my border line, and why can you take 50 feet away when it's written in 179-72? How can you do that? MR. GREEN-Well, that's what we're here to do, is to allow him to do that. MRS. WATER-You're allowed to do that? MR. GREEN-We may allow him to do that. That's the whole idea of the variance process. MR. BARBER-I can legally put that fence on the border, Kay, all the way down through it. I try and appease the neighbors. This is a commercial site, Highway One Acre. I understand there's the 50 foot buffer, but the flip side to that, I could put the fence right down the line, put a grass strip in, and then just let it go. That's the other side of the coin. MR. GREEN-In theory, you wouldn't even need the fence. I mean, yo could just leave it 50 feet of grass, and that's what I'm saying, that what you're proposing up here in the front is more than needed. MR. BARBER-And this is what property lines are for. I mean, I understand buffers and stuff, but it gets a little ridiculous, I think. I try and appease the neighbors and give some buffering and spend some money up front, but for what I have to do, that's the alternative. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, Chris, have you got any position changes, feelings? MR. THOMAS-I say, as he has it drawn there now, start the fence where he has, where Mr. Barber has it shown, extend that 30 foot buffer up to the property line of Mrs. Waters, and then like Bill says, continue the fence on down, just put a 10 foot vegetation strip right down to that northwest corner of the property. MR. MENTER-Fence on the property line? MR. THOMAS-Fence on the property line, and 10 feet of something away from it. - 51 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) MR. GREEN-Ten feet of something substantial in front of it. MR. THOMAS-That way it has some kind of sheltering effect. It's a visual obstruction. MR. MENTER-How about fence on the 10 foot buffer line, with vegetation on the outside of the fence? MR. GREEN-Well, then you have to (lost word) like 20 feet then. MR. MENTER-No. The fence is 10 feet inside the property line, vegetation on the outside of it, instead of having the fence on the property line. I mean, it would soften the fence from the outside. MR. GREEN-From which side, from the northerly side? MR. MENTER-Yes. using it. It would pretty much guarantee that he wasn't MR. BARBER-That's true. The only problem I would have with that is, is whatever future use may have on the back side of that property, the fence kind of establishes the property line in that area, and that would be my only concern. I mean, I have no problem moving it up where Kay's area is, because I know it's there. MR. MENTER-That makes sense. MR. BARBER-But I am paying taxes on that property. MR. GREEN-I'd rather see the fence buffered from Dix Ave., versus buffering the fence from somebody that's going to see it, you know, putting the vegetation in front of the fence, rather than seeing this eight foot wooden wall along the back line of that property. MR. MENTER-Good idea, Chris. MR. THOMAS-It was Bill's idea. MR. CARVIN-Well, if you've got a consensus, make a motion. Have you got a consensus? MRS. LAPHAM-I tend to agree with Chris's idea. MR. THOMAS-Bill's idea. MRS. LAPHAM-I can go along with the buffer back to Mrs. Waters property, and then the fence with the vegetation. MR. CARVIN-If you've got four votes, lets do it. MR. GREEN-I'm up to three. MR. CARVIN-Well, you don't have mine. Mine's a flat 30 feet, all the way. MR. KARPELES-I go along with everything that you recommended, except the 30 foot width. I just can't see any justification for reducing that from 50 to 30. MR. CARVIN-And then they're going to go to 10. MR. KARPELES-I know, but that doesn't bother me back there, but on her property, it does bother me. MR. MENTER-Forty? MR. KARPELES-Forty I could see. He just wants room enough to be - 52 - I '-L- --- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) able to drive through there. MRS. LAPHAM-(Lost words) 40 all the way to Mrs. Waters' property, and then go back to the fence on the zero lot line and the 10 foot. MR. KARPELES-Yes. I could go along with that. MR. MENTER-Okay. MR. CARVIN-Forty feet for 200? MRS. LAPHAM-Right. MR. KARPELES-Yes. MR. MENTER-Forty feet for 200, and then down to 10. Fifty for 67 and then down to 40 for the remainder of that 200 and then down to 10. MR. KARPELES-Right. MR. MENTER-Does that make you happy? ~' MR. KARPELES-Yes. MR. BARBER-I want to keep the fence, except where it's going to come out 40 feet now, at the one point, if I'm going to landscape all that, I think I'm going to want to take some benefit of seeing it in the front area. MR. GREEN-Yes. The fence will be behind. MR. CARVIN-I think he can put his fence pretty much where he wants. MR. BARBER-I just wanted you to know that. That's all. MR. GREEN-Yes. I would leave reference to the fence out. MR. MENTER-Yes. I don't have any need to stipulate that. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-1996 NUTECH INDUSTRIES, INC., Introduced by David Menter who moved for its adoption, seconded by William Green: With stipulations. For 37 Dix Ave. They're proposing to rehabilitate an existing site, for use as a construction business. The applicant is proposing to reduce a portion of the buffer zone. Relief granted would be, the allowable buffer would be as follows: For 67 feet from the east property line along the north property line the buffer would be 50 feet. From that point to the 200 foot mark along the northern property line, in a westerly direction, the buffer would be 40 feet, and from that point continuing along the rest of the northern property line, to the west property line, the buffer would be 10 feet. The benefit to the applicant would be that the applicant would have space to utilize his property for storage in an orderly fashion as well as to use tractor trailers and be able to have turning space. There has been opposition from neighbors. The applicant has designed a buffer in the area of the neighbor's property previously to mitigate this, and he has agreed to expand this buffer area to accommodate the neighbor. The applicant further agrees that along the 10 foot buffer on the northern property line, he will install vegetation, as well as along the entire fence line. This action would not appear to have any negative effects on the community, as the property adjacent to the 10 foot buffer is wooded and unused, and the increased buffer would be adjacent to the other occupied property on the northern property line. - 53 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) Duly adopted this 31st day of July, 1996, by the following vote: MR. THOMAS-What about the fence? At what point would the fence start, at 120 feet? MR. MENTER-No. MR. THOMAS-Or at 200 feet? MR. MENTER-No. The length of the fence would not change. MR. THOMAS-So the fence would start at 120 feet off the east property line, as drawn? MRS. LAPHAM-So the fence is going to be the whole back. MR. GREEN-One way or another, yes. MRS. LAPHAM-And the buffer will be in front of the fence where it's going to be by Mrs. Waters' house. MR. KARPELES-Well, I thought you just said if the fence was going to go that far, the buffer was coming that far out, you wanted to take advantage of that, and look at it from your side, didn't you? MR. BARBER-In the front here. Yes. I want to keep the fence kind of along the same line as that right now, but it will come out over by Mrs. Waters' house up front here. MR. THOMAS-So the fence will be shown, will be basically as shown? MR. BARBER-Yes, pretty much as shown. MR. THOMAS-And then just the 30 foot buffer from the 120 foot mark out to the 200 foot mark will be 40 foot wide, and then 10 foot wide from there on out to the west property line. So the fence will be as shown on the sketch, and then the vegetation will be per Mr. Menter's resolution. MR. GREEN-Is the fencing part of your motion? MR. MENTER-Yes, well, as it's shown on the proposal, yes, it's part of the motion. I'm not changing anything other than moving the buffer. AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas NOES: Mr. Carvin AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-1996 TYPE II WR-1A ANGELA KLADIS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 5050 MASON ROAD APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH AN ATTACHED TWO CAR GARAGE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SHORELINE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179- 60. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 7/10/96 TAX MAP NO. 13-1-16 LOT SIZE: 0.45 ACRES SECTION 179-60 TODD STEWART, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 55-1996, Angela Kladis, Meeting Date: July 31, 1996 "APPLICANT: Angela Kladis PROJECT LOCATION: 5050 Mason Rd. Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant proposes to remove an existing home and construct a single family home with an attached garage. The new home has a proposed square footage of 3050 for the first and second floor with a 560 sq. ft. garage. The proposed home would not - 54 - ~ - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) conform to the shoreline setback of 75 feet. Relief is being requested from the shoreline setbacks listed in Section 179-60. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to build a new home and garage. 2. Feasible alternatives: The proposed structure is not able to meet the shoreline setback due to rear yard and leach field setback requirements. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The applicant is seeking 25 feet of shoreline relief. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? No adverse impacts are expected with this request for relief. Additional comment may be made at the public hearing. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The depth of this lot is 163 feet. The proposed home would meet side, rear and septic setbacks. In order to meet these setbacks a variance is needed from the shoreline setback. Staff Comments & Concerns: The applicant's proposal for a home 50 feet from the shore appears to be in keeping with the character of the immediate neighborhood. The two floors of living area and garage will result in 18% lot coverage. The new setback would improve lake views for the property owners to the north and south. The height of this home conforms to the new height requirements that are proposed as a part of the changes in the WR-IA regulations. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 10th day of July 1996, the above application for: an Area Variance to construct a sinqle family dwellinq with attached two car qaraqe. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact" Signed by C. powel South, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does everybody understand what the applicant is requesting? MR. KARPELES-No. You're asking for 50 feet from the lake, and the print that X have shows 56 feet. Okay. MR. CARVIN-In other words, there's a little alcove, I guess, for lack of a better term, that brings it to the 50 feet. MR. KARPELES-Okay. I see it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now, we did have an application back in August of '95, which was denied, and I don't see, I think this is a new application. It looks like it's requesting relief from the same application or Section, right, 179-60, but there they were looking for quite a bit of relief, and a much larger house, and this one is back off the original foundation, I guess. I guess my question is, I know going through some of the minutes, where does this house differ than the previous house that was submitted? MR. STEWART-It's back farther from the lake. It's got a lower roof line, and it doesn't have a walk out foundation. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Do you remember the height? Were you familiar with that particular application? Okay. What was the height of the old house, I'm going to refer to as the old house, the original application. MR. STEWART-I believe it was 34 feet. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and this one is going to be at the same height, is it? MR. STEWART-That's going to be at 32 feet. MR. CARVIN-Thirty-two feet. - 55 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) MR. GREEN-So in your application on Question Five, it says two feet higher than the existing house, that's two feet on the shoreline side? MR. STEWART-Correct. MR. CARVIN-What have you done, made the footprint smaller? MR. MENTER-Well, they took the basement out, because there was a walk out basement, therefore, taking the square footage down. I think that was the issue. MR. STEWART-Yes. Basically, we were utilizing the footprint before and there was a walk out basement. Now the grade's going to be brought up against the foundation, the new foundation wall, which brings the grade up in back. MR. KARPELES-What was the old setback from the lake? MR. STEWART-I believe it was 39 feet. MR. KARPELES-So you moved it back from the lot. /' MR. STEWART-Yes. MR. GREEN-Was that 39 on the alcove, do you know, or 39 on the front? MR. STEWART-Thirty-nine on the front. MR. THOMAS-I had the same question Bob had. back from the lake. It shows 56.5 feet MR. STEWART-You're looking from the alcove. MR. CARVIN-There's a little, down at the bottom there. MR. THOMAS-Okay, down here where the little comes in. Got it. MR. CARVIN-All right. Well, if there's no questions, I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. CARVIN-Any correspondence? MR. THOMAS-Yes, we have two letters. The first letter dated July 21, 1996, reference Area Variance No. 55-1996 Angela Kladis "We are located 300 feet south of the proposed construction site. The plans have been reviewed by myself, Bob Kladis and George Hilton who represents the Town of Queensbury. If my facts are correct, during this review process, the only point of discussion was how far this home could be pushed back to Mason Road to give the greatest possible distance from the lake side. George Hilton stated that all setbacks have been met, including the height requirements. Since the only request that the applicant is asking for is a 50 foot setback from the lake, I would concur that everything has been done possible to get as close to the 75 foot requirement as this lot will allow. The neighbors to the immediate north and south should feel very fortunate that the proposed structure being pushed back toward Mason Road will actually improve their lake view, notwithstanding the overall improvement of the lot with a fine new home. We fully support this application as the neighborhood gains not only a new home but a completely upgraded lot and a new septic system. This will be an asset for us all. Sincerely, Peter & Lorraine Lewin" A letter dated July 23, 1996 "Dear Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals: This is written in reference to Area Variance No. 55-1996, which is identified as an - 56 - ~ ---- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) application by Mrs. Angela Kladis for the construction of a single family home with an attached two car garage on property on Mason Road in Cleverdale. We own and permanently reside on the property immediately adjacent to and south of the property of Mr. & Mrs. Kladis. They have advised us of their plans to raise the present structure on her lot and have conferred with us with respect to the plans for reconstruction to which the variance application refers. We support the construction which is proposed and believe that it is consistent with and reflective of the general residential character of the area. Concurrently, we also suggestion that the plan whereby the Kladis' might rebuild over the footprint of the present residence on the property, modifying that footprint by modestly squaring off the configuration of the current structure might prove more practical and less economical and less disruptive to the immediate general environment of the area in which the construction will occur. It is our understanding that such a measure has not been deemed a viable alternative, but we believe, nevertheless, it could merit consideration. We hope this may prove useful in your examination of this matter. We appreciate your attention. Sincerely, Judy S. Wetherbee and William B. Wetherbee" MR. STEWART-Excuse me. There should be one more letter. Therewas three letters altogether. MR. THOMAS-There's another one, right there. A letter dated 7/24/96 "We approve of the Angela Kladis application to construct a single family home with an attached two car garage, also the relief being requested from the shoreline setbacks listed in Section 179-60. We live next door to the Kladis' on the north side. Sincerely, J.A. Buzz Haraden, II" MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other public comment? Anyone else wishing to be heard? Seeing none, hearing none, public hearing closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Any questions? MR. KARPELES-I've got a question for Staff. What is the, is this 50 foot setback really consistent with the other homes in that area? MR. HILTON-Not measuring them. I've been out to the site several times, and when you move the house back to the 50 foot point, it's almost in line, as you look, right up and down the properties. It's consistent, also, with some of the things we've been granting relief for recently, and I do believe that it would improve the lake views for the property owners to the north and the south. MR. KARPELES-The fact that we've been granting relief hasn't changed the Ordinance. MR. HILTON-Okay, but to answer your question, it's consistent with what's in the immediate neighborhood. MR. CARVIN-Did you take a look at the size of the house in relation to the neighborhood? I mean, is this one more in line with the other houses? I know that was a concern the last time. MR. HILTON-Yes. I've looked at it in relation to the size of the lot that it's going to be going on. You have 18% lot coverage, which is a standard, you know, we're shooting for 22%. It appears to be in some kind of, it conforms much as some of the other houses in the area. It fits in, it blends in well with some of the other homes I believe in that area. MR. MENTER-I'd say, to answer that question, it's consistent with new construction in the area, which mayor may not starkly contrast - 57 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) most of the old construction in the area. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions, anybody? thought on it, Bonnie? What's your MRS. LAPHAM-From reading the original application to this one, I'm happy to see that the size of the house has been reduced. The setback from the shoreline does seem better, and I guess I feel better that none of their immediate neighbors have a problem. MR. CARVIN-How about you, Bill? MR. GREEN-No, I don't have a problem. MR. THOMAS-I think this is a vast improvement over the previous application that we got. It's a more reasonable sized home. It does sit back farther from the lake. The only thing I don't like, but then again everything, anything with a lot of glass on the front of it, I don't like, but I see there are some trees out front here that would kind of shade or block some of that glass from the lake. So, I really have no problem with this one. MR. KARPELES-Well, I think it's a big improvement over the --last one, and if you're going to have a house that size, I don't see how you can move it back much farther from the lake. I really question if it's consistent with the houses in the neighborhood as far as size is concerned. It doesn't change the character of the neighborhood. MR. MENTER-I think, I agree with you, but I think we are in a changing neighborhood. I mean, you know, we're not going to stop it. I mean, I'm sure the Wetherbees can attest to that. I mean, you see, everybody who lives there, you can see that the buildings that are being replaced are smaller, older buildings, and they're being replaced with nice homes. MR. KARPELES-Well, I guess that's the one reason it doesn't bother me too often much is because the neighbors apparently don't object to it. MR. MENTER-Well, yes. You look at some of the other properties there, and as I said, it's consistent with the new properties. I, personally, feel like they've done a lot. It is a large house, but I'm satisfied that it's substantially back. The size of the house is mostly, you know, it's a wider house than it is deep. I don't know what the depth of it is, but it's not huge, running back away from the shoreline, which is keeping it inordinantly close to the shoreline. You've got your side setbacks. You've got the height, and there's not a lot more they can do with the lake shore setback. I'm happy with it. I don't have a problem with it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Have you talked to the neighbors? MR. STEWART-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Because I know the last time you were here there was an awful lot of opposition, and obviously in your favor tonight there isn't any at this point. So, I was wondering, how did you mitigate that, just go around before and show them the plans? ANGELA KLADIS MRS. KLADIS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm assuming it was advertised properly, George. That always gets me. I always wonder if the mail went out. MR. HILTON-Yes, it did. - 58 - , I ''-L., '-" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) MR. CARVIN-All right. Then if you folks are comfortable with it, I'd ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-1996 ANGELA KLADIS, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: The applicant proposes to remove an existing home and construct a new two story single family home with a square footage of 3,050 square feet for the first and second floor, and a 560 square foot garage. The relief needed is from Section 179-60, the shoreline setback. The regulation reads 75 feet required. The applicant is asking for a 25 foot relief, so that the house sits 50 foot from the shoreline. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be allowed to build a new home on a pre-existing, nonconforming lot in the Waterfront Residential One Acre Zone. There do not seem to be any feasible alternatives except for the shoreline setback, due to septic systems and side line setbacks. The relief is substantial from the Ordinance, being 1/3rd or 33% of the Ordinance, but there is no other way to locate this house on this lot. There do not seem to be any effects on the neighborhood or community. We've had three positive letters, and no verbal opposition to the application. As far as the difficulty being self created, as I stated before, this is a nonconforming existing lot, and this is the only placement of the house on the lot. Duly adopted this 31st day of July, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Carvin AREA VARIANCE NO. 53-1996 TYPE II WR-1A/CEA STEPHEN C. MILLER OWNER: HARLEY & RITA DEWEY MARLEY WAY OFF OF BIRDSALL ROAD, SECOND HOUSE ON LEFT APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT AN ATTACHED GARAGE WITH A SECOND FLOOR. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179-16C. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 7/10/96 TAX MAP NO. 40-1-19.2 LOT SIZE: 0.18 ACRES SECTION 179-16C STEPHEN MILLER, PRESENT MR. CARVIN-All right. This one was not on the original agenda, and Staff has put this on. So I'll leave it to your discretion if you want to move on this, folks. This is Stephen Miller. Does Staff want to bring us up to speed on this application, please. MR. HILTON-Yes. Well, this was at the last meeting, Zoning Board, public hearing was closed. No re-advertising is necessary. The application was tabled in order for the applicant to re-do the plan to include a runoff pool, some gutters for stormwater drainage, and the applicant has submitted this as of the 29th of July with a letter. Sue Cipperly met with Mr. Miller and Ms. Vannier last Friday at the property, and as a result, she has prepared this note, which I'm going to read into the record. It says, "This application appeared on the Zoning Board of Appeals agenda for July 24, 1996. There were questions on the part of the Board regarding a possible additional variance being required and concern on the part of a neighbor regarding the septic system and stormwater runoff. On Friday July 26, 1996, I met Mr. Miller at the property, where we were joined by Ann Russell, a neighbor who attended the 7/24 ZBA meeting. During our meeting I ascertained the following: The applicant proposes to construct a 20' x 24' addition above the east end of the existing structure. Based on the square footage of the existing house (968 s.f.) and the proposed additional - 59 - -----' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) residential floor area (480 s. f.), the 50% expansion does not apply. The building project would result in a total of two bedrooms in the house for which the septic system as shown is adequate. (Mr. Miller has been working with the Building and Codes office on this.) Stormwater runoff will be addressed by the use of gutters on the garage, with the water directed to a runoff pool to the south of the garage. Applicant agreed to control the runoff from the driveway via the use of water bars to slow the flow rate and direct the water appropriately. The applicant is proposing a side and rear setback of 12 feet in order to construct the garage. Twenty feet is required in each case, so relief is 8 feet. If the Board wishes to approve this variance, it is suggested that the stormwater runoff measures be made part of the resolution, as allowed in Section 179-86. Mr. Miller has submitted a plan showing the proposed stormwater control measures and the septic system." Attached is a map prepared by Mr. Miller indicating the runoff pool and the gutter system, and basically, we're here to hear the application. I handed this letter out this evening. I have an extra copy, if you'd like it. MR. CARVIN-Does everybody have their material on this particular application? MR. MENTER-I don' t have it. I wish I did, because I seem to remember a different issue, at least in illY mind. There was an issue of the front property line, for the neighbors. The setback from the road, okay, was not the setback from the property line. She was stating that her property was on your side of the road. I believe that's what it was. There was a property line issue there. MR. MILLER-We discussed that with Sue. MR. MENTER-I mean, in my mind, that was a big issue. MR. MILLER-We did discuss that with Ann present, and I had the map, and it was decided that it was no issue, that we measured the setback from the property stakes, the metal pipes which are in place. MR. MENTER-Okay. So the road didn't come to bear at all. You were measuring from your property line? MR. MILLER-We measured from the property line. MR. CARVIN-Well, what's the Board's pleasure? Do you want to move on this tonight? MR. MENTER-I've got to look at it for a minute. MR. HILTON-Well, I think the applicant has met with the neighbor that was concerned, and this plan reflects some mitigation with the addition of the runoff pool and the gutters. I know one concern was runoff down the driveway that may effect her property across the street. As far as the addition goes of the garage and the minimal amount of square footage, you know, this building is under the 800 square feet that is allowed, minimum size for a single family home in our Ordinance. The resulting square footage wouldn't result in a huge home. So I think Staff's pretty supportive, considering that these stormwater control measures are put in place. MR. CARVIN-It says the existing square footage is, what, 968. Right? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. CARVIN-I still don't have an answer, and I don't know if I even - 60 - ~. '--' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) asked the question. Has this been added onto in the past? I mean, how many additions have we looked at, if any on this? MR. MILLER-I would only be guessing if I answered that. I'm sure it has been, but I couldn't give you the history of the house. MR. HILTON-I don't have the Assessor's information. MR. CARVIN-Well, this is what's always bothered me about these 50% expansions is that, and I think we've argued it both ways. If you start out with a 400 and you add 100, you didn't expand it, but now you've got a 500. I mean, is it 250 or is it 100? MR. HILTON-Well, you know, the only thing I can say is we're going by what's shown as the original square footage on the site, on the original structure, and this expansion is less than 50% of that original square footage. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. GREEN-So even if there had been some additions, he still is under the 50%, because that would only make it better. MR. MENTER-No, it would make it worse. MR. GREEN-It would make for a bigger expansion, which he's not doing. MR. MENTER-No, because if the original project was 500 square feet, and, what's the total of the thing now, 968, and 468 was added 10 years ago, 5 years ago. MR. GREEN-All I'm saying, the original structure was the 9 whatever. MR. THOMAS-I think that's what Sue is saying, that the original structure was 968. MR. GREEN-Yes, that's what she's saying. MR. CARVIN-I think that's what the existinq structure is. MR. THOMAS-I think Sue would have said, it's 968 now, with additions, and that the original was whatever. MR. MENTER-I'm not so sure about that, Chris. MR. CARVIN-I think if you added up what we are looking at here, and again, I wouldn't even want to attempt the math, I think we're looking at the porch, the house, and this little, whatever the existing house is. I think that's the nine, including any additions. MR. GREEN-Well, if you went 24 times 32 of the square box, that's 768. That's what might be a square box in the middle, would be 768. MR. MENTER-And then the 10 by 20 is the other 200. MR. MILLER-We did go inside the house and came to the agreement that the house was 968. MR. CARVIN-See, I'm wondering if the house was the original, like you say, if you make a 20 by 34 box, right, 32 by 34, what's that? MR. THOMAS-Thirty-two by twenty-four. That's 768. The area of the proposed addition is 20 by 24, but if you go the 24, that's over - 61 - ..=>- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) the existing, and then you go this 20 here plus this 12. There's your 24 by 32, which is your 768, okay, and then you take this, which is 200. There's your 968. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. THOMAS-That's the original right there. MR. GREEN-The original was slightly like an "L". MR. THOMAS-Yes. The original was slightly. Because Sue would have said that this 10 by 20, if it was an addition, she would have told us it was an addition. I think the 968 is the original square footage. MR. CARVIN-See, I come up with, if this was the original house, okay, like this, I've got a 32 by 34. MR. THOMAS-The 34 is this length here. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So that's 24. So that's 768. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and then you take this 10 by 20, this 200,.- and that gets you your 968, and that's what Sue says the original house was. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. THOMAS-All right. Then the addition going over the top is 20 by 24 over this part here. They're not going over this 12 feet. They're just staying in this 20 foot width here, and this 24 from where the garage is. MR. GREEN-He's got four feet of play there. MR. CARVIN-Gotcha. I understand more or less. All right. What are we doing here, folks? Do you want to move this? Are you comfortable? Is there any other question of the applicant? MR. MENTER-Yes. I know my major concern was that front property line. I didn't have a problem with the addition or anything else about it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I think originally we were looking at a garage with living space, and I think we've pretty much shot that down, right? That's been revised? MR. MILLER-Right. MR. CARVIN-See, this is what I don't like, because I don't get a chance to look at myoId minutes. So, we were looking at a 16 foot high. Is that correct? MR. MILLER-I never specified the height. I just drew it in. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think that's what we were looking at. Again, it seems to me we were talking 16 feet. MR. THOMAS-It seems to me we were talking 16 or 17 feet of the height of the garage. MR. CARVIN-For the height of the garage butting up to the house, because that was part of the other argument, if you were going to restructure the house, was the 16 feet going to be, but I guess it didn't matter right? MR. THOMAS-It doesn't matter now, because there's nothing over the garage. - 62 - ~, '--.-' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) MR. CARVIN-So the height is 16 feet. MR. THOMAS-On the garage. MR. HILTON-Yes. That's what we have, 16 at the garage. MR. CARVIN-Sixteen at the garage, yes, because that's really all we're granting is just the garage. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. GREEN-Does he need setback over the new addition? Or is he applying for the addition at this time? MR. HILTON-No. We're just looking at the garage, for the setback relief. MR. GREEN-Okay. MR. CARVIN-What's the footprint on the garage? What are we looking at for the garage? MR. THOMAS-Twenty by twenty-three is 460. MR. CARVIN-All right. MR. THOMAS-The footprint of it is 20 by 23, okay, which is 460 square foot. That's the footprint. MR. CARVIN-I would want to specify that it's no higher than 16 feet. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. CARVIN-Does somebody want to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 53-1996 STEPHEN C. MILLER, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: The applicant is proposing to construct an attached garage without a second floor. This addition is not in compliance with the setbacks, the rear yard and side yard setbacks in the Waterfront Residential One Acre district. Relief is being requested from the setbacks of Section 179-16C. The benefit to the applicant, this would allow the applicant to add a two car garage onto an existing building. The feasible alternatives, due to the siting of the house on the property, there do not appear to be any feasible alternatives to this application. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The applicant is asking for eight feet of side yard and rear yard setback. Effects on the neighborhood or community, there doesn't appear to be any negative effects on there. We have one letter from one neighbor and her concerns were mitigated. Is this difficulty self created? This difficulty was not self created because this is a pre-existing nonconforming lot. In addition, I would like to add the following conditions to this variance: The applicant is to put in control bars to control the runoff from the driveway, to slow down the rate of flow. Stormwater runoff will be addressed by the use of gutters on the garage, with the water being directed to a runoff pool to the south of the garage, and the height of the garage at the peak will be no more than 16 feet. Duly adopted this 31st day of July, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin - 63 - \~ ---- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) NOES: NONE MR. HILTON-Are you going to do your elections or anything? MR. CARVIN-Well, I don't know. Should we? MR. HILTON-Well, it's up to you, but I want to know if we have people signed up for the meetings next month. MR. CARVIN-Well, I was just going to get to that. MR. MILLER-Do I need another variance for the addition on top? MR. HILTON-You're not violating any of the setbacks. You don't need any setback relief. I don't see where you've, you've just got to get a building permit for that, yes. MR. CARVIN-You've got to submit a plan, I guess, right, and get a building permit. MR. HILTON-A plan for building permit, yes, and you can't go over 35 feet on the height of the building. MR. MILLER-Okay. Thanks. MR. CARVIN-Okay. meetings anyway. All right. Apparently we're going to have three The first meeting will be the 14th. MR. HILTON-The first meeting will be the 14th. MR. CARVIN-And I would ask all of you to make a special attempt to be at that one, because hopefully that will be the Mooring Post and Mr. Sal vador . The next meeting I will not be at, which is scheduled to be the 21st, and if necessary, there may be a third meeting on the 28th. MR. HILTON-The 28th is a regularly scheduled meeting. So, we're going to have it anyway. The special meeting is the 14th. MR. CARVIN-We're going to have two regular meetings, then? MR. HILTON-Two regular meetings. MR. CARVIN-Okay. In any event, what I'd like to propose, because my term is winding down, I think we should, because Mr. Ford has resigned, we need to have a co-chair at this point, and then I think in August the Board should make a nomination to the Town of Queensbury for the Chairperson, and I'd like to nominate Chris Thomas as the co-chair, and eventually I would recommend him as a nomination for chair, which means that he would have to give up his secretarial duties. Otherwise, he'd be double dipping, in which case his pension would just be outlandish, but I'd like to nominate Bonnie Lapham, who has agreed to take Chris' place if the Town Board sees fit to promote Chris. So those would be my suggestions. I would, Bob has seconded the Co-Chair. So I would ask that we move on that, in any event. MOTION TO NOMINATE CHRIS THOMAS AS CO-CHAIR OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: Duly adopted this 31st day of July, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE - 64 - I '-L. - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/96) ABSTAINED: Mr. Thomas MR. CARVIN-The other thing is that we need to, with regard to the previous Salvador application that I believe was turned, it wasn't an application. It was actually an appeal. MR. THOMAS-Yes, 2-96. MR. CARVIN-Apparently there was some correspondence that was not read into the record. MOTION THAT THE JOHN SALVADOR CORRESPONDENCE THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE OFFICIAL RECORD, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Duly adopted this 31st day of July, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-There is a copy Mr. Salvador gave us, verbatim, of those. They're in the folder here. MR. CARVIN-They will be included as an amendment to our minutes. Maria, so you'll have to just type those in, okay, as part of the record. Okay. As long as everybody doesn't have any conflicts, then I'll move for adjournment. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Fred A. Carvin, Chairman - 65 -