Loading...
1996-06-19 '--" ORIGINAL QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 19, 1996 INDEX Area Variance No. 29-1996 (Cont'd on Page 9) Area Variance No. 5-1996 Tax Map No. 40-1-33 Area Variance No. 30-1996 Tax Map No. 13-1-25 Use Variance No. 44-1996 Tax Map No. 70-2-15 Use Variance No. 47-1996 Tax Map No. 93-2-4 Use Variance No. 49-1996 Tax Map No. 135-2-1, 7 Use Variance No. 50-1996 Tax Map No. 136-2-7, 8.2 Area Variance No. 51-1996 Tax Map No. 130-3-18 Sign Variance No. 52-1996 Tax Map No. 130-3-18 Harold & Lynn Halliday Tax Map No. 10-1-12 1. Morgan Vittengl 1. Mahyar & Fran Amirsaleh 20. Jack & Gail DeGregorio 27. Sprint Spectrum, L.P. 40. Brian O'Connor 48. Jay S. Curtis Jon Hallgren ~5. Berkshire Acquisition 70. Berkshire Acquisition 75. 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. J '~t~1~I~n ---- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 19, 1996 7:00 P.M. OF APPEALS MEMBERS PRESENT FRED CARVIN, CHAIRMAN CHRIS THOMAS, SECRETARY WILLIAM GREEN BONNIE LAPHAM ROBERT KARPELES PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-1996 TYPE II WR-1A CEA HAROLD &: LYNN HALLIDAY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE SOUTH SIDE OF NYS ROUTE 9L APPROX. 1/4 MILE EAST OF THE CLEVERDALE ROAD INTERSECTION APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A TWO AND ONE HALF STORY GARAGE WITH GARAGE SPACE ON THE MAIN FLOOR AND IN THE BASEMENT. THE MAIN FLOOR OF THE GARAGE WILL HAVE AN AREA OF 1,250 SQ. FT. GARAGES ARE LIMITED TO AN AREA OF 900 SQ. FT. BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THIS ACTION REQUIRES RELIEF FROM THE AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR A GARAGE LISTED IN SECTION 179-7B. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/8/96 TAX MAP NO. 10-1-12 LOT SIZE: 1.40 ACRES SECTION 179-7B MR. CARVIN-Is the applicant here? Is Mr. Halliday here? MS. CIPPERLY-I don't see him. MR. CARVIN-He's not? Well, this continues to be a rolling disaster. Is there anyone here to speak tonight on the Halliday application? Okay. MS. CIPPERLY-Do you want to switch the order? MR. CARVIN-Yes. I'm going to switch the order. Lets do Vittengl. I'm going to put Halliday off for the moment. AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-1996 TYPE II WR-1A PART CEA MORGAN VITTENGL OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE THE END OF BIRDSALL ROAD, OFF OF ROUND POND ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND GARAGE WHICH REQUIRES RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-16, THE SHORELINE RESTRICTIONS OF SECTION 179-60 AND THE STREET FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179 -70 . WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 2/14/96 TAX MAP NO. 40-1-33 LOT SIZE: 12,500 SQ. FT. SECTION 179-60, 179-70 MORGAN VITTENGL, PRESENT MR. CARVIN-It seems to me we had a tabling on this, when last we met. While Chris is looking for the tabling motion, is everybody familiar with this particular application? I don't know who's been here and who's not been here anYmore. MR. THOMAS-I've got it. MR. CARVIN-You've got it. Okay. MR. THOMAS-The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meetings and has resolved the following: Meeting Date was May 23, 1996, Variance File No. 5-1996 for an Area Variance was tabled "MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. - 1 - ~ -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) 5-1996 MORGAN VITTENGL, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Menter: Until we can get a full Board. Hopefully this tabling will allow t1;e ap~licant and. the neighbors an opportunity to open up a dlScusslon to see lf there are alternate feasible alternatives. Duly adopted this 23rd day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Menter, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green Carvin, Chairman" Signed by Fred A. MR. CARVIN-Okay. As I remember this particular application, this is out on Glen Lake. We have quite a bit of information regarding this application. Mr. Vittengl, I think by tabling it we gave you an opportunity to maybe explore some alternatives with your neighbors, and I'm in receipt of a letter from one of the neighbors. I don't know if you'd care to explain or go into detail of what's happened since last we met. ~ DR. VITTENGL-Actually, which neighbor is that? MR. CARVIN-That's from John Richards. DR. VITTENGL-The neighbor on the other side of us sent in a letter as well, Glen Powell. MR. CARVIN-Do you want us to read this letter into the record at this point? DR. VITTENGL-Sure. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Why don't we read that letter into the record. MR. THOMAS-The John Richards? MR. CARVIN-Yes, the John Richards. Do you have the other letter, too? MR. THOMAS-Yes, I do. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Why don't we read them both in, then. MR. THOMAS-A letter dated June 19, 1996, regarding Vittengl Variance application, Area Variance No. 5-1996 "Dear Mr. Carvin: I am counsel to J. Robert LaPann, Esq., attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Frej Frejborg, owners of the property on Birdsall Road which lies adjacent to and west of the Vittengl property. As you may recall, I appeared with Mrs. Frejborg at the May 23 ZBA meeting in opposition to the proposed variance. I am writing to you now to confirm that the Frejborgs have met with Dr. Vittengl recently to review his proposal and discuss how its' impact on their property can be minimized. The parties have reached an agreement, and the Frejborgs now support the construction as proposed, provided the following conditions are made part of any variance approval: - The house and deck will be moved three feet east from the position shown on the proposal, resulting in a setback from Frejborgs' easterly line of 15' for the house and 11' for the deck. - Small windows for ventilation purposes only shall be used on the west side of the Vittengl residence. - Dr. Vittengl will plant a privacy buffer of trees between the west side of his residence and deck and the Frejborg property line. These trees shall be evergreen shrubs approximately 15' tall. Dr. Vittengl will review the proposed plantings with Frejborgs before the work is begun to - 2 - ,1 -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) obtain their consent, and their consent will not be unreasonably refused. - The constructed site of the residence will be set back from the lake at least as far back as indicated on the site plan submitted as part of the variance application. The northwest corner of the residence shall be no closer to the lake than the 24" oak on the property line between the parties. I have reviewed these conditions with Tom Jarrett, Dr. Vittengl's engineer, and I believe they are in agreement. The Frejborgs remain concerned about the environmental aspects of the construction. They trust the Town will ensure that there will be no adverse impacts on any of the adjacent properties from septic effluent or soil erosion, and that the house as constructed will blend with the rustic character of the area. Thank you very much for your consideration of the Frejborgs' position in this matter. We will be at the meeting tonight to support the application with these conditions incorporated into the approval. Very truly yours, John H. Richards" A letter dated June 12, 1996, to the Zoning Board of Appeals, "We live on the east side of the property owned by Morgan Vittengl on Birdsall Road, Glen Lake. Since our property is adjacent to Dr. Vittengl, we have seen his proposal for a new dwelling and garage, and have walked the area with him. We are agreeable to his plans and feel this will be an improvement to the property and to Glen Lake. His proposal is designed to enhance-the property and does not appear to be a negative impact on the neighbors of either side. Sincerely, Glenn E. Powell Regina C. Powell Property owners of: 119 Mannis Road Queensbury, New York 12804" MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is there anything that you'd care to add with regard to these letters? DR. VITTENGL-No. I think that explains mostly what we have discussed with the immediate neighbors. I've taken care of some of their concerns. Actually the other neighbors I've spoken with, as well, that live two doors over, Dr. O'Keefe and Tedesco. The immediate neighbors are satisfied. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does anyone on the Board have any questions of the applicant? MS. CIPPERLY-I just have one question about something in this letter that you agreed to. It says, evergreen shrubs approximately 15 feet tall. Is that at maturity or right now, when you plant them, just in case we end up having to enforce this? Is that how tall they want them to be when they're full grown? DR. VITTENGL-Maybe John Richards could. JOHN RICHARDS MR. RICHARDS-In the letter that we submitted, and Mr. Frejborg's here, we were thinking at maturity. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. MR. RICHARDS-We're not trying to be unreasonable here. MR. CARVIN-I have a question of Staff. Did we ever resolve the issue of the garage? Whether that's a separate application? Because it was not part of the original application. MS. CIPPERLY-It was re-advertised with the garage as part of the application. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does anybody on the Board have a problem with the garage as proposed? Okay. I think I had the public hearing closed. Is that correct? Was the public hearing left open or closed, Chris, do you know? - 3 - --' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) MR. THOMAS-I think it was closed. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does anybody on the Board have any questions of the applicant? MR. THOMAS-I've got one. I'm just trying to find it here in this letter. In this letter here from John Richards, it says to keep with the rustic character of the neighborhood. Does this mean that you've agreed to some kind of rustic house, building or something like that? I'm trying to find it in here. MR. GREEN-Yes, it was in the last paragraph. MS. CIPPERLY-It was in the next to last paragraph, last line. MR. THOMAS-Okay. "The house constructed will blend with the rustic character of the neighborhood. 11 You don't have a problem with that? DR. VITTENGL-Just temporary siding on some of the houses nearby. MR. THOMAS-But you don't have a problem with that, in keeping with the rustic character of the neighborhood, or the area? ,~ DR. VITTENGL-No. MR. THOMAS-Okay. That's the only thing I had. MR. KARPELES-I've got a question. Is that 15 feet setback from the easterly line, is that right, 15 feet? I mean, it just doesn't. THOMAS JARRETT MR. JARRETT-From the westerly line, I believe. MR. KARPELES-It says here, easterly line. MR. JARRETT-From the Freiborq's easterly line. MR. KARPELES-Okay, and 15 feet from the Frejborg's easterly line, and 11 feet from the deck. Well, I had some dimensions scratched in here six feet for the deck and three feet more would be nine feet. I don't know where I got those dimensions, but I don't think I made them up. MRS. LAPHAM-I was looking but it wasn't here. Are these the elevations? There haven't been changes or anything that I missed? I assume that would be toward the road? MR. JARRETT-No, that's from the side. MRS. LAPHAM-That's on the easterly side of the Frejborg's property, and you're west? Is this the lakeside? DR. VITTENGL-That's the lakeside. MR. KARPELES-I didn't get my question answered yet. DR. VITTENGL-That was a mistake in the way this was written. It says it will be moved three feet. It will actually be moved four feet. The house will be moved four feet. So the boundary differences would be that the house would be 15 feet from the Frejborg's property. MR. KARPELES-The house is 15 feet. feet? So that is right, is it, 15 DR. VITTENGL-Correct. - 4 - ~ -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) MR. KARPELES-And what is it on the other side, then? How wide is the house? DR. VITTENGL-The house is 28 feet wide. MR. KARPELES-Twenty-eight feet. DR. VITTENGL-Which is not a change from what was previously proposed. MR. GREEN-The house is going to sit the same, the deck is just moving? DR. VITTENGL-We're taking the deck off one side and shifting the house. MR. CARVIN-Can you show us a revised plot plan? MR. KARPELES-Have you got a revised plan? MR. JARRETT-We don't have a revised plan to this agreement. I can indicate on the plan you have. -- MR. CARVIN-Well, here's what I've got. MR. JARRETT-Essentially, what was proposed originally was seven feet to the property line on either side from the decks, and what the neighbors and Dr. Vittengl havé agreed to do is eliminate one deck, which eliminates four feet from the total width, and shift if all four feet to the east. MR. GREEN-So this whole side is gone over here? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. JARRETT-So the whole thing shifts four feet, and one deck is eliminated. So the seven feet on the east side stays, and this becomes 11 feet. MR. CARVIN-To the deck? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. JARRETT-Eleven feet to the deck and fifteen feet to the house. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, we have to go to the deck for a setback, right? MR. JARRETT-That's what we listed. We listed seven originally. It's now going to be (lost word) . MR. CARVIN-Okay. So that these stairs will come right off the front of the deck, will it? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So the house now shifts. Now what was the situation on the garage? Because the garage is closer to the line, or will that garage be lined up with the same dimensions as the house? DR. VITTENGL-Glen Powell is the property owner on that side. You read the letter. He hatl no problem with a five foot setback for the garage or any other structure. I don't know if he specified that or not. - 5 - .-' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) MR. CARVIN-Well, if we grant seven feet, then the garage would have to be seven feet, otherwise we'd have to grant separate relief for the garage. MR. JARRETT-I guess I'm a little confused. I was under the impression that with the re-advertising that it would be proposed as on the drawing, but if the Board chooses to grant the variance only for seven feet, then that's up to you. MS. CIPPERLY-It's a detached garage. You can say seven feet for the house. MR. CARVIN-I know that. That's why I'm asking. MR. KARPELES-I don't see where the drawing shows anything. MR. CARVIN-Well, the garage appears to be not in line with the edge of the house at this point. MR. JARRETT-The garage is drawn at five feet, and we left it that way because it was re-advertised as this drawing. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but the drawing doesn't say five feet. ~ MR. CARVIN-Okay, but you have no problem keeping everything seven feet? MR. KARPELES-Is it seven feet or five feet? MR. JARRETT-It's drawn as five feet. We just didn't label it. MR. KARPELES-So, that's what you want is five feet? MR. JARRETT-We're requesting five feet. That will face that embankment that was being re-graded behind. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions, ladies and gentlemen? MR. THOMAS-I had one more. Again referring to the letter, it says that the front corner of the building will be no closer to the lake than the 24 inch oak that's on the property line. This drawing shows that the corner of the house is in line with that oak, but the deck extends beyond it. When they were talking the building, were they talking the deck or just the house itself? MR. JARRETT-I guess that's up to you. DR. VITTENGL-I think their concern is that we don't all of a sudden push it forward or whatever. It would be in accordance to the way it's presented on the map. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. CARVIN-You're still going to be back 75 feet from the lake in any event, right? DR. VITTENGL-It's 61 to the lake. MR. JARRETT-To the closest point on the lake it's 61 feet. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I don't want the house. have to go to the deck, right? MR. JARRETT-It's 61 to the deck, at the closest point, which is that westerly line. You see how the shoreline juts out at the actual dock. The closest point to the west property corner is 61 feet. I want the deck. We - 6 - , I '-"" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) MR. CARVIN-Okay, because I've got 60 here, too. Is it 60 or 61? MR. JARRETT-It's 61 on our drawing. That's what I recall measuring it at. ~e show 61 in our site plan. MR. CARVIN-So you're looking for, what, 14 feet of relief, from 75. Does Staff have any additional input on any of these new dimensions? Nothing to add? Okay. Any other questions? I'm going to open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN RICHARDS MR. RICHARDS-I'm John Richards. The letter that we submitted today speaks for itself, and the only thing I can say is that Mr. Frejborg is here tonight. He wasn't here at the last meeting. If you have questions about the conditions or his perception of them, he certainly is available to discuss them. We support it along those lines. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to be heard in support? Anyone opposed? Any additional correspondence? - MR. THOMAS-No, just those two letters. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any public comment at all? Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Any questions, ladies and gentlemen? MR. KARPELES-Well, the neighbors appear to be happy. So, I don't have any objection. MR. GREEN-I feel the same way. As long as the neighbors are happy with it, you can't, you need a variance to do anything on this lot. So, the most important thing would be to keep them happy. MRS. LAPHAM-I feel about the same way. Except when you talk about the rustic character of the neighborhood, there's a lot of glass in that house, on the lake, but I guess I kind of feel that you can't do much else with that lot, and if the neighbors are happy, I'm not unhappy. MR. THOMAS-I like the way it reads, and I'm glad to see the neighbors came to an agreement with Dr. Vittengl on this house, and everybody seems to be happy. So I'm happy. MR. CARVIN-I just don't know about the precedent of putting shrubbery in. I mean, I suppose we could do it. It seems to be an unusual precedent. MR. THOMAS-I don't think it's really a precedent. I think it's just a request of the neighbors, in writing. We can say yes or no to it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. All right. I'll ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-1996 MORGAN & MARY VITTENGL, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: The applicant is proposing to construct a single family home and a detached garage which requires relief from the setback requirements of Section 179-16 and the shoreline setback requirements of Section 179-60. The benefit to the applicant by the granting of this variance would be that it would allow the applicant to remove an - 7 - -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) existing camp which currently has just a shoreline setback of 25 feet, construct a new home and septic system, while at the same time moving the house back significantly from the lake front. I would grant relief of 14 feet from the shoreline setback. I would grant relief of 13 feet from the 20 feet requirement and 19 feet from the sum of the 50 for the house, and I would grant relief of 15 feet from 20 feet and nine feet from the sum of 50 for the garage. In essence, the deck is going to be 11 feet off the westerly property line and seven feet off the easterly property line for the house, five feet off the westerly and 21 feet off the easterly of the property, and it would be 61 feet back from the lake. In addition, I would like to condition this variance in that any small windows for ventilation shall only be used on the -west side of the Vittengl residence. Dr. Vittengl will plant a privacy buffer of trees between the west side of his residence and the deck and the Frejborg property line. These trees shall be evergreen shrubs which at maturity should be approximately 15 feet tall. Dr. Vittengl is asked to review these proposed plantings with the Frejborgs before the work is to begin, to obtain their consent, and their consent will not be unreasonably refused. By the granting of this variance with the appropriate conditioning, it does not appear that there would be any adverse effect on the neighborhood or community. This situation is not self created, because any kind- of construction on that lot, in all likelihood, will require some sort of relief. I would also grant relief from Section 179-70 which requires 40 feet of frontage on a Town Highway, due to the fact that this is not on a Town road and access is gained by right-of- way. Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: MR. CARVIN-I think this is being referred to site plan, too? Does this go to site plan? MS. CIPPERLY-No, it doesn't. MR. CARVIN-It does not go to site plan. I thought we had said something about going to site plan with this. MS. CIPPERLY-It went to the Planning Board for an advisory opinion on whether you could, physically. MR. CARVIN-It doesn't have to be referred for a new septic? MS. CIPPERLY-No. If it were an addition to a structure, it would get site plan review, but because it's a completely new structure, it's not required, and it has been to the Planning Board for the physical aspects of the site, the drainage. MR. CARVIN-Well, I've got something here, refer to site plan. Is that something that we had talked about, referring this to site plan? MR. THOMAS-No. opinion. I think we were just going to refer it for an MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Because this application's been here since February. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and obviously he's got to comply with all the current septic and sewer ordinances. Okay. AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Menter, Mr. Ford - 8 - '- '--'" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) MR. CARVIN-Okay. Lets do Harold and LYnn Halliday. AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-1996 TYPE II WR-1A CEA HAROLD & LYNN HALLIDAY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE SOUTH SIDE OF NYS ROUTE 9L APPROX. 1/4 MILE EAST OF THE CLEVERDALE ROAD INTERSECTION APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A TWO AND ONE HALF STORY GARAGE WITH GARAGE SPACE ON THE MAIN FLOOR AND IN THE BASEMENT. THE MAIN FLOOR OF THE GARAGE WILL HAVE AN AREA OF 1,250 SQ. FT. GARAGES ARE LIMITED TO AN AREA OF 900 SQ. FT. BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THIS ACTION REQUIRES RELIEF FROM THE AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR A GARAGE LISTED IN SECTION 179-7B. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/8/96 TAX MAP NO. 10-1-12 LOT SIZE: 1.40 ACRES SECTION 179-7B PETER BROWN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT HAL HALLIDAY, PRESENT MR. CARVIN-This is a variance request dated May 15th, but as I remember it because, I think, of an advertising situation, we heard part of the public hearing that evening. We left it open. We re- advertised for May the 23rd. At that meeting, the applicant couldn't make it. I continued to have the public hearing. I'm assuming you've had an opportunity to read those minutes of-the conversation on the 23rd, and it has been re-scheduled for this evening. It has been fully re-advertised. The public hearing on this particular situation is open. Does anyone have any questions of the applicant? I'm going to request all of the members here, re-fresh your memory, all of the conversations and testimony that have been given so far are pertinent and relevant, and even though they were given on the 15th and 23rd, you should take those into consideration toward your judgement. So does anybody have any questions of the applicant? MR. THOMAS-On the 23rd, Scott McLaughlin was here and said that the property line between his property and your property run through the middle of your house, or at an angle through your house. MR. BROWN-That is true. That was originally sold that way. They're under negotiations right now. His children are here, are going to end up with this property, and it's a separate issue beyond zoning, because we're actually building on the other side of the house. If you look at the plot plan you'll see that it's still within the limitations. What originally happened was the Halliday's bought the house, I believe it was 22 or 23 years ago from Scott MCLaughlin. There used to be a laundry mat and there used to be a liquor store, and at that time. It was sold to Hal Halliday. I believe it was after the liquor store (lost words) and it's since changed into residential properties. They've been there for 20 some years, but that's the story. It was actually sold, that's the original property line, that was sold right through the building. It still has the setbacks to it. There is a dispute with the property line which they are negotiating at the present time. It really does not have an effect as far as design. MR. THOMAS-To add to that, Mr. McLaughlin re-stated for the public record that he would not allow access around the house that way, to that garage. Is that under current negotiation? MR. BROWN-That's under negotiation. proper forum to take that up. I don't think this is the MR. THOMAS-No, it's not. MR. BROWN-I don't think it even applies to this. MR. THOMAS-Well, if you can't get to it. MR. BROWN-He can get to it from the other side, if necessary. - 9 - --' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. BROWN-He's used that driveway for 22 years. So I don't think that's an issue. I'm Peter Brown. I'm the builder. Just to bring you back into, I wasn't here at the last meeting. Apparently it was discussed, and I was out of town. I don't know exactly. I didn't read the minutes of the meetings, either one of the previous meetings. I've got some correspondence that I took out of the file the other day, I got copies of out of the file the other day, and, basically, we're going to look at it from the standpoint that we have drawn up a building which we think will enhance the value of the property, okay, and we'd like to go on this side of the building, and as agreed upon before, if the building is built, Hall will remove the existing storage sheds or canopies or carports, whatever they're called, in the back, knowing that this will improve the value of the property. The other option is to build the building down to 900 square feet, as far as the actual footprint of the building. We'll reduce the size of it to a 900 square foot footprint, and at that point, then of course removing the sheds and the rest of the stuff becomes questionable because we don't know how much stuff we can get into this 900 square foot footprint, and of course the alternate is to go back and build a 900 square foot garage, which will be glad to do if you people~so choose, but I just don't think that you're going to get the value out of the property in the end. So, really, there's not a lot to discuss here, other than the fact that you gentlemen and ladies will be making the decision as to what size building it's going to be and how we're going to go about doing it. We're giving you these options to go by. We're not here to question any other things. MR. CARVIN-Give me a little bit of clarification on the 900 square foot footprint. What do you mean by that? MR. BROWN-If we're going to go to a 900 square foot footprint, what we would do is bring the garage back from 36 by 36 to 30 by 30, and eliminate the interior stairwells, which would be a savings to Hal. Ultimately, it would be de-value the property values, but it would be a savings to him initially. It wouldn't be worth as much in the end. MR. CARVIN-How tall would this structure be? MR. BROWN-The same structure, 900 square feet building. It would be 30 by 30. The roof would be a little bit lower, obviously. MR. CARVIN-The same height, two story? MR. BROWN-Basically the same height, but you've got to realize when you're looking, going up, you're going up 9L and going north on 9L, from the south you look over, you're going to see basically a cape cod type garage, okay. It's going to have two garage doors on it. It's going to have two dormers coming off (lost words). You're not going to see that it's 34 or 32 feet tall, but it's still underneath the zoning limit. MS. CIPPERLY-Could I make comment on the 900 square feet? Jim Martin, the Zoning Administrator, said that the fact that it's a two story garage, you have two levels that are used as garage actual parking of vehicles. Each one of those would count as square footage. So it's not just 900 square feet in the footprint. MR. BROWN-I didn't dispute that. I'm saying 900 square feet, I'm telling you as you're looking at it from 9L. You would see a two car garage. MS. CIPPERLY-I'm telling you that you'll actually, you would - 10 - '~ ---./' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) actually have 1800 square feet of garage, according to the way Jim Martin looked at it. MR. BROWN-It's your option. MR. HALLIDAY-That's the way the property's laid out. There was a downgrade down back. We'd have to put a basement in anyway. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but I've got to have, give me, again, the reasons why you need four cars, why you need an exception from the 900 square foot garage? MR. HALLIDAY-We presently have six vehicles in our family. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but that's not a zoning problem. personal decision. That's a I MR. HALLIDAY-I understand that, gentlemen. I'm trying to build something that blends in with the neighborhood. I mean, I can build a 900 square foot garage, but it's probably not going to look as good as the one that I want to build and try to blend in with the property. -- MR. CARVIN-Okay, but I need, you see my position is that I need a justifiable reason to grant you a variance over 900 square feet. MR. BROWN-By building this type of a building, two story, we're enhancing. MR. CARVIN-But everybody could. MR. BROWN-You can't see the back of the garage from the road, okay. You can drive by that at 20 miles an hour, and you can't see, you'll never see the bottom doors. It's (lost word) around the property. The only people that could possibly see it, and I'm not sure that they could see it, are the McLaughlins, because of the way the land is laid out. That's it. You would not know there were windows down below that. You would not know there was a basement down below that. You would not know that it's just a foundation wall filled full of dirt. The general public would not know, but it enhances the value of this property because of the fact that you won't have to build a foundation wall. You can put garage doors in. You can store lawnmowers in there. You can store boats in there. You can store whatever else you want in, and it does not detract from the neighborhood under any circumstances. Okay. It's a personal thing if somebody says that detracts from, when we put a basement garage door, okay, on the back side of your property, especially on a property like this which is, I don't know how deep it is, you know, but there's nobody that lives beside him, until you get over on the other side of 9L, and there's no way they could see this property. It does not detract from the face of the building at all. You can look at the elevation. The elevation on the front, that drawing right there in front of you, shows you basically what you're looking at is a two story garage with a couple of dormers across the top. It can't get much simpler. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? Okay. The public hearing is open. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HALLIDAY-Can I read a letter I have for you. I'll give it to you. MR. CARVIN-Okay. right at the end. Why don't you give it, because we'll read it We will read that into the record. JAY CAMPANO - 11 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) MR. CAMPANO-Hi. My name is Jay Campano. I own the property adjacent to Mr. Halliday, going west. It's a vacant lot at this time. What I would like to say is that I've heard rumors about and I've gotten your notices, I'd heard rumors that there is a bi~ project going on up there and I should get up there and really be c;:oncerned about this. Naturally, since this property is an lnvestment, I came up and I talked to Mr. Halliday, whom I know casually, and Mr. Halliday just smiled and said, come on in, let me show you what I want to do, and I saw his plans, and I'm satisfied that the way he wants to do it would have the least amount of impact on what X would have to look at when I do build that, and I was also, it was also pointed out to me that a lot of the things that he has stored in the back yard would have a place, finally, to get out of the weather, and more importantly to let some of the things on that side get out of sight. Now, as I said, I don't know Mr. Halliday, but looking at the front of this property, he keeps a very neat house. He keeps a house probably the way X do. The lawn is always mowed and it's very neat. I think, if given the proper storage facility in the back, I think the back would be equally neat, and that is something that I'm concerned about, because as I say, some day I will probably be living right next to him. So, as his closest existing neighbor that would be impacted, I support his plans. Thank you. ~ MR. CARVIN-Anyone else wishing to be heard in support? MR. BROWN-I believe he's just to the south. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anyone else wishing to be heard in support? Anyone opposed? Anyone opposed to the application? Okay. Any other additional correspondence? MR. THOMAS-Two letters. The first letter, dated May 30, 1996, addressed to me. "From my recollection of the property lines, I do not believe that the house and the proposed garage would be where you think they would be. I think the house is very near to the adjoining lot on the garage side. In fact, when I owned that lot Mr. Halliday asked me to sell him a cut off portion of it so he would have room to build a driveway along that side of his house. Although I was in agreement that this would be necessary, I did not want to change the lot in any way. The drawing I was shown small and did not look like a surveyors map nor did it include the proposed garage. It is certainly imperative that map be drawn by a certified surveyor locating the two buildings and adj oining lots. I do not think that what we have to date is either proper or accurate. If I am correct, the intrusion on the adjoining property would completely destroy its value as a residential lot along with the ridiculous overall damage throughout the area. Very truly yours, Don Pensel" A letter dated June 19, 1996, to the Zoning Board of Appeals "Pursuant to the proposal by LYn and Harold Halliday to build a garage. We are unable to attend tonight's meeting. We did voice our opinion at the previous meeting. However, seeing as the Halliday's are submitting a new proposal, we would like to make our position clear again. We have no complaint to the building of a garage, of any size, by the Halliday's on their property. Respectfully, Donna L. Schoonover James Neal Schoonover" MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other public comment at all? none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed. questions of the applicant? MRS. LAPHAM-Are the Pensels that wrote the letter, are they on the immediate side? Okay. Seeing Okay. Any MR. BROWN-Does it say in there, Mr. Thomas, where the Pensels, do they still own property there, or are they just saying that they opposed it? - 12 - ""--' ---./ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) MR. THOMAS-The third sentence says "In fact, when I owned that lot Mr. Halliday asked me to sell...n MR. BROWN-They're previous owners. Are they affected by this, do you know? Do they even live in the area, or are they? MR. PENSEL-Who, the Pensels? Yes, I do believe they are on the south. MR. HALLIDAY-I believe they might have sold it to Mr. McLaughlin. Gentlemen of the Board, let me make one thing clear to you. Please don't think that I came in here knowing that we had a property line difference and I was jumping into a Pandora's box of snakes·here. Mr. McLaughlin sold my wife and I the property 21, 22 years ago. Mr. McLaughlin filled the property in. Mr. McLaughlin installed the septic system on the property that is now in dispute. It was an honest mistake, I believe, on all our parts. I'm trying to work with the family right now to straighten that out, and I'd really, I don't want you to think like we're just telling you it has nothing to do with this. We would like it straightened out as much as you, but the garage is clearly on the other side of the house, on the other side of the property, and in any event, if this garage gets built, if you've checked out the property, we already-have another driveway in around the opposite side of the house, by the new garage, so that the traffic going to this new building can go down the new driveway. We're already using it. We're already driving it. It's hard enough. It's fine, so that if anything we would be moving away from the other property line. That is our main goal at this point is to make sure we try to get over as far as we can. This garage was designed in the best intent to keep it looking good. It was not designed to upset anybody's apple cart. We have a lot of things to store inside. I'm getting older. I'm getting tired of going out in the winter. I would like to go in the garage to get into my car, push a button like most other people, without having to jockey cars from (lost words). I'll do anything I can to cooperate. If we have to shrink it down to 30 by 30 and try to keep it in a closer footprint, all I'd ask you is to please work with us. We need that lower level to keep it in line with the road. If we build a 900 square foot garage, where we have it now, all you're going to see from the road is the roof, because the garage will be on the lower level. You will see the shingles, from the lawn you'll go to shingles. If that's what we have to do, I don't have any other choices. I don't know what to do. I'm trying to make it look good. I like the neighborhood. If you've driven by the house, you'll see we try to keep it nice. From the road, it's going to look like a 900 square foot garage. It's not goin~ to look like another commercial building. The weeping willow trees will more than cover the connection between the garage and the house. If you've been up to the property and looked at it, we didn't draw the trees into the plan so you wouldn't think we were trying to cover up anything. We have no problem with drainage. The lot has been cleared. The hole has been dug, and we haven't had a puddle there because of the drainage that's already in place. MR. CARVIN-How big is the lot? MR. HALLIDAY-175 by 350 deep. MR. CARVIN-We don't have a plot plan of the whole lot, do we? MR. THOMAS-No. I take that back. MR. BROWN-If you need to adjourn it, I can get you one. MR. THOMAS-That's as close as we can come. MR. BROWN-I have an actual survey, if you'd like to see that. - 13 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) MR. CARVIN-The question is, obviously, if there's another spot to put the garage. MR. BROWN-If you want to adjourn this meeting for a half hour or so, I can go get you an actual survey of this. MR. CARVIN-The best I can do is put it to the end, and I've got to tell you, we've got one heck of an agenda tonight. MR. BROWN-I'm just trying to cooperate with you guys, but I can tell you, if you want to look at the dimensions, on the tax map they're relatively accurate. This is the line that goes through the property right now. Here's where the garage is going. MS. CIPPERLY-These go parallel to each other. MR. BROWN-Right. MS. CIPPERLY-And they go back. MR. THOMAS-Three hundred and fifty feet? MR. BROWN-And you can see this goes right through the exis~ing house. MR. CARVIN-Well, I mean, I just am looking for, I don't know if there's another spot on that piece of property that that garage could be placed. I just have a real hard time granting a variance over 900 square feet just because you own four, five or six vehicles. MR. BROWN-It's not just that. storage sheds. It's ATV's and snowmobiles and MR. CARVIN-I know that, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the variance. I mean, everybody in the world could come in and say, look, I've got 37 cars, so give me a variance, and it's just not a criteria. I mean, these are all personal decisions. MR. BROWN-The guy wants to start storing his boats on the property, he can do that. I mean, he's trying to enhance the value of the property. I've heard all the arguments. I mean, these are personal decisions, and our variance says 900. MR. HALLIDAY-You'd rather look at vehicles on the front lawn? You'd rather look at cars outside? MR. CARVIN-Well, that becomes an enforcement issue after a fashion, but I'm just saying that I don't have anything concrete that I can hang my hat on in granting a variance over the 900 square feet. MR. BROWN-Can you see going and putting a full foundation wall in, right, and filling that in with dirt to meet your minimum requirements? I mean, that's what we're talking about. MR. KARPELES-If that's the only place to put it. MR. CARVIN-Yes, exactly. MR. BROWN-What do you mean, so you're going to build the garage down low now? MR. KARPELES-I'm not building the garage. No, that's what's going to happen. The garage is going to be built one way or the other. We're willing to build this garage, eliminate all the storage sheds out in back. As you look at it from the road, you won't even realize that it's 900 square feet, or it will be a little over 900 square feet, 1200 square feet, whatever it was. - 14 - '-' '-/' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) MR. CARVIN-Well, I'll leave it to this Board, I mean, do you want to table this until later to look, see if there's other spots? MR. BROWN-We're going to build a garage there. The thing is we're trying to do it all at once, to enhance the value of the property, enhance the value to the neighbors. You've got one neighbor on one side who's come up and said he'd prefer this, okay, to the alternatives. Okay. Obviously, he's not trying to devalue any of his property. He wants to go with the best possible deal. MR. GREEN-Fred, could I ask a couple of questions? MR. CARVIN-Sure. MR. GREEN-Maybe it'll help you a little bit. My first question, I guess, is to Staff. The numbers on the two papers are off by 50 feet. MS. CIPPERLY-Which two papers? MR. GREEN-The Staff notes from May 15th and the actual advertising for the agenda for this evening. - MS. CIPPERLY-I didn't do either one of them. So, remember that. MR. GREEN-Well, it's off by 44 feet, I guess. MS. CIPPERLY-Let me come over and see what you're talking about. MR. BROWN-If I can just give you the square footages, okay. Do you want the actual square footages? MR. CARVIN-If you have them. MR. BROWN-The footprint, okay, is 1296 square feet, and that's your basement floor. MR. GREEN-Okay. MR. BROWN-The second floor is 1296. You add them together, you have 2,592, and you have a storage area above which is 944. You cannot get a vehicle up a three foot wide set of stairs. It is not a garage, and I'm not being critical of the Staff or anything else. I'm just saying, that's not garage. That's clearly storage area. MR. GREEN-Okay. MR. BROWN-Obviously, we have four overhead doors, 36 foot wide, and a 36 foot long garage. Okay. You can't get two 18 foot long vehicles in. Okay. An 18 foot long vehicle's a GMC medium sized van. To give you an idea of small, a Mustang is 15 feet long. So if you add 15 and 18 foot, you could get that in. MR. GREEN-Okay. My other question is, what is basically stored under these outbuildings that you would like to move inside? MR. BROWN-All I can tell you, I went up and I took a brief inventory of Hal Halliday's property the other day, and here's what I found, okay. Number One, in the storage area, I found table saws, radial arm saws, bench grinders, bench sanders, any number of woodworking tools and stuff like that which he wants to put up in there in the upper level, which you could use down in the garage area if you wanted to, but they're clearly not items related to that, okay. I found a walk behind mower. I found five bicycles, okay. I saw a plow truck, which I did measure was over 20 feet long. - 15 - '- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) MR. GREEN-Maybe I can make this simpler for you. Is there anything there wider than six feet? Other than the cars? MR. BROWN-The plow is seven foot wide. It's an eight foot wide garage door. The garage door is eight foot wide. So what I did, I inventoried things I thought that were at least that wide. Okay. Tractors, wagons, two snowmobiles, three dirt bikes, snowblowers, things of that nature, which are stored outside. MR. GREEN-What I'm driving at here is if we could possibly eliminate the garage doors on the basement, use the ground front level garage as two car storage, and use the basement through a couple of steel doors. If the big deal here is storage, then'most everything you've mentioned could go through, you know, a couple of sets of swinging steel doors, other than a car, and I would have less of a problem with this, and then I also have a problem with the thing upstairs. MR. BROWN-How about putting boats down underneath there? I mean, he's got boats he's storing off the property. MR. GREEN-A boat is still eight foot wide. --- MR. BROWN-That's what I'm saying. If you look at the doors on the plans. They're eight foot wide, seven feet high. MR. GREEN-See, and I don't like them, because now you've got a four car garage. MR. BROWN-You can't fit a bus in there. MR. GREEN-I could care less about the bus. That's not my point at all. My point is that Mr. Halliday keeps talking about storage, storage, storage, and other than the cars, everything that you've mentioned that you want to store will go through a six foot door. So I would be more comfortable. MR. BROWN-How about a boat? MR. GREEN-Well, cars and boats. MR. BROWN-I know, he has six cars, and the thing is you have two boats that are stored off the property, okay, and so you build another boat storage area. does that help to better the property, if you fill this basement in? MR. GREEN-To be honest with you, I'm not really concerned with value of the property, not at all. MR. BROWN-Pardon me, but this is the Zoning Board of Appeals, and I think one of the things that you're supposed to be concerned with is the value of the property around the entire area. MR. GREEN-Exactly. MR. CARVIN-And we're also concerned with whether the relief being requested is substantial and whether it can be achieved by another method. MR. BROWN-Right, exactly, and, yes, boat storage can be achieved by another method, okay. In the Staff report, ATV storage can be taken care of underneath the canopy, or underneath the carport, or wherever you want to do. Yes. Does that detract from the neighborhood or does that help the neighborhood? Okay. It comes back to the basic value of the neighborhood is what we're discussing. We're not discussing health. We're not discussing welfare. We're not discussing safety. - 16 - '~. ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) MR. CARVIN-It's corning down to the point that everyone else in the neighborhood is allowed a 900 square foot garage. That's what ~he community has mandated as an adequate and normal garage. Nlne hundred square feet is what the community has said is the standard, and you're asking for almost three times that, and I want to hear three times the excuse. MR. HALLIDAY-There's five garages that are bigger than 20,000 square foot in my neighborhood, and I'm trying to build a garage that fits in with the neighborhood. MR. CARVIN-If you think that these folks are in violation of the Town Ordinances. MR. HALLIDAY-They're not, sir. I live surrounded by fire companies, marinas and construction companies, and I accept that, and I'm trying to fit in with the same neighborhood. MR. CARVIN-It's a Waterfront Residential area. MR. BROWN-That could be disputed too, sir. MR. HALLIDAY-My sprinklers are the only waterfront I have on my property. MR. BROWN-And if you really look at the zoning that closely, I think you'll find that that is, Neighborhood Commercial is the zone area, okay, and that is certainlycontendable. Now, if you guys are not going to challenge anybody any further than that, we don't want to get into that. All we want to do is say, listen, we're offering three options. We'd like to tear down the sheds and build this building as drawn, okay. If we don't tear down the sheds, we'll build a 900 square foot garage in that footprint. Okay. Then we'll remove whatever sheds we can remove, okay. If that doesn't happen, we'll build a 900 square foot garage, period. However, it looks, we'll put a blue roof on it, whatever you guys, we don't care what you feel about that. We're just going to build whatever you want, but Hal is going to build a 900 square foot garage up there, and we don't have to appear before you. We're not here to fight. We're not here to argue. We're here to say, listen, we're trying to help the value of the neighborhood. That's it. MS. CIPPERLY-I think Mr. Green was getting to the crux of the argument. Because you're trying to combine three different types of things into one structure. One is a boat storage building. One is a garage, which is defined quite clearly in the Ordinance, and the other is a storage kind of building. I think if the issue is storage, he's got a decent solution to use the lower half of it for storage, and the upper half of it for, you can get three cars, at least, into a 900 square foot garage. The fact that you have six, and then you want to bring in some more boats. You could also build a separate boat storage building in this zone. So that's another solution. MR. BROWN-It's much more expensive to build a two story garage than it is to build a certain square footage for a garage, 900 square feet, and build another 900 square foot boat storage area. Okay. I'm telling you, as the builder, it costs much more. Okay. It's going to enhance the value of the property. There's nothing being hidden here. You go out and buy a concrete plank, have it installed by a crane, gentlemen, the money is getting up there. MS. CIPPERLY-On your entry from the roadside, it would be the upper level, you show two garage doors. That means you're going to pull two cars in and park them end to end in there? MR. BROWN-Possibly, okay. Now, a good example of this. - 17 - ~..-/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) MS. CIPPERLY-I'm just wondering how you're going to get six cars into. MR. BROWN-You're not going to get six cars. He's got six cars. He can't do it. Obviously, he can't get a bus in there. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions? Okay. I would prefer, and this is going to be discussion among the Board, unless there is a direct question to ask of you. I would not want any other input at this point. So I'm going to start with you, Bonnie, if you've got any thoughts or comments on this. MRS. ~P~-I've obs~rved the Halliday property over the years, from 11vlng nearby ln the summer, and I've seen it go from a laundry mat, very disreputable, to a liquor store. Then I remember a restaurant that lasted about eight weeks, and then when they took it over, it certainly has improved. However, I think this garage will overshadow everything around it. I'm not sure where my feelings lie, other than I would like to see something a little smaller. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Bill? -- MR. GREEN-I cannot go with four garage doors. I cannot do it, unless you put it on a 900 foot garage, one floor. I would be willing to entertain things as to entry doors on the basement and two garage doors on the front, and I don't particularly like all the additional space upstairs. That's my opinion. MR. CARVIN-Bob? MR. KARPELES-Well, I go along with Bill. I think that he's come up with a pretty good solution. I wish I'd come up with that solution, but I didn't. Because I just cannot go along with the garage that's three times bigger than we've granted anybody else, or even twice as big as we've granted anybody else. I've heard all these arguments before, and some of them make sense, but we just can't grant them because we'd have to grant them to everybody, and we haven't done that in the past. So I think Bill's got a good solution. I think you ought to listen to him. MR. THOMAS-I like Bill's solution of the storage under, without garage doors on the lower part, and either two or three door garage at grade level from the road. How you're going to limit the door on that lower point, or what size would be a point to talk about, but I think Bill's idea is the solution. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think we have to keep it to what the applicant is requesting here. It's not for us to design his project. He's requesting a garage, and based upon the criteria for the Area Variance, obviously, there's many things that I'm uncomfortable with granting a garage of almost 2600 square feet. Obviously, the benefit to the applicant as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community, I think, is tantamount. I think if we were to grant this variance as proposed, we would be creating a possible undesirable change in the neighborhood and certainly a possible detriment to nearby properties. Certainly I think that there may be other feasible alternatives that the applicant can pursue to meet his objective. I think if we were to grant this variance, it would be substantial. I think, as I said, 2600 square feet of just garage. That doesn't even take into consideration the 944 storage. It's certainly almost three times the norm. I also think that, again, by the granting of this, that we could, in the long term, have some pretty adverse impacts on the neighborhood and the district. Certainly, I think the need for this size garage is self created, but most important, I do not feel that this is anywhere near the minimum variance necessary to achieve what the applicant is proposing to do. Now, I think Mr. Green does have some pretty interesting - 18 - --- -< (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) solutions. I would caution the applicant, I think what I'm hearing is that this application may not get approved, and if you proceed to build a 900 square foot footprint building, two stories tall, I would caution you to take into consideration what Mr. Martin, our Zoning Administrator, has rendered as an opinion as to what a garage is. So I would reiterate that a garage is a 900 square foot, single level usage building, I guess is about the only ~ay I can describe it. If you do wish to pursue Mr. Green's suggestlons, I would certainly clear that with Staff, so that everybody's on the same page, so that we don't have some sort of ugly situation later on down the line, as far as misinterpretations. So, having said that, I would ask for a motion. MS. CIPPERLY-I guess one other thing that maybe the applicant could be aware of is if you feel like you'd like to withdraw your application without a vote, you can do that, and possibly come back with a revised project. If it's voted on and denied, you have to come back with a significantly different application in order to even be heard again. So there's a second decision involved in that second. MR. HALLIDAY-I do not wish to withdraw my application at this time. I really think that we've worked very hard to build a building ~hat will fit in with the community, and I believe in my heart that if I build a building that goes in line with your Code, 900 square foot single level building, which if I'm correct means I can build a 45 foot long, 20 foot wide garage with one single door on it. If you think that will look better in our neighborhood, then it would be better, maybe, for our family to build that, but not for our neighborhood. I can put my motor home in the garage and four other vehicles in the garage, and have one big commercial door, 18 foot wide by 12 foot high. If you believe that that's better for my neighborhood, I have no other choice. I'm going to have to build it within Code then, and if so, that's what I have to do. I'm trying to go against Code to build something that's going to look nice and probably going to cost me three times what a single level garage would cost with an 18 foot door in it, and I'm sorry I've caused you this many problems. Please don't be mad at me, five years down the road, when you drive by the garage. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-1996 HAROLD & LYN HALLIDAY, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: The applicant is proposing to construct a new two and a half story garage which would contain approximately 1296 square feet of space on each floor. In addition, there would be an area above the garage which would be used for storage of approximately 944 square feet. In order for the applicant to construct this garage, he would need relief from Section 179-7B, which limits the area of a garage to 900 square feet. The benefit to the applicant, if he were allowed to do this particular project, would be it would allow him to store a multitude of vehicles and accessory equipment. However, I do feel very strongly that if we were to grant this variance that we would be creating an undesirable change to the neighborhood and possibly a detriment to nearby properties. I feel very strongly that the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by other feasible methods. I think by granting of this variance, that the relief is substantial, almost three times what a normal garage area currently to Code is. Again, by granting of this variance, I think we could have an adverse impact on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood and district. Certainly the need for this size of garage is self created, and I feel very strongly that this is not the minimum relief necessary to adequately address the benefit being sought by the applicant. So, therefore, I would move that we deny this Area Variance. - 19 - ~', (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Menter MR. HALLIDAY-Thank you, gentlemen. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-1996 TYPE II WR-1A CEA MAHYAR & FRAN AMI RSALEH OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CLEVERDALE ROAD TO MASON ROAD, HOUSE IS ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE ROAD AT THE FIRST CURVE APPLICANTS ARE SEEKING TO REMOVE AN EXISTING HOUSE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THIS ACTION REQUIRES RELIEF FROM THE SHORELINE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179-60B, 5, 15, C. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/12/96 TAX MAP NO. 13-1-25 LOT SIZE: 0.59 ACRES SECTION 179-60B, 5, 15, C DEAN HOWLAND, JR., REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT --- STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 30-1996, Mahyar & Fran Amirsaleh, Meeting Date: June 19, 1996 "APPLICANT: Mahyar & Fran Amirsaleh, PROJECT LOCATION: Mason Rd. Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: Applicant is proposing to remove an existing single family home and replace it with a new home and attached garage. This action requires relief from the shoreline setbacks listed in Section 179-60B, 5, 15, C. The applicant is proposing a new shoreline setback of 50 feet. Cri teria 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 attached garage on their 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 25 feet of shoreline relief. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? There do not appear to be any negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Additional comment may be given at the public hearing. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The need to construct a new septic system on this lot makes it difficult to conform to the present shoreline setback. Staff Comments & Concerns: The applicant is proposing a new home and garage which will occupy about 20% of this lot. The applicant should indicate to the board what the height of this structure will be and possibly provide drawings of the proposed home and garage. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 8th day of May 1996, the above application for Area Variance to demolish existing house and construct a new single family dwelling. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Approve Comments: Concurring with local conditions." Signed C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Does anyone have any questions of the applicant? MR. KARPELES-Yes. I've got a question. That dotted line that looks like it's drawn on a radius, looks like it's from the corner of the septic field, what is that? Is that 20 feet or what is that? MR. HOWLAND-Have you got a footprint? - 20 - '---' - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) MR. CARVIN-We've got whatever you've given us. I think what Bob is referring to is right here in this corner. MR. KARPELES-Yes. MR. HOWLAND-Okay. I'm sorry. Yes. In the Code you have to be 20 feet away from the leachfield. MR. KARPELES-Okay. So is it 20 feet or 10 feet? I thought it was 10 feet. MR. HOWLAND-It's 10 feet to the septic, 20 feet to the leach field. MR. KARPELES-Twenty feet from a leach field? Is that right, Sue? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. KARPELES-So that's what that is. MR. HOWLAND-Right. MR. CARVIN-Is the leach field in? -- MR. HOWLAND-Yes. MR. CARVIN-That has already been put in? MR. HOWLAND-Yes. MR. CARVIN-I know when I was out there, it looks like it's all been leveled to grade and everything? MR. HOWLAND-Before I got involved, they were putting in a leach field and graded the lots for the existing house. It's just a leach field. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but the garages that are shown on this plot plan have been removed, they're no longer there? MR. HOWLAND-That's correct. MR. CARVIN-Because I was wondering why you couldn't put your leach field the other way. I'm assuming it's in the ground as outlined here? MR. HOWLAND-Yes, it is. MR. CARVIN-I just didn't know why, if it went the other way you could have moved the house back a few more feet. MR. HOWLAND-Again, it was in before I got involved. So I don't know about that, but that was all (lost words) by the building inspectors. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions? MR. THOMAS-I think if you flipped it around the other way, that 60 feet, he wouldn't get his 10 feet off the property line. Yes, he would just squeeze it in off the property line with that 60 foot run. Essentially, yes, that could have been flipped around, but other than that, I don't have any questions right now. MR. CARVIN-I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JIM HAGAN - 21 - ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) MR. HAGAN-My name is Jim Hagan, one house removed, I'd be his next door neighbor. At this point, I'm not for or against, because I don't ~nd~rstand enough about his proposed plan. If, in fact, his new bUlldlng does not encroach the lakeshore any more than the present house, or if the north and south line of the new house does not extend it beyond the present house, I would have no objection. MR. CARVIN-I think you'll find that the house actually moves back considerably. MR. THOMAS-Yes, twice the distance. MR. HAGAN-But you are extending it to the south? MR. HOWLAND-Correct. What we're doing is moving everything set back. We're trying to get it back from the lake as far as possible. MR. CARVIN-Essentially it looks like they're moving it back from the lake and bringing it off the northerly property line. MR. HAGAN-But they are extending it. They are taking away mo~e of the natural landmarks that presently exist. MR. CARVIN-I'm not sure I'm understanding what landmarks you're referring to. MR. HAGAN-My objection is, there seems to be a trend of people buying houses and then they want to tear down the old ones and make the new ones bigger, and Cleverdale is so crowded as it is, we've already had two houses taken down, and they're extended them. So when you're right along the lake, instead of looking at landscape, you're looking at buildings, and it's one more step that puts the integrity of our Zoning laws in question. I think moving it back is great, but I don't approve of widening the house. MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm not sure how much wider the existing house is, as to what's being proposed. MS. CIPPERLY-I think he's saying, front to back, it's taking up what, currently, you can see, as you drive down the road, you can see through to the lake. MR. HAGAN-It's extending and compounding what is now a nonconforming situation that was grandfathered. MR. GREEN-But he's bringing it more into conformance. bringing it off the side there, on the one side also. MR. HOWLAND-I conform everywhere except the setback for bringing it back. He's MR. HAGAN-I understand now. I have no objection. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anyone else wishing to be heard in opposition? JEAN MEYER MRS. MEYER-My name is Jean Meyer, and I'm next door to this house. MR. KARPELES-Which side are you on? On the north side? MRS. MEYER-South. Number One, with all the fill that they have put in, we have leakage, and we have to put in sod already. Number Two, I· know that you won't have anything to say about this, but it certainly is an eyesore right now, and they could at least cut their grass, if nothing else. With regard to the rest of the neighborhood, I'd like to know the elevations. I'd like to know - 22 - '--" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) what this house is going to look like. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm looking at an elevation, and I'm assuming this is what you've given us this evening? MR. HOWLAND-That's correct. MR. CARVIN-Of not quite 27 and a half feet high at the peak. MR. KARPELES-Have you seen these? MRS. MEYER-No. I went down to look at the building. MS. CIPPERLY-Those were just turned in tonight. MRS. MEYER-In other words, this is just about as high as the proposal for the Mooring Post Marina, the 28 feet. You're talking about building this house that high. MR. THOMAS-I don't know about the Mooring Post Marina. I think it is 27 or 28 feet. MRS. MEYER-What is the house going to look like? Is it stucco? What is it? MR. HOWLAND-Well, right now the architect that designed it is (lost words) . MRS. MEYER-I don't think many of us know what he's going to put there, if there will be a change to this area or not. MR. CARVIN-Well, unfortunately, I can't do much about exterior. We can do something about the setbacks. We might be able to do something about the height. MR. HOWLAND-I think last month I came here because I thought it was going to be on before. We had discussion. I know you're trying to get a new zoning law, where the height of any structure residential could go up to 35 feet. So, of all your new zoning laws that you're proposing, I exceed all of the requirements. MR. CARVIN-Right. I mean, if the new law had been enacted, which it has not, and I remind the Board that we are under the current law, not what is proposed. They are reducing it down to 50 feet, and I suspect that Mr. Amirsaleh would probably not even be here. Okay. Is there anything else, Jean? Anyone else wishing to be heard? FRED MCKINNEY MR. MCKINNEY-I'm Fred McKinney, and my wife and I are the northern neighbors to this property, and we initially support the conceptual idea of the project, but as of right now, we don't really know what we're supporting because we haven't seen any plans. We have some questions about setbacks to our property line, as well as from the lake, and the height elevation and the square footage of the property, but I am sure that the owners, along with Dean, are going to enhance the neighborhood on this project, but it's just that we support it with reservations of what is being done, because we 'don't know what. Presently, the camp, it's not in condition to be re-built. I can substantiate that, but it sets four and a half feet from our property. There's a row of trees. I don't know if those trees are coming down. I have a lot of questions. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. HOWLAND-The trees are not going to come down, Fred. If you look on the plot plan, here's the existing residence, and we're - 23 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) trying to get it back further than your house, 20 feet off the property line instead of four feet, and the ridge line, as I said, I'm trying to get it down. I'm under 28 feet. Your house is probably 26, 27 feet square feet in height. So we're about the same height, and I attempted to try to (lost word) the style of the outside of the house, clapboard or something. MR. MCKINNEY-Now we were initially told it was going to be a setback of 60 or 65 feet. MR. HOWLAND-I'm asking for a variance of 50 feet so I can have a little bit of room to jockey around the leach field. I'm going to be about 55 feet, approximately. It's hard to tell. We'r~ the closest part of the shoreline. I will exceed 50 feet, but I've got to have a little bit of turnaround to jockey around the septic system. MR. MCKINNEY-And if this variance is granted, when do you expect to start construction? MR. HOWLAND-They wanted to do it sometime this summer when they're in the area. They actually live across the lake. --- MR. MCKINNEY-I think the neighborhood, they have one concern of a lot of construction going on in July and August. I mean, the lake is, 10 months of the year, you know, you wouldn't be opposed to construction. For the tranquility and peace of the lake, to hear construction going on, for July and August, I think everybody would share that concern, and we would like to hope that it wouldn't start until September. MR. HOWLAND-I have some control of that. I can tell you, it won't get started for at least a month, because there's just not enough (lost word) . MR. MCKINNEY-But even August, everybody's trying to enjoy the lake, their yard, but on a conceptual basis, we would be in support of the project. It would just enhance it. MR. CARVIN-Anyone else wishing to be heard? Any Correspondence? MR. THOMAS-No Correspondence. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other public comment? Okay. Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Any questions of the applicant? MR. THOMAS-Not right now, but here again, we have a large house with a lot of glass facing the lake, and as one of the residents of the area commented that, as you drive around the lake, all you're seeing now is houses and glass. You're not seeing any of the scenic beauty or the natural setting that the lake once was. I understand that this house is merely in compliance with all the setbacks, and with the height, but here again, I don't know if we can do anything about all this glass in the front of it on the lake side. That's the only real concern I have, and I've stated that in 'the past on just about every variance that's come through here on the lake. MR. CARVIN-I think we go onto dangerous ground when we start mandating colors and designing these things, but I understand where you're coming from. MRS. LAPHAM-My thoughts are really pretty much the same as Chris, except that I tend to agree with you. I don't think we have the - 24 - '-" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) right to legislate a case, the actual form and design of the project. MR. GREEN-I concur with both Bonnie and Chris. MR. KARPELES-It actually isn't going to look like this, you're saying? You're going to put a different kind of siding on? MR. HOWLAND- I've made my recommendations to the owner and the architect. I re-did the drawings to bring it into compliance. ,MR., KARPELES-Yes, but I'm talking about the siding. MR. HOWLAND-Brought it back down to Texas and took pictures and said, the neighborhood is basically all clapboard sided houses, and I made my strong recommendation I'd prefer to see that myself, and I doni t have that say, but they've listened to me so far, and hopefully they will. MR. KARPELES-Well, my opinion, I think that he's certainly proving a setback from the lake, and I would think that the neighbor on the south side would get a better view, now, than they got before. It seems like an awfully big house for that size of lot, but I guess other than the setback from the lake, it meets all the other requirements. Those are mY comments. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. HOWLAND-There's one thing that I just wanted to mention, too, that you might, I know that I was at the last meeting, I was late to the meeting, I only caught a couple of minutes of it, the zone changes (lost words) opposition to the 22% area of homes. This one is smaller than the original application. It's 19.3%. It is a large house, and it might be something you might be able to bring up in the future negotiations with people in the Town. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I guess I don't have a real challenge with this. I realize that there's a trend now at the lake. Sometimes I feel like the little Dutch Boy with my finger in the dike. LINDA MCKINNEY MRS. MCKINNEY-Could I just ask a question? MR. CARVIN-Sure. MRS. MCKINNEY-I'm his neighbor on the north side. I'm Linda McKinney, and I live on the north side, and as far as the pictures go, is this the side that I'll look at, or the other side? MR. HOWLAND-No. side. I don't have that elevation. It's the opposite MRS. MCKINNEY-So the one that's (lost word) is the one that we don't? MR. HOWLAND-That's correct. MRS. MCKINNEY-All right. When I look at this, ours is the long one. Hey, listen, I think anything in here is going to be much better than what we have currently, what we're looking at. I'm not against it. I'm just real curious to see what's going to be here and how it's going to look from my front yard, (lost word) a very large front yard. Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Has anybody got a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-1996 MAHYAR & FRAN - 25 - - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) AMI RSALEH, Introduced by William Green who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: The applicant is proposing to remove an existing single family home that is in great disrepair and replace it with a new home and attached garage. This action would require relief from the shoreline setbacks listed in Section 179-60B,5,15,C. The new shoreline setback would be 50 feet or greater. The benefit to the applicant would be that he would be allowed to build a new home and attached garage. Due to the configuration of the lot and septic system there does not seem to be any alternatives that would provide less relief. The relief of 25 feet from the shoreline setback does not appear to be substantial, based upon the design of the lot. There does not appear to be any outstanding negative impact on the neighborhood or negative concern from the neighbors. It does not seem to be self created, again due to the configuration of lot and the septic system in place. The condition that the building be no taller than 27 feet four inches in height to the peak, and that the dimensions of the house not exceed what is proposed. Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: -- MS. CIPPERLY-One alternative that I think, I just saw these drawings tonight. This is basically a one story garage. He could actually put some living space over the garage instead of going out toward the lake. I mean, that's a way of getting some of that house back from the lake, and I'm getting a little concerned about the people who have had to be 75 feet back in the last year or so, or at least more than 50, and then somebody comes along with a 4300 square foot house, wants to be 50 feet from the lake, and we're saying, well, fine. So, I guess I'd just like the Board to think about the fact that they're creating kind of a trend toward giving people relief of 50 feet, which the Ordinance may change and it may not change, and this is 33% relief. So, as I said, I didn't get a chance to look at these and see whether there might be an alternative, but some of that living space possibly could be put above the garage. You've got some extremely steep roof line there, which is an architectural choice, but it's not necessarily a reason for relief. MR. CARVIN-I think the location of that septic system, if my understanding is correct, I mean, the septic system is in. MS. CIPPERLY-I'm saying you could put living space over the garage and maybe shorten the house up a little bit. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but 25 feet? Can you shorten it down 25 feet? I mean, the house, I don't know, Chris, how wide is that house? MR. HOWLAND-Thirty-four feet wide. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, so you're talking about 34 feet wide, cutting off the garage. MS. CIPPERLY-I mean, I agree with Mr. Hagan, I believe it was. This is one of the few places on Mason Road where you can still see the lake as you drive through, and this is, you know, just another. MR. KARPELES-It sounds like a good idea to me. Real good. Maybe you can't pick up the total 20 feet, but you ought to be able to pick up 10 feet or something. MS. CIPPERLY-You've got a, what is it, 24' by 24' garage there that maybe you could put part of the house in there, like ,some of the bedrooms. I think the 27 and whatever it is height is commendable. I think that you made an effort there. I was just wondering if you could somehow decrease the amount of relief by utilizing the space - 26 - ""--" '-" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) over the garage. MR. CARVIN-Well, I would comment that Staff has indicated under Feasible Alternatives there do not seem to be any alternatives that would provide less relief. So, I mean, if Staff is going to give me conflicting information here, I would hope that Staff would get on the same page. I understand where you're coming from. MS. CIPPERLY-We didn't have this until tonight, either. MR. CARVIN-I know, then, the application wasn't complete. MS. CIPPERLY-And the other alternative that I considered wag that you could extend it toward the south ~ine, but th~n ~gain you're taking up more of the lot. So, go on wlth your motl0n lf you want. It was just a point that I. MR. CARVIN-Well, no, these are well taken points. It's just that at two minutes into the motion it's not necessarily the time to bring them up. MS. CIPPERLY-You said you would ask. -- MR. CARVIN-Yes, I lied. I don't know, Bill, what do you want to do? Do you want to continue with your motion? MR. GREEN-Yes. AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Carvin NOES: Mr. Karpeles ABSENT: Mr. Menter, Mr. Ford USE VARIANCE NO. 44-1996 TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-1A JACK & GAIL DEGREGORIO OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE WEST SIDE OF LAWTON AVENUE BEHIND REMINGTON'S RESTAURANT APPLICANTS ARE PROPOSING TO USE PROPERTY ON LAWTON AVENUE AS AN AUTOMOBILE/TRUCK-HEATING, AIR CONDITIONING, REFRIGERATION REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT BUSINESS. THIS USE REQUIRES RELIEF FROM THE USES ALLOWED IN SECTION 179 - 2 0 . WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/12/96 TAX MAP NO. 70-2-15 LOT SIZE: 1.20 ACRES SECTION 179-20 MARTIN AUFFREDOU, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 44-1996, Jack & Gail DeGregorio, Meeting Date: June 19, 1996 "APPLICANT: Jack & Gail DeGregorio PROJECT LOCATION: Lawton Ave. PROPOSED PROJECT AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: The applicant is proposing to use their land and buildings as a heating, air conditioning, refrigeration repair, and replacement business. The current zoning of this property is SFR-1A. The operation of this business at this location requires relief from the uses listed in Section 179-20. REVIEW CRITERIA, BASED ON SECTION 267-b OF TOWN LAW: 1. IS A REASONABLE RETURN POSSIBLE IF THE LAND IS USED AS ZONED? This property has been used in the past for similar industrial uses. These past uses and related environmental cleanup make it difficult to gain a reasonable return on the land if used as zoned. 2. IS THE ALLEGED HARDSHIP RELATING TO THE PROPERTY UNIQUE, OR DOES IT ALSO APPLY TO A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? Past uses of this property created an environmental condition that limits the ability of this lot to be developed as presently zoned. 3. IS THERE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? The character of the neighborhood has included industrial uses at this location in the past. This proposed use would not alter the character of the neighborhood from what it has been in the past. 4. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO - 27 - -/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) ADDRESS THE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP PROVEN BY THE APPLICANT AND AT THE SAME TIME PROTECT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY? This appears to be the minimum variance that would ease the hardship on the applicant and protect neighborhood character. Staff Comments and Concerns Due to the past environmental conditions and uses at this location staff believes that a reasonable return of this property cannot be realized. SEQR: Unlisted, short form EAF required." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 12th day of June 1996, the above application for a Use Variance to operate a repair and replacement service for auto/truck heating, air conditioning and refrigeration with other possible uses to include gas tank re-new franchise and office space and/or storage space. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Approve Comments: Concur with location conditions." Signed C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Okay, before we begin, I have a question of Staff. How was this advertised, Chris, do you know? MR. THOMAS-Lets see if the advertisement is in here. I asked them to put a copy of it in here. I do not see a copy of it. ~ MR. CARVIN -Okay. Am I to assume that our agenda is the advertisement? "The applicants propose to use the property", in other words, on their description, they're calling for automobile/truck heating, air conditioning refrigeration repair and replacement business. Correct? MR. THOMAS-That's probably what it said in the paper. Let me look through here and see if it's hidden in here somewhere. MR. CARVIN-Is this what the applicant is asking? MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes, that's correct, Mr. Chairman. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but I see that Warren County, in your description, I guess, or proposed use of property, you added "Other possible uses include gas tank renewal franchise, office space and/or storage space. MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes, that's correct. MR. CARVIN-But that has not been advertised. uses over and above what is being requested. These are additional Is that correct? MR. AUFFREDOU-I don't know what's been advertised. I'm not aware of that. MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm saying that we've got a conflict here, because I'm seeing an advertisement and a request on Page One of your Use Variance which states, you know, "Project Description, 1.27 acres with an associated 8,000 +/ - square foot building. Applicant proposes to utilize building and lands for automobile/truck heating, air conditioning, refrigeration repair and replacement business." Yet then you go on to proposed use of property, you've expanded that. I need to know what you're requesting here. MR. AUFFREDOU-By way of explanation, originally, when I first spoke to Jim Martin, there was some question as to whether or not we needed a Use Variance, because of the similarity, the closeness of the uses, from what had existed there, and what Jack and Gail DeGregorio were proposing. MR. CARVIN-Right. MR. AUFFREDOU-In speaking with my clients, the primary use of that - 28 - ',-" '---../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) property as proposed will be as an air, conditioning, hea~in~, refrigeration repair and replacement buslness. However, lt lS possible that some of those other uses including the gas tank renewal, some office space, some storage space that will a~so be utilized. We thought, for purposes of completeness, for tonlght's review, that we would put those possible uses in front of the Board, and see, if in fact, those were uses that these were , uses that were acceptable to the Board. They will not be the prlmary use. I can tell you that, and that's why I structured the application the way that I did. MR. CARVIN-I'm more concerned with the advertising, in other words, that these secondary uses, if I may, were not advertised, and I have a very hard time granting variances on Use Variances in residential areas for possible uses at some point in the future, because I think that's this Board's prerogative, especially in residential areas, and I realize your situation, but I don't want to have a conflict here that all of a sudden we have a misunderstanding as to what the uses are out there. MR. AUFFREDOU-Well, I don't think there will be any misunderstanding. Again, the intent of why we're here tonight is to basically find out what type of use this Board would-- be comfortable allowing at the property. MR. CARVIN-No, I think it's more to the point, what are you asking? MR. AUFFREDOU-Well, we would be asking for permission to operate those kinds of uses. MR. CARVIN-Okay, including the supplemental? MR. AUFFREDOU-Including the supplemental. MR. CARVIN-Okay, then I'm going to refer to Staff. We have advertised, and I'm assuming that the applicant, we have just advertised automobile/truck heating, air conditioning refrigeration repair and replacement business. MS. CIPPERLY-And what were the other? MR. CARVIN-And then other possible uses, which I believe have not been advertised, are gas tank renewal franchise, office space and/or storage space. Now the applicant has indicated that up through refrigeration repair and replacement, those are the primary uses, and these others would be secondary uses. Now, I can' t grant a variance on a secondary use that hasn't been advertised, as far as I'm concerned, in a residential zone. MS. CIPPERLY-We have, in the past, advertised the uses, every use that, for instance, if somebody wanted a dental office and office space in addition, we advertised it that way. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but I'm saying, has this been the case? Have we advertised a gas tank renewal franchise, office space and/or storage space? MS. CIPPERLY-No. MR. CARVIN-No. Okay. Does everybody on the Board understand where I'm coming from? In view of that, I think this Board can only hear the heating and air conditioning and refrigeration aspect. That if you want those other incidental uses, I think that a Use Variance would have to be applied for there. Now, that puts us at the cross roads of indecision. I don't know if we can re-advertise this, or if you want to proceed. MARK LEVACK - 29 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) MR. LEVACK-Mr. Chairman, Mark Levack here on behalf of the DeGregorio's. I'd like to go back a little bit and just kind of take a look at what the history of the property involved, and we've got some old aerial photographs of how much of a mess this property was. I think everybody's familiar with the past history of the property. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm going to keep it focused on the issue here. MR. LEVACK-Okay. The issue is was the neighborhood informed, and do you feel comfortable making a decision without have a specific ,advertised use. That's the issue I'm going to try to address right now. We've got a color coded chart here that shows all the people that the DeGregorio's took the time to go talk to, one on one, and you have, in your records, a list of their comments, and I read through all these comments and I think it's just wonderful how the DeGregorio's have had overwhelming neighborhood support on behalf of what they've done. The case is we have some people with a huge investment on the line here, that every month is a financial burden to them, and this is why we're sitting here. We feel, not to go over old ground, but we don't even feel that we should be here because of it is a very similar use, and it was a permitted grandfathered use, but because the Town has asked them to be here tonight, we're here tonight, but they've gone a step beyond that, and they've taken the time to speak to each and every person on the block and the overwhelming support from these neighbors, as they've defined it to them, if you'd like to hear from them this evening, to hear that they've discussed in dètail what they plan to do with each one of these neighborhood members, I don't think that it's a case here that this neighborhood is not informed of what they plan to do with the property and it's total scope and entirety. MR. CARVIN-I'm still coming back to, I have a legal problem with the advertising. I mean, you may feel very comfortable moving ahead, but I'll guarantee somebody next week will tell me that it wasn't advertised properly. MR. AUFFREDOU-Just to complete what Mark is saying, the DeGregorio's went to approximately 16 or 17 of their neighbors with a prepared letter, which is part of the record, copies were forwarded to Jim Martin, and in that letter, they described to each of their neighbors what it is that they intended to do with this property. If I may just read from that letter, "we also may use the building for our gas tank renew franchise, which involves injection of a sealant into existing gasoline tanks, so that they do not have to be replaced. It is also possible that we will rent out part of the existing building for storage and administrative offices." I know that doesn't address your legal concern, but the reason why Mark and I are mentioning that is because the overwhelmingly, it seems predominantly, if not exclusively, the responses from the neighbors were, Jack and Gail, go for it. Great job. You've done a wonderful job with this property, keep going for it. We don't have any objections to what you want to do. With respect to my application, and crafting it the way that I did, again, my purpose was to put before this Board the possible uses that the DeGregorio's were going to implement at this property. That's not the primary use. It is possible that they will use these as accessory uses or as incidental uses. I think they'd like a ruling from the Board as to whether or not the Board would find those uses objectionable or not. That's what we're asking for. We don't know, tonight, whether or not Mr. DeGregorio will put his gas tank renewal franchise there or not, but I think what we would be looking for tonight from the Board is an indication as to whether or not this Board would find those uses objectionable. I'm not sure we're necessarily looking for a ruling from the Board as to, yes, you will allow a gas tank renewal franchise tonight or not. I would be comfortable hearing from you tonight whether or not you feel that the uses are consistent enough or in line enough with the - 30 - ~ ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) primary use that is going to be there, if that makes you feel more comfortable proceeding in that fashion. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'll leave it to the Board's discretion. Does anybody have any thoughts? MR. THOMAS-I think you're right. We have to make sure that it was advertised if that's something that may come about, and I, personally: don't want to voice a comment on that, because it mig~t give the owner some indication of what may happen in the future lf they need another Use Variance for it, and I may not be here to voice that opinion in the future. So I have to stick with what's before me, and I wouldn't even really feel comfortable discussing something that's not in the application. MR. CARVIN-Bob, any thoughts on how you want to proceed on this? MR. KARPELES-I didn't get a copy of those responses. I thought it was a real interesting letter, but. MR. CARVIN-Which response are you referring to, Bob? MR. KARPELES-The responses to the letter. You said there were 19? MR. THOMAS-I've got them here. MR. CARVIN-Nobody's got those. They'll probably be read into the record. MR. THOMAS-What they are, Bob, is they're all the same letter signed by different people. MR. KARPELES-They just signed that letter? MR. THOMAS-Well, each individual signed the same letter. MR. AUFFREDOU-With comments. MR. THOMAS-With comments. signed. Some have comments. Some have just MR. KARPELES-After hearing the comments and public hearing and so forth, the way X understand it, you're not asking us to vote on this tonight? MR. AUFFREDOU-Not necessarily, no. MR. KARPELES-I think I'd be willing to give an opinion as to how I felt. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I'd be willing to give an opinion on how I felt, and I think we could probably proceed on the part that has been advertised. Couldn't we? MR. CARVIN-Yes. I'm not opposed to proceeding. I just don't want to get off into this Board making a decision. I mean, if it comes to a vote, this is all that I've got that I think we can grant a variance on. I just don't want this Board, and I wouldn't want to leave the impression with the applicant that, by voting for this particular application, that we're giving a blessing to some of these other secondary uses. MRS. LAPHAM-If they wanted to discuss the other uses, they could be re-advertised, or re-applied for. MR. CARVIN-Yes. What he's asking is to get an opinion whether he - 31 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) thinks that this Board would be in favor of these secondary uses, and I would have to agree with Mr. Green that I think we want to be very careful about rendering an opinion without having it properly advertised, and not having a proper format. I'm not saying we can't. I'm leaving it to the applicant whether he wants to revise his application or proceed with what's before us, and what we can. My feeling is we're here tonight. We'll proceed with what we have. Just a comment. We are trying to be thorough as we can. There was no, I don't know if there could be a finger pointed at us as to why it wasn't advertised. We don't get involved in that. MR. CARVIN-I think they took off your first page, which stopped at replacement business. MR. AUFFREDOU-I note in the Warren County resolution that they did. MR. CARVIN-Correct, and that just adds more confusion to the chaos. I don't know what Warren County was presented, and I'm just having. MR. AUFFREDOU-Warren County was presented with the exact same documents that YOU were presented, and we made no presentation to Warren County. It was just a blanket approval resolution. ~ MR. CARVIN-Well, that may be Warren County for you, but unfortunately, we're here, and that's where we are. MR. GREEN-I don't have a problem proceeding with the refrigeration, heating, going along with that, but I would refrain from making an opinion on anything other than that, simply because it wasn't advertised, or until he can prove that it was. MR. THOMAS-No. I think we should go ahead with what we've got, but no vote until we re-advertise it properly, discuss the other parts, and then vote on it. MR. AUFFREDOU-Can we vote on what we have? MR. THOMAS-No. MR. CARVIN-Why not? MR. THOMAS-I would say that they would need a separate application, to me. MR. AUFFREDOU-Vote on what was advertised. MR. CARVIN-Yes. We can certainly vote on what's before us. MR. THOMAS-And then hear another whole variance? MR. CARVIN-I just want to make specifically, you know, very clear that what we're voting on stops after refrigeration repair and replacement. That if, next week, they open up a gas tank repair, that that, at least in illY view, would be in violation of the zone. MR. THOMAS-Yes, it would, that's why I say. MR. CARVIN-If they want those specifics, then I would say that they could either revise this application, or we can proceed and then they can come back at a later point. MR. THOMAS-I would say, like I said, hear it up to that point, let them re-advertise it, and then we can hear the rest of it, and then vote. Why vote twice? That's how X feel about it. MRS. LAPHAM-Because those were secondary uses that they didn't seem to be that concerned at, and there's been a lot of preparation, so why not hear it and vote on what they did do, and then if they - 32 - '-../ -../' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) don't want those uses, they're finished. They don't have to come back, and if they do decide they want them, then they would come back. MR. THOMAS-All right. That sounds fair. MR. KARPELES-Sounds good to me. MR. CARVIN-All right. Does the applicant understand where we're coming from? MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes. MR. CARVIN-So we'll move forward with what we've got. Are there ,any questions of the applicant with regard to his application? MR. AUFFREDOU-I just want to understand. tonight on what was advertised? We can get to a vote MR. CARVIN-Sure. MR. GREEN-Yes. -- MR. CARVIN-Anybody got any questions? Did you want to make a comment with regard to the application? MR. AUFFREDOU-Just briefly, Mr. Chairman. Again, I don't know if I ever introduced myself. My name's Martin Auffredou, and I'm an attorney with the Bartlett, Pontiff firm in Glens Falls, and I'm here on behalf of Jack and Gail DeGregorio. Sitting to my right, who's already introduced himself, is Mark Levack. I asked Mark to be here tonight to help the DeGregorio's with their burden of proving to the Board dollars and cents proof for this Use Variance, and he is prepared to make that presentation to the Board. I think he has made some submittals to the Board which are very thorough and very accurate, and I think very helpful to this Board in making its determination. Jack and Gail DeGregorio are also here this evening, and will be delighted to speak to the Board about what the intended use of the property is and what they've done with the property over the past several years in detail. I think you will find that their testimony will be very thorough and very complete. There have been some environmental issues and concerns with this property that have been identified and remediated. Mr. Tom Jarrett was gracious enough to stay around for a little while longer. We had a project that was on here earlier tonight, and the reason why he's here, and I've asked him to stay is because he was the engineer who was in charge of the investigation and remediation, and as of May 10, 1996, Mr. Jarrett was able to receive from the Department of Environmental Conservation a letter which is in the record indicating that no further investigation or remediation on the subject site is required, as far as the environmental goes. Basically, just a couple of points that I wanted to make, is that this property is a pre-existing, nonconforming use in a residential zone. It has been operated since at least 1965 as a heavy equipment trucking repair sales type of an operation. Gray's trucking operated on the property from 1965 until approximately 1977, when Loggers acquired the property and operated their logging and heavy equipment business there. From 1977 through 1994, Loggers operated their business at the subj ect premises. Gail DeGregorio became the title owner to the property in 1989 and leased the premises to Logger's. For the last couple of years, my clients have been engaged in a very substantial and significant clean up of the premises, which has not only delayed their use of the property as they hoped to use it and intend to use it, but it has also cost them great expense. I'm not going to get into the numbers. That's what Mark Levack is here for, as far as the reasonable return on the property, which I think is a finding that you need to make, and he's going to be talking about that in a few - 33 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) minutes. I just wanted to give you that historical background of the property, and again reiterate that we did contact nearly all of the neighbors in the vicinity to get their thoughts on the Use Variance, again, predominantly, if not entirely, they're in favor of this. We feel that this is something that is consistent with the prior uses of the property. The use of the property does border a commercial zone. Mr. DeGregorio operates North Country Radio and Repair, which is nearby. It is a similar use, if not identical use, automotive and truck repair. It is consistent with the character of the community and the neighborhood, and I think those findings are very easy for you to make. I don't think that there's any question that the hardship is self created. I've thought about this through and through, and I just can't see -how any of the findings couldn't be made tonight. I'm not qualified to talk about the dollars and cents, and that's what Mr. Levack is here for, and I just wanted him to touch briefly on that at this point. MR. LEVACK-My name's Mark Levack, agent for the DeGregorio's. I've made a simple two step scenario that addresses this Use Variance, and the purpose of this feasibility analysis is to demonstrate, "in dollars and cents form", that the property cannot yield a reasonable rate of return if the requested variance is denied, and it's simply speaking, scenario one, the DeGregorio's have a $300,000 investment in this property, and seeking a simple and fair 10% rate of return, they would need a $30,000 per year, per annum, cash on cash back, apply that to their 8,400 square foot building, and it would meet a $3.50 per square foot triple net lease price to recapture their investment. As it stands, the DeGregorio's would need to affect this lease rate to get that return. If they were to sell the building, they would need a $330,000 sale price, which would equate to $39 a square foot. I think that both of these figures are very fair and realistic, attainable, supportable figures. If you apply that to the Use Variance being denied, they would need to demolish the existing structures. I don't think it's reasonable by any stretch of the imagination to assume that those buildings would be turned into residential properties. A very conservative $25,000 demolition cost and the construction of a new 2500 square foot home on one lot would total about a $475,000 investment. To achieve that same 10% rate of return, they would need to lease that house at $4,000 a month, which it's unrealistic, again, to assume that they're going to get $3,000 a month over and above any fair market rate for that house rental. I have some further notation on what they would need to sell that home for, and obviously a home of that size in that neighborhood would bring between $125,000 and $130,000 and in that scenario, they would lose over $45,000. So without getting into a lot of appreciation allowances and some other accounting, I think it's clear that they can get a reasonable rate of return, if the property is used as zoned. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. Anything additional? MR. AUFFREDOU-At this time, no. Any questions of the applicant? MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. CARVIN-Is there any correspondence? MR. THOMAS-Yes. A letter dated May 10, 1996, addressed to Mr. James Martin, Executive Director "Dear Jim: Our law firm represents Gail DeGregorio, the owner of the building and premises located on Lawton Avenue as detailed in the attached copy of a survey of the subject property. As I indicated to you during our telephone conversation of Friday May 10, 1996, Gail's husband, Jack - 34 - ..J (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) DeGregorio, intends to use the bui~ding for the. purpose of operating an automobile and truck repalr shop. Speclflcally, Mr. DeGregorio intends to operate an automobile/truck heating, air conditioning and refrigeration replacement and/or repair shop. In addition, Mr. DeGregorio owns a franchise for a gas tank renew process whereby a sealant is injected into existing gasoline tanks to repair leaks so that the tanks do not have to be replaced. Mr. DeGregorio intends to use the subject building and premises for that purpose as well. In addition, Mr. DeGregorio would like to be able to rent out a portion of the building for storage and/or administrative offices. You have indicated that based upon your review of this matter and, in light of the prior uses of this property, that the intended use would require a use variance· from the zoning board. Preliminarily, I would point out that we believe the proposed use is similar enough to the prior use as to not warrant a use variance application. Moreover, as set forth in detail herein, the proposed use is much less intensive than the prior use and we would think that the Town would welcome the proposed use at the subj ect location. Nevertheless, if a use variance application is required, we would proceed with such an application. We do believe that our clients have the grounds for such a use variance. The history of this subject property is as follows: In 1965, Edward Gray d/b/a Gray Truck and Equipment Sa:les acquired the property. Mr. Gray utilized the property for major vehicle repair including trucks, buses and heavy construction equipment. Mr. Gray did sell and repair skidders and logging equipment at the property as well, but it was obvious the use was not strictly limited to the sale and repair of logging equipment. By deed dated May 10, 1997, Loggers Equipment Sales, Inc. ("Loggers") acquired the subject property from Saul Silverstein as the Executor of the Estate of Edward Gray. Loggers sold and repaired logging equipment at the subject property including skidders and other various heavy machinery. In addition, a logging business was conducted. Our belief is that Loggers acquired Lots 86 and 87, as depicted on the enclosed map in 1979 and subsequently stored logging equipment and other heavy equipment on those lots. In any event, it is apparent that Loggers operated a very intensive use at the property which included the sale, service and repair of logging equipment. By deed dated AprilS, 1989, Gail DeGregorio acquired Lots 86 through 89, including the subject building from Loggers. Loggers leased the premises from Gail DeGregorio through December 1, 1994, and continued its use at the subject property. Since December 1, 1994, the property has essentially been vacant, but Jack and Gail DeGregorio have been involved in a rather significant and expensive environmental cleanup of the subject site. An environmental site assessment was prepared at considerable expense by H. Thomas Jarrett, P.E. and, the DeGregorios have completed, at great expense, the necessary cleanup of the property. Finally, as you are well aware, the subject property borders a commercial zone along Route 9. There are numerous commercial operators in the immediate vicinity. As a result, we submit that the proposed use of the property is consistent with the character of the community and neighborhood. The DeGregorios are obviously very eager to get this matter behind them so that they can operate a business at their property for which they have spent a considerable sum of money to acquire and cleanup. They are in the process of contacting all the neighbors in the general vicinity to discuss the proposed use of the property and to see if the neighbors have any strong objections. The results of these inquiries will be made available to you upon request. Please review this summary at your earliest convenience and advise whether a use variance is necessary. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation. Sincerely, Martin D. Auffredou" A letter dated May 15, 1996, addressed to Martin D. Auffredou "Dear Martin: I am in receipt of your letter dated 5/10/96 concerning the property of Jack DeGregorio which is located along Lawton Avenue in the Town of Queensbury. I have reviewed the contents of the letter, the history of this parcel as a site for heavy - 35 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) equipment repair and sales and the current zoning over the parcel. In consideration of the above it is my determination that a use variance would be required to utilize the parcel as a location for automobile/truck repair shop. I hope this letter serves to confirm my determination made to you over the telephone. As always, should you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, James M. Martin, AICP Executive Director, Community Development" A letter dated May 10, 1996, addressed to Ms. Gail DeGregorio, regarding Spill No. 9412628, former Logger's Equipment, Lawton Avenue, Queensbury, NY "Dear Ms. DeGregorio: The March 1996 Supplemental Environmental Site Assessment report for the above referenced site, prepared by H. Thomas Jarrett, P.E. has been received and reviewed. This report included copies of disposal receipts for petroleum-contaminated soil which was excavated from the site, a copy of the 1988 Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment prepared by C.T. Male Associates, and a narrative of recent investigation and remediation measures with supporting documentation. Based upon the information provided in the report, no additional investigation or remediatiGn is required at this time. This spill number has been closed. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Suna Stone- McMasters Env. Engineering Technician 1" .-- MR. CARVIN-Chris, do you have any other Correspondence? This is all supplemental stuff, isn't it? What about the neighbors? Lets get the public input. MR. THOMAS-A letter from Jack and Gail DeGregorio, 8 Kendrick Road, Queensbury, NY, it's addressed "Dear Neighbor: My wife, Gail and I reside on the corner of Kendrick Road and Lawton Avenue in the Town of Queensbury. We also own Lots 86 through 89 on Lawton Avenue and the associated building as depicted on the attached map. As you are aware, for many years, Lots 86 through 89 and the associated building were utilized for a logging business and heavy equipment sales and repair. Gail and I now propose to use the property for a much less intensive use in the nature of automobile and truck heating/air conditioning and refrigeration repair or replacement. We also may use the building for our gas tank renew franchise, which involves injection of a sealant into existing gasoline tanks so that they do not have to be replaced. It is also possible that we will rent out part of the existing building for storage and/or administrative offices. We are told by the Town of Queensbury that we will need a use variance or other special permission to conduct this business and/or uses because the use is neither the sale or service of heavy equipment and logging equipment, nor is it the operation of a logging business. At this point, Gail and I would like to know whether or not you have any objections to our proposed use. As I think you can see, we have made significant improvements to the property. We will maintain the property in excellent condition. Please take a moment to list your name and address together with any comments that you may have on our proposal. Please indicate any specific objections that you may have to our proposed use. Finally, we ask that you sign below as well." The letter is signed by Jack DeGregorio and the first response comes from a Miriam E. Rook, 4 Kendrick Road, Queensbury, there's no comment; The next one is signed by Mr. and Mrs. John Ellingsworth, with a comment "The DeGregorios are ambitious, hardworking business people and have our support in whatever they undertake. ", and it's signed by John P. Ellingsworth and Heide Ellingsworth; the same letter signed by Barry Enterprises, Inc., Remington Bar & Grill, Comments: "No problems with plan." Signed by Michael A. Barry; Same letter, signed by This N That Shop, with the Comments: "I have no problem at all with these proposed changes", signed by Charles, I can't read the last name; The same letter, from Linda Combs, 95 Montray Road, Comments: "I live directly behind the DeGregorios' auto radiator garage. They have always been conscious of the neighborhood in the noise level and maintenance of the property. I have no problem with them opening - 36 - '-../' ',- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) their proposed business on Lawton Roa~."; The same lette:r;, f~om Winchip Door Co., Inc., 3 Sweet Road, Slgned by Robert S. Wlnchlp, Comments: "Jack DeGregorio has always made improvements to our neighborhood. I think it's a great idea."; A letter signed by Richard Havens, 93 Montray Road, Comments: "Any use of this property is an ecological improvement over its prior use"; A letter signed by Mr. and Mrs. G. Kouba, 80 Montray Road, Comments: "The proposed operation is a great improvement over the previous unsatisfactory use of this property. We urge the Town of Queensbury to approve this change."; A letter signed by Jay G. Mayer, 94 Montray Road, Queensbury, Comments: The DeGregorio's and North Country Radiator have always been good neighbors and have enhanced our environment." That's all I have, that I can' find right now. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other public comment? Okay. Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Does anyone have any questions of the applicant? MR. THOMAS-I've got another one. -- MR. CARVIN-All right. Read it in. MR. THOMAS-It's signed by William Minarchi of the Brown's Welcome Inn, with the Comments: "We agree with Jack and Gail." MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is that it? MR. THOMAS-That does it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Again, any other public comment? If not, public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-I have just a question. The heating air conditioning refrigeration repair and so forth, is that going to be primarily indoors, I mean, all of these activities? JACK DEGREGORIO MR. DEGREGORIO-My name is Jack DeGregorio. There was a question asked, occasionally we do work on a truck outside. Sometimes we can't get them in the building. You may have a large truck that has a trailer attached to it, but that's on a rare occasion. MR. CARVIN-Okay. What would that be like for air conditioning? MR. DEGREGORIO-Air conditioning. That's a seasonal, when we get into the hot weather. MR. CARVIN-Are these air conditioning units primarily automotive in nature? MR. DEGREGORIO-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. things like that? I don't know, like big refrigerator trucks, MR. DEGREGORIO-We don't work on refrigeration trucks. We do it in the part that's in the cab of the vehicle. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So would you work on Frigidaires or things like that, freezer units or refrigerator units, like home use or commercial restaurant type use? - 37 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) MR. DEGREGORIO-No, we don't do that. It would be auto related. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Are there any gases or coolants that you deal with that may be either flammable or odorous or dangerous. MR. DEGREGORIO-Well, we're working with the Freeon 12, which they discontinued making as of December 31st of '95, and when it's depleted, you can't buy it anYmore, in the U.S. anyway, but they have the 134, which we use, and a new type which won't hurt the ozone. That's going to be retrofit especially for that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is this a flammable gas, is it? MR. DEGREGORIO-No. There is some bootleg stuff out there, as I read in different things. We don't do anything like that. I don't have the environmental specs on that. Whoever has air conditioning in their car right now has it. If you have an accident, that hurts the ozone layer. MR. CARVIN-I'm thinking more along the lines, I don't know how your storage capacity, I'm assuming that somebody comes in and they need a unit charged. So you must have a tank or something? --- MR. DEGREGORIO-We have a 30 pound (lost word) that we buy, which is DOT approved. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Do you know if it's flammable? MR. DEGREGORIO-The Freeon itself? MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. DEGREGORIO-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay. How about in relation to the heating business. Would this be, like, oil heaters or gas heaters would there be any flammables stored on premises? MR. DEGREGORIO-Heaters (lost word) antifreeze, and it would go through the cooling system, and that's how you get the heat to the heater coils. We don't have any gas heaters, per se. In the older days, most of them had the exhaust heaters, but we don't do anything like that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So, again, when I see heating, this is in relation, and all of these uses are in relation to automotive? MR.' DEGREGORIO-Auto, trucks. MR. CARVIN-Or trucks. MR. DEGREGORIO-Motor homes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Yes, I just didn't know if you got involved with the I don't know, a big refrigerator out of a restaurant where the~e's a door, where you have to get rid of some of this stuff. MR. DEGREGORIO-We don't do that type. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions? That's about all I've got. So there's no significant safety issue to the community, I mean, there's no more dangerous use there being proposed? MR. DEGREGORIO-I've been there 20 years, and it's no more of a change than what I've been doing for the past 20 years in that location. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions anybody? - 38 - \'-.....- --' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) MRS. LAPHAM-I'm confused, when you said it's no different than what you've been doing in the location, are you moving the Glen Street business back to Lawton, or are you going to have both shops? MR. DEGREGORIO-Well, part of it. We're tight for space right now. There'll be part of it there. So we'll be using part of it. MR. THOMAS-I have no problem with it. MR. AUFFREDOU-I'd like to point out, Mr. Chairman, we have some photographs here, for those of you who may have visited the property, or for those of you who may not have. If you'd like to see them, there are some historical photographs of the property and some photographs now exists and has been improved by the DeGregorio's, if you'd like them. MR. CARVIN-Any thoughts or comments? MR. KARPELES-I have no problem with this. It looks like an improvement to me. The neighbors seem to be happy with it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Bill? -- MR. GREEN-Bonnie just gave me an idea, just a quick question. Is this going to be a separate business or contingent with your other business? I mean, is this going to be advertised as an entirely separate entity, or is it going to be used as basically a back up for your now existing business? MR. DEGREGORIO-It would be part of the same company, the same, two streets, but the same operation. MR. GREEN-Okay. I guess I was just curious about the traffic coming and going. If my radiator blew, would I drive here or drive to the other business, or could I do either? MR. DEGREGORIO-You'd drive to our main shop on Route 9. MR. GREEN-Okay, and then I would be sent over here, or whatever, if necessary. Okay. I don't have a problem. MR. DEGREGORIO-If you had any idea of the traffic, I've lived on the corner for 18 years, have you been past the premises, not because I haven't. I mean, I take pride in what I do, and we've really done a lot of cleanup. Some of the stuff we did wasn't even necessary to do. I live there. MRS. LAPHAM-First of all, I have no problem with this, and I must comment that the way the property is sited, backing up to a bar, and with all commercial establishments all on that side, and the houses on the other side all face Mont ray , I'm sure purposely, with big fences that, Mark, I would find you amazing if you could find anybody to buy that lot for a single family residence at all, let alone for $130,000. I really don't think that the DeGregorio's could get any kind of return on their property the way it is. MR. CARVIN-Okay. The operation of the air conditioning, refrigeration and repair, is this going to be under your domain, or is this going to be something that you're going to let out to somebody else, I mean, will you sublease this? MR. DEGREGORIO-I own the business. I would be under our present. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I don't have any real challenges with this. I'd ask for a motion, then, if there's no objection. MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 44-1996 JACK & GAIL DEGREGORIO, Introduced by Robert Karpeles who moved for its adoption, seconded - 39 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) by Bonnie Lapham: The applicant is proposing to use their land and buildings as a hea~ing, air conditioning, refrigeration repair and replacement buslness. It appears that a reasonable return is not possible if the land is used as zoned, and that's been proven pretty well by ~he l~tter that ,we've gotten from Levack Real Estate. The hardship lS unlque to thlS property. The property was used in the past for a similar use, but more obj ectionable use, actually, and an environmental condition developed which would make it impractical to sell this lot for residential use. It would appear that there are no adverse effect on the character of the neighborhood, as this was used for a more objectionable use in the past, and there would appear to be no adverse effect on the neighborhood health, safety and welfare of the community if this is granted. A review of the Short Environmental Assessment Form indicates a negative declaration. Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: MS. CIPPERLY-Well, would you like to, you're apparently granting for the air conditioning, refrigeration repair and replacement business. Are you addressing the other issue under a separate application? MR. CARVIN-That is correct. That's all we are granting is just what has been advertised and requested, so that the supplemental uses of the gas tank renewal franchise and office space and/or storage space is not approved. MR. AUFFREDOU-We understand that. We were requesting that, but we understand it wasn't advertised. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, it also was not listed on your Short Environmental Assessment Form. MR. CARVIN-Again, we've gone over that ground. I just want to make sure that the applicant understands, that Staff understands what the motion is granting. Okay. If there are no questions, and everybody's on the same page, I'll ask for a vote. AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Menter, Mr. Ford MR. AUFFREDOU-Thank you very much. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. USE VARIANCE NO. 47-1996 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-1A/MHO SPRINT SPECTRUM, L.P. OWNER: WILLIAM & CATHERINE EHLERT 106 LUZERNE ROAD, JUST WEST OF I-87 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 150 FT. HIGH COMMUNICATIONS ANTENNA AND FIVE RADIO EQUIPMENT CABINETS WHICH WILL BE 30 IN. BY 30 IN. BY 60 IN. HIGH. RELIEF IS NEEDED FROM THE USES ALLOWED IN SECTION 179-26. CROSS REF. SPR 30-96 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/12/96 TAX MAP NO. 93-2-4 LOT SIZE: 3.75 ACRES SECTION 179-26 PHIL PEARSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 47-1996, Sprint Spectrum, L.P., Meeting Date: June 19, 1996 "APPLICANT: Sprint Spectrum, L.P., PROJECT LOCATION: 106 Luzerne Road PROPOSED PROJECT AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: The applicant is proposing to - 40 - '--" '-- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) construct a 150 foot high communications tower and five radio equipment towers in a LI-1A zone. The towers will be 30 in. by 30 in. by 60 in high. This use requires relief from the uses listed in Section 179-26. The review criteria for utilities such as this are different than the typical tests used in other use variances. Based on the case of Cellular Telephone Co. v Rosenburg, 82 NY 2d 364 (1993), the New York Court of appeals established this new test. As a result, companies such as Sprint Spectrum need only prove that their service is needed in order to eliminate a gap in their service within the utilities coverage area. The applicant has submitted documentation and will present graphic information proving that the proposed tower at this site will eliminate a service gap. Presently, the closest tower to this location is nine miles to the south of this site." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 12th day of June 1996, the above application for a Use Variance to construct alSO' high communications antenna and placement of up to 5 radio equipment cabinets. was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Approve" Signed by C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. CARvIN-Okay. Does everyone understand what the applicant is requesting? Is there any questions of the applicant? MR. KARPELES-Yes. I do. On this page that we've got here, this site, is that a mistake there? I thought it was Luzerne. MR. CARVIN-It is. is right here. Luzerne Road. Yes. The arrow comes into here, Bob. The arrow Here's the end of the thing. So here's your MR. PEARSON-The northwest corner of the intersection of Luzerne Road. It's pointing to the back here. It goes this way. It's confusing. MR. CARVIN-It confused me, too. MR. THOMAS-X knew where it was. MR. CARVIN-I did two, after two hours. MR. KARPELES-I went back there and I figured that had to be it. MRS. LAPHAM-But then when you see something that says it might not, if you looked at the right site, right? MR. KARPELES-Well, I wondered if it went all the way over, because, you know, it's hard to figure out the distances involved there. Does that go, where that lot is cleared now, those trees that show on here, are those the trees that are there right now? So this goes back into those trees? MR. PEARSON-It goes back into the trees that are there at that northwest corner. That's correct. MR. KARPELES -Okay, and that's still quite a ways from Sherman Avenue, I presume. That power line that goes through there, is there any requirement that you have to be a certain distance from a power line? MR. PEARSON-That is not a requirement. MR. KARPELES-That's all the questions X have. MR. CARVIN-Does anybody else have any questions? On your Long Environmental Form, you indicated, I think, under Energy, electricity. Does this thing use a lot of electricity or is this - 41 - '~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) just normal electrical current? MR. PEARSON-It's equivalent to a single home use. It's 100 amp service, not equivalent to what single family would do. MR. CARVIN-I'm not a cellular telephone expert, but is this all microwave type of stuff, is it, or is this? ,MR. PEARSON-Maybe I'll have Dick Brown, our Chief RF Engineer answer that and he will then get into some discussion on the propagation maps and the need for this, if we can do that. MR. CARVIN-Sure. MR. PEARSON-Would you like to do it that way? MR. CARVIN-Well, I just want to know if this thing is like some of the high wire lines that may pose a danger. So, I just want to know what the danger element is here. DICK BROWN MR. BROWN-No. We do not use microwave for our interconnect switching center. We will use the wire which we will lease from New York Tel. There are no microwave dishes on the structure. MR. CARVIN-Okay. It's a radio wave? It's not like, you know, some of these high energy voltage things? MR. BROWN-No. It's a radio transmitting, receiving station. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So it's no different than an a.m./f.m. radio type of situation? MR. BROWN-It's very low power, but similar, yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions? MR. THOMAS-Yes. I have a couple. There are two towers to the south of this site. One owned by Cellular One and another owned by Nynex, and I do believe both have microwave dishes on them that are leased to other companies and you don't propose to lease out any of this antenna? MR. BROWN-No, we do not. I believe that those are used for their own internal interconnect (lost words) back into their networks. There could also be some capacity on them. We have no present plan to do that. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and the antenna on top of the 150 foot tower, are they just like whip antennas that stick up? MR. BROWN-No. What we're using is a panel antenna which is plastic radon with a metal backing about this size and vertical, four to five feet vertical. They look much like a plastic rectangle. MR. THOMAS-About four or five feet in length. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. You have one for every radio cabinet? MR. BROWN-There will be a triangular platform at the top of the tower, and each of those will initially have two antennas. They would have the expansion capability to have two more antennas. So eventually there would be as many as 12 of these, four on each of three places. - 42 - ---./ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. CARVIN-Which kind of brought up another question that I had, and this may have more to do with competition. I am assuming that Sprint Spectrum, L. P. stands for Limited Partnership, so, I'm assuming that you have your own system, and I don't assume that you have, you guys are the only ones out there. So, ,there ma~ be, you know, X Y Z company. Are we going to be posslbly looklng at a proliferation of these towers allover the place, or are these common carriers? LARRY CALLANDER MR. CALLANDER-Just for the record, my name is Larry Callander, and I'm a Property Specialist and work with the property group with Sprint Spectrum. That particular issue is, I would guess the best way to address that is what we're providing is the latest and enhanced version of wireless communications in New York State. We will be competing directly with Cellular at this particular point in time which there are two carriers now. Nynex is one, Bell Atlantic Nynex Mobile, and Cellular One Communications is the other competitor that we have in this market. We are providing a similar type service, although we believe it will provide better cov~rage and more enhanced capabilities than what Cellular can provide right now. Our signal is an all digital signal. We operate at a higher frequency, but there's a major difference between ours and Cellular's carriers, is that our signals that are received and transmitted are digitized. It offers much more security for the individual user. You can't eavesdrop on a call on our system, because if you did, all you would hear is roughly a different type of static because it is a digitized signal and can't be decoded. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but you're not answering my question. Suppose next week, Next Tel Communication or Air Touch Communications comes into town and decides they want to put up a 150 foot tower. MR. CALLANDER-Well, that's what I was getting at. I kind of wanted to explain where the industry is at right now. We are one of two carriers that have been granted licenses by the Federal Communications for a Personal Communications Service, or PCS as we call it. The other competitor directly with us is Omni Point. Omni Point communications is principally, at this time it's my understanding they're that they're focusing their efforts on the New York City Metropolitan area, and I'm not aware if they are looking to develop any sites in Upstate New York at this particular time. Our attack is a little bit different than what I think our competition has been doing, but is gradually coming around to the fact of allowing co location. We will allow other users, even our competitors, Omni Point Communications, if they were so inclined, to locate on our tower. In order for them to do that, I would suspect that they would be required to come in before the Zoning Board, even if they wanted to co-locate on our existing tower, but as a company policy, we encourage co-location, and if there was another user that came in, we would be interested in discussing with them the possibility of leasing space on our tower. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but I'm being presented with a challenge that I'm not familiar with, in that you're citing a court case, which I have no idea what it's all about, and I think, at least mY feeling is that we have no criteria to deny this, based upon you coming in and saying, well, we need this because it will enhance our business, and I'm just saying, suppose next week that these other folks show up and say, well, gee whiz, we need to enhance our business. So we need to put up a 200 foot tower, and then a week after that another one of these guys shows up and there's, you know, where could we say no, and can we say no? MR. CALLANDER-I can understand. One thing we are required to - 43 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) demonstrate is our need for this facility, and I'd like to allow us to do a couple of things, to make a presentation to you. First of all, I'd like to have Dick Brown present what our proposed area of cover~ge is and why this particular tower is important to us, and who wll1 present the need for some propagation map in there and demonstrate to you why we need a site at this particular location, and at that particular point in time, one of the major issues I think for anybody in cellular communications tower is what kind of impact this will have on the view shed surrounding the tower, and Phil Pearson with Clough Harbor and Associates has prepared a view shed analysis which I'd like to present to the Board. MR. CARVIN-Lets do it. MR. CALLANDER-Okay. MR. BROWN-Okay. What I'd like to present is a couple of overlays. They have, basically, an underlying map of the Hudson Falls/Glens Falls area, with the 87 corridor through it and the Route 9, of course, going slightly diagonal through it. What we present on this first chart is a colored overlay, and these are computer predictions made by software that is provided by AT&T. Sprint and AT&T are normally competitors, but we are buying some radio frequency engineering services from them. So they have prepared the software for us and run these analysis. The coverage prediction here is color coded with red areas being the areas where are signals are strong enough from the adjoining site. This is not the site we're proposing, but the adjoining site and Hudson Falls and the sites indicated to the south. MR. CALLANDER-I guess, just for the record, because the Board did indicate that our nearest site was located to the south. Since that time, we have acquired a site actually over in the Town of Moreau, which is across the river from the Village of Hudson Falls. So, Dick has overlayed both the site to the south and also the internet that the site that, what we call the Hudson Falls site here is on this particular area. MR. BROWN-As I was indicating, the red areas, the red overlays, are the areas where computer prediction indicates that the signals would be strong enough to operate portable phones, hand held units, inside buildings, buildings like this, commercial buildings and houses, shopping centers and so forth, which we believe is the market that we're trying to drive for, and the blue areas are the areas that the signals are a little bit further away from the central site and are weakened by the terrain, by vegetation and other obstacles, but would still be strong enough to operate the same hand held portables inside vehicles, and the white or the non colored areas well outside that are the areas where operation of the phones would be problematic. They might work if you're outside in an open, clear area, or it might not work, and as you get further away from the site, the probability that it will work will be less and less. If we overlay on this area, I should put out that there's a significant part of the Village of Glens Falls, virtually the entire I-87 corridor, the shopping centers just east of Exit 19, for example, did not have adequate strength from the surrounding sites to either operate phones at all on much of 87 or in building penetration in much of the Village. If we overlay the coverage that's predicted from the site in question, we get now good in building coverage over virtually the entire built up area, the entire 87 corridor. I would also point out that, for this year, this is the only site that we plan to build. This is the most northern site that we plan to build, and further expansion of the system to the north would we would wait probably into '97. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any questions? MR. KARPELES-I've got a question. If I understood you right, you - 44 - -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) said if a competitor came in that they could lease your tower and they wouldn't have to build another tower. There'd be the possibility of doing that anyway. MR. CALLANDER-Right. That's correct. As long as there was no interference between our signal and whatever they were transmitting and receiving, that's possible. MR. KARPELES-Okay. Well, that raises a question in my mind. Could you lease space from these existing towers? MR. CALLANDER-Since we've initiated the real estate process, beginning in January of this year, we've attempted to co-Iocabe and work with Nynex and Cell One, not only sites in this area, but also areas throughout the Albany area and the City of Syracuse. Unfortunately, we're kind of the third guy in the market. There isn' t a lot of incentive for them to allow us on their tower, because the longer we're kept from launching our network and competing with them, that's that much longer they don't have to face that competition, and we haven't been able to, been successful with these sites, with either Cell One or Nynex. MR. KARPELES-So you're saying it's technically feasible, but~ MR. PEARSON-You have to have a willing lessor, and they have not cooperated. MR. KARPELES-Right, but you have explored that? MR. PEARSON-Yes, several locations, and we'd like very much to do that. It would make sense. MR. BROWN-What we mean by we're ready and willing to co-locate is that the towers, by our corporate policy nationwide, are being designed with sufficient structure strength in the towers and the foundations to handle the antennas of at least one additional user on the tower. MR. CARVIN-I guess that kind of leads me back. I mean, this is the same situation. Suppose somebody else comes to town and, you know, you guys are willing but they can't meet your price, the same as you're unwilling to maybe work with your competitors, and I'm under the belief that this industry is being slowly deregulated. So, I mean, competition is being fostered. So how do we, as a Zoning Board, prevent the proliferation, if you will, of a number of these towers? Because I don't care how you try to camouflage it, 150 foot tower is a tough thing to hide. MR. CALLANDER-I'm afraid I don't have an answer for you on that. MR. PEARSON-And the FCC is granting licenses. MR. CARVIN-I guess I'm just in the dark here, because of, apparently, some court case that says that we have to take out the hardship, and all you have to do is prove that it'll benefit your service. MR. PEARSON-That's dictated to all of us by the court system. Are you interested in seeing the balance of the view shed analysis or do you feel (lost words) act on the information that has been presented given the hour and the agenda? MS. CIPPERLY-I'd like to see the view shed information. MR. CARVIN-Sure. MR. PEARSON-I'll try and keep it brief. You are right, Mr. Chai~an. You can't hide a 150 foot tower, and that's something - 45 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) we've been trying to show you that we can do, however, what we did do is what we call a view shed analysis, and the methodology that we used to do this analysis was we flew a weather balloon at the height of the antenna, the location where the antenna would be, and then we drove the surrounding areas to see what the visual impact of that balloon would be, and this is what this map reflects is the yellow is the area where the antenna will be visible, some portion of the antenna. The green is not visible because of the vegetation and the brown areas are not visible because of the topography. So, as you can see, there's a fairly small localized area right around the location of the tower where it can be seen in some portion of it, and it also can be seen slightly from the West Mountain area, but because of the distance, it really is very, very light: We took a photograph from Richardson Street, looking west toward the monopole, and if you look carefully at that one little dip in the tree, you can see the balloon. The view from the Northway bridge over Sherman Avenue, you can see that it's just over the horizon of the trees. The view from Northwinds mobile estates, off Luzerne Road looking east, again, you can see that the antenna will be just above the tree tops. As you're coming northbound lane, near Exit 18 of the Northway, just as you turn off, the top of the antenna will be visible at that point, and then the view from New Hampshire Avenue looking northeast toward the proposed monopole is showrr in Photograph No. Four. This information is contained in the packet that was just distributed to you. The difference in the mapping is that we use a different sYmbol on the map. It's not colored, but the view sheds are the same, the photographs are the same. I guess the point that I want to make is that even though this is alSO foot monopole, the areas won't be visible. MR. CARVIN-Any other questions of the applicant at this point? MR. THOMAS-I have just one more. Did you look at the possibility of putting that tower up on West Mountain along with their other radio transmitting towers? MR. BROWN-We look at a number of things when we look at these sites. The fundamental concept that we use to design the system is significantly different than a cellular tower is. We are operating at frequencies which are roughly twice the frequencies of conventional cellulars. We're operating at 1.8, 1.9 gigahertz range. At that frequency, the losses through trees and hills are significantly higher, and there's significantly less bending or fracturing of radio energy down into valleys. So that drives us to significantly larger number of towers, but much shorter and much lower and much closer to the intended coverage target. So, if we were to go well up on a hill like that, we will provide excellent coverage generally over a two, perhaps four mile radius around the site, but we would have great difficulty reaching into the 87 corridor and the popular areas that we currently have. MR. CARVIN-Any other questions? I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does anybody have anYmore questions? I've just one question. Your nearest competitors, how many towers are there in the immediate area, do you know, approximately, of a similar nature in their locations possibly? MR. CALLANDER-I'm aware of the NYnex and Cell One tower that's located about one mile south of our site. I believe NYnex has a tower somewhere in the Town of Lake George to the north and somewhere in the Town of Kingsbury, I believe. - 46 - ~.'"" --. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) MEMBER OF PUBLIC-Excuse me, yes. There's one on Big Bay Road. That's where we're from, a Cellular One down there, and it's very visible. MR. CARVIN-And do you know how high that, approximately is. MR. CALLANDER-326 feet. MR. CARVIN-326, almost twice the size of this one. looks like a unique situation, if nothing else. Well, this 'MEMBER OF PUBLIC-I would like to say, I appreciate these people asking to do this, because we weren't asked by the last one-that went up, the Cellular One. We weren't invited, and if that tower came down, it would come down across our lots. We weren't invited to participate at that. MR. CARVIN-Is there a code for towers? I don't know. MS. CIPPERLY-I don't know when that was, for one thing. I don't even know if the building permit process, except for the footings. As I said, I don't know when that was installed. So what you're telling me is that we've probably got at least three to four in-the immediate area. Is that a fair assessment? MR. CALLANDER-Well, two that I'm aware of. How far out (lost words) it would be a number of miles beyond that. I'm not aware of where there's anymore towers in Queensbury, but I'm aware of those two. MR. THOMAS-I haven't seen any others in Queensbury, other than those two right there, south of 18. I know where the one is in Lake George. I know where the one is in Chestertown. PLINEY TUCKER MR. TUCKER-The cement company on Big Boom Road has a radio tower, too, for their own personal use. That's quite a ways. MR. CARVIN-All right. I'll entertain a motion, if there's no other questions. MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 47-1996 SPRINT SPECTRUM, L.P., Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: To allow the Sprint Spectrum company to build a 150 foot high communications antenna with up to five radio cabinets measuring 30 inches by 30 inches by 60 inches high. It seems that a court case has declared that cellular communications companies are public utilities and, therefore, are not subject to normal variance applications, citing the court case of cellular telephone company versus Rosenburg, 82 New York Second 364 1993. The applicant has submitted documentation proving that there is a need for this antenna in the location proposed. A review of the Environmental Assessment Form that was attached shows that there is no environmental impact, and make it a negative declaration. Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: MR. CARVIN-The only thing that I would like to comment before we vote is that I think we should refer this to our legal department. I think we should try to get ahead of the curve on this, because I can see, in the future, that we may be seeing a lot more towers, and I would hate to see a trend in the Town where we have, we become a forest of electronical gear. MS. CIPPERLY-I did also speak with the Park Agency to see whether - 47 - --' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) they'd had any experience with this, and right now, they don't have a, I think they're going to look into it a little bit more. So we may be getting some more information back from them, because they have a lot more clout, visually, you know, Queensbury's like the last stop before the blue line. So, it may be an increasing thing for us. MR. CARVIN-Well, it sounds like it's a case that we are starting to see a lot more activity here, and I'm fairly confident in saying that deregulation in this industry is underway, and that the competitors are going to be looking for these spots, and it seems to me it's looking like McDonalds. The first guy with the good spots gets to control the market, but that has nothing to do 'with this application. That's just a comment. MS. CIPPERLY-I think there's significant difference, too, between 150 feet and 326. MR. CALLANDER-I would just like to add, as a matter of record, for you sitting on the Zoning Board and for the Town Planning Department, as a matter of record, we will entertain applications before we lease on our towers. --- MR. CARVIN-Yes. That's in the record, but that doesn't mean that they're going to cohabit with you, if you know what I'm saying. MR. CALLANDER-I understand. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Are we ready? How about a vote, if there's no questions. I'm going to vote no, but you've got four votes, just as a matter of principle. AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green NOES: Mr. Carvin ABSENT: Mr. Menter, Mr. Ford USE VARIANCE NO. 49-1996 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-1A/LI-1A BRIAN O'CONNOR OWNER: RUSS & JAMES O'CONNOR EAST SIDE BIG BOOM ROAD ACROSS FROM CARL R'S APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE PROPERTY INTO TWO LOTS AND CONSTRUCT A GOLF PRACTICE RANGE ON ONE OF THE LOTS. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE USES ALLOWED IN SECTION 179-26. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/12/96 TAX MAP NO. 135-2-1, 7 LOT SIZE: 14.31 ACRES, 4.33 ACRES SECTION 179-26 JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 49-1996, Brian O'Connor, Meeting Date: June 19, 1996 "APPLICANT: Brian O'Connor PROJECT LOCATION: Big Boom Rd. PROPOSED PROJECT AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: The applicant is proposing to subdivide property into two lots and use one of the lots as a golf practice range. This use requires relief from the uses listed in Section 179-26. REVIEW CRITERIA, BASED ON SECTION 267-b OF TOWN LAW: 1. IS A REASONABLE RETURN POSSIBLE IF THE LAND IS USED AS ZONED? Under the current zoning, a reasonable return could probably be realized if this property was used for one of the permitted or site plan uses listed in the Zoning Ordinance. 2. IS THE ALLEGED HARDSHIP RELATING TO THIS PROPERTY UNIQUE, OR DOES IT ALSO APPLY TO A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? It appears that the characteristics of this lot are not any different from other lots in this area with the same zoning. 3. IS THERE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? Some effects may be increased traffic and future requests from adjacent property owners for similar use variances surrounding this location. 4. IS - 48 - ---- -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ADDRESS THE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP PROVEN BY THE APPLICANT AND AT THE SAME TIME PROTECT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY? The applicant may be able to use this property for one of the permitted or site plan uses for the current zoning designation. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: The Zoning Board should determine if the applicant can use this property for at least one of the listed uses under the current zoning. Every test listed under Section 267-b of Town Law must be satisfied in order for any applicant to be considered for a Use Variance. If this type of development occurs at this location, a 50 foot undisturbed buffer will be required between this use and any residentially zoned property. A reduction in this buffer can only be done if· the Zoning Board grants relief under a separate area variance application. SEQR: Unlisted, short form EAF required." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 12th day of June 1996, the above application for a Use Variance to subdivide property line into two lots and construct a golf practice range on 17.63 acre lot. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Approve" Signed by C. powel South, Chairperson. -- MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does everyone understand what the applicant is requesting? Is there any questions of the applicant? MR. THOMAS-Not at this point. MR. CARVIN-I have a question. Have you talked to Curtis Lumber? MR. MILLER-No. MR. CARVIN-You haven't. Does Curtis Lumber realize that this property is available? He says that he hasn't talked. Is there something wrong with this property? What, specifically, is wrong with this property? I'm just curious, because my very next application is telling me that there's no room any place else, and we're talking one block here, folks. MR. MILLER-Mr. Chairman, I think that, if I could explain, some of this land in the rear portion of it is Light Industrial, but a portion of land in the rear is also split zone. It's Single Family One Acre. So it would also require a zone change for their use. MR. CARVIN-I'm still mystified, but okay. Any other questions of the applicant? I guess I got my answer. MR. MILLER-Mr. Chairman, if I may, I'd like to, with a brief presentation, explain a little bit of the history of the site and some of the problems that weren't explained in detail in the application, if I may. MR. CARVIN-Sure. MR. MILLER-My name is Jim Miller, Landscape Architect, and I'm here with Brian O'Connor, the applicant. This first map here is a copy of the Tax Map, with the zone map on it, and we have Corinth Road in this area, and this is Big Boom Road on the west side of the property. The area in yellow is the total holdings of the O'Connors, and it's comprised of a portion of land which is Light Industrial, a little bit less than six acres, bordering Big Boom Road in the rear portion of the site, about 14 and a half acres is Single Family One Acre, and there's less than an acre portion in the very back which is Waterfront Residential One Acre. The only frontage on the property is along Big Boom Road. The surrounding uses, this is Batease Excavating Company. There's Light Industrial. That's Light Industrial. It's Light Industrial across the street, which is where UPS is located. There's also a - 49 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) Commercial Residential surrounding the property. There's a motel. There's Carl R's Restaurant. The front is Mobil Oil, and we have U-Haul in the front. Part of the history of the property, two lots were bought separately by the 0' Connors. The 0' Connors own 0' Connor Construction Company, which is a site development and paving company. The portion of the property that was Light Industrial One Acre was purchased back in the 40's and was used as a sand, borrow pit, back then and for some time thereafter, the rear portion was owned by Warren County, and this area was a Warren County borrow pit. This area was also a borrow pit that was utilized during the construction of the Northway, and I suspect a lot of the material that was used to construct the overpass here at Exit 18 probably came from this area. The 0' Connors purchased' this property in 1986. Since they purchased the property, they have been the original, when they purchased it, there's actually a center of this that drops off very steeply to the back, and the good sand's in the higher area. The center of this area had been excavated out, and what they have been doing since they owned it was that they actually, as a project, excess fill material, they have been trying to, essentially, reclaim this borrow area, and they have been filling it over the years, where now they've got it to a point where it's substantially reclaimed, and I've brought some photos here to sort of give you an idea of the character,/and I'll put these up on your table. The two photos on the top are the front area that's zoned Light Industrial, and you can see it's cleared and it's been filled, but the center area is, this is the area that they have since filled, and the one photo you can see in here where the yellow sands are, that was the native soil, and you can see how that was excavated out, and this is fill material they have since brought in, and this is looking from down, the very lowest end of the site, looking back you can see this is the borrow pit area, how it had been left, and you can see the limits and where they have filled. So one of the problems with using this site, and which I don't really understand the zoning of Single Family One Acre, if it was an existing borrow pit, because we have a narrow area that was disturbed as a borrow pit, and then it's been reclaimed. It's been filled now, and eventually it'll be usable, but in its current condition, with fill up to approximately 20 feet, it can't very easily be developed for building, this is poured foundation. So that's part of the reason why the application was being made to use this area as a golf practice range where the site could be graded off and seeded and some revenue can be generated. The primary development of the site would occur in the area, for a small building and parking area, where services would be brought in. I would also like to comment on Staff's review about reasonable return on the land. This area, for Single Family Residential, first set aside this borrow pit area, the problems with it you can see the remaining character of the land. It's also an area that's completely surrounded by Light Industrial Commercial uses, but access to this property, the only access would be by way of going through a commercial area, and also there's a ravine through here, and the amount of traffic on Big Boom Road, plus it's exposed to the Northway, the amount of traffic and noise and just general activity in the area, really doesn't lend itself to any kind of use for Single Family Residential, especially compared to some of the projects, like Hudson Pointe on the market. It's just not a very viable use. We agree that the Light Industrial portion of the site makes sense, and that is why we propose subdividing the property, where toward the Light Industrial portion of it would remain intact and would stay on the market for sale, and we believe that part of the problem in trying to sell this property, no one wants to purchase five acres of residential and have this left over 15 acre borrow pit that they really don't have much use for, and plus it's zoned Single Family. So it's our intent to subdivide the property and try to maintain as much of the Light Industrial portion of the site as we can, and then utilize this site in a way that will essentially complete the reclamation of it, and at some point down the road, it may be, - 50 - '--' '-../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) there may be a viable use for it. Part of the idea for the subdivision was to provide a frontage on Big Boom Road that could also serve as a future access, if need be. The only other access to this residential part is by way of easements through commercial property. The next question, is the hardship relating to the property unique, I believe it is. It was the County Landfill. They've reclaimed it, and why it's zoned Single Family I have no idea, and there's no other site around it. So it's definitely a unique situation. Adverse effects on the character of the neighborhood, well, when we have Light Industrial along one side, which I don't believe that a practice range would have an impact on, it's all commercial on this side. The U-Haul site comes all the way back, and this is Niagara Mohawk easement that -runs through, and I think there's one residential lot which is currently undeveloped, right in this area that borders this property. The rest of this is zoned Residential, but the site drops away very quickly, and down in this area, you're down on the lower level by the river. This area is about 50 feet below where our site is, and one of the comments Staff made is that the buffer would be required along that, and we've actually tried to design that in, even before we received that comment. So we feel it would be compatible. We also feel that, with residential areas further to the east, this is actually a good buffer in between them. There's two comments brought up at the County, and also one here. One was traffic. This is going to be about 26 practice stations, and this type of use is really an off peak use. It's not, you know, I drive by here every morning, and there's a lot of traffic and especially with UPS here. This type of use is going to be mostly evenings and weekends. There may be some mid day kind of traffic, but for the most part, the traffic that this will generate, first of all, it's not very major, but it's not going to coincide with the peak traffic. The second issue that was brought up was one of lighting. This would be lit. We discussed that. It probably would be shut down by 10 o'clock at night. So it's not going to go late into the night, so that the lighting in the summer time would be a couple of hours. The type of lighting, it's a very focused light, similar to ball field lighting, where you minimize the amount of spill using different types of fixtures, focus the light down to the center and really try to control the spill. Also, the treed buffer around the perimeter of it will contain that and the lighting will have no impact on any uses around there, and the question, is this the minimum variance necessary, and we felt it was. We've tried to provide frontage on Big Boom Road, and we've tried to consolidate the amount of the Light Industrial portion of the site that would be utilized. So we feel this was the minimum requirement in order to develop this type of facility, and the last comment, it said that the Board should determine if the applicant can use the property for at least one of the uses, and I think we agree with that. We think that the Light Industrial use probably makes sense, and that's why we've proposed the subdivision, and we feel that there is a hardship on the rear portion of the property and that's the area we're seeking the variance, and then the last comment that was made by Staff was a 50 foot buffer, which we would want to have anyway. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any questions of the applicant? Okay. If not, I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DEBRA BACON MRS. BACON-I'm Debra Bacon, and I live on Big Bay Road, and a lot of us are here for Curtis Lumber, and our major concern, in the area of growth of Exit 18 is the traffic. I understand they're trying to open up a park on the end of Big Boom Road with access to Big Bay Road which is also going to be a big concern, as far as the kids. Traffic is a major concern. I travel it every day. If I - 51 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) was to go Big Boom Road, it would take me five, ten minutes to get off the road. Big Bay Road is just as bad, and, to me the concern is traffic in that area. They've got to do something. I mean, you've got a lot of shopping centers, Shop N' Save is down there now. It's growing, and my input, and this is the reason why I'm here for Curtis Lumber is the traffic, and the roads aren't big enough over there for what's coming in. MR. CARVIN-Well, I appreciate your concern because I share that concern because I live in that section of town also. MRS. BACON-And the reason I bought that house is because it's quiet there. I mean, I don't live in the West Glens Falls part of-it. MR. CARVIN-Well, alII know is that to try to get out of Carl R's, with the people coming off the Northway, boy, it is, it's a real challenge. MRS. BACON-It's terrible, I know. I mean, if they could do something different in the area as far as traffic, you know, the lights and so forth. MR. CARVIN-I've been told that we're probably several years in~he offing on a solution, unfortunately. Okay. Anyone else wishing to be heard against the application? Any correspondence? MR. THOMAS-No, I didn't see any here. No, no correspondence. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other public comment? Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Are there any questions of the applicant? MR. THOMAS-I would like to comment, you know, that Staff said is there one use that maybe we could find for this property in the list. I'm just going down through the list. The uses in that zone include a freight terminal, a restaurant, a building supply lumber yard or similar storage, light manufacturing, laboratory, some of these things here seem to be more traffic generated from those than from an operation like this, especially you get into the restaurant, a freight terminal, trying to get some of those 18 wheelers in and out of that road, you'd never do it. I mean, UPS, they must be going nuts trying to get those trucks in and out of there. MR. CARVIN-Go out of there at eight o'clock in the morning when you're lined up with about four of them in front of you. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-All trying to make left hand turns. MR. THOMAS-To me, a use like this, whether it's just regular, you know, the cars and small trucks and stuff that are non commercial vehicles going in and out, we're better off with that than anything that's really listed here in the Light Industrial zone. MR. MILLER-Plus this is also seasonal. MR. THOMAS-Yes, that's right, too. MR. CARVIN-I have a question of Staff. I mean, how many zones are we cutting across here? Because I didn't see any. I thought we were all in one. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. The front portion of the property is Light - 52 - '-- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) Industrial, and then the back portion is SR-1A. MR. CARVIN-Because I'm looking at, everything I looked at just indicated to me that this whole thing was LI, Light Industrial. MR. MILLER-There was a small portion of Waterfront Residential which is down at the bottom, and actually that's going to be within the buffer area. MS. CIPPERLY-Also, the comment that was made in the notes, as far as the buffer area being required, the buffer area is actually required at the zone line. So it would kind of come through the middle of this property. MR. CARVIN-That's what I'm wondering. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, the other thing is, it only really applies, would apply if you were trying to put a structure there, and there would be a. MR. GREEN-It's all open grass anyway. It's one big buffer to begin with. --- MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. It's vegetated anyway, but as the applicant has said, they do plan to have a buffer around the perimeter anyway. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MS. CIPPERLY-I had a question on the layout of the subdivided lots and the frontage on Big Boom Road, wondering why you didn't just shift this lot over? MR. MILLER-Well, that was a topographic concern. There's a ravine on the other side, and to develop that, it starts right about in that area, and the other thing is the access point, I think we were looking to try to have the access point in a more visible location than it would be further down. MS. CIPPERLY-Why couldn't you take the 40 feet on the road right off the, where you have the driveway coming in? Why couldn't you include that with the golf range lot? MR. MILLER-Well, we're trying to think, in the future, if this site was re-zoned and what we'd see, one of the things that we think is good about the golf range is that it's not a significant development that, if a better use were to come along in the future, and I think we wanted the frontage in this area, so that, say if this was re-zoned at some time in the future for Light Industrial, and someone wanted to come in here, this would give them a much better access than coming in at this point, but we felt that this was the best access point, at this point, for this particular use. MS. CIPPERLY-Just the way the definition reads, it says that is really supposed to provide access, that 40 feet, but you could get to the site that way. MR. CARVIN-I think, from their standpoint, that makes a lot of sense, because I'd rather see two entrances to something like that than I would one, to be very honest with you. MR. MILLER-That's the other thing, it would give you a second access if you need it. MR. CARVIN-Anything else, Staff? MS. CIPPERLY-No. I think that was it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? What do - 53 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) you think, Bill, would you want a driving range out there? MR. GREEN-Absolutely. I think it's a very well thought out idea. I like the idea of, you know, you're keeping the residential area open and grassy. It's going to obviously be an improvement to the site as it exists now. I can't see a thing wrong with it. MR. KARPELES-I agree. I think it's a good use for the land, and they brought up a point that that's fill in there and it probably wouldn't make much sense to build on top of it. There could be a lot worse uses for that land than this. I think it's good. I like it. MR. THOMAS-I agree with the other Board members. I think it's a good transitional use to that land, between the residential and on up to the commercial and the Northway. MRS. LAPHAM-I tend to agree with that assessment also, plus the fact that it's only seasonal. So, if anything, it will be a minus traffic problem, I mean, because all winter long it won't be there. MR. CARVIN-This may be a leading question, Bonnie, but the applicant has submitted some real estate evaluations on ---the property, and it looks like it was listed for $695,000 back in 1989, which was dropped to $675,000 in '91, $675,000 in '93, and is that still the current price? BRIAN 0' CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-I think we've dropped it down to $600,000. MR. CARVIN-This is on the whole lot, or is this just on a portion of the lot? MR. MILLER-No, that is the whole lot? MR. CARVIN-Including the Single Family and the LI and the whole nine yards. Okay. MS. CIPPERLY-Just one question. This little triangular chip here, is that it's own lot? MR. MILLER-Well, when NiMo came through and took the property, they cut right through that corner, and that's what they left us. So, I guess there's not much you can do about it. I don't know why they didn't just make it part of the right-of-way, because it isn't very useful. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I don't have a problem with it, I guess. I share the neighbor's concern on traffic, but unfortunately there's just nothing I can do as far as traffic is concerned. MR. GREEN-I think the point was well made that this would be obviously an off time, you're not going to be out there at eight 0' clock in the morning when the traffic's there. Five in the afternoon it would be, you know, a weekend, evening, mid day sort of thing. MR. CARVIN-Then I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 49-1996 BRIAN O'CONNOR, Introduced by William Green who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: Applicant is proposing to subdivide the property into two lots, construct a golf practice range on one of the lots. Relief is being requested from the uses allowed in Section 179-26. According to Section 267 B of the Town law, the applicant has shown that - 54 - '~ ~. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) there is probably not a reasonable return on this property if used as zoned, due to the past use of sand and gravel removal and refilling of it. It does appear that the hardship on this property is quite unique, due to the topography and again the past uses. It does not appear that it would change the essential character of the neighborhood, due to the fact that commercial property is on the north side and west side. In fact, this would probably serve as a good buffer between Light Industrial and Residential. It does not appear that it's self created, again, due to the physical shape and character of the property. A review of the Short Environmental Assessment Form shows that there would be a negative declaration. Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 1996, by the following v0te: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Menter, Mr. Ford 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 JON HALLGREN & JOHN RICHARDS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 50-1996, Jay S. Curtis, Jon Hallgren, Meeting Date: June 19, 1996, "APPLICANT: Jay Curtis, Jon Hallgren, PROJECT LOCATION: Big Bay Road PROPOSED PROJECT AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: The applicant is proposing to use two vacant lots as a Curtis Lumber supply and retail center. Relief is being requested from the uses listed in Section 179-24. This property is currently zoned CR-15. REVIEW CRITERIA, BASED ON SECTION 267-b OF TOWN LAW: 1. IS A REASONABLE RETURN POSSIBLE IF THE LAND IS USED AS ZONED? Under the current zoning, a reasonable return could probably be realized if this property was used for one of the permitted or site plan uses listed in the Zoning Ordinance. 2. IS THE ALLEGED HARDSHIP RELATING TO THE PROPERTY UNIQUE, OR DOES IT ALSO APPLY TO A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? This property which fronts on Corinth and Big Bay Rd. has the same characteristics and conditions of other lots in this area. 3. IS THERE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? This application could be seen as an extension of light industrial uses in an area with adj acent light industrial zoning. One other impact may be future requests for similar variances for properties on the west side of Big Bay Rd. 4. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ADDRESS THE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP PROVEN BY THE APPLICANT AND AT THE SAME TIME PROTECT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY? The applicant may be able to use this property for one of the permitted or site plan uses for the current zoning designation. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: The tests listed in Section 267-b of Town Law must be met in order to grant a use variance. The applicant may have the ability to use this property for the uses listed in the zoning district. The Zoning Board should also consider whether or not a less intensive use can be used at this location. SEQR: Unlisted, short form EAF required." "Addendum to Staff Notes, June 19, 1996 Staff has been asked to clarify a statement made in the Staff notes of June 19, 1996 concerning Use Variance No. 50-1996. The applicant's agent has asked staff to specifically clarify the response that was provided for question number three of the review criteria listed in - 55 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) Town Law. The response contained in Staff's comments concerns impact this project may have on the surrounding neighborhood and reads as follows, 'One other impact may be future requests for similar variances for properties on the west side of Big Bay Rd.' The proposed use would combine a building supply storage area with a retail building. The overall proposal requires a use variance because a light industrial use is being proposed for a commercially zoned lot. Because a portion of this plan is a retail center, staff is concerned that the light industrial areas to the west may see pressure to be developed with commercial uses in the future. Commercial land uses and zoning exists along Corinth Rd. from the Northway west to Big Bay Rd. Staff sees future requests for commercial use variances or rezonings to the west of Big Bay Rd. as one possible effect of Use Variance No. 50-1996." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 12th day of June 1996, the above application for a Use Variance to allow building supply and lumber retail sales center. was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Approve" Signed C. Powel South, Chairperson" MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any questions of the applicant? Does everybody understand what the applicant is requesting? I have a questio~of the applicant. Am I looking at one section or two sections, two pieces of property here that are going to be combined into one? MR. RICHARDS-I think there's some confusion. For the record, my name is John Richards. I'm the attorney for J. Curtis, who's the applicant here. Jon Hallgren is with me this evening, the Vice President of Curtis Lumber, and several other Curtis Lumber representatives here, including the Glens Falls store as well. Jon is going to put up the preliminary site plan, which we were before the Planning Board last evening for a discussion item. First off, to clarify, this particular parcel outlined in yellow is the parcel that we're talking about. Mr. Parillo owns approximately 14 acres, comprised of this parcel and the rest of the property going up to Corinth Road, as well as some of those other parcels that on that survey are not labeled as owned by him at that time it was made. What makes it a little more confusing, the tax map kind of bisects it down the middle, north and south. We are a portion of two tax map numbers, the southerly portion of two tax map numbers. MR. CARVIN-I guess my question is, these are two separate and distinct lots, or is this one lot that's going to be subdivided? MR. RICHARDS-Yes. We're going to be applying for subdivision approval. Just to give you a little background, Jon, can we put up the preliminary site plan, just to show you what we're trying to do here. This is, as I mentioned, the Curtis Lumber Retail Sales Center. You may well be familiar with the existing Curtis Lumber facility on Western Avenue, and this site was designed to consolidate that, and we're actually State of the Art lumber and building supply center. It will have a drive through warehouse where all the pickups will be under roof, inside. There's one like this down in the Schenectady area, but nothing like that in our area, I understand from Jon, and this will enable Curtis to consolidate, to have really kind of, they've got a little bit of a hodge podge right now, a retail shopping center with Shop N' Save Plaza, lumber store is in the back, and they've got their retail center right flush on Western Avenue, and this will eliminate all of those things, I think to the delight of the Planning Department, to eliminate that, consolidate here, give them the good position to grow with the area and contribute benefits to our local economy, and I think a very efficient and very benign way, as far as some of the concerns. So it is a major plus. We had had several conferences with Jim Martin and originally with George Hilton at the Planning Department, and initially the determination was this wasn't even a Light Industrial use. It was a retail use, then Jim - 56 - '-../ '--./ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) looked at it, and did some research and with some misgivings on our part, we accepted the decision that it was a light industrial use, and that is why we/re here tonight asking for the variance. They have, within the Planning Department, we met with the Planning Board last night was enthusiastic, this will be an improvement from the current situation. As far as this particular property goes, again, since this has no frontage on Corinth Road and is strictly surrounded by light industrial, including, anything west of Big Bay Road is Light Industrial, and we are bordered to the south by Light Industrial, and as Jon pointed out, the overall parcel, if you take the rest of the parcel, it's not attractive for a road side retail type thing, it takes more area than I think McDonalds or Burger King might want, and not enough area for some huge center." Mr. Parillo was here earlier in the evening and then had to leave, but he confirmed to me, as he said in the application, originally, that you've probably seen that big sign out there every day, For Sale, and he's never received any offers for any uses permitted under the current zoning. There was only one offer that was ever even submitted to him, and that was withdrawn once we mentioned the variance request. Several years ago, I represented Mr. Parillo, though not before this Board, but we initiated are-zoning proceeding to a Highway Commercial use, and the Planning Department encouraged changing the zone, but then we eventually withdrew, before it went to the Town Board. So this has been a constant problem, and particularly this back piece without the Corinth Road frontage. This is a wonderful solution to that, and when you compare the traffic, I know some of the neighbors are concerned. Jon has been talking to as many as he could meet over the last three days, and talked to most of the people that are here tonight, and he's aware of their concerns, and certainly Curtis wants to run a top level, Grade A operation here, and wants to be a good neighbor. I'd point out, as far as the traffic, the kind of traffic that a facility like this would generate, it's probably less than a Stewarts. It's certainly less than any of the road side commercial things that are permitted under the current Zoning Ordinance. MR. CARVIN-Can you give me a rough idea of the traffic? Does it come in at the top? Is that where the customer parking is? MR. RICHARDS-I'm going to let Jon take you through the site plan. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and then I'd also like to know how long those buildings are, and how high they are. MR. HALLGREN-Okay. You've got two types of traffic using the property, the retail traffic, people coming in, contractors, the homeowners, business people coming in to buy supplies. They should come down Big Bay Road, coming south, turn in the first driveway, and either park in this first parking area. Overflow days, busier days, you'd have to park in the second parking area, here, and come into the retail store, shop for their hardware, place their orders, that type of thing. The first, say two thirds of the store, is retail area, hardware items, tools, fasteners (lost word) showroom, design center here. Then if they need building material supplies, drywall, two by fours, plywood, cement, they can either place the order here, at some time in the future they'd be able to actually place the order and get rung up in here, but we'd probably start out just with ringing the order here, and instead of pulling up to a pile next to a barn, they'll actually drive through this, and what's unique about this new style drive through is that it's three lanes going through the building. There's going to be a drive through lane and a pull up lane on either side of the drive through and we'd put marked lines on those lanes. You'd come through, you've got one loop here, a second loop and a third loop, and we're talking about a access to the yard for special order pick up. Then a car would turn around, go back to the building and get checked out, and go on through. So it's an enclosed yard. So, it's quite - 57 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) MR. RICHARDS-In any event, that will be necessary from the building. MR. HALLGREN-They will be designing a drainage. We were informed that drainage would be a concern, and drainage will be designed within the system, so it would drain water off the buildings. Snow removal was brought up last night. Snow would be pushed into this area. That would become the buffer in the winter time for snow removal. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any questions? Anybody? MR. RICHARDS-If I could say just one thing. A lot of tl:1ese concerns, obviously, are going to be addressed at the site plan stage, but Jon has emphasized, over and over again, that this is an area company with area employees. It's here for a long time. It does want to be a good neighbor. So, we'll certainly try and address any of the concerns that the other neighbors have. MR. CARVIN-Lets find out what they might be. public hearing. I'll open up the PUBLIC HEARING OPENED --- PLINEY TUCKER MR. TUCKER- I'd like to speak in support. Pliney Tucker, 41 Division Road, Queensbury. My end of Town is where this is going to be located. I do business with Curtis Lumber. I'm a contractor. I've been a contractor since 1949. I'd like to point out that this company is growing. It collects sales tax for the Town of Queensbury and Warren County. Being in the building game, the change of zone of this property will certainly benefit the people on the west side of Big Bay Road who are already zoned Light Industrial. Is that correct? That's what Jim Martin told me, and as far as traffic is concerned, I guess the Corinth Road is a County Road, and I've been bugging the Town Board to put pressure on the members of the Queensbury delegation at the County level to go to work there to get something done because of the traffic problem on the Corinth Road. On a personal basis, like their attorney said, this is a locally owned lumber yard. I used to do business with Woodbury Lumber, and when Woodbury's was running what is now Moores, you felt like you were part of the family, and I get the same feeling with Curtis Lumber. They almost make you feel comfortable when they take your money. So this is a company located here in Queensbury, a company that is growing, a company that needs more room to grow, and I'm almost sure that they're going to be a very good neighbor if they're allowed to move into this area, and I would recommend that they be allowed to make their move. Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone opposed? DEBRA BACON MRS. BACON-Debra Bacon again, and I'm going to be living pretty close to where the truck entrances are going to be. Another thing is the traffic. I know we're going to have tractor and trailers down there, with the lumber. Have you ever been on the corner of Big Bay and Corinth Roads? There's no room. There's not room for a tractor and trailer and a car at the same time. We've had numerous accidents. My husband had an accident when we first moved there. They cut him right off. My 10 year old son can't even go out on the street and ride a bicycle. There's no signs there for our kids on that end of the road, slow, children playing. They fly 75 miles an hour until they hit that trailer on the right hand side about 50 foot to the end of Corinth Road, and luckily, I mean, they have brakes, but they don't go through it. I'm concerned about the - 59 - , '--" ."-,,.,/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) a bit different than your old style lumber yard. It just keeps things intact and more efficient, and in much better shape. As far as height of the buildings go, I think the store would be 25 to 30 feet high, and the barns would be 30 to 35 feet high. We'd have to run about five feet higher for the warehouse building. The store, with it's square house, we're proposing at this time 100 by 200 foot building, and the warehouse would be 105 foot by 400 foot. The buildings would be a light gray, steel sided building, with a steel roof with white trim. MR. KARPELES-What's down at the bottom there? couple of little buildings. It looks like a MR. HALLGREN-Good. We didn't want to make a mistake of telling you that this may be the only buildings or only building area that we would need, and that should we need some more building space in the future, we wanted to add so much square footage, the original site plan approval to add that much square footage to the property, and what we put on there was a 50 by 100 and 50 by 125 with maybe some combination of those two. MR. CARVIN-Now, what about blacktopping and permeability? I mean, this looks like quite a massive amount of coverage on this lot. MR. HALLGREN-The one thing I did forget, the truck entrance and exit for our delivery trucks and our incoming delivery trucks, trucks (lost word) materials will the second entrance down here. That'll be our truck entrance, and if a customer came in with a large trailer behind a truck, or a dump truck and didn't feel comfortable pulling in the front end, they would use this entrance also. As far as permeability, what we're proposing at this time is a black top area here, and a graveled area around the buildings. What we do now, the graveled areas, we'll use a fabric and then put gravel down. It makes the ground more stable, and you don't get that dirt working up through the gravel, and there are some concerns about dust from this area, and we would set up a calcium program where we would use calcium chloride to contain the dust, if we had to. MR. CARVIN-What is it, Staff, is it 30% permeability? MS. CIPPERLY-It's 30% in a commercial/residential. Another aspect to this that is the same as with that previous application, you've got a zone line right at the southern property line, where you need a 50 foot buffer. So I wasn't clear whether those were buildings or if it was just outside storage. It's not the use, it's the zone line. The other thing I figured out, interesting scale on this drawing, by the way, one inch to twenty-five. MR. HALLGREN-This site plan that you're receiving will be done by Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design Partnership. This was done by a store and rack designer on his computer. This is conceptual at this point. MS. CIPPERLY-But if you take the fact that there's a 50 foot buffer required, you can move your buildings up farther and still meet our requirements for parking and drive aisles and that sort of thing. So you may end up shifting things a little bit to meet that requirement. MR. HALLGREN-That's why we thought by talking with the Planning Board last night, hearing these comments, we would learn what we have to shift and we'd give that information to them. The 30% green space is not represented on this right now. We're about 6% short at this time, which we'll fill in over here and fill in back here, and we didn't realize about that 50 foot, and that'll force us to come up to that six percent also. - 58 - -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) dust. I have friends that live next to them, and they're the ones that told me about it, through the grapevine, three and a half weeks ago. They had called to tell them, it was 6:30 in the morning on a Sunday morning, and the noise was horrendous. So she called after Memorial Day weekend and the gentleman that she spoke with, I don't know who it is, and I didn't get a statement from her and her husband, that they were rude and vulgar, the workers out back were, and they also said, well, you don't have to worry about it anYmore because we're building on Big Bay Road, and we heard it and I told my husband, no, it can't be true. So I called the Town, and sure enough, they had proposed to do it. My other maj or concern was Joe Gross and Deborah Gross have given their plan, I don't know if this is still up in the air as far as that indus~rial park is going to go down there, but it was a concern for the kids to go down Big Bay Road to get to the industrial park down at the end of that road. There's going to be a lot more kids and people going that route, and it's the fork lift starting at 6:30 in the morning, Monday through Sunday, during peak hours, that's summer time. Tractor trailers, are they going to be parked there at 3:30 in the morning waiting for Curtis Lumber to open up? Those are the questions I've got. Are we going to have that diesel running all night long by our houses? Have you been by Curtis Lumber right now on Holden Avenue? Take a look at it. There's wood palet-tes outside. Is that the way it's going to be up there? They say they have 200 to 250 cars a day and they want to expand. How many more cars is this going to bring to Curtis Lumber than they do have with this expansion? Is it going to increase? Is it going to double, three, four times? There's a lot of commercial property out there for sale. Granted, I mean, Frank Parillo is not the only one having hardship out there, everybody is, even residential customers. Our houses. I bought my house six years ago. I put a lot of work into my house, and I put it on the market because I heard Curtis was coming in. I wish to stay there, but I don't know, you know, down the line, is my house going to be as valuable as it is? Nobody can guarantee that, and they put a new modular in. All of us fixed our houses up. Thank you. JAMES TROY MR. TROY-My name is James Troy, and I live on Big Bay Road, have been there for 12 years. I have a similar disagreement with this lady on the traffic factor, more so. Mr. Parillo advertises 14 acres, for years, on this sign which faces the Corinth Road. He owns four parcels on the Corinth Road. He has chosen to keep the front of these two divisions we're talking about. That's been subdivided. Should an entrance be made from the Corinth Road, it would make like a boulevard effect, go down to this given area right here. It would appear to be a lot more practical than herding all of this extra traffic. Lets take the figure of 240. This is what the Vice President informed me last night, 240 vehicles more per day on top of what we have on Big Bay Road, to gi ve you an idea of what's going up and down Big Bay Road. We have Threw Excavating. We have Daggett's Vending. We have a welding business down there. We have a landscaping operation that goes down because there's a dumping project down there where they can dump their trees and branches and such as that. When we add all of this traffic together, throw in 240 just at a guess even, you can have trouble getting out on that Corinth Road right now, with just what we have. Try to come out of your driveway down there on an average day. That's before all of this (lost words). Our homes, they're certainly not shacks or dumps. We've put good money into them. We're all smart enough to know that our value on those homes, nobody's going to stand in line to buy those homes with that lumber company sitting across the road. Nobody's going to pay me what I paid and what I put into that home. I suffer a loss. Anybody in their right mind that's living there that says they're not going to, can't add. The road is patrolled probably, I've clocked it a few times, probably four times per week. If a patrol - 60 - '"-,, --,,/ {Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96} car is seen there four times a week, that's big. That's big. The State police, once in a while, will'come down through because they can cut from the rest area and shoot down onto the Northway, and that's almost by accident when you see that happen. I've watched this land right from the very beginning. That was all treed lands. It was all cut Thanksgiving weekend. Most people don't usually go out and clean that whole swath that we're looking at here Thanksgiving weekend. I wonder, you know, why the haste, and then you add up all the years that he's had this property. Why hurry and clean it on Thanksgiving weekend? I have no idea what his objection was, and I heard here tonight that he's had no sale for this. He had one offer, and that offer was withdrawn. Maybe the price was too high. It could be the access to that is nob too good. I'm not sure, but I do know that we, as residents that are living there now, we are going to be hurt by this, right in the pocket book, and I would ask one question here, also. Will our assessments go down because of this? Because our value in our home is certainly going to go down. Can anyone answer me that question? Maybe that would put my mind to rest a little bit. I don't think anybody can. Well, I think, has anyone done a traffic survey, as far as the traffic count and everything, taking in Corinth Road and Big Bay Road? Has that been done, as far as safety? We've got a lot of children down there, up and down the road. They can't ~ide their bikes because that's not safe. That would be suicide. I believe that's just about all I have. A couple more days I'd probably come up with some more. It takes time. MRS. BACON-I do have another question. Now they're showing trees here, on this buffered zone. Is this how many trees that you're going to have, ten out of 500, is there going to be a buffer zone of trees? MR. HALLGREN-Yes. MRS. BACON-Are they going to be little trees or are they going to be mature trees? And are there are going to be enough to hide, you know, so we don't see a lot of that? MR. HALLGREN-The plan is not to have enough trees to hide the building. We'll have enough trees that, at maturity, they will compliment the property and make it look (lost word) . MS. CIPPERLY-Another thing, if this were approved for the variance, it would also have to go the Planning Board where they would have to provide a more detailed landscaping, buffering type of thing. This is kind of a preliminary. MRS. BACON-Yes. MR. RICHARDS-Which is a public hearing, and you'll have a chance to comment again. MRS. BACON-Right. MR. CARVIN-Anyone else wishing to be heard? DAVID HAMELL MR. HAMELL-My name is David Hamell. I'm a landowner on the west side of Big Bay Road, and their truck entrance would be coming right across from our driveway into our residence, and now as it stands, we have to fight the trucks coming out, and another one that Mr. Troy didn't mention, but the Town of Queensbury itself has a sand lot down there where they put all their trucks in the winter time and such, and there are no proper borders on the edge of this road. When you drop off the pavement, you drop to the sand and off the highway, and we're constantly run off the road, all the way down through there, from that area down, and I don't see anything - 61 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) they can do with it, and the pole at the end of Big Bay on Corinth Road has got to be right on the edge of the pavement, and there's no way of getting around that pole. With a truck heading east, turning onto Big Bay Road, and coming west, you're going down into a dip, which the Town has put a drainage ditch there, and it sucks the vehicles right off the road. There is not enough roadway, there is not enough width to the road to merit the big trucks coming in there. I'm not against the progress or anything like that, but we don't have the proper facilities for this complex to go in there, as far as roadway, and you can see where the trucks have already torn up the end of the road, a big patch of the road. I don't see why it can't come in from Corinth Road, like Mr. Troy said, relieving the pressure off of Big Bay Road. We cannot get in and out of our driveways now, because we don't have the room, with the trucks that are on there now. MR. TROY-I think I can answer Mr. Hamell's question as to why this can't be brought into Corinth Road. I'll show you right on the map.' Okay. Right here, Mr. Parillo, to start, he has four pieces of very good rental property. All right. Along the Corinth Road, right on the front, he has four pieces of rental property. One caught on fire, so he lost that one here a couple of months ago, but he still has three of them here. It wouldn't make .-good business sense for Mr. Parillo to take and slice and entrance way down through this valuable property. Go up to Curtis', get the money from Curtis' and keep the four, put it in here, but wouldn't this make a little more sense to come in off the Corinth Road? So he would be giving up maybe, what, one house? But he's going to hold onto that, which is good business, but it doesn't fool anybody. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anyone else wishing to be heard? SUK CHA CARTE MRS. CARTE-Hi. My name is Suk Cha Carte. I'm a resident, and my concern is there's going to be too much traffic and dust, and the house value would go down. At this point, I rent my property. With Curtis Lumber Company, I don't think there will be too much interest in this property now. I think the property value would go down. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to be heard? Any Correspondence? MR. THOMAS-No Correspondence. MR. CARVIN-Any rebuttal Mr. Richards? MR. RICHARDS-I'm not sure rebuttal is the right word, but really to address the concerns. We do want to be on the same side here if possible. Two things I just want to point out briefly. On the traffic, once again, this is, from a traffic standpoint, much less intensive than certainly other light industrial uses and certainly commercial uses that are in that list of permitted uses under the commercial residential, far less harsh, and the truck traffic is very minimal, very minimal on property like this. As far as the Big Bay Road question and the situation of whether they could put a corridor down the middle of the property from Corinth Road, we've discussed these kind of issues preliminarily with Jim Martin, before we made application anywhere and Jim was comfortable and strongly suggested to go with the Big Bay turn, figuring that that would not be burdensome on that road and that area. Certainly, if there's any support that the neighbors want, and that we can give to encourage the Town to do anything to improve the traffic flow of roads in the area, Curtis is going to be right there with them helping them, but this is consistent with the zoning objectives of that area, that light industrial, you could have a truck repair - 62 - ~..' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) terminal right across the way in the back yard of these people, and the same thing down below. You've already got several excavating. So we think this is a very good use to the property. It will be an attractive use. It will certainly be good for the community, and we'll do everything we can to work with the neighbors here and make it a great place to be. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other public comment? MR. TROY-You want to be a good neighbor, buy my house. MRS. BACON-Use them all for storage buildings. MR. TROY-Yes, in case you want to expand. MR; HAMELL-We were switched from residential to light industrial, just like that. MR. 'TROY-When I built, I was in light industrial. I had to get special permits to build my home, because they looked at it and said, well, how big a factory can we put here, Jim? MR. RICHARDS-There is a neighbor down there with a business o~the west side of the road. NEIGHBOR-Sure. There's a 25 foot buffer between them and us also. It's a tree care. MR. TROY-Tree Care, yes, Norton's. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I'm going to interrupt this conversation, because none of this is on the record. If there's no other public comment, I'm going to close it. MS. CIPPERLY-Could I ask sort of a question of these people, before we close it. Right now, that property is zoned for Commercial Residential, which means that they could put an office building there, a social club, hospital or nursing home, day care center, restaurant, banking facility, gasoline station, home occupation, hotel, motel, inn or lodge, retail business and veterinary clinic. NEIGHBOR-Wouldn't that all be paved (lost words) for parking lots? MS. CIPPERLY-Well, they'd still have to come up with a 30% green space, but I just wondered if, from a traffic standpoint, and from just the type of facility, would you have a problem also with that? MRS. BACON-We're concerned with the tractor and trailers and our child's safety down there, the trucks. This is our main concern there. The road is not big enough for tractor trailers. You go down that road with a tractor trailer, and you're pushed right off the side. There's a lot of concern on that road. MR. HALLGREN-There's very few tractor trailers. oriented. This is retail MR. TROY-Nobody's going to supply this place, though? MR. GREEN-Fred, I've got a question for Staff. Actually, it's a question for somebody from Curtis. You'd mentioned that you had originally talked to Jim, and he had determined this would not be a retail business. Can you clarify why he did that, give me some insight into that? MR. HALLGREN-It's not retail, light industrial. MR. GREEN-See, but retail business is allowed in your CR-5 zone. - 63 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) MR. CARVIN-With the exceptions. There's exceptions, and unfortunately lumber companies are an exception. MR. GREEN-Okay. I did not see that somewhere. It was due to the fact that it was a lumber company? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. What happened was when you look at the light industry list, one of the types of uses that's listed is warehouse for enclosed storage of goods and materials. MR. GREEN-Okay. saying? So it fits that classification better, you're MS. CIPPERLY-Right. The commercial building could go there, if that's all it o/as, but there's also the warehouse, lumber yard sort of thing. MR. GREEN-Okay. So that's what throwing it. MR. CARVIN-And I think if you read the definition of Retail Business, there's some exceptions, too. MR. GREEN-I guess the other question of Sue is, do you hav~any idea why that was zoned CR-15 with Light Industrial all around it? MS. CIPPERLY-There are several discrepancies or odd things that happened in 1988 that we're trying to figure out right now because we're trying to do a Comprehensive Plan for the Town, and between this previous variance and that one, I've been looking at, what were they thinking when they did the CR-15 there, and I can only imagine that they were thinking that it would be sort of a restaurant/gas station things that would support the Northway traffic, really, you know, maybe a little shopping center type of thing. As far as zoning the west side of Big Bay Light Industrial when there was already residential in place, I wondered about that one also. So, it's been kind of a problematic area, as far as what should be there. You could have something like a Wal-Mart size building go in there, which would be a traffic generator. We've had people like, just some of the larger commercial places have looked at it, and I think this owner also had a fellow who wanted to put a mobile home sales, you know, have models there and sell them from there. So, as far as why it's all CR-15, I haven't found any real written down reasons for that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, the public hearing is still closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Any other questions? I've got a couple. Have you looked at other sites, like the Grossman's for your business? MR. RICHARDS-The answer is yes. I'll let take that. MR. HALLGREN-Yes. We looked at the Grossman's site. There was only about two acres, or 2.2 acres on that site, and if you've visited that site, as far as, that was considered (lost words) drive through lumber yard, and the traffic was very clogged around the building area. You couldn't get by past that big rack that was there in the yard, and we'd need a minimum of six acres to operate the yard. So that Grossman's was too small. We did look at other sites. We looked on the other side, on Big Boom Road. There's a lot over there, but I think that intersection is much more congested, as far as getting out, and we got Frank into a better pricing situation. There was no competition between the two sites, and we feel, also that we, we looked at sites further away, with the competition with the lumber business now, and with the big change from out of state, the Home Depots, the Home Quarters, we need a high profile spot. You can't buy the type of spot they - 64 - '-- ~ , (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) have, down on Quick Lube, on the other end of Town there. We can't afford that type of (lost word). We also looked at pulling with a car load of lumber, with that four lane highway or six lane highway down there. It's got to be a nightmare, when you've got two sheets of plywood in the back of a station wagon or a caravan. This is easier, people can pull off the Northway. They don't have to come to more of an urban area. The traffic will be taken care of in the future. MR. CARVIN-Unfortunately, that's the dilemma that we're being consistently faced with, over and over, is that it's always somebody else, and it'll be fixed in the future, and as I've said before, the only time change happens is when the bodies get too high and you start tripping over them. MR: HALLGREN-A lot of our traffic currently comes through those roads now. So we're not bringing a lot of new traffic through Corinth Road. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I guess I've got illY questions answered. Chris, what do you think? MR. THOMAS-I like the idea of the Curtis Lumber, but I sYmpa~ize with the neighbors more. I think that we're asking for a big problem with that traffic up and down that Big Bay Road there, and I know the intersection of Corinth Road is a very narrow, tight intersection, and with McDonalds right across the street from there, there's a lot of traffic in and out of there, and I think that the biggest draw back to this location is just the traffic pattern. Even if they had an access off Corinth Road into the property, they'd still run into the same problem, but, other than that, the traffic, that just goes to Question Number Three for a Use Variance, "will the requested Use Variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood?" Yes, it will. MR. RICHARDS-You could put, in theory, you could put a Burger King. You could put some retail uses, in theory, that would generate far more traffic than anything we're proposing. You can't zone the property to the point of not being able to do anything with it. This is a very benign use, as I say, and I don't know what more ~ can do, as one applicant, to minimize and improve the traffic situation,in an area that's zoned and encouraged for future growth. MS. CIPPERLY-Could you take a look, maybe, at where it says like, there's an 80 foot wide piece here that maybe you could try and design an access off of Corinth Road, and maybe have traffic go in one part of the site and out the other. So that you're at least not having the two way. MR. RICHARDS-We're open to a number of things. We were directed and kind of encouraged by your Department head to do this route. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, maybe after listening to all these people tonight~ he'd have a different spin on it. I'm just wondering if you could look at that. I wouldn't say to go to the other side of the site, because of the proximity to the entry onto the Northway. MR. RICHARDS-Are you talking about a property outside the parcel that's outlined in yellow on the board? MS. CIPPERLY-I'm talking about, yes, well, this is currently all one. MR. RICHARDS-That's what's contracted to be purchased. So we can sit here and make representations tonight about any use outside of that yellow bordered property because we have no rights to it. MR. CARVIN-Sue, when, I think it was K-Mart that came to Town. I - 65 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) know there was a lot of road work that was completed out on that intersection of Quaker and Dix. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Who's expense was that? Was that a County project? MS. CIPPERLY-That was a County. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but that was in conjunction, as a direct result of K-Mart? It seems to me, and I think Wal-Mart didn't, and again, I may be, it seems to me that, in the past. MS. CIPPERLY-Are you asking whether the company has put money into the? MR. CARVIN-Yes, improving road systems. MS. CIPPERLY-I don't believe so, as far as K-Mart goes. They may have paid for a light or something like that. I could find that out. MR. CARVIN-For some reason, in the back of my mind, we've had a couple of opportunities, in the past, where some of these corporate entities. MS. CIPPERLY-I know with Wal-Mart there was a. MR. CARVIN-Either did the road work or subsidized the road work, and I'm not saying that that's a possibility here. I'm just trying to refresh my memory. MS. CIPPERLY-I don't know what, necessarily, you could really do on Big Bay, because of the size of the existing easement, too. MR. CARVIN-Well, my feeling is that the neighbors have probably got some pretty valid points. When you go over that road, I don't know what that road weight is, but with all these trucks running up and down it, it's, you know, the degradation of that road is pretty rapid, and we've got an infrastructure, and I think the phraseology, it hasn't failed yet, but I think if we dump something like this in there, it's sure going to hasten the process. MR. RICHARDS-Don't we have to address those issues, in particular, at the site plan review? MR. CARVIN-Well, yes and no, except that one of the big parts of mY concern is the safety and health and welfare of the community under the zoning. Yes, you're right, I mean, these are site plan issues, but I'm not passing the buck on this, is my problem. MR. RICHARDS-What I'm saying is, as far as the granting of a variance, versus the traffic issue, the traffic issue is there, no matter what, and the traffic issue is going to be there with a permitted use. That's why you have a site plan process to deal with that. MR. CARVIN-Yes. That's why we have the weighing aspect. A permitted use is just as the term applies, a permitted use, and a variance is a variance, and that's where we have to weigh in the need of the variance. Anyway, Bob, what do you think? MR. KARPELES-Well, I kind of agree with Chris. I sYmpathize with Curtis. I've been in there, and I think they're awfully cramped and they need a new location, but I just don't think this is the right location, and I think it's more than the traffic. I think that the type of facilities that are listed, that are legal in that CR-15, if I were a neighbor, would be less objectionable to me than - 66 - '-' '-"" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) a lumber yard. So, that's my feeling. MR. CARVIN-Bill? MR. GREEN-The only thing in my mind that's really sticking out on Curtis' side is this Light Industrial all the way around them. I mean, I understand the complaints of the neighbor and the traffic, but you can go right behind your house and, where your house sits, with any number of things much greater than this, and I guess we just have to go by the rules. MR. TROY-Where is that, sir? MR. GREEN-In your Light Industrial zone. MR. 'TROY-In back of illY house? MR. GREEN-You're in a Light Industrial zone. Are you on the west side of the road? MR. TROY-Yes. We all are. MR. GREEN-That's all Light Industrial there. MR. TROY-They all are. Right. --- MR. GREEN-So you could put in things far greater than this with no variance needed at all. MR. TROY-But that we don't have. We have all residences. That's where the line is. The line is there. MR. GREEN-Exactly. There's a buffer zone in there, but what I'm saying, in just the general area around it. I guess just, if I run down through here, reasonable return if possible used as zoned, you know, you could put a motel in there, maybe, a retail business. Alleged hardship, I determine this to be very unique to this particular spot. It would, I guess, have an effect on the character of the neighborhood, but I don't know if it would any more than some of the other retail businesses that may be accepted along there. So, I guess just to go straight through this, I can't make up my mind, to be honest with you. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I'm not comfortable, really, with the idea of the truck, putting huge trucks in a residential neighborhood. I feel we set precedent in the way we talked about the SPCA, which was a far less intensive use than this, and we leaned toward the feeling of the residential character of that neighborhood. I'd probably be happier with it if there was something we could do, which I realize we can't. You can't because you haven't contracted for that, if you'd be comfortable with Corinth Road. So that part makes me uncomfortable also. I do have a problem because I think they should follow the rules, like with what Bill said. So I'm kind of up in the air, but I'm really not very comfortable with this, and I feel we would be moving all the neighbors on Western Avenue to get up in here because we'd be taking their problem away and just giving it to another set of people. MR. RICHARDS-Would it be helpful to the Board if you got some comparative traffic counts between our proposed use and the uses that are permitted there without a variance? MR. CARVIN-I don't know. How does the Board feel about that? MR. RICHARDS-The emphasis on trucks, the truck part is a very minor part of this operation. It's a retail center. - 67 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) MRS. LAPHAM-If you could show that there wouldn't be tractor trailers carrying lumber, rattling these people's houses. If you could show the, you said the trucks are a very minimal part of that. MR. RICHARDS-That's correct. MRS. LAPHAM-Right. If you could prove that it was very, very minimal, as opposed to the number of cars. MR. RICHARDS-If you feel that this would be helpful to you to make a decision, we will get those kind of traffic counts. MR. HALLGREN-What is too much? Is there a number? There's a tremendous amount of truck traffic on the road, what percentage, what portion would we be? Tom's talking 24 trucks a day. The maximum, we're talking only eight deliveries in a day. Trucks in. Trucks out. The rest is incoming trucks. MR. CARVIN-Well, these incoming trucks are delivering lumber to the yard? I'm saying, how do you get your supplies in there to sell, and when do they come in? -- MR. HALLGREN-All day long. MR. CARVIN-All day long. MR. HALLGREN-Vans, flat beds and tractor trailers. We do between six and eight delivers with our own straight trucks a day. MR. CARVIN-Okay. When you say deliveries, that is? MR. GREEN-Go out full and come in empty. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but what I'm saying is that when you sell a two by four, that two by four has got to be replaced. So you've got probably a warehouse that ships you the stuff. MR. HALLGREN-We do between six and eight deliveries of day and receive in between six and possibly up to ten either straight trucks or millwork or tractor trailers. a heavy day. Twelve is a very busy day. our own a to twelve Twelve is MR. CARVIN-And when do they start, and when would they finish? I mean, because I think one of these neighbors asked a very valid question. I mean, if they show up at four o'clock in the morning and they're sitting there idling. MR. HALLGREN-Often they are waiting for us in the morning, but I believe it's against the law to leave them idling. MR. CARVIN-Well, so's speeding, but it happens. MR. HALLGREN-We can make that a fact, that they cannot stop on the road. There'd be no place for them to pull in. MRS. BACON-Where are they going to sit? MR. CARVIN-They could probably go up to McDonalds and sit there. MR. RICHARDS-One thing you should remember, this is a retail center. The main distribution center for Curtis is not going to be at this site. MR. HALLGREN-It's down at Exit 12 and 23. MR. RICHARDS-And that's where, if you are doing a major house construction job, that material will never show up at this site. - 68 - '--- "_/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm saying a building that's 105 feet wide, 400 feet long is going to hold a lot of something, 35 feet high. MR. RICHARDS-Compared to the traffic on the road now, we might be a very small addition. MS. CIPPERLY-Maybe that's some information that somebody ought to collect is how much truck traffic is on the road right now, how many tractor trailers. MR. CARVIN-Well, I'd like more definitive information on the road itself, and what the Town can do to make that a more tenable position, because if the Town wants growth, and I appreciate why the zoning comes in, then they've got to take the responsibility for the infrastructure, and you just can't have the one without the other, and that's what's being asked of us, constantly. I realize the Town wants to go in one direction, but they're killing people doing it, and that's the dilemma that I've got with this. MR. RICHARDS-Perhaps we should get that information for you as far as our town, and we can assemble some other information if necessary, but if that'll make you feel more comfortable to make a decision. -- MR. CARVIN-Yes. I mean, I was out there looking at this site, and that road, I would be surprised if it's 35 feet wide. I mean, I may be incorrect, but. MS. CIPPERLY-In fact, we were wondering today at the fact that on the southern end of the parcel, there's a wider road right-of-way then actually when you get to Corinth. We had the map upside down, too, and we said, up by Corinth Road you could put a turn lane, but you can't, it was, like, the other way around. The right-of-way is wider at the southern end of the property. MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm looking at the time, and I think, I don't think you're going to get a variance tonight. So, I mean, I think I would rather move for a tabling to get some additional information, and I'd like to see some information on traffic count. I'd like to try to see if we can get some idea of what that road is, what state that road really is in. Again, I realize that's not your problem, but I think if there's something that can be done to mitigate that, then I think I know I'd be more comfortable knowing that and moving on this. I'm not against Curtis Lumber. I'm also for the residents there, because I can appreciate what they're going to be confronted with. So we're going to have to be very delicate in this balancing act. So I'd like to table this application. 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: MR. HALLGREN-Can our site planner provide that information? Can our site planner, environmental design partnership provide that information? MR. CARVIN-Sure. - 69 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) MR. KARPELES-I think tabling it is just prolonging, giving them false hope, as far as I'm concerned. Like he asked, how much is enough? How much is too much? I think we get this traffic report, it's not going to mean a darn thing. MR. CARVIN-Well, it also gives us an opportunity to get two more Board members here. MR. KARPELES-Yes. My mind's made up. MR. CARVIN-I know that. I think we've got a three two decision, if you really want to know the truth, Bob. NEIGHBOR-How do we know that the traffic report is going to be an unbiased report? MR. CARVIN-Well, again, it gives you an opportunity to come up with your own. So I don't have an answer for you there. So, it's equal opportuni ty for all. Okay. Now, lets see, I've got to open up the public hearing so we don't have to re-advertise this? MR. GREEN-I think we did, didn't we? --- MR. CARVIN-The public hearing is closed. Are we just tabling this for additional information? MS. CIPPERLY-You can close it. We won't have to re-advertise it, but we would let the people know anyway. MR. CARVIN-Well, it won't get on before July, I mean, I can tell you that right now, at the earliest. MR. RICHARDS-Well, certainly time is a crucial factor here. Thank you very much for your time. MR. CARVIN-Okay. AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: Mr. Karpeles ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Menter AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-1996 TYPE II CR-15 BERKSHIRE ACQUISITION OWNER: KEITH CAVAYERO AND ELYSA BARON 50 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF MAIN STREET AND WESTERN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE TWO CURBED ISLANDS FROM TWO ENTRANCES TO A PROPOSED CVS PHARMACY. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE REQUIREMENT THAT A CURBED ISLAND BE PROVIDED IN A COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY (SECTION 179-66,B,4). WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/12/96 TAX MAP NO. 130-3-18 LOT SIZE: 2.01 ACRES SECTION 179-66,B,4 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 51-1996, Berkshire Acquisition, Meeting Date: June 19, 1996 "APPLICANT: Berkshire Acquisition PROJECT LOCATION: NW corner of Main St. and Western Ave. Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: Applicant is proposing to remove two curbed islands from two entrances to a proposed CVS pharmacy. These curbed islands are required by the Zoning Ordinance for any commercial driveway. In order to remove these islands relief is needed from the requirement listed in Section 179-66B,4. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Removal of the islands would not impede traffic and emergency vehicles. 2. Feasible alternatives: There do not seem to be any alternatives - 70 - '~ "-' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) that would provide less relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? Removal of these curbed islands would improve emergency access and would not substantially effect the overall site plan. 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? It would be difficult to provide the curbed islands and at the same time maintain adequate access for emergency vehicles at this location. Staff Comments & Concerns: The removal of these islands would not create any traffic difficulties and would improve safety at this location. Staff foresees no negative impacts associated with this variance request. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 12th day of June 1996, the above application for an Area Variance to grant the elimination of curbed islands in the two entrance driveways. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Approve Comments: Concur with local conditions." Signed by C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does everyone understand what the applicant is requesting? --- MR. KARPELES-No. I don't. What are they, these things that are cross hatched, they're the ones that are coming out? MR. LAPPER-The Town Code requires, in the traffic driveway, a curbed island, right there, to separate the incoming and the outgoing. The Planning Board has a policy that they're not in favor of it and they've already requested the Town Board remove that from the Ordinance. The biggest issue is emergency vehicles making a wide turn, and also snow plowing. The major benefit for us is that by eliminating that, we're allowed to have two outgoing egress lanes, so that we can have a separate right turn and a separate left turn, so that people making a right and heading toward the Northway won't have to wait for people that presumably during the busy hours of the day would have to wait to make a left turn out. So it just makes it easier for people to make a right and pass them. We would then have three lanes, two going out, one coming in, and it's fairly straight forward. It's just a technicality that it's in the Ordinance, and the Planning Board passed a separate resolution asking you to grant this variance because they think it's a better site plan without it. MR. CARVIN-What was their comments on the traffic study? MR. LAPPER-We agreed to all of the conditions that this Board discussed, and the County Highway Department had talked about, that there would be a, in six months, there would be a study of congestion and accidents, if there are any, at six months after opening, and it would be reviewed again at that time, in terms of the design and the entrance onto Main Street, and that was specifically a condition of the approval. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? MR. THOMAS-No. I'll wait for the public hearing. MR. CARVIN-In that case, I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. CARVIN-Any Correspondence? MR. THOMAS-Yes. "MOTION TO RECOMMEND SITE PLAN NO. 8-96 BERKSHIRE ACQUISITION, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: - 71 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) For an 8,700 square foot CVS and adjacent 6,000 sq. ft. Doctor's Office building, for the applicant to obtain a variance from the ZBA for elimination of island in both driveways. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Rue I , Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. West" Signed by Robert Paling, Chairman. And a letter from Lemery & Reid, addressed to Mr. Fred Carvin "A-s you recall, in April the ZBA granted a 0 lot line setback variance for this proj ect . The Queensbury Planning Board has subsequently granted subdivision approval and site plan approval. On behalf of Berkshire Queensbury L.L.C., I hereby request two additional variances, one, the elimination of curbed islands in the two entrance driveways, and, two, the addition of a second facade sign for CVS. Both of these variances are intended to enhance traffic flow and eliminate congestion in the Western Avenue/Main Street intersection. The elimination of the curb islands was specifically requested by the Planning Board during site plan review, and~ am enclosing a copy of the Planning Board resolutions according to this variance request for your review. I've also enclosed, for review by the ZBA, an original and nine copies of an Area Variance applications, ten copies of the signed drawing depicting a similarly designed CVS for which is freestanding, rather than incorporated in the plaza, and a check for the amount of $50 to cover the application fee. Ten copies of the approved site plan will be delivered today by VanDusen & Steves. Please place this matter on the agenda for the ZBA meeting in June. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns you would like me to address prior to this meeting. Very truly yours, Jonathan C. Lapper" MR. CARVIN-Any other public comment? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-I have a question of Staff. What is the logic, or the thought behind these barriers? MS. CIPPERLY-In some situations, they also can help people navigate into a site. Like over at Mt. Royal Plaza, he was trying to not have one, also, but I think there he needed one, and it wasn't a curbed island. It was, essentially, a speed bump, little size thing that just separated the two lanes, just to let people know that they're drifting over into the other lane, basically. This one, George didn't seem to have a problem with it. He's the one that did the notes, and it does look like they could get another turning lane out of it. So, in this case, it may be a good idea. It may have been, partly, an aesthetic type thing with plantings intended there or something, but I've never read the real rationale for doing it. MR. CARVIN-So it's one of those cases that just is. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes, and McDonald's has one. Where you have the room, I think it's beneficial. MR. CARVIN-Well, this site is in compliance, right? That's what he was presented, back in April or Mayor whenever. MR. LAPPER-That was their idea, not ours. The Planning Board (lost word) that we apply for the variance. MS. CIPPERLY-Because they wanted you to have another lane? - 72 - ~ '~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) MR. LAPPER-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-It certainly sounds safer, for me, to have the two turning lanes, so traffic's not (lost words). I feel that it would make life a lot safer and easier. MR. CARVIN-Well, I heard just for fire equipment, right? It was just going to make it easier for emergency access, right? MR. LAPPER-That and snow removal, and so they could make the lanes one right turn and one left turn. MR. CARVIN-Primarily on Main Street? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-How about Luzerne Road, the same logic? MR. LAPPER-The logic doesn't so much hold true about the right and the left, because Luzerne Road, at least at this point, is not really congested, but it would be applicable to emergency vehicles. MS. CIPPERLY-Why is that a problem, on this site versus other places? MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, if this is in compliance. MR. LAPPER-I forgot one other issue. There's room for emergency vehicles, as the site was designed, and what we did, the handicapped, and these islands here are just striped islands, and what we agreed was that if this curbed island was gone, there would be a turning radius here so it wouldn't be necessary to have these, the two on the end, striped islands, they would then be curbed and have plants in them, and that was another issue that we discussed. MR. CARVIN-Is that on the Main Street or the Luzerne Road? MR. LAPPER-On the Main Street. It would give us the opportunity to do more planting. This site already has a (lost word) of plantings, but there was the opportunity to do some more. Those are all the issues that I can remember at this hour. MR. GREEN-I know they're a pain in the butt, but every place else you drive they have them. I guess if the Planning Board, they're the ones to really kind of make these determinations that are actually requesting that they be removed. I don't have any argument with it. MR. KARPELES-Yes. I agree with that. I hope the Planning Board knows more about it than I do, and if they're recommending it, I'd go along with it. MR. THOMAS-I like those curbs. I think that they do serve a purpose. They slow people down as they turn in. Coming across there going like they're in the Indy 500 going around the corner, it will slow them down. As far as the two turning lanes, if you took that one on Main Street and moved it four foot over, that would give you 18 feet. So you could have your two lanes there, two nine foot lanes, plus you'd have a 10 foot entrance lane, and as far as emergency vehicles, fire vehicles will be coming in off the Luzerne Road end because the fire house is right out behind there. So I don't see any fire trucks coming off of Main Street onto it. MR. CARVIN-Unless it's a real good fire. MR. THOMAS-It's got to be a real roarer. - 73 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) MR. LAPPER-I don't disagree with anything that you've said, except that one of the issues on the Main Street side is the proximity of that entrance to the signalized intersection which everyone talks about as being congested, and for that reason, this curb cut was pushed as far to the west as possible. So the Planning Board didn't want us to add the other lane by moving this curb cut closer to the intersection. They want to allow as much stacking as possible for left turn lanes going north on Western Ave. That's what that was about. MR. THOMAS-I'm just saying, move that curb over four feet. MR. LAPPER-That' s what they didn't want. They didn't want us to do that because then it would be closer to the intersection. MR. THOMAS-I'm not saying move the whole cut over I'm just saying that island. Move that island over four feet. MR. LAPPER-But you have to have turning. These are the lanes, it has to be 10 feet wide. MR. THOMAS-Well, move it over four feet. That makes that 10 foot wide. Take it from four foot wide down to two foot wide, and ~hat gives you 14 and 4 is 18 and 2 is 20. There you go, three 10 foot lanes, if you change that curb to a 2 foot. MR. LAPPER-That would still require a variance because the Town requires it to be (lost word) wide. MS. CIPPERLY-I'm looking. MR. THOMAS-It's my opinion on that, I think those curbs do serve a purpose. I think it slows people down. MS. CIPPERLY-That Section just says, "There shall be a physical barrier separating the ingress and egress area of the access point, a maximum of two lanes, 20 feet, shall be permitted for each. Each lane shall be a maximum of 20 feet wide." It doesn't have the dimension of four feet. MR. LAPPER-I don't remember what the issue was, but it could have been, in terms of having green space in there, and being able to mow it. MS. CIPPERLY-As I said, in other places, we've just allowed people to do something that was the equivalent of a speed bump. MR. CARVIN-Well, let me figure. They've got one going either this way or this way. Right? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-And this comes in and this comes in, right? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. If they take this out, you're going to have one going this way and one going this way? MR. THOMAS-That's right. MR. CARVIN-With people coming across? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-I don't like it. I agree with you, Chris. I don't like it one bit. - 74 - '-../ '--' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) MR. THOMAS-No, and if you narrow that down to two feet, you could still plant grass in there, because mY lawnmower is 21 inches wide. MR. CARVIN-You know my position on this whole traffic thing. MR. LAPPER-It's possible, after six months, that left turn is going to be eliminated, but that's going to be up to the empirical data. MR. CARVIN-If that's the case, and if these are a hinderance, then I would say come back in six months and we'll take them out, but I think I'd like to see them in there, for this point, because I agree with Chris, I think slow is good in this particular situation. MR. THOMAS-If somebody sees that wide open, they're going to think they can make it. MR. CARVIN-You bet, and there's going to be visibility problems here. Because you won't know if they're coming into this turn lane or they're actually coming in to turn, and I think if they've only got one way out, they're going to have to wait and see what that guy is doing, but if there's a guy coming out here, and this guy, I think we're asking for trouble. __ MR. THOMAS-Yes. That's why I say leave it in and move it over. Narrow it down to two feet, but get some kind of control to slow it down. Plus it gives you both left and right in the exit, 10 foot lanes. MR. CARVIN-I'd rather look at it in six months. I really would. I mean, if they're going to look at a whole traffic study in six months, lets find out whether we've got a problem here or don't. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. CARVIN-Do you want to pull your application, or do you want us to turn it down? MR. LAPPER-I'll withdraw that for the time being, based upon your indication that there's not a majority in favor of that. MR. CARVIN-Is that an accurate reading? I mean, I know Chris and I are, everybody else? MR. KARPELES-I could change my mind. I don't feel real strong about this. MR. CARVIN-I think it's a safe assumption that you don't have four votes lining up for you in any event. MR. LAPPER-On that basis, I will withdraw it, and if the Planning Board wants us to come back in six months and talk about it again, we will. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Lets go to the Sign. his application for the Area Variance. Sign. The applicant has removed We'll move right on to the SIGN VARIANCE NO. 52-1996 TYPE: UNLISTED CR-15 BERKSHIRE ACQUISITION OWNER: KEITH CAVAYERO AND ELYSA BARON 50 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF MAIN STREET AND WESTERN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TWO WALL SIGNS FOR CVS PHARMACY. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM SECTION 140-6 WHICH ONLY ALLOWS ONE WALL SIGN FOR A COMMERCIAL BUILDING IF A FREESTANDING SIGN IS ALSO BEING USED. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/12/96 TAX MAP NO. 130-3-18 SECTION 140-6 JON LAP PER , REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT - 75 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 52-1996, Berkshire Acquisition, Meeting Date: June 19, 1996 "APPLICANT: Berkshire Acauisition PROPOSED PROJECT AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: Theapplicant proposes two wall signs for a proposed CVS pharmacy. These two signs are proposed to be used along with a freestanding sign. The sign ordinance only allows businesses two wall signs if they do not use a freestanding sign. Relief is being requested from the requirements of Section 140-6. 1. How would you benefit from the granting of this Sign Variance? The applicant states that a variance is necessary for visibility at this location. 2. What effect would this sign have on the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community? One possible effect could be increased glare from additional signage at this location. The visual impact this building would have with additional signage may also be negative. 3. Are there feasible alternatives to this variance? The amount of signage allowed by the sign ordinance would allow for the necessary visibility at this location. 4. Is the amount of relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The applicant is proposing two wall signs to be used with a freestanding sign. Given the amount of visibility at this location, staff believes this is a substantial request. 5. -Will the variance have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood? The proposed signs would not effect the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. SEQR: Unlisted, short form EAF review needed." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 12th day of June 1996, the above application for a Sign Variance to allow the addition of a second facade sign for CVS was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Disapprove Comments: The Applicant should comply with the Queensbury Sign Ordinance." SignedC. powel South, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm assuming the applicant realizes that because Warren County has turned you down, that you need a super majority, which is five posi ti ve votes. So, having said that, am I to understand, Jon, that we're looking at two wall signs and a freestanding sign? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-And where is the freestanding sign, approximately? MR. LAPPER-Over by the entrance. MR. CARVIN-Right there. MR. KARPELES-Where were the wall signs? MR. LAPPER-One on the Broad Street side and one in the front. This faces Western, except that you can't see it from Western up here because there's the house with all those big trees. The carwash is over here, and then there's Western Ave., and then there's this parcel that is now zoned commercial, and some day somebody will come to you with a pre-existing nonconforming undersized lot and want to build something there. MR. CARVIN-Probably a McDonalds, Drive through lumber company. Who knows. MR. LAPPER-So this is what it looks like when you're facing Main Street. This is what the plaza looks like with a little curve, when you're looking at it from the neighbor's property, from Western Ave. The big problem here is that you've got a long, narrow lot. So this was designed to accommodate it, to allow for the traffic flow, and when you look at it from the front, then you - 76 - '-- -' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) can clearly tell that it's a CVS, but when you're inside the plaza, in here, and you see the Chiropractor here, and whatever will some day be next door here and their sign. If this is gone, you don't know where CVS is, and anyone coming in, you can't see anything. This is extremely important to CVS that they have, this whole thing was designed, this is a very expensive, this is nothing like what we have here with the Quaker Road ugly plaza as it's referred to. This is all the red brick all the way around, including the back, which nobody has done. There hasn't been a plaza of this caliber, with this caliber and expense of landscaping, of design, may fit into a residential area with the peaked roof here and the dental molding and the solider courses of brick. So even with the red brick, it's not just brick, and what we're asking for, because we've got a plaza that is so tastefully done which people will be pleased and proud of, we need something here, or else, if you only have it in the front, which would be obviously, failing to get one of the people that you see driving by in your car, people can't identify this. It's going to be difficult for people driving in on this site to see what's here and know what that is without signs, and the big picture in terms of the benefit to the applicant versus the impact on the neighborhood, we're saying that we've gone way out of our way, compared to anybody else, to build an expensive and very tasteful, very attractive architectural plaza, and as a result of that, we need this sign, and we're asking you, although this Board is very careful not to give out Sign Variances that are unnecessary, we're asking that we be granted the right to have two signs. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, let me ask you this. I realize you're just representing CVS, but when does the doctor come in for his two signs and freestanding? MR. LAPPER-He doesn't. What's missing here is, in final site plan, we took out the, it's not flat. It goes like this. So he has windows all on this side. He doesn't have any kind of facade that would even support a sign, because he wanted to have windows, instead of having it at an odd angle, so that interior would work. So the doctor is not interested in a second sign. It's just for CVS. It's also because of the design. CVS has this peaked roof thing. They don't have this whole area. MS. CIPPERLY-How about if you put a freestanding sign on this corner? MR. LAPPER-Not that that couldn't be done, but they want the sign near the entrance. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? MR. THOMAS-Yes. Did you find out where that freestanding sign is? MR. CARVIN-Yes. It's right out by the curb. MR. THOMAS-Does the freestanding sign say CVS on it? MR. LAPPER-The freestanding sign does, but it's very small. That is a picture of the freestanding sign. MR. THOMAS-How wide is it. How many square feet? Lets go with that. MR. LAPPER-It's 10 feet. The letters are very small, and if you counted the whole thing, it would look like a big sign. MR. THOMAS-Driving up and down Main Street, which sign are you going to see first, that freestanding sign or the one on the front of the building? - 77 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) MR. LAPPER-I guess you wouldn't get it so much on Main Street, because Main Street is really covered with this. The freestanding sign on Main Street here is important so that people know that the Chiropractor and the other tenants are there because they're all the way in the back, on the Luzerne side. So the reason for the freestanding sign is to get people to come into there, which is a long narrow site, and the site, for that reason, as part of the negotiation between Dr. Cavayero and CVS it's going to be named Total Care Plaza, which is his business is called Total Care Chiropractic. So the freestanding is to help them, and there's no problem seeing. This front sign does a very nice job, 100 square foot CVS sign on Main Street. The issue here is the people coming down on Western. What I said in the application is that if people see that it's CVS here, they will be more likely to go this way and avoid the signalized intersection. MR. THOMAS-What I'm driving at, Jon, is put the one right there on the Western Avenue side, and don't put the one on the Main Street side, because you've already got a CVS on the freestanding sign, which you'll see before, and you said you wanted a visual off Western. MR. LAPPER-I agree with you, but that is, the letters are so small, I mean, by the time you see it, you're past it. MR. THOMAS-But with the vegetation, you said yourself, you're not going to see that sign on the building until you're right up on it. MR. CARVIN-I'm always afraid that people are going to get lost coming out of the parking lot. MR. LAPPER-(Lost word} lost coming out of the parking lot this way, they only have to. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but they'll have that sign. MR. LAPPER-But this is the important sign for CVS. MR. CARVIN-Where are the doors? MR. LAPPER-Right at the corner, on a diagonal. MR. CARVIN-Will the doctor have a freestanding sign also announcing CVS, of a similar? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-So you'll have CVS signs on both ends? MR. LAPPER-Right, but they're the small pylon. The reason for that, pylons, because this is not a plaza. So the Sign Ordinance says you can have one freestanding and one on the building, on the facade, and this is two properties. So there's one, and this is completely in compliance, and this would be in compliance except for the extra sign, and one other thing. This is a really long building, it's only one user in the 8500 square foot building. So if this was something like that plaza across from Broad Street, where you've got little spaces of 1,000 square feet in each, we would be completely within the Ordinance to have eight signs of 1,000 square feet each, if he was going to cut this up. I mean, this is just so much more tasteful. They'll only have two signs here. MR. CARVIN-What about the drive through? through on the back side? Isn't there a drive MR. LAPPER-Yes, but that doesn't have a sign. - 78 - '-- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) MR. CARVIN-Well, aren't you afraid that if there wasn't a sign there that people wouldn't realize that it's a CVS drive through? MR. LAPPER-No, because you can't have a drive through Chiropractor. MS. CIPPERLY-Directional signs are another possibility here. They can be up to four square feet and have an arrow on them and say CVS. The other point I had was, we do, this sign would be considered to be 48 inches tall, because that's the highest part. MR. LAPPER-We would make it no bigger than 100 square feet, whatever that takes to do that. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. MR. LAPPER-I guess what I would ask is that, this is extremely important to CVS for this development, that if this is not something that everybody can feel comfortable voting for tonight, I would ask that it be tabled until there's seven members, and we can all go home. MR. CARVIN-Well, did I open up the public hearing? -- MR. THOMAS-Yes, you did. MR. CARVIN-And did I close the public hearing? MR. THOMAS-Yes, you did. MR. CARVIN-Did we read the correspondence in? MR. THOMAS-Yes, we did. I read that letter from Jon. To me, he's got two freestanding signs, one on Luzerne Road. One on Main Street. They both say CVS, and, to me, they're going to see that freestanding sign, it doesn't matter what size it is, and everybody knows, as soon as you see the CVS, what it means, before you see the sign on the face of the building, on the Main Street side, because you almost have to be right head on to see that sign. Whereas, the freestanding sign, it faces traffic. The one on the building doesn't. So, I'd say, put the CVS sign on the Western Avenue side of the building. He's got his two freestanding signs, one on Main Street and one on Luzerne Road. MR. CARVIN-I have to agree with Chris. I think the one on Main Street is perfectly adequate. I think, by process of elimination, most people coming out of the parking lot, if they see Chiropractor and office for rent, that just by process of elimination, the last one is CVS. So, I think I've got to believe that they should be able to find that corner without too much difficulty. MR. LAPPER-Would you grant me the tabling that I requested, so there's a full Board? MR. KARPELES-Lets see what we've got. I agree with you. MR. CARVIN-Well, there's three. MR. GREEN-I'm sorry, I have to disagree with the three of you. I don't have a problem with it. I think it's going to look funny without a sign over on that side, on that corner. MRS. LAPHAM-Personally, I (lost word) the office for rent and the Chiropractor sign, because that would be instantly identifiable. With the freestanding signs on one side, and then the big CVS sign toward Main Street, I think any local person, once that development is done, would have to be blind not to know that that's CVS. MR. LAPPER-You're right, but it's not just the local people. - 79 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) MRS. LAPHAM-Well, but the people coming in from the Northway, and people that aren't local will be coming in the Main Street entrance, I would think. So the back entrance that you're talking about would be more local. MR. LAPPER-Would the Board consider it if the applicant cut its sign down 50%, to 50 square feet, so it could be identified on both sides, but the total square feet would be no more than 100 square feet allowed, but they'd be half the size? MR. THOMAS-Another thing, too, is in all these pharmacies, in looking at the glass in these things, on the front of that store, they're going to have all those posters they always put up in-their windows that has the big CVS letters right across the top of it to start with. MR. LAPPER-I don't think that's allowed in Queensbury. MS. CIPPERLY-You're not supposed to cover more than 25% of the window. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, there's a percentage. --- MR. THOMAS-Yes, you can't cover it, but, I mean, you go to any of these drugs stores, and they've got the windows plastered. MR. CARVIN-I don't know. What do you think about 50 and 50? MR. LAPPER-No more than the Ordinance allows. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, would that be setting some type of precedent, as far as no more than one sign? MR. CARVIN-We've done it on other occasions. It's not a precedent setting issue. MRS. LAPHAM-I think I'd feel a little bit better. MR. KARPELES-What are we going to do? MR. GREEN-Stay at 100 feet and just split it up like we did on the Red Lobster, still ended up with 100 feet. MR. KARPELES-Yes. I wasn't happy with that. MR. LAPPER-Each of these signs would be half the size. So there would be, on both facade, the total would be 50 square feet each, so they would total the 100 square feet allowed under the Ordinance, but because of this sharp corner of the building, we'd be allowed to have one on one side and one on the other. So they'd be identified from both sides. I guess, in terms of precedent, I would just ask you to consider it. That this is a really nicely designed building. MR. KARPELES-Yes. That's why I hate to see it spoiled with signs allover the place. MR. LAPPER-Two little signs, 50 square feet each. Really important to the tenant. MR. KARPELES-Well, you know, everybody says that, and that's what gets me about this, is everybody knows when they design these things what the Sign Ordinances are, and yet it's a game to come in here and try and get exceptions, and variances. MR. LAPPER-It's not a game. It's that, before we start out, if we don't get a zero lot line variance, we don't have a project. So it's just in terms of order of priority. First we make sure that - 80 - '--..-~ '-- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/19/96) we get the variance, and then we make sure that we can get the site plan, and the traffic study are acceptable, and then this is a detail on the end of it. MR. KARPELES-When this thing is designed, the signs ought to be taken into consideration at the time. You guys were real happy with it when you got the variance to have this thing put in. Now all of a sudden you need a variance for signs. MR. LAPPER-Would the Board consider my request to table it? MR. CARVIN-That's up to the Board. Do you want to table it? MR. THOMAS-Table it. Give him a shot at it. He's got to have five positive votes. MR. CARVIN-It doesn't sound like you're going to get five positive on any kind of compromise. So it probably is advantageous for you to table this until we get a Board that's more complete. Hopefully, Mr. Ford will be back, starting in July, I hope. If everybody's agreed, we'll table it. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 52-1996 BERKSHIRE ACQUISI~ION, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: To allow the applicant to maybe develop a less intensive use of the signs and to get a complete Board, because of the super majority aspect of this particular variance. Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Menter, Mr. Ford On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Fred A. Carvin, Chairman - 81 -